Special Issue: We’re Back / Scoping Scoop / A Mistake? / Unlikely Stories / The Viking / Long Gone Juan

The Grand Canyon THE Private Boaters Association y Waiting List Quarterly Volume Six, Number Three A Forum For Canyon River Runners Fall 2003 / $5oo

ANCIENT RIVER RUNNERS? page two THE Waiting List THE GCPBA RIVER BOOKSTORE Five New Titles & Some Favorites! ✰NEW! Day Hikes From the River ~ 2nd Edition - River runner Tom Martin’s excellent revised second edition features 25 more hikes for a total of 100 hikes you can take from river cams! Illustrated with 100 maps ~ $19.95 + $4 shipping. Total: $23.95

✰NEW! Wilderness Medical Associates Field Guide ~ Every river runners first aid kit should include a coy of this spiral bound, water resistant guide to medical emergencies, from minor to evacuations. Spiral Bound, color illustrated, 4.25 x 5.75 inches, pocket sized, 98 pages ~ $19.95 + $4 shipping. Total: $23.95

✰NEW! Ann Weiler Walka’s rose and poem bring to life one of the Colorado’s most beautiful and unknown tributaries, the Escalante. Walking the Unknown River and Other Travels In Escalante Country ~ $13.00 + $4 shipping. Total: $17oo

✰NEW! Nobody tells a river story better than Katie Lee. Here’s Katie’s best, All My Rivers Are Gone — memories and thoughts of better days along the Colorado in Glen Canyon. In these days of increasing enviro-thoughtlessness, this is a must read! 261 pages. $18oo + $4 shipping.Total: $22oo

✰NEW! Outward Bound Wilderness First Aid Handbook Sorry, no cover picture, but this near text book of outdoor medical help is used by Wilderness Medical Associates as art of their classroom and field training. This easy to read an understand is an excellent companion to the Field Guide, you’ll be glad to have this book along! $14.95 + $4 shipping. Total: $18.95

Over the Edge: DEATH IN GRAND CANYON An outstanding book by Dr. Tom Myers, author of GCPBA’s “Ammo Can Doc,” and Michael Ghiglieri author of the popular book Canyon, as well as a long time river guide. The authors have researched and compiled the story of every known death in the Grand Canyon from air disasters, hiking bloopers, suicides and boating accidents. 408 pages. $22.95 shipping $4 ea. Total: $26.95

SUNK WITHOUT A SOUND River runners love a mystery and the disappearance of the honeymoon river runners, Glen and Bessie Hyde in 1928 has been the source of speculation for more than seven decades. Did Bessie kill Glen, and then come back to the Colorado to tell her tale years later? You’ll find out when you read this fast-aced book from award-winning author and river runner, Brad Dimock. 280 pages ~ paperback $18oo shipping $4 ea. Total: $22oo

THE DOING OF THE THING ~ the Brief Brilliant Whitewater Career of Buzz Holmstrom This 1998 National Outdoor Book Award winner recounts the life of pioneer Private river runner Buzz Holmstrom, who in 1937 launched his home-built boat at Green River, Wyoming and travelled 1100 miles alone all the way to Hoover Dam on the Colorado. Less than ten years later the celebrated Holmstrom was found dead along side the Grande Ronde river in Oregon, a bul- let in his head. Why? This is one great tale, recounting travels and travails along the Green and Colorado, as they may never be again. paperback, 292 pages, $20oo shipping $4 ea. Total: $24oo

With every order, you’ll receive a GCPBA sticker! What a deal! How To Order Order books or posters by mail! Take a piece of paper, fill it out with your name and shipping address, write down the titles of the books you want, the number of copies of each title, total it u, add $4 shipping for EACH book ordered and send your request along with a check or money order to: GCPBA River Bookstore, Box 2133, Flagstaff, AZ 86003-2133. We’ll send them to you via USPO priority Mail, múy pronto. The profit from the sale of books is used to support the activities of all volunteer GCPBA, a 501c3 non-profit corporation. Thanks! Fall 2003 page ON THE PRES~EDITORS DECK The Future Is One Minute Away

utting one of these magazines together is like assembling a million little pieces of this and that and trying to make a cohesive whole out it. It's a frustrating process that hopefully pro- Pduces something that informs, entertains and in general brings about a feeling of satisfaction. So it must be for the Park planners who are now zeroing in on the unveiling of their "draft proposals" —those being the proposals that will show all of us the direction of the planners thinking and how that is going to affect our opportunity to have a Grand Canyon river trip experience. To say the NPS hasn't gone the extra mile, or in river running terms rowed 'round and 'round the eddy, to let all ideas get on board would be wrong. No planning process that I know of has received so much on going attention from it's constituents. More than 13,000 individual submissions with more than 55,000 comments. Now that's a pile of input to categorize and analyze. This issue of the Waiting List focuses on those comments, and on another effort of the NPS, the series of Stakeholder Meetings held in January and June. To be sure, at the Stakeholder Meetings not everything was "just right"— I didn't get to say "exactly" what I wanted to say, nor did anyone else, I'm sure. Hands were popping up all over the place. But most importantly, we were all heard. I urge you to take the time to read the summaries included in this issue. I'm also going to urge you to read the forthcoming (sometime after Christmas) NPS "draft proposals." This is where the meat is going to be found. You'll want to comment, you'll want the NPS to know what you think about how they pro- pose to mange the on river aspect of your park. How will the park address the big issues? Timely access and a feeling of being treated fairly, as an equal stakeholder amongst all the other constituents. A feeling that we private boaters don't currently enjoy. Will Park planners pile on regulation after regulation resulting in one group or another feeling as if they have been punished? Or will they figure a way around the quagmire that has held river runners fast in an antiquated system, essentially unchanged since 1979. The GCPBA Board is going to break into work groups to analyze each of the proposals—rumored to be eight or nine at the time of this writing and we'll report back to you what we think. We'll be paying particular attention to that "feel- ing of fairness." We are looking for a split of recreational allocation, commercial 50%—non-commercial 50% for starters. Read the proposals yourself and find out how close Park thinking comes to yours. Let the Park know what you think, and let us here in the GCPBA Tower know what you think. So many kudo's to the Park staff, from Superintendent Joe Alston, head planner Rick Ernenwein, Jeff Cross, Linda Jalbert and all those other folks from all the various departments in the GCNP for taking the seemingly very sincere time to work with all of us. In river metaphor, we're all getting ready to scout Crystal and move on down to Lava, we'll be there sometime in 2004. So here we are, pay attention, let's get on down to the big fun without any flips.

Richard "Ricardo" Martin President, Editor, Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association y PS— We hope you can all join us in Salt Lake City for our annual meeting, Sunday afternoon, November 2nd. Details can be found elsewhere in this issue and in your mail box. We’re planning some kind of no host get together on Saturday night and hope to meet all you folks that can make it. PPS—the next issue of the Waiting List is underway. Hopefully we’ll have a lot to report concerning “draft proposals.” We’ll also feature a great two part story from Katie Lee and another from noted outdoor author and river runner, Pam Houston, some nice artwork from Julia Holland and Lee Bennion and reports about whatever’s happening in the river world we love. page four THE Waiting List

A MATTER OF OPINION The Park Service Misses t’s late June, and I have just returned from the Park Service’s stakeholders meeting in Phoenix. I flew back to Washington, DC feeling disappointment in the content and scope of the two Idays of discussion, as well as the outcome. The three objectives of this meeting were to (1) clarify input received during scoping; (2) clarify areas of agreement and disagreement among participants on what the Park should include in a full range of reasonable alternatives for allocation and use of motorized boats in the CRMP Environment Impact Statement (EIS); and (3) promote good will among stakeholders and between stakeholders and the Park. I would be very surprised if these I would be very tion. As long as the focus was on meetings accomplished any of these goals. surprised if these recreational use issues, then that Further, if the Park learned anything new or meeting accomplished should have been the focus on the useful, then they are way behind the 8-ball in selection of participants. The the planning process. The structure of these any of these goals. inclusion of researchers, educators, meetings only helped to highlight philosophical differences and many others did not make sense for this round of between the varying stakeholders. meetings in light of the fact that these newly identified What the Park should have done, and what stakeholder groups did not have representational interests American Whitewater and GCPBA have both asked the in the two primary topics of discussion. National Park Service Advisory Board to help with, was ask for stakeholder help in crafting viable, thorough, and reason- BEAUTY IS ONLY SKIN DEEP able management alternatives, including one allowing The meetings in Phoenix were structured around motors and one that would not. two specific issues; these were the use of motorized rafts, My hope was that the Park would gather a small and the recreational allocation of use. On the surface these representational group at the table and discuss the pragmatic topics sounded reasonable; however these two philosophical and operational nature of these alternatives for our con- issues were divorced from any real discussion about practi- stituencies. Though the Park missed a chance in Phoenix, it cal and overall management. Therefore the only discussion is not too late to stage a recovery, and the more familiar we points possible were flighty philosophical debates about are with the alternatives under consideration by the Park, people’s preferences, which were introduced irrespective of the more help we can be. practice, theory, or reason. Worst of all, the planners never The Park should pull together a small, knowledge- began a practical discussion of holistic or fleshed-out man- able, and expert body of representatives from the varying agement alternatives. recreational stakeholders in the Canyon. This group should The problems with the Phoenix format continued be expected to leave the jargon behind and work to develop to be deeply entrenched and cancerous throughout the two- truly viable management alternatives which would be day event. One narrow example was the issue of how over- reviewed upon receipt by the Park for environmental and all Carrying Capacity should be determined. legal impacts and concerns in the same manner that any Participants were asked to discuss allocation alter- alternatives the Park planners developed would be evaluated. natives between commercial and private use under three scenarios: keeping the overall capacity the same (no TOO MANY COOKS IN THE KITCHEN change), raising the capacity by some percentage, and Instead, with more than 50 people present, the most reducing the capacity by some percentage. The group dis- obvious problem with the stakeholder meeting was that it cussion about these percentages and how much to raise or was unwieldy and overly large. The expansion of the discus- lower the capacity was completely arbitrary, and the more sion to include obtuse stakeholder groups with non-recre- specific that participants got about why one percentage ational interests to discuss issues specific to recreation was might be appropriate, workable, and desirable, the more unjustified and exacerbated the problems with communica- the Park’s facilitators tried to steer the discussion to oft- Fall 2003 page five

Another Golden Opportunity argued philosophical generalities. The facilitators were clear- year that are easily subject to manipulation and confusion. ly not interested in a technical discussion and were not edu- User days reflect use; they do not reflect capacity. cated about basic terms and principles that were in use. For instance, Carrying Capacity has a specific ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION meaning reflective of the amount of use that can occur Now, if participants were asked to discuss what the before negative impacts are noted. Carrying capacity can be carrying capacity might be and how to quantify this capaci- described by analogy to a cereal bowl in which there is a ty; that would have made for a very interesting and con- finite capacity for the bowl to hold both cereal, milk, and structive conversation. maybe a few slices of banana. So, what do we know about In this meeting we looked at private The facilitators were capacity and use? We know that use (milk), commercial use (cereal), and the clearly not interested in about 19,000 people float through remote possibility of adding some new educa- the Canyon each year and that there tional or research use that is not already permit- a technical are about 800 launches, with a cor- ted under the administrative use (banana). The discussion and were responding level of 170,000 user problem we had was that we were asked to eval- not educated days. This tells us nothing about the uate whether to construct a bigger bowl, shrink about basic terms carrying capacity. It merely describes the bowl, or fill the bowl however we saw fit. the amount of existing use. Again, Again, any effort to turn this into a construc- and principles as will be described later, this level tive technical discussion was squashed by the that were in use. of use is completely arbitrary. facilitators. Factually, we know that in the In the context of the Grand Canyon, this carrying summer months there are as many as 7 launches per day, capacity analogy is fundamentally flawed as the parameters of constituting about 162 people launching per day. At this “existing use levels” were confused with “carrying capacity”. peak daily level of use, campsites are filled, moderate In the Grand Canyon the only known quantity of crowding occurs, use is spread out at feature attractions, use is merely a measure of the current allocation of use. As and there is a general perception of chaos at many sites. will be described later, this allocation is not based on any sci- Thus, this amount of use is widely accepted as the upper entific or documented parameters of use, is completely arbi- limit of daily use, in other words this is the maximum daily trary, and does not reflect the carrying capacity by any launch carrying capacity. We also know that these prob- rational definition. lems diminish at 6 launches per day and are virtually non- existent at 5 launches per day. PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE How do we know this? We know this from our use Nature and natural systems have an overall capacity; of the Park Service’s computer models, from studies by returning to the analogy, this capacity is the size of the bowl. Shelby and Hall in the 1980’s and 1990’s, a study by F. Unfortunately the size of that bowl was undefined by the Yates Borden in the 1970’s, and from personal and anec- park for the purposes of our discussion, thus it was complete- dotal evidence. Thus, I suggest that 5 or 6 launches per day ly irrelevant to discuss how much more or less use was appro- is a reasonable Social Carrying Capacity, and that 5 launch- priate. After nearly 25 years of debate, the Park has simply es be viewed as an maximum daily social carrying capacity not yet determined an appropriate measure of carrying for operational purposes. Further, there is no reason from a capacity. Thus, it was fundamentally impossible to have a social perspective not to manage the recreational use in the constructive discussion on the subject of increasing or Canyon for 5 launches per day year-round; except, that decreasing use. people do not necessarily choose to schedule a trip in the Further, the Park arbitrarily asked us to discuss a Winter months, and families tend to be more capable of percentage change in the total number of “user days.” Yet scheduling extended two or three week vacations in the again, this conversation was completely divorced from any Summer. Whether there is a an defensible ecological or bearing on management realities. User days are not correlat- archaeological reason for limiting use will be addressed ed to capacity and are an arbitrary measure of use across a later. page six THE Waiting List

At 5 launches per day, we, including the strict use are limited and naturally restorable. Thus the ecologi- Wilderness advocates, the outfitters, and the private cal carrying capacity does not appear to have been reached boaters, have learned through both the application of the under current use allocations. Park’s computer model as well as anecdotal evidence from Limited impacts to archaeological sites and ruins guides and visitors that the Park can meet the management have also been observed in the Canyon; these impacts are objective of providing opportunities for soli- largely localized to specific points near tude, and complying with the existing Limits ... the Park’s request camping, beaches, or trails. If use is hav- of Acceptable Change (LAC) (ed. note: an for an arbitrary ing unacceptable impacts on the historical LAC is standard of measurement used to quan- percentage of landscapes, then those uses can be con- tify quality of experience. An LAC is a deter- trolled through “soft” management tech- mined point which when met or exceeded needs increase of decrease niques including: a one day reduction of to be examined by management to determine if in allocation was trip length, which would slightly reduce a change in management policy should be valueless without opportunities to hike or lay over at camps; implemented). a technical and staggered launches, which would reduce The Social Capacity though does the number of groups visiting specific sites not account for the ecological or archaeolog- educated in the upper Canyon at the same time; ical impacts of recreational use. So, what do discussion of reduced maximum group sizes to a maxi- we know about the ecological carrying “carrying capacity.” mum of 28 people per group, which would capacity? reduce the camping footprint; prescrip- We know from research and anecdotal evidence tions on use of certain sensitive sites; or even incorporation that: the Canyon is in better shape than it was in the 1970’s of very limited signage at particularly sensitive locations. or 1980’s; meaning that litter and human waste are Thus, in the absence of any evidence of perma- substantially reduced to the point that they are nearly nent harm to the Canyon or social condition, it is our non-detectable; that campsites are hardened to a reasonable belief that the daily use can be managed effectively under a degree with localized impacts; and that use is substantially carrying capacity of 5 launches per day, and through edu- localized in discrete corridors and locations. cation about reducing the ecological and historical impacts This natural restoration and enhanced stewardship from visitors. The Park should look at these management is the result of an on-going educational campaign of all visi- techniques in constructing the alternatives in the plan’s tors to the river, including guides, passengers, trip leaders, environmental impact statement. researchers, and others. Back to the meeting in Phoenix, the Park’s request Research by Dr. Jeff Marion on recreational camp- for an arbitrary percentage of increase of decrease in alloca- ing on riparian environments demonstrates the clear bene- tion was valueless without a technical and educated fits for river managers of concentrating use and associated discussion of “carrying capacity.” impacts in discrete locations. In essence, Dr. Marion has found that by concentrating use at specific known points SPINNING OUR WHEELS such as campsites, the impact “footprint” of recreation is Instead, we spent two days in Phoenix talking small and that it will remain localized as long as group size about allocation as the carrying capacity of the Canyon in is not too large and care is taken in responsible site selec- terms of User Days. tion by river managers. As I alluded to earlier, user days are not an effec- Limited, non-permanent ecological impacts from tive management tool. What is a User Day? A user day is recreational use have been documented in the Grand an estimate of the number of days people are actually using Canyon. The Park has a management requirement to con- in the Canyon. User days do not actually represent the trol impacts that affect the long term enjoyment of future amount of use though. For example, if one person leaves a generations as soon as those impacts are documented. trip and a second hikes in to replace the first, then that However, the impacts from recreational use pale in compar- could be counted as one user day. If a group of 50 people ison to the impacts associated with management of Glen floats through in 2 days, that is 100 user days; if a group Canyon Dam. The fact that the Park has not identified any of 10 people floats through in 10 days, that is also 100 impacts of ecological concern from visitors in the past 20 user days; if a single person spends 100 days floating years, and has not limited recreational use to control for through the Canyon, that is 100 user days. Each of these any ecological impacts leads us to conclude that the Park groups will have significantly different impacts on signifi- understands that the ecological impacts from recreational cantly different resources and visitor experience criteria. Fall 2003 page seven

For our purposes, the variability between existing commer- the EIS. Somehow though, the science was ignored and cial and private group sizes and number of launches, made the Park implemented a ceiling on use of about 170,000 the discussion about user days absurd and irrelevant. user days. THIS DECISION WAS COMPLETELY User days do not reflect carrying capacity; and the ARBITRARY AND NO JUSTIFICATION WAS current limits on user days are arbitrary and have com- PROVIDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. pletely no scientific basis. A review of the Park’s manage- As mentioned earlier, the existing maximum allo- ment and administrative record from the 1980’s quickly cation of the number of user days is not the same as a car- reveals the arbitrary nature of this term as a primary man- rying capacity. The effects on the Canyon can not be docu- agement tool. mented by user day. The number of user days can not be For example, the 1980 plan was accompanied by related to any social impacts. The number of user days can an EIS, which was supported by extensive studies, ranging not be related to the number of campsites, the number of from resources, sanitation, economics, sociological (data encounters, the number of boats, the group size, or any collected 1973-76). The documents resulting from this other useful medium of measuring capacity. research were the CRMP Plan; an EIS Document support- In other words, and returning to the topic of the ing the record of decision which was intended to be imple- stakeholders meeting, when the Park Service assigned the mented by the plan; and a compilation of the research task to us to discuss changes in allocation, the assignment results, actually short summaries of results, titled was fundamentally inadequate for developing any viable “Synthesis and Management Implications of the Colorado alternatives for managing river use. River Research Program.” HOW DOES IT TASTE? In reviewing these documents, Willie Odem, a GCPBA board member reported that Dr. F. Yates Borden, Likewise, the discussion about motors was not Dept. of Forest Resources, Pennsylvania State University designed to solicit any kind of useful information. First, found in “Carrying Capacity for River Running the the discussion was directed towards the philosophical dif- Colorado River in the Grand Canyon Region,” that (1) the ferences of recreational use of motorboats or no motor- upper limit on carrying capacity was determined to be five boats, in other words, by asking what is a viable range of groups: three groups of 40, one of 20, and one of eight motorized use, the Park was asking whether motors should (per day), resulting in a maximum of 148 people launch- be allowed or not? ing per day; (2) the five groups should spend 11 nights in This discussion was neither relevant nor useful for canyon, i.e. 12 user days per person; (3) and the use season several reasons, including: the connection of a purely social is 182 days long, putting 26,936 people on the river; issue to a pseudo-scientific discussion of Wilderness; resulting in 323,232 user days. varying legal understandings of Wilderness; the lack of The Environmental Impact Statement for the provision for any discussion of viable or reasonable alterna- 1980 CRMP presented a number of different alternatives, tives concerning allocation; the separation of motors from including the preferred alternative, an alternative that any analysis of the impacts of different launch scenarios or would increase the recreational user days to maximum levels of use; and the separation of the issue from any numbers, one that would decrease recreational user days, discussion of the spectrum of outfitter services. and one that would maintain the status quo. The preferred For instance, motors were discussed inappropri- alternative increased total user days to a little over 200,000 ately by the groups as a legal matter of Wilderness. As (including commercial staff). The second alternative pre- much as I personally dislike motors, the evidence put forth sented in the discussion of other alternatives and their by the Forest Service and Park Service in other manage- impacts was B. Increase the Visitor Use Level, p. VIII-4. In ment plans is that motors result in no permanent or meas- the accompanying discussion of this alternative the work of urable degradation to the environment and by extension Borden (above) was referenced, with some quibbling over would not result in harms to the Canyon; instead, the whether 11 nights meant 11 user days or 12 user days, impacts are ephemeral and are related to noise and odors - which would equates to whether total user days is 323,232 both of which are being addressed through the advent and or 296,296. As we all know, eleven nights in practice does use of cleaner and quieter technologies. Also, every pro- equal 12 user days. posed Wilderness area I am aware of that has had motor- The main constraint used by Borden and the Park boat use prior to designation has had that use allowed in was the number and distribution of campsites. (Borden its official designation as Wilderness. Thus motorboats do also authored a study on campsites.) The impacts identi- not apparently rise to the level of prescription in designat- fied for increase to 323,232 user days were summarized in ed Wilderness; though use is typically capped at historic page eight THE Waiting List levels prior to Wilderness designation. Also, without a viable discussion of allocation, it is impossible to describe the real effect of prescribing or limiting motor use. Motors demonstrably result in changes to crowding, encounters, trip length, group size, and other parameters rel- evant to social and ecological impacts. A basic analysis using the Park’s computer models shows that more motors, same number of people and group sizes, equals less crowding. The modeled corollary is that no motors, same number of people and group sizes, equals more crowding.

THE CLOCK IS TICKING In summary, the alternatives that the public and the Park develop should be based on a measurable determination of carrying capacity, should meet the Park’s LACs, or recommend changes to the LACs, if the existing ones are neither enforce- able nor measurable, should protect the river for the enjoyment of future generations, and should protect opportunities for solitude. This is possible. The Wilderness representatives, the outfitters, and the private boaters have all prepared and mod- eled launch plans which accomplish these measurable objectives. If we can gather at the table and discuss the pragmatic, technical, and operational nature of each of these alternatives for our constituencies, I believe we can provide real assistance to the Park Planners. The best avenue that anyone has identified for providing this assistance to the park in a manageable and useful format is via the Park Service Advisory Board, which can convene a small, educated, and representational group of advocates on all sides of the various issues to provide real assistance to the Park planners in developing rational and effective alternatives. My hope is that we can salvage something from the meetings and the Phoenix meetings can live up to their name- sake legend. In this I am going to continue to encourage the Park Service and the National Park Service Advisory Board to solicit a real, scientifically defensible study on the carrying capacity of the Colorado River.

Jason Robertson Access Director, American Whitewater, member of the Board, Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association y

Tw o g u y s , somewhere down that crazy river.

photo: Sue Markie Fall 2003 page nine The Scoop On the Scope

he National Park Service (NPS) has published it’s Public Scoping Issue Analysis for the Grand Canyon. The report was prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants and Tdrawn from the collected comments of the many people interested the current planning process. More than 1,000 people concerned with the outcome of the court ordered management effort attended a series of “scoping” meetings for the purpose listening to what Park staffers had to say, participating in workshops where their opinions could be heard and having their them recorded and hopefully incorporated into any proposed plans. It’s a lengthy read, but very interesting. In this issue we’re publishing the issues deemed most important by participants in the process. As part of that we also are publishing those issues that participants raised, but deemed outside the scope of the process by Park planners. So “The purpose of this EIS/CRMP is to you would know. In our next issue, we’ll update management guidelines publish a summary of comments. So, as they for the Colorado River say in radio land, “stay tuned!” corridor through During a public scoping period from June 13 to Grand Canyon National Park.” November 1, 2002, the NPS sought public input to reaf- firm previously identified agency and public issues and to identify any new public issues and concerns. Information PUBLIC MEETINGS about the 2002 scoping process was disseminated to the As part of the 2002 scoping process for the public, and input was solicited, through GRCA’s CRMP CRMP/EIS, GRCA retained a consultant, The Mary Orton Internet site, press releases, mailings, and public meetings. Company, to help organize and manage a series of public meetings. More than 1,000 people attended a total of eight WHY PUBLIC SCOPING? such meetings. coping is required for National Environmental Policy The first meeting was held on August 1, 2002 in SAct (NEPA) compliance documents, including EISs, to Denver, followed by Salt Lake City, Flagstaff, Las Vegas, determine the scope of the document; that is, what will be Mesa—Phoenix, Peach Springs, Arizona, Baltimore, and covered and in what detail. The scoping process must be the last in Oakland on October 2, 2002. open to the public; state, local, and tribal governments; and The meetings were structured as open houses. affected federal agencies. The objectives of scoping are: Information about the CRMP/EIS process was presented through posters, handouts, and a large map of the project • Involve as many interested parties as possible in the area. National Park Service personnel were available to environmental review process. answer questions, and rooms were provided for facilitator- • Provide clear, easily understood, factual information led discussion groups. to potentially affected parties. • Provide meaningful and timely opportunities for SCOPE OF THE CRMP/EIS public input. The purpose of the CRMP is to provide direction • Identify, consider, and evaluate significant issues raised for resource preservation and visitor experience as they by interested parties to assist in the preparation of the relate to visitor use of the Colorado River corridor. Grand Canyon CRMP/EIS. According to the Notice of Intent published in the Federal • Identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues Register on June 13, 2002, the CRMP/EIS will include, that are not significant. but not be limited to: • Consider public comments throughout the decision- • appropriate levels of visitor use consistent with natu- making and review process. ral and cultural resource protec- (continued on next page) page ten THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) tion and preservation mandates; CRMP guidelines. • allocation of use between commercial and In contrast, the CRMP is intended to provide non-commercial groups; overall guidance for the management of recreational use of • the permitting system for non-commercial users; the Colorado River corridor in the Park. Changes to the • the level of motorized versus non-motorized raft use; CRMP would require a NEPA document and a major • the range of services and opportunities provided to planning effort. the public; and Lastly, elimination of both commercial and private • the continued use of helicopters to transport river river uses of the river was recommended during public passengers to and from the Colorado River scoping. Neither suggestion will be considered in the near Whitmore Wash (in consultation with the Hualapai CRMP/EIS because GRCA has determined that some level Tribe and other appropriate parties). of commercial and private river operations are necessary and appropriate to meet GRCA General Management Plan SSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE CRMP/EIS I goals. Some issues that were raised during public scoping are out- PUBLIC INPUT TO THE side the scope of the CRMP/EIS because 1) they do not directly address management of visitor use; 2) they are the GRAND CANYON CRMP/EIS PROCESS subject of separate planning processes; and/or 3) they are In addition to input received in the public scoping beyond GRCA’s management authority. Comments includ- meetings, written public comments were submitted to ed in this group include positions both for and against the GRCA by e-mail, U.S. mail, and hand delivery. following: Organization and analysis of the submissions were complet- • Decommissioning or regulating Glen Canyon Dam. ed with the assistance of SWCA Environmental • Designating the river corridor as a Wilderness and/or Consultants, a firm retained by GRCA to help develop the as a Wild and Scenic River. EIS. • Eliminating over-flights. In all, 13,770 submissions were received, cataloged, • Park boundary issues and reviewed. 55,165 comments were identified within the 13,770 submissions. Members of the CRMP/EIS team read ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE through every submission. They identified specific com- OF THE CRMP/EIS PROCESS ments within each submission and coded them according to criteria developed for the process. • A specific allocation should be established for GRCA Given the number of comments received in 2002 administrative use, and that allocation should be included (over 55,000), the variations in detail are boundless. The in a total user-day cap. This suggestion is considered out of major issues stand out, however, and are consistent with scope because management-related administrative use those raised in 1997. enables GRCA personnel to fulfill their mandated responsi- Lets take a look at the major issues identified in bilities. The level and timing of NPS presence on the River, the summarized public comments. There are lot’s of them! therefore, must remain flexible. GRCA will continue to permit administrative activities based on resource protec- tion, safety, and information needs with appropriate restric- MAJOR ISSUES ~ POINT AND tions and an approval process. Uses such as education, COUNTER POINT however, are subject to consideration in the CRMP/EIS. • Several comments address detailed operating require- ACCESS AND VISITOR SERVICES ments for both commercial and non-commercial use. • The NPS should not implement any management action Included in this category are specific suggestions for man- that would reduce opportunities for the public to experi- aging repeat use, private trip cancellations, launch sched- ence a Grand Canyon river trip. A wide range of river run- ules, sanitary waste disposal, fee structures, etc. These com- ning opportunities should be provided (including educa- ments are outside the scope of the CRMP/EIS because tional trips) for people with different skill levels, time con- they concern specific measures that may be subject to straints, levels of income, physical needs, and for those who change based upon new information or improved practices. desire different kinds of experiences. These issues more properly relate to operating • The NPS should provide more equitable access for requirements, which are detailed instructions implement- different kinds of river use (see issues related to allocation, ing CRMP guidance. Operating requirements may be permits, and level of use). changed administratively as long as they are consistent with Fall 2003 page eleven

people take Colorado River trips to avoid. Helicopter 13,770 submissions were exchanges allow short, hurried trips that are inappropriate received and 55,165 for Grand Canyon. comments identified. • Helicopter exchanges should not be eliminated because they increase access (particularly for special populations) by • Repeat use should not be limited for non-commercial providing shorter trips and a way to get in and out of the trips. Experience is gained through repeat use, and having Canyon without having to hike, ride a mule, or traverse experienced users on trips adds to safety and enhances the long, primitive roads (especially onerous during hot experience. months). Reintroducing mules at Whitmore would cause • Non-commercial trips should be allowed to use paid different environmental impacts, including odor and flies. guides and/or rental services. Helicopter use provides essential income for the Hualapai • Non-commercial trips should not be allowed to use paid Tribe, and its elimination without commensurate compen- guides and/or rental services. sation would result in undue economic impact on the Tribe. • Infrastructure should be improved, both physical facili- ties on the river and technological communications with ALLOCATION AND THE the public (web communication with users, e.g., calendar of NON-COMMERCIAL PERMIT SYSTEM launches, research results). The ramp at Lees Ferry should be improved; facilities at Phantom Ranch should be • The current allocation between commercial and non- increased; facilities like Phantom Ranch should be added at commercial use is unfair and should be made equitable (a other locations (but kept unobtrusive); a channel should be 50/50 split was commonly recommended), or non-com- dredged in Lower Granite Gorge to restore more natural mercial use should have the larger allocation. The long wait river flow. by non-commercial users and limitations on repeat use can- not be justified while commercial passengers can go on • Additional riverside facilities should not be permitted. short notice and as often as they want. It is also unfair that MOTORS AND AIRCRAFT USE guides are not counted in the commercial allocation. Suggestions for remedy include increasing the non-com- • Use of motorized craft should be reduced or eliminated mercial allocation by decreasing commercial use (various because it is incompatible with the wild, Flip-chart charac- levels recommended) or by increasing overall use (various ter of the river. Motorized craft disturb natural quiet, levels recommended). Guides should be included in the impair air quality, and/or detract from the quality of what commercial allocation. should be a primitive recreational experience. The non- • The current allocation is appropriate and should be motorized season should be extended and/or redefined maintained, or commercial use should have an even larger (several suggestions). Quieter motor technology should be allocation. Compared to non-commercial use, outfitters encouraged or required. Personal water-craft (jet skis) serve far more potential users, allow greater public access, should not be allowed upstream of the Grand Wash Cliffs. offer more and better services (e.g., expertise, safety, educa- • Use of motorized craft should not be reduced or elimi- tion), and provide better stewardship of the Canyon and its nated because it allows access for the maximum number of resources. Commercial guides act as an “enforcement” arm people, including 1) special populations (e.g., disabled, eld- for the NPS, while non-commercial users are less likely to erly, physically unfit), 2) people too inexperienced to obey the rules. Respondents taking this position often mount a private trip, and 3) people who cannot afford the recommend that non-commercial use should be further time or cost of a non-motorized trip. Motors allow conven- restricted, eliminated, or better regulated by the NPS. ient short trips and reduce congestion on the river. Current Non-commercial permit holders should meet certain motor technology is quiet, does not contribute to noise or minimum qualifications (e.g., previous rafting experience, air pollution, and does not detract from visitor enjoyment. knowledge of Grand Canyon, demonstrated knowledge of • Helicopters (including helicopter exchanges at regulations). Whitmore) should be eliminated from within Grand • Commercial use should be reduced, eliminated, or better Canyon except for emergencies. They are incompatible regulated (especially fees charged customers) because it with the wild, back-country character of Grand Canyon, exploits the Canyon for profit, inappropriately dominating disturb natural quiet, impair air quality, and detract from use of a public asset to financially benefit a handful of pri- the quality of the recreational experience. They introduce vate companies. Small companies should replace large ones; mechanized, frenetic, stress-inducing activity, which many outfitters should be phased out as their (continued on next page) page twelve THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) contracts expire or they sell; opportunities for a richer experience (e.g., slower pace, Incidental Business Permits should be allowed to supple- more hiking). Trip length minimums should be increased ment or replace the current concession system. to preclude quick, hurried trips, particularly above • Allocation between commercial and non-commercial use Diamond Creek. should be abandoned in favor of a “common pool” system • Group size maximum should be decreased to provide a so that all interested people have an equal chance to run the truer back-country experience, increase opportunities for river, whether they want the assistance of an outfitter or solitude, reduce noise and social interactions, reduce not. Several suggestions were offered about how to imple- crowding, and reduce impact on resources. ment such a system. • The group size maximum is fine or should be increased • A common pool system should not be implemented to increase access opportunities. because it would be unmanageable for commercial outfit- ters, preventing them from providing essential services. RESOURCE PROTECTION, Under a common pool system, applicants who want a com- TRIBAL ISSUES, NPS REGULATIONS mercial trip might swamp non-commercial applicants, fur- • Protection of natural and cultural resources should be ther reducing their ability to get on the river. the NPS’s first priority. The NPS should use an adaptive • The current non-commercial permit system is unfair, management approach, improve monitoring, and cumbersome, costly, and subject to many kinds of abuses. increase/facilitate research activities to better conserve and The waiting list is far too long and should be reduced or restore natural conditions. eliminated. Those currently on the list, especially those who • NPS should eliminate adaptive management, reduce the have already waited many years, should not be penalized if number of research trips, and place more restrictions on the system is changed. Many suggestions, some very research activities (e.g., who can participate, when they can detailed, were offered for revamping the current system to launch, type of craft used, where they can camp). eliminate or reduce these problems. • Natural resource concerns expressed in comments • The permit system should be replaced by a lottery or include protection of wildlife, preservation/restoration of reservation system. Several variations were offered, includ- endangered or rare native species (notably native fish), ing weighted lottery or reservation systems and hybrid sys- reintroduction of extirpated native species, and eradication tems incorporating elements from the existing system. of non-native species (notably tamarisk). Excessive social • A lottery should not be instituted because some people trailing is a problem; trails should be established and main- would never win a permit. tained where erosion, trampling, and multiple trails are evi- dent. Loss of camping beaches should be addressed LEVEL OF USE/CROWDING, through Glen Canyon Dam operations, artificial infusion TRIP LENGTH, GROUP SIZE of sand below the dam, and/or by removal of invasive vege- • Overall use should be increased to provide more access, tation. Impacts on air and water quality due to motor use particularly for non-commercial users. Crowding can be should be addressed. avoided by extending the primary season into spring and • Non-native trout should be conserved for angling oppor- fall; increasing winter use; evening out launches over the tunities. Trails should not be established and maintained; week, season, or year; or by scheduling use of campsites and the NPS should use a minimum tool philosophy, keeping attraction sites. management intervention to a minimum. Use of herbicides • Existing use levels should not be increased because to reduce invasive vegetation should be reconsidered. crowding and impacts on the environment would be a • Specific cultural resource concerns include damage to problem. Scheduling use of campsites and attraction sites archaeological sites, with suggestions for restricting access should be avoided because it would be unworkable and to some sites. would detract from the spontaneity of a back-country river • Access to archaeological sites should not be restricted. experience. Also, use levels should be decreased to reduce • Access to Native American sacred sites should be prohib- excessive crowding and/or impact on cultural and natural ited and access to adjacent tribal lands restricted to speci- resources. fied areas under specified conditions. The NPS should bet- • Trip length maximums should be decreased to allow ter enforce these regulations and should coordinate and more access for others. collaborate with tribes to manage river use; support tribal • Trip length maximums should be increased to provide needs (particularly at the Diamond Creek take-out); pro- vide more opportunities for tribal participation in river use Fall 2003 page thirteen upstream of Diamond Creek; and generally respect tribal sovereignty. Tribal use of the Grand Canyon should be held to the same standard as non-tribal use. • NPS personnel should step up enforcement, increase river patrols, restrict alcohol use, extend drug testing, and prohibit nudity to better protect the environment, increase safety, and reduce unruly behavior that detracts from the quality of the river experience for others. They should provide more information about regulations, proper river etiquette, and the Canyon (geology / biology/history) before launch, at launch, and on-river (e.g., join all trips or visit camps more often). They should make better use of the Internet, particularly in regard to launch schedules, research activity, and permit cancellations. • The NPS should reduce their presence on the river, be less confrontational, never visit camps, and never carry firearms. NPS should eliminate drug testing for commercial guides.

Source: Grand Canyon National Park www.nps.gov/grca/crmp/documents/scoping/03scoping.htm For GCPBA: Richard Martin y Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants, June 2003

PHOENIX FOCUS GROUPS Study of Contrasts ~Part I t the behest of the National Park Service, the Mary Orton Company, LLC sponsored two workshops in Phoenix, Arizona on January 30, 2003, as part of an effort to help Grand ACanyon National Park (GRCA) better understand and incorporate the values and preferences of key stakeholders in their revision of the 1989 Colorado River Management Plan (CRMP). The workshops were designed to obtain input on two important issues in the CRMP: (1) systems for distributing private river trip per- times researchers, and researchers could be private boaters. mits, and (2) spectrum of services and range of Therefore, there is overlap and commonality of interests among several of these groups. opportunities offered to the public. Mary Orton contacted the leadership for most groups Workshop objectives included: involve stake- and asked them to send four representatives to participate. holders in educating the GRCA about their val- She asked private boaters to send eight, in order that their ues and priorities, focus discussion on the group would be representative of the diversity and num- bers of private boaters in the United States. She invited important attributes of a permit system and an eight Native American Tribes or tribal consortia to each appropriate spectrum of services, determine send a representative, but they chose not to participate. extent to which consensus on the attributes may One, the Hualapai Tribe, which is also a cooperating be achievable; Provide guidance to GRCA for agency in the EIS process, sent observers for the process. Representatives from the disabled community participated the revision of the CRMP. only in the spectrum of services workshop. Representatives from ten stakeholder groups were invited Thirty-seven people participated in the workshop on to participate: private boaters, educators, outfitters, wilderness spectrum of services, and 33 participated in the private coalition, Native American tribes, ecological concerns, com- permit system workshop. mercial river guides, researchers, people with disabilities. Participants were provided with a remote FM radio Overview input terminal to respond to questions that were posed by the moderator and projected onto a large screen. The It should be noted that the stakeholder groups are not neces- technology provided the ability to collect and document sarily discrete. Some wilderness representatives were strong real-time opinions. The results were immediately tabulated advocates for private boater access, and vice versa. One ecolog- and presented to the group for discussion. Demographic ical representative made a strong statement in favor of wilder- information was collected in order to view and understand ness, and another indicated that she was a private boater. One various perspectives. educator is also a guide and a researcher. Guides are some- The complete report, including page fourteen THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) all the detail of a specific question • Time of year or responses by stakeholder group and the more than 500 • Educational value (the value of imparting knowledge) graphics that were produced, can be found at: • Opportunity to experience nature on its own terms www.nps.gov/grca/crmp/documents/scoping/CRMP- • Condition of the resource Summary-Scoping-Comments-jun03.txt • Disability accommodations It is important to note that the survey and interactive • Spectrum of opportunities to choose from (when polling process were designed to stimulate discussion and planning for the trip) understanding of the views and preferences of the various • Level of safety preparedness groups of participants. It is not statistically representative • Stewardship of a broader group of constituents. The participants added the last seven attributes in the GCPBA is presenting the results of the interactive sur- above list: educational, nature, resource, disability, spec- veys and the observation and conclusions resulting from trum, safety, and stewardship. the subsequent discussions gathered from the Spectrum of Services and Range of Opportunities Workshop and from HOW THEY RANKED the Private Permit System Workshop. Seven of the nine groups agreed that the following seven Spectrum of Services and Range attributes ranged from important to critically important: of Opportunities Workshop quiet, side trips, knowledge, length, nature, condition, and stewardship. The moderator reviewed the resulting bar charts with the participants ATTRIBUTES CONTRIBUTING TO A SUCCESSFUL (view charts on internet, ed.) and asked for comments on the results. RIVER EXPERIENCE Some of those comments are noted below. for a com- articipants were asked to review a list of attributes and plete view of charts and comments see: Pto think about them in relation to how they contribute www.nps.gov/grca/crmp/documents/scoping/CRMP- to a successful river experience. They were also asked to Summary-Scoping-Comments-jun03.txt suggest other attributes. Next, they were asked to rate each Number of Encounters With Other Groups — An outfitter of the attributes based on their experience with their cus- said that the current number of encounters is acceptable tomers, constituents, family, or friends. They used a rating because passengers on commercial trips typically rate their scale of 1 to 9: — 1 is not at all important; 5 is moderately trips as being excellent. A wilderness advocate prefers a low important; 9 — critically important. (As very few topics number of encounters, while researchers said they typically were rated below 5, it would be safe to say participants con- avoid attraction sites and popular campsites. sidered every topic to be important, ed.) Wilderness people rated this the highest (8.5). Private Attributes are listed below and followed by short dis- stakeholders were lest concerned about the number of encoun- cussion of each topical result. ters, scoring it with a 5.8 — the commercial customer gave it Comments in italics are authored by Richard Martin, 1.0 rating. participant and GCPBA editor. Natural Quiet and Sense of Individual Solitude — Most • Number of encounters with other groups participants rated these two attributes relatively high. • Natural quiet Researchers said they tend to define a successful trip by • Sense of individual solitude their ability to collect the right data, so quiet and solitude • Opportunity for social interaction (time with friends are not as important. Outfitters noted they run outboard and family), including group dynamics motors for some trips, so some time without natural quiet • Opportunity for side trips is inevitable. • Excitement during trip and personal challenge Wilderness, ecological, private and guides and educators • Personal involvement in all aspects (cooking, rowing, gave natural quiet the highest marks (range 8.8- 7.8). camp set up, etc.) researchers gave it the lowest priority, 4.0. • Experience level of boatman Opportunity for Social Interaction, Including Group • Knowledge of the resource (ecological, geological, Dynamics — All groups found this attribute moderately cultural, etc.) important to critically important. • Quality of meals and beverages Outfitters (8.2) and privates (7.8) rated opportunity and • Length of trip social interaction very high. the ecological groups gave this the • Size of group lowest priority of a 5. apparently river runners like to have opportunity for social intereaction. Fall 2003 page fifteen

This question did not ask participants if they preferred Side Trips — Were important to all groups but researchers, longer or shorter trips. who are not as interested in the recreational aspects of the river trip. Size of Group — several participants said that the trip expe- Educators, guides outfitters, enviros, privates and disabled rated rience would differ, depending on the size of the group. this very high, in a range from 9.0 To 7.6. Wilderness folks Persons with disabilities noted that they sometimes need rated it lower, while researches rated it very low. attendant care, which makes the trip size larger. Wilderness people rated this with an 8.5. Nipping their Excitement During Trip and Personal Challenge — this heals were the outfitters , privates, eco’s, research and disabled. attribute was relatively important to all but researchers and Group size was less important to educators and guides. those with ecological concerns. The latter said they primari- ly want to enjoy the beauty and nature. Again, the Time of Year — this attribute was less important to guides, researchers have a job to do and excitement or personal persons with disabilities, and educators. For those who said challenge is not important. it was important, reasons varied. Some private boaters, a Commercial customers, privates, disabled and outfitters all wilderness advocate, and an educator said the canyon has rated this above 7. much to offer, any time of the year. That wilderness advo- cate rated this attribute low, while one of the private Personal Involvement In All Aspects — Representatives of the boaters rated it moderately important. An outfitter said group of people with disabilities said that, depending on that many customers prefer the summer for this type of their level of disability, involvement was not relevant to vacation. their enjoyment. They are grateful for all the help they For researchers, the time can be critical and they rated it receive to visit the Grand Canyon. A guide indicated that at the top with a 9. Private river runners rated it very impor- level of involvement depends on the abilities and interests tant with a 7.6. The disabled stakeholders rated it least of the customer. important. This question does not ask which season is most Private boaters rated personal involvement at the top with sought. an 8.8 Rating. Educational Value — a trip down through the Grand Experience Level of the Boatman — commercial guides, out- Canyon is a learning experience from any perspective. The fitters, their customers and researchers rated this attribute at importance of specific educational opportunities varied the highest. Private boaters were split on this attribute. One among participants. of the private boaters rated this attribute low in importance, No surprise here, the educators rated this one tops with a feeling confident that they could adequately train people to 9. Outfitters were right behind with an 8.8. Privates and row. Another said experience isn’t much of an issue, as he wilderness folks rated it lowest with 6.0 And 5.5 Respectively. would not go on the trip if the boatman were not experi- enced. Other private boaters rated it high because they felt Opportunity to Experience Nature On its Own Terms — experience on the colorado river in the Grand Canyon was many felt that experiencing nature directly is the very important for a successful trip. essence of the river experience. The eco’s, disabled, private, wilderness and guides all Knowledge of the Resource — a guide commented that this rated this very high, the eco’s made it the top with an nine, attribute varied in importance depending on the interest with the others close behind. from his customers. Of the stakeholder groups the privates It should also be noted that the qualifier “nature on it’s rated this lowest, with a 6.2, The wilderness participants own terms” does not define what those terms are thought to be. shared similar feelings with a 6.5 Rating. Outfitters scored Does the question relate to motor use, rescues and contempo- 8.8 On this one. rary camping convenience's. Quality of Meals and Beverages — this attribute was among Condition of the Resource — resource researchers rated this the lowest of importance for all groups. Variability in food attribute lower than the other groups because the condi- quality depends on the type of trip and the customer’s tion of the resource does not affect the success of their trip. preference. It was very important to all other groups. Privates scored the chow only moderately factor with a 5.0, All recreational users rated the “condition of the resource” outfitters Rated it with a 6.0. Researchers were slightly more at the very top of important attributes, three groups gave it a concerned with food than the other groups, rating it 6.2. 9 rating and three gave it an 8.8 rating. Length of Trip — trip length was important to most partici- Disability Accommodations — a representative from the pants, but preferences for length varied from 3 days to as group of people with disabilities indicated that accommo- long as possible. Some said a range of trip lengths was dations have to come from out- (continued on next page) important. page sixteen THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) fitters or service providers, who experience. may need to be educated as to what is needed. Private Some participants found it difficult to rate some of the boaters ratings ranged from high to low. One at the low attributes because they were too vague, while-others felt that end said many American Canoe Association members have all were important. The group seemed to agree that making disabilities and don’t want any special accommodations. these types of decisions is difficult. Another at the higher end said that he was glad to make However, most participants (13) ranked the workshops as the accommodations. “somewhat effective,” another 15 ranked the gathering as more Private trippers rated this attribute at 5.1, researchers than “somewhat” to nearly “very” effective. Nine ranked the were last with a 4.2, outfitters were tops in this category, rat- meeting as less than “somewhat” to “not at all.” (ed.) ing it at 8.2 A SUMMARY OF THE KEY FINDINGS INCLUDE: Spectrum of Opportunities to Choose From When Planning — outfitters commented that they rated this attribute as less • Seven of the nine participant groups agreed that the fol- important because they felt that a wide spectrum of choices lowing attributes ranged from important to very important: could be [are currently] offered. However, they were inter- natural quiet, opportunity for side trips, knowledge of the ested in clear distinctions between private and commercial resource (ecological, geological, cultural, etc.), length of trip, trips. Some private boaters felt it was important to blur opportunity to experience nature on its own terms, condi- that distinction. An educator felt the system should be tion of the resource, and stewardship. overhauled. • All groups rated condition of the resource and steward- Wilderness advocates rate this an 8.2, the highest score for ship very high in importance. this attribute with an 8.2, privates fell further down the scale with a 7.1 rank, and outfitters were near the bottom with a • Most groups rated quality of meals and beverages low in ranking of 4.6. importance. It should be noted here that participants were not offered • Researchers defined a successful river trip by their ability examples of planning opportunities from which to choose with to collect the right data. They rated more than half the which to evaluate the question. attributes as being moderately to not at all important. Level of Safety Preparedness — a wilderness advocate said • Participants added more attributes to an already long list. that being prepared was important, but noted that wilder- Many felt more services and opportunities should be avail- ness is inherently a place of risk, and visitors shouldn’t able and had difficulty choosing which were the more expect that everything can be kept safe. important. Safety was tops with the guides, their customers, the dis- • More often than not, participants within a stakeholder abled, and the outfitters, the first three ranking it as a 9. group did not agree. Privates feel into the middle group, ranking it somewhat less important with a 6.5, the wilderness folks ranked it 5.8 PRIVATE PERMIT SYSTEM Stewardship — participants generally agreed that steward- WORKSHOP ship is vital to protecting the resource and maximizing the river experience. articipants compared each pair of attributes listed below. Private river runners rated this attribute as very impor- PFor each pair they chose the attribute they felt was more tant with a 7.4 ranking, the wilderness group ranked it a 6.5. important to a fair private permit system. They also rated All the other stakeholders ranked “stewardship” above 8.5 their level of satisfaction with the current private permit sys- tem for each attribute. Cost to the User — cost was important to most, and they felt that a range of costs should be available. Attribute Definition Opportunities For Trips For Various Entities — participants Simplicity - Easy to understand; easy to get were asked to use the same 1 to 9 rating scale and rate the questions answered; easy for, Park to administer. importance of trip availability to several types of user Length of wait - Minimize time from application to groups. The most support was shown for the people with taking trip. disabilities and low-income entities. Due to time con- KEY OBSERVATIONS straints, no discussion was held on these items. • All groups agreed that length of wait was very important Meeting Evaluation — participants rated the effectiveness of and all are dissatisfied with the current private permit system the meetings in identifying attributes for an ideal river on this attribute. Half the groups considered a sense of equi- Fall 2003 page seventeen ty very important and they were very dissatisfied with the tant and everyone is dissatisfied with the current condition. current system. Half the groups considered a sense of equity very important and were very dissatisfied with the current system. • The level of satisfaction with the current permit system is The following list and comments resulted from the dis- low across all stakeholder groups. Except for the commercial cussion. river guides and those with ecological concerns, none of the groups rated more than two attributes of the current system A. Simplicity above the midpoint of satisfaction. Private boaters and • Easy to understand wilderness advocates rated no attributes above the midpoint • Easy to get questions answered of satisfaction. • Easy for Park to administer • Researchers indicated that they answered the questions as An outfitter commented that he was willing to trade if they were looking for a non-sponsored research river trip, simplicity for a more efficient system that would minimize in which case they would need a private permit. The com- length of wait and enhance predictability. mercial customer noted during discussion that he did not Simplicity as a desired attribute of a fair access system was- have a stake in the outcome of this issue. n't regarded very highly by participants. Guides scored it the highest with a 62 rating, followed by the outfitters and pri- DEMOGRAPHICS OF PARTICIPANTS vates, who gave it a 39 rating. Mary Orton invited most stakeholder groups to send Apparently a "simple" to use system wasn't important to four participants. She invited eight private boaters to partic- attendees. Then again, it should be noted that there were no ipate, in order more fully to represent the broad range of characteristics of "simple" from which to choose in order to private boating interests and experiences. The one person generate opinion. representing the commercial customer agreed to forego his Total points — 261, average score, 32. anonymity and participated actively in the discussion. The B. Length of Wait persons with disabilities chose not to participate in this • Minimize time from application to taking trip workshop. She invited eight Native American Tribes or tribal consortia to send a representative, but they chose not While it is important to all groups, no group is happy with to attend. One, the Hualapai Tribe, did send observers. the current length of wait. More than two-thirds of the participants had taken a river As there was only one commercial customer participating, trip on the Colorado River through Grand Canyon more who scored this one with a 100, therefore implying that length than nine times. of waiting time is very important to prospective commercial Twenty three of the participants had been on nine or customers. Researchers, eco's, and, not surprisingly, privates (81) more canyon trips. Four had been on one or less, and five also scored this one high. had participated in two to four trips. Canyon experience As with most questions, respondents were not asked what was not lacking. aspects of the question were important to them, therefore the It should be noted there was no distinction made between statistic generated only states that "length of wait" is important types of trips (non-commercial or commercial, science, guide or to participants. NPS trips) taken. Total points, 636 — average score, 79.5 Paragraphs in italics are comments by the editor and stake- C. Conditions to support the process holder participant, Richard Martin. • Trip participant rule (if on the list and participate in two ATTRIBUTES CONTRIBUTING TO A FAIR other trips, your name is dropped) PRIVATE PERMIT SYSTEM • Meet boatman qualifications Participants reviewed and discussed a proposed list of • Minimum age requirements attributes and their definitions for a private permit system. • Trip leader experience Participants performed a comparison of each pair of • Group size attributes. For each pair they chose the attribute that was Outfitters rated this attribute very high, while others the more important to a fair private permit system rated it low to very low. Outfitters said that more condi- Due to space limitations GCPBA cannot print the gen- tions are appropriate to regulate high demand for a scarce erated tables, instead I'll comment on the results of the resource. Another outfitter said she already abides by many "attributes discussion," ed. conditions and chooses to impose even more on her cus- All groups agreed that length of wait was very impor- tomers. Private boaters would prefer (continued on next page) page eighteen THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) fewer conditions. A wilderness rep- cancellation or for their number to come up, so flexibility resentative explained their low score by saying the river is a was important. scarce resource; while stringent requirements are imposed Educators came out top on this, rating it 69, privates because of the high demand, they may not be justifiable. A rated flexibility 32. Outfitters were lowest with 23. participant with ecological concerns said wilderness is a Total points, 368 — average score, 46. value and should not be limited with F. Frequency conditions. • Repeat Use "Conditions" would translate to "rules" used to control • Maximum number of trips per user / unit of time access. Outfitters scored this one 83. On the other end were • Maximum number of trips per trip leader / unit of time wilderness folks who scored this 12. Privates scored this with a 38. It would seem that "conditions" are not popular with pri- Private boaters were dissatisfied with the current limits vates or wilderness recreational users of the Grand Canyon. on frequency. One said that without some repeaters, it There was no discussion of what type of conditions might would be harder for private boaters to make the trip, be imposed in order to facilitate fair management of the because they don't have the option to take a guide. Others resource. rated it low because they did not want frequency to be a Total points, 359 — average score, 44.9 limiting factor. Researchers said they needed to track trends, which would require them to be on the river more D. Predictability often than once a decade. • Adequate planning time before launch Researchers and guides rated "frequency" more highly than • Ability to schedule a trip with specific timeframe other groups. As there was no discussion as to wether or not fre- The relative importance for predictability was in the quent visitation is a good thing or not and why, it's hard to top three or four for most groups. The private boaters rated determine if respondents consider repeat use, and use ceilings a it relatively high, and their level of satisfaction with the cur- good thing or bad. rent system ranged from not at all to very satisfied. They We do know that privates don't rate these issues very high, said the wait is predictably long, but the trip date is not. scoring it with a 45. Those who were very satisfied said that if people use the Total points, 382 — average score, 48. cancellation system, they might have more predictability G. Effort by applicant and planning time. Researchers said they must be on the • Easy to apply river at certain times when the species they are studying are • Easy to stay eligible (paperwork, etc.) active. The commercial customer scored "predictability" with an This attribute was relatively unimportant to most 85. Research was number two. Privates scored this one at 65. groups. One outfitter thought it should take a lot of effort Outfitters and guides scored 59 and 57, respectively. to get on the list. A private boater said there are not a lot of Subjectively speaking, I would have to interpret these choices, so therefore not a lot of effort is required (to wait). responses as follows, predictability is important to customers These results could be looked at from a variety of view- because they have a scheduled launch which they plan around, points. For some groups there may be very little effort needed to researchers need to be able to predict in order to achieve their access the system, commercial customers, researchers, guides task. Less important to privates because presently, other than a and outfitters are currently exempt from the same "effort by long wait, they have no predictability, they may not need an applicant" that private and educational users experience, so, "adequate time" ("adequate" being very subjective), nor need effort by applicant surely means something different to each to schedule in a "specific time frame." With regularly scheduled group. trips, outfitters and guides already experience "predictability" Guides rated this as a 31, privates gave it a 27 and outfit- in the positive sense, they know when they're going, so it's not ters rated it 22. an issue. Total points, 194 — average score 24. Total points, 540 — average score, 67.5 H. Cost • Initial application fee E. Flexibility • Administrative costs • Ease of transferability (e.g. alternate trip leader) • River use fees user • Opportunity to defer or reschedule trip • Ability to exchange launch date with another private All groups rated cost low to very low in importance. permit holder They explained they were relatively satisfied with the cur- Educators said that sometimes they have to wait for a rent cost, and other attributes were more important. Fall 2003 page nineteen

Wilderness folks rated this 37, privates rated it 28 and researchers were at the bottom with a 15. Consider that cost of fare on commercial trip and cost of assembly for a private trip were not factors in this question. Apparently recreational users are not much concerned with various fees imposed by the government. Total points, 218 — average score, 27. I. Sense of Equity • No consensus on definition (participants added this attribute and used their personal definition) Equity was the most important attribute to the private boaters, those with ecological concerns, educators, and wilderness groups, and they were very dissatisfied with the current system. As one private boater said, everyone is deserving, the Park is part of our national heritage. Another participant said that the word equity implies parity, which means everyone has the same conditions available to him or her at exactly the same time. He felt that equity was not possible because there will be winners and losers. He thought fairness would have been a better word. A guide noted that currently; the wait is to lead the trip, not to go on a trip. A wilderness advocate said not everyone should be able to see the Grand Canyon; that wilderness- dependent activities should have priority. Each person was to define equity in her or his own way. An outfitter said it meant that the allocation reflected the demand, even if demand proved to be 80-20 private. He also said it is inequity when one pri- vate boater often goes on private trips while others wait for years. An educator noted the difficulty of meeting everyone's interests. This attribute was generated by pre-sampling discussion and added to the list for consideration. 95 was the score that private boaters gave to this concept of equity/fairness. wilderness gave it a 90 and the eco's rated it at 80. Guides and outfitters rated it an 61. Clearly recreational users rate a sense of equity and fairness as one of the most aspects any new operational plan. Total points, 587 — average score, 74.

RANK OF OVER ALL ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF CONSIDERED ATTRIBUTES OF THE "IDEAL SYSTEM." B. Length of Wait —Total points, 636 — average score, 79.5 — private score, 81 I. Sense of Equity —Total points, 587 — average score, 74— private score, 95 D. Predictability —Total points, 540 — average score, 67.5 — private score, 65 C. Conditions to support the process —Total points, 359 — average score, 44.9 — private score, 38 E. Flexibility — Total points, 368 — average score, 46 — private score, 69 F. Frequency—Total points, 382 — average score, 48 — private score, 45 A. Simplicity —Total points, 261, average score, 32— private ranking, 39 H. Cost —Total points, 218 — average score, 27— private score, 28 G. Effort by applicant —Total points, 194 — average score 24 — private score 27

MEETING EVALUATION More than three-fourth’s of the participants were somewhat satisfied to very satisfied with the format of the meeting. They were able to discuss their opinions and appreciated hearing those of others.

EDITORIAL OPINION It's obvious to anyone familiar with the contentious issues surrounding the Grand Canyon that two issues would stand out above all others in this exercise to determine the importance of various attributes of an "ideal system." It's no surprise that the length of the wait and a sense of equity or fairness are the two issues deemed most important. The first, the length of wait, now more than 25 years for a new applicant, is probably single most aggravating characteristic of the current system and responsible for the very high level of public involvement in the current process, demonstrated by the more than 50,000 comments received during the scoping period, and as reported elsewhere in this issue of the Waiting List. The second point, and by far the number one issue with private boaters is the disenfranchisement felt by recreational users. It's clear that the private, wilderness and ecological stakeholder representatives feel the system is unfair. Any draft management proposals offered by the NPS will have to demonstrate how they can satisfy the constituents displeasure over feeling treated unfairly, having no feeling of equity and with the length of time someone has to wait before they launch. If not, it’s unlikely any proposal offered could generate the support needed to see it implemented. For GCPBA: Richard Martin y page twenty THE Waiting List

AmmoCan Doc THE UNFORGIVEN: Heat and the Desert Crucible,

DYING OF THIRST & GETTING DRUNK IN THE DESERT “They talk of my drinking, but never of my thirst.” —Scottish Proverb

ying of thirst in the desert is cliché. Everybody knows when it’s blazing hot too little water can kill you. What about too much water? To most people the notion of “too Dmuch water” and its consequences seem about as foreign as a snowman in the Sahara. And too little salt? Its role in the desert heat WATER INTOXICATION IS A and potential fallout are probably more nebu- TERM USED TO DESCRIBE lous than Andromeda. To say that either one SIGNIFICANT HYPONATREMIA CAUSED causes anything more than a bellyache or BY EXCESSIVE FLUID headache can be hard to imagine. Claiming DRINKING. HYPONATREMIA that such imbalances could send one into ACCOUNTS FOR 30-40% drunken-like stupor, convulsions, or even kill OF HEAT-RELATED PROBLEMS you seems downright impossible. Water and stroke. In Grand Canyon, 60% of cases of heat exhaustion salt!? Yep. Welcome to the desert Southwest take this form. and Margaritaville—sans and the Tequila and 2. Hyponatremia (salt depletion form): Excessive body salt the salt. loss from sweating and inadequate replacement. Fluid Major heat syndromes are typically divided into stores are usually adequate. Symptoms are from low blood two categories: heat exhaustion and heat stroke. They are sodium. In Grand Canyon, 40% of cases of heat exhaus- acute illnesses that can be very serious and potentially life- tion take this form. "Water Intoxication" is a term used to threatening. They are directly related to heat exposure are describe significant hyponatremia. It is usually caused by extremely are common to the desert southwest. Heat excessive fluid intake and inadequate sodium replacement exhaustion is usually subcategorized into two forms: dehy- coupled with excess sodium loss while sweating. More sim- dration (excessive water loss) and hyponatremia (excessive ply put, it’s from overdrinking water (or fluids low in sodi- sodium loss). The following describes the differences um) and not eating enough salty foods. The net result is a between diagnosing and treating these two forms of heat dilutionally-lowered blood sodium level which causes exhaustion. (Heat Stroke, which is really part of a continu- among other things, an altered level of consciousness, or um of dehydration, will be covered in Part III of the Desert symptoms that appear similar to being drunk, and thus the Crucible.) term: “water intoxication.” While the majority of the prob- The most important take home message will be lem is mechanical, i.e. overdrinking and under eating, a this: Heat exhaustion happens to losers; Losers—not in life hormonal influence from antidiuretic hormone (ADH) or a character sense—but in water and salt. Don’t be a exists. ADH does just what its name implies…it keeps you loser. from peeing. It accomplishes this by making the kidneys hang on to water in greater measure than they hang on to HEAT EXHAUSTION - TWO FORMS salt. This means that you wind up with more water in your 1. Dehydration (water depletion form): Excessive body body than salt. Many things can stimulate ADH release, water loss from sweating and inadequate replacement. Salt including fear and anxiety. Some do the opposite. Alcohol stores are usually adequate or slightly low. Dehydration is for example, inhibits ADH, thus having has a diuretic part of a continuum that if untreated can lead to heat effect, causing you to lose more fluid than you gain. The upshot? Jack Daniels shouldn’t be in your Nalgene bottle. Fall 2003 page twenty one Part II ~The Major Heat Syndromes ~Potentially Life Threatening Situations

WATER INTOXICATION? insufficient to differentiate between dehydration and HOW COME I’VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT? hyponatremia. An early diagnosis is ABSOLUTELY dependent on Well, you’re not alone. Most people are clueless a good history and physical exam. It cannot be over- about water intoxication. In fact, prior to the mid-1980’s, emphasized that a careful history regarding food and fluid most hikers and river runners in the canyons of the south- intake is crucial to differentiating between simple dehydra- west had never heard of it, either. The reality is, it was tion and the more complex illness of water intoxication. probably rare to non-existent prior to that time. For example, if someone hiking down the Bright Angel There are several factors that have contributed to Trail in Grand Canyon has a granola bar and an orange for the more frequent appearance of this illness. First, we’ve all breakfast, i.e. low sodium, drinks 5 liters of water before been taught that drinking water is a good. It flushes your eating anything else, is peeing like a racehorse, but feeling system, keeps the kidneys happy and prevents dehydration. lousy, they’re not dehydrated. They’re hyponatremic. If they (Plus, signs on trails in Grand Canyon say you’ll die if you ate a bag of pretzels, drank 1/2 liter in those same for hours don’t drink.) Second, we’ve also been taught that salt is evil, and haven’t urinated in over 4 hours, they’re dehydrated. especially too much of it. So are too many calories. They Treatment is opposite! With dehydration they need more raise our blood pressure and make us fat! Lastly, the last fluids,. With hyponatremia they need more salt. couple of decades have been saturated with cleverly market- Desert survival pearl of wisdom: For otherwise ed sport drink concoctions whose makers have us believe healthy people, it’s easy to drink too much water, but really that everything you need to keep your body going is neatly hard to eat too much salt! packaged in a single-serving squeeze bottle. As a result peo- ple are: 1) preoccupied with water and “over-drink” the Requirements for strenuous physical exertion for an water or fluids that are “hypotonic” or low in electrolytes to unacclimated adult in a hot, arid environment: prevent dehydration, 2) under-eat foods that are high in • Fluid Intake: _ to 1 liter /hour salt, and 3) they rely heavily sodium- poor sports drinks for • Calorie Intake: 500-1000 calories/hour salt and electrolyte replacement. Put all these together in • Sodium Intake: 500-1500mg/hour unacclimated people and PRESTO!, they get hyponatrem- ic, or “drunk in the desert.” Now, before thinking “cool, I just hold the salt and start pounding the water next time MILD TO MODERATE DEHYDRATION run out of beer,” consider that at best hyponatremia will “EAT, DRINK AND MAKE MERRY.” give you the worst hangover you’ve ever had and at worst will cause seizures, coma and death. There is no pleasant So now that you’ve made your diagnosis, here’s what to do: buzz or euphoric in-between. 1. REST: semi-reclined in a cool, shady place. Now comes the hard part. To the “untrained eye” (and even to some well-trained eyes), hyponatremia looks A 2. COOL: dowse clothes, body with water; fanning. LOT like dehydration early on. You’ll probably have a 3. REHYDRATION (oral): Slowly with small sips every 5 - headache, feel weak, dizzy, nauseated and fatigued. This is 15 minutes, depending on nausea. Use water, EXTREMELY important to realize, since the treatment of Gatorade, Gookinade, etc.). Continue fluid replace- these two illnesses is essentially opposite. ment until symptoms abate and urine output NOTE!! SEVERE HYPONATREMIA CAN increases. PROGRESS TO CONFUSION, 4. Do not swallow salt tablets for muscle cramping (these DISORIENTATION, (similar to being drunk), can cause stomach upset or "gastritis"). Instead, dissolve ERRATIC BREATHING, SEIZURES AND COMA 1 or 2 in a liter of water, then sip. Thirst and chills tend to only be present in dehy- 5. Give salted food to avoid water intoxication. dration, and mental status changes are a late development. 6. Gently stretch cramping muscles. Everything else is the same. So what does this mean? It means: early in heat exhaustion symptoms alone are 7. Do not give aspirin or Tylenol (aceta- page twenty two THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) minophen) for problem worse. elevated body temperature, as it will not help. 8. EVACUATE: if victim has persistent vomiting and 4. DON’T try to hyperconcentrate electrolyte replacement inability to keep down oral fluids, altered mental status drinks. The concentrated sodium can cause stomach or suspected early heat stroke. irritation and more nausea, and the sugar can cause diarrhea. MILD TO MODERATE HYPONATREMIA “SIT IT OUT ‘TIL YOU PEE IT OUT!” 5. REPLACE SALT (Oral) usually in the form of crackers or chips. 1. REST, sitting up, in cool, shady place Salt Tablets: Do not swallow because they can cause stom- 2. Calm and reassure the patient! Anxiety, fear, and a ach upset and vomiting. Also, giving too much sodium “gloom and doom” attitude are common. Prevent when the victim is actually dehydrated can lead to poten- hyper ventilation. tially deadly complications. Dissolve 1 or 2 in a liter of water, then administer small sips. 3. FLUID RESTRICTION for several hours or overnight to allow for excretion of excessive water. Sit it out until TREATMENT OF SEVERE you pee it out! AVOID giving more fluids, even HYPONATREMIA electrolyte replacement drinks! This makes the What if the hyponatremia is so severe that TROUBLE-SHOOTING TABLE: just DIAGNOSING HYPONATREMIA VS. DEHYDRATION eating and urinating aren’t correcting the situation? PATIENT HISTORY Place victim in sitting or semi-sitting posi- Hyponatremia Dehydration tion. Lying down could accelerate brain swelling! Fluid intake* High Low Protect airway and monitor ABC’s Food Intake* Low Adequate or Low Monitor for seizures. If the victim seizes, they will remain obtunded (unarouseable). Sodium Intake* Low Adequate or Low EVACUATE ASAP!

URINE “ EAT, DRINK AND MAKE MERRY, Urine Output High Low FOR TOMORROW WE MAY DIE!” Frequency of Urination Every 1-4 hrs 4 hours or more Urine Clear Dark yellow appearance Urine odor Weak Strong

PHYSICAL EXAM Mucous Membranes Moist Dry (mouth) Pulse Increase with No Yes Standing? Temperature Normal Normal to Slight Elevation Any Behavioral Common Uncommon Changes? Thirsty? Uncommon Common Other Symptoms Seizures Fainting Fall 2003 page twenty three

Shakespeare How do I keep from getting dehydrated without getting “drunk in the desert?” To prevent hyponatremia, salt is key. It’s easy to drink too much water. It’s hard to eat too much salt. Even if you are drinking too much water, if you chase it with salt you’ll probably be OK. How much salt? Sodium requirements will approach 500-1500 mg/hour! Remember, we can be losing up to 10 times the salt being unacclimated to the desert heat compared to someone who is! Calories are also crucial for the body to cool itself. Caloric requirements for unacclimated adults during strenuous activity in extreme heat are on the order of 3000-6000 calories a day! What the best meal plan for both? Forget the low-carb, low-sodium, low-calorie diet. In fact, this is the perfect excuse to indulge in junk food, especially salted carbs. That’s right- Junk food is in! And it sure beats a salt lick! So next time grab a handful of Gardettos rather And avoid salt tablets as they may cause gastritis and stomach upset. As for fluids, drink sensibly, which means approximately 1/2 - 1 liter per hour of strenuous activity in the heat. Avoid "overdrinking,” and remember that the best way to maintain electrolyte balance is by eating salty foods. “Electrolyte replacement” sports drinks are woefully inadequate for maintaining electrolyte balance. Just to put it in perspective, popular drinks such as Gatorade and E.R.G. only contain 10-25 mEq of sodium/liter, which equals just y

GROWTH OF THE GCNP PRIVATE PERMIT WA I T LIST, 1981-2002

EST. TIME TO WA I T FOR A PRIVATE TRIP PERMIT 1981 — 8 YEARS* 1991 —14 YEARS* 2002 — 26 YEARS* *INCLUDING AN ANNUAL 20% CANCELLATION RATE

©GCPBA 2003 page twenty four THE Waiting List

Earl Perry On River Romance Viking f the old, sunny Mediterranean world had had aspen trees, Pat Roberson could have stood for their hamadryad. Clear and perfect skin, with a dusting of ineradicable freckles; sharp and Isparkling eye; the same swaying grace of an aspen grove in a breeze; the same dappled moods as the trees have in fall color. She was an older woman: 20 to my 19. At the time, I was working in Grand Canyon as a boatman. Now these were the years when somebody got tossed in the slammer in Flagstaff for barfighting, and you got handed their motor, a 33-foot neoprene pontoon, and a set of 12 “Oh!” he said. He studied on it for a minute. “I disre- member the second thing. Time on, you’ll get it. Mebbe.” dudes as adventurous and unknowing as you. I wished Pat Roberson had had a mentor. Our first Who cared about experience? You don’t know date, really our only date, ended in full moonlight, sitting water, you do know water. We were shy on beside a path worn by moccasined feet a foot deep into the rock, a path that led up to Tsankawi. This was a mesa-top mentors but Clark, an ancient of perhaps 26, ruin abandoned a thousand years, yet with the hints of was willing to advise me. He didn’t venture something living around the edges of the moonlight. We anything about the river; I knew that as well were talking passionately about Anouilh’s Antigone, which as he did. No, we were ramrodding a flatbed we had just seen at an adobe playhouse near San Juan Pueblo. She talked philosophy to me, and it worked. It got full of rafts and rigs, motors, gas, and food me too hooked. I just knew she would sprinkle dust in my down to Lees Ferry, on a grade somewhere eyes, in defiance of father, uncle, law, and society: my slen- near Ferron, UT, when he got to what der warrior woman. I was in love but in vain I could tell. mattered: Before I fathomed what had hit me, Pat Roberson abruptly converted me to ‘friend.’ This status was much As I went for a double-clutch, he broke in: “Well, kid, accorded by girls of the time. They used it as a means to this bit about chasing women. Hustling, you guys call it.” harrow you up by telling you things, as for instance things “Yeah, Clark?” I was all ears. about other men, which your sorrowing heart would rather “No call to give it up, of course, a man ain’t no more’n never have heard. As “friend,” of course you were powerless a man, an’ the Canyon’s the hell of a place for it.” to be unfriendly, as by telling them, “Never! Heartless I was relieved. bitch! Never tell me these things!” “Still though, he ain’t no more, but he ain’t less. Two “O Earl! Earl, it’s just … so Wonderful. Earl, I’ve met things you’ll not be doing. First, don’t never talk … A Viking.” philosophy to ‘em.” My heart expired. When a little boy I had seen Kirk Why not?” Douglas in the movie: the mighty chest, scalloped down to “It’s unsportsmanlike conduct, that’s why. You git to the rippling stomach; swilling mead Thorishly from a talking philosophy with ‘em, it plain an’ simple gits ‘em horn; hurling battle-axes to chop off the girl’s braids. And too hooked. That’s a fact.” that vast and noble death, towered and vertiginous, calling I said I’d try to restrain myself. I asked him what the on Odin, collapsing backward against the hewn stone. A second one was. He had a distant look in his eye, maybe Viking! What chance did a young boatman have? thinking of the time he swam in the turquoise pools of She really wanted me to meet him. I really didn’t want Havasu Creek with that German girl who was marrying a to meet him. I tried some excuses. She really wanted me to rich man right after the trip. Or the trip when he rolled a meet him. I went. 33 in Lava Falls and there was crap spread down 5 miles of I entered the dining room of the dorm where she lived, river. halting just in the door. Like a lot of boatmen of the time “Clark!” I said sharply. “The second thing I’m not to — many accordingly dead now — I had berserker tenden- be doing?” cies, so I was certain to know her Viking. He might have Fall 2003 page twenty five checked his battle-axe at the door, but the massive shoul- Cataract Canyon at medium high water, when the river ders, the bright-blonde locks flowing like mine down to was black with driftwood, railroad ties, cottonwood trees the shoulders, and above all, the merry, glittering and still green, oil drums, ponderous-rolling, stiff-legged and wholly mad blue eyes: verus incessu patuit deus. His god- stately bloatbellied cows. Lost a motor in the savage, 15- like demeanor and the room-shrinking stride would be foot break they now call the Red Wall, drifted down outward signs, but the true link between us would be the through a wilderness of mighty waves into Satan’s Gut. death-love banked and smoldering in both our hearts. How Saw for the first time a 33-foot boat loaded 7 feet high could I not know him instantly? My better, my successful with lock-jawed dudes vanish utterly in a wave train, and rival, but still there would be a kinship between us, and when it crested, watched Walter Kirschbaum the philoso- defeat by such was no dishonor. pher-boatman trying to clear a tree out of his prop, Walter I went over and sat beside Pat, still watchfully scanning who would die an alcoholic not long later. Saw for the first the room, alert to his entry. When I brought my attention time a stone thrown into my boat from the crest of a to her, she was motioning toward a guy beside her, men- wave. Saw for the last time, in Dark Canyon Rapid that is tioning something: “… really, really wanted you to meet drowned under Lake Powell these 30 years, the whole of John.” the Colorado surging I thought, “John. Where the ... “WELL, KID, THIS BIT half-a-boatlength up a hell have I heard that name, ABOUT CHASING WOMEN. cliff and spilling away in John?” Then I thought, “Wait a tumbling fountains. minute. John. The … Viking?” HUSTLING, YOU GUYS CALL IT.” I headed down Grand: Perhaps an inch taller than “YEAH, CLARK?” I WA S ALL EARS. saw Horn at low water, she. The legs: sumac shoots. The “NO CALL TO GIVE IT UP, OF COURSE, when you wanted to arms: coyote willow stems. The throw up at the sight of eyes: earnest light brown. He A MAN AIN’T NO MORE’N A MAN, it and boatmen drove would have looked perfect in a AN’ THE CANYON’S their boats over dry black turtleneck, deconstructing a rocks, gutting them, snippet of Thomas Mann — say, THE HELL OF A PLACE FOR IT.” rather than hit the wave. some drivel about the mystic Saw the great hole in number seven being insistently if subtly repeated in the Crystal swallow a 45-foot boat that long moments later structure of a paragraph. climbed slowly from it, sheets of blazing water spilling He said, “Pat assures me of your interest, so I thought from it. Saw Dennis Massey make a brilliant cut, Massey I’d tell you a little about My Great Adventure.” who might have been the best motorman who ever lived, I looked at Pat, whose eyes were adoring him, whose Massey who would take a .44 Magnum to himself a cou- breast was crushed against his arm. I thought, “Not only ple years later. Boated with Perry Owens, who would go did he say, ‘My Great Adventure,’ without even a hint of out, alone and drunk, by car within a year. Ran with self-deprecation or irony, but he put the capital letters on Whale Hansen in his youth, who in his middle age would it. And she’s ravished by this … piddle. She’s coming up use a pistol too. Britt Ready, arm bloody from where he’d like a mushroom in a fairy ring. Kinship … Defeat at such punched through the window of a ‘56 Buick Roadmaster, hand ...” pissing on the Cadillacs of Vegas in the stark violet of the The Great Adventure was to hitchhike from Boulder, arclights. Jerry Chew the strongest, who would die stagger- Colorado, to Tierra del Fuego, Patagonia. ing forward, a lurching marionette, focussed to kill, as he “Oh, and Earl, he’s going to stop and stay with me in absorbed the 6th and last round from the .357. New Mexico, on his way.” Place and action didn’t subdue the thoughts of her; I An early specimen from a life: one of many things I’d could not eradicate her; could not seem to empty my rather not have heard from a woman. He did stay with her. heart. So toward the end of the summer I called as I could imagine in bleak detail them fidgeting, waiting for “friend” and asked her how The Great Adventure was Mr. Roberson, who lived in a gentle and silent isolation going. from long years of shooting service rifle matches, Mr. He had made it to Juarez. It was noisy and smelled Roberson who liked me and whom I liked, to wander deaf- unhygienic. Some of the people there seemed not to speak ly off to bed, until at last! they could meet in her room, English. He gave it half an hour or so, turned around, and she could cradle him in arms of true love. recrossed the border, and hitchhiked back up to Los Shit. I lit out for the territories. I headed down Alamos, returning the second day after he’d left. Spent a (continued on next page) page twenty six THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) week with her, being consoled. She was looking forward to seeing him again as soon as school started. I thought, “God. He pseudo-Othelloed her. She loved him for the dangers that he passed, and he never passed any. And if anything, he’s more beloved with his tail between his legs than he was attempting. I may never get this.” Still, the loss of her was heavy. So I practiced saying, “My Great Adventure,” hoping it might work for me, but it oscillated between sounding hollow and contemptible, and sounding silly and self-important. I never could bring myself to say it to any living human female. I had to give it up. Earl Perry y Copyright © 2003

THE Waiting List, is published quarterly by the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association, Box 2133, Flagstaff, AZ 86003 - 2133. [email protected] The Board of the GCPBA: Richard Martin, President & Editor- Arizona / Tom Schiavone, Vice-President, Arizona / Willie Odem, Legal Eagle -Arizona / Marty Wilson - Pacific Northwest Coordinator - Oregon / Byron Hayes, Legal Coordinator - Arizona / Dave Yeamans, Science Coordinator -New Mexico / Bob Woodward, Goodies Fulfillment- Arizona / Bob Harris, Newswire Coordinator, Membership Coordinator - Kansas / R J Stephenson, Treasurer, Data Department - Kansas / Ken Kyler, “the DC Connection” -Webguru / Nancy Seamons, Secretary - Utah / Jason Robertson. Access Advisor - Washington, D.C. / Larry Lorusso - Massachusetts Nearly 900 General members , and still growing! We welcome and encourage editorial contributions, stories, photos, river news, drawings, cartoons, letters, whatever, and for that we will pay nothing .. but .. we offer our eternal gratitude (we wish we could pay!). Editorial contributions and letters are expressions of the author’s opinion, which may or may not reflect the opinion of the GCPBA. Made on a speedy, cool, G4 Mac. Send editorial contributions to: [email protected] or: [email protected] or Editor, GCPBA, Box 43, Jerome, AZ 86331 GCPBA is a 501c3 Corporation. Contributions are tax deductible so give us all your money .. now! Hey! Do it! For advertising information, write: [email protected] All contents ©2003, Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association unless otherwise noted.

GCPBA Hats and T Shirts are available now! Politically Correct, River Smart, Virtually Very Cool (Cool -like you!) T's are $15 for short sleeve and $25 for long sleeve. We just got a new batch In stock every size from S to XXL Hats are $18 - One size fits everyone - one color, tan with blue lettering Bright red bumper stickers for a buck~They’re one size and they’ll fit any bumper or ammo box Visit Our Website: www.gcpba.org/goodies

It’s A Private Trip...Come On Along...Join Us! YES! I want private boaters to have a voice in the Grand Canyon! GCPBA is 501c3, tax deductible!

Name Address (st. / box)

City State Zip

e-mail “telley” membership: 1yr $25 / 10yrs $200 / Forever $350 or more Check here if it’s ok to give your name to wilderness / conservation groups here for river related business Fall 2003 page twenty seven page twenty eight THE Waiting List Private Trip Journals CANYON IDYL ~ A TRIP DOWN INTRODUCTION C.O. ‘Bill’ Kimball spent the greater part of his adult life sitting at a desk. He was the secretary/treasurer/purchasing agent of a sheet metal firm in Kansas City, Missouri. He always arrived home at 5 o’clock, took a nap before dinner, and after dinner (at least two or three times a week) my parents spent the evening playing bridge. A rather sedentary life! I was the youngest of three children, and when I married in 1950, my parents sold their home and most of their possessions, packed the station wagon, and headed for Arizona and a totally different segment of their life. They stopped at “Bedside Manor” in Sedona, owned by the Leo Schnurs. Before long, Dad and Dr. Schnur had established “Back o’ Beyond,” off Highway 179 and at the foot of the Cathedral Rock. Dudy Thomas had lived adja- cent to this property for quite some time, and her friend, Dick Sprang, who drew the Batman comics, often spent time there. Art Greene was an experienced river runner whose name I heard frequently when I visited my parents. Dad’s life did indeed change! In Kansas City, I think I never saw him pound a single nail, but in Sedona, he built a separate shop behind the house, complete with a carport for his truck, and he built a patio with redwood furniture, among other things. He did a little acting with the local theater group and was an “extra” in a couple of westerns filmed nearby. I never knew of his interest in such things, and I was certainly astonished to hear that he was about to embark on a river trip! A brief note about the people he refers to: “Frieda” or “Grummy” – his wife and my mother, Chuck and Fred were my older brothers, “Kathy Jo” is my eldest daughter, Marty was Chuck’s wife, and Pam and Charlie are his chil- dren. Perhaps there are a few old-timers from Sedona who will recognize names like Joe Moser, etc. The little 3 x 5 notebook where he penciled his thoughts and experiences during the trip meant a lot to me, and I’ve always wondered how and when I would share it with family and friends. My niece, Bettie Kimball Kennedy, was able to find many of the slides he took on the trip. Some of them should certainly accompany this tale, and I thought this 50th anniversary year was the time to get it done!

Mary Jo Kimball Rybolt BILL KIMBALL’S JOURNAL — GAS, 32¢ PER GALLON! October, 2003 Fall 2003 page twenty nine

THE SAN JUAN TO LEE’S FERRY~1953 5/15 Took off on San Juan at 9:40 a.m. -mile 114. Got thorough wetting at 9:42 a.m. Wonderful experience this day; many good rapids run. At goosenecks, we waved at dudes on rim. The whole day was in “goosenecks” as far as we were concerned; never a mile was run on a straight course. Canyon walls precipitous and high -1000 to 1800 ft. Talus slopes 25 to 100 ft. high. Lunch at 12 o’clock at mile 106. Stopped at 5 o’clock, mile 85. Rain started to fall while we ate dinner, but bedrolls are all covered with waterproof tarps; will sleep under them ... We are now sitting around a good campfire. 5/16 PRE-LAUNCH BREAKFAST AT THE Took to boats 8:47. Ran rapid MEXICAN HAT AEROPUERTO immediately. Sky partly fair with cirrus clouds. River low; fell four inches during the night. At 9:55, Dick 5/12/53 got stuck on rocks. Jack Turner had to take to the water to 6 a.m. – Leave Sedona push off. At 10:00, a cold wind started. I’m wearing a wool Art Greene’s - 13.8 gallons gas - $4.30 shirt and hunting coat. Saw two beavers yesterday, two 12 Noon - Lunch - Orderville today so far. Rapids only a few minutes apart. Now Arr. Richfield 2:50 p.m. 15 gallons gas - $4.08 approaching John’s Canyon Rapids, but are on water Filter - $2.04 smooth enough to enable me to write. Drifting probably 5 dozen eggs @ $.61 plus tax - $3.11 five mph, Harry Aleson at the oars. Dick is at the oars of Groceries - $2.72 the other boat, always trailing us at a distance of 100 to Stayed Johnston Hotel - after loading river equipment on 200 yards. Both are marvelous boatmen. pickup. Guest of Harry L. Aleson. Occasionally sand waves are seen “building up” 5/13 a hundred yards or so ahead of us. By the time we reach Fruita - 6.8 gallons gas @$.32 - $2.18 them they are at their peak and we ride over them; then Hite 9.0 gallons gas @ $.35 - $3.15 they subside behind us. They break “upstream.” 5/14 10:25 Mexican Hat 9.0 gallons gas @ $.36 - $3.24 Just passed Sulpher Springs Canyon. Most of these Natural Bridges 12 - 12.30 canyons are actually amphitheatres and “box” only a few Arrived Mexican Hat 4:00 hundred yards back from the river. This one, however, boxes short distance from the river. Walls appear to be about the same height as all the walls around us. How ound Dick and Dudy awaiting us on river beach. high? Very! Possibly 2000 ft. Oh yes -I forgot to record that Called on Fred Singleton, River Ranger. Dined at new F at mile 82.4, we ran John’s Canyon Rapid very easily. café near Trading Post at bridge. Had a fine visit at Hite Didn’t even get sprayed. Slick Horn Canyon now in sight. with the Elmer Johnsons and two boys ... Also visited with Just ran two pretty fair rapids just above it. Correction: We Reuben and Beth Nielsen. Fine chat with Joe Plosser at his are at mile 78, still 3 miles above Slick Horn. We all make shack near North end air strip on East side of river. mistakes! (continued on next page) page thirty THE Waiting List

near the high water mark, to pick up what driftwood is available. Tonight we have Chicken a la King for dinner! Then a small campfire, and to bed at 9:30 under a brilliant canopy of stars -a small canopy, though, for the walls of this canyon are high, and not too much sky can be seen. 5/17 Well, I found out at 5:30 a.m. that my overhang sleeping quarters were not 100% dry. A light rain came in on the edge of my bed, so I arose and dressed and started rescuing exposed items, such as paper towels and toilet paper, which had been left exposed to the weather. The use GOVERNMENT AT 1,500 IN ‘53 of such toilet paper is not at all practical! 11:30 - Ran rapid called “Government Rapid” by National By 8 o’clock, everybody was up and at ‘em, and we had Geographic. Put on Mae Wests for this one. Took pictures a breakfast of sausage, eggs, hot cakes and coffee. The rain and had lunch here. Ran another good rapid just below stopped, so the hikers took off with full back packs of food Government Rapid. and other necessities, including sleeping bags, canteens and photographic equipment. 1:00 p.m. The sky is very dark and a cool wind is blowing Ran Slick Horn without incident. Beached our boats upstream. Light rain has started again, but Dudy and I and hike into mouth of canyon to where river-rats for years have moved all cooking supplies, foods, table, gas stove, past have “registered,” i.e., scratched their names in rock under the overhang where we have some protection. Quite walls. Danvers, of San Antonio, is drilling for oil high on a a neat kitchen and dining room layout! rock ledge. One of the five men on duty came down to 4 o’clock now, and Dudy and I have just returned from visit with us. Handsome chap about 32 to 34 years old; a hike. We picked our way along the beach, over and educated well, too. Access to the oil drilling is by road between huge boulders, to the mouth of Grand Gulch. down from top, blasted out of solid rock. The well is now This is downstream, below our camp, and I had not seen it. down to about 1270 ft. Odd to see any sort of industry in The Gulch is a very spectacular thing. The first obsta- such a place! cle encountered was a 50 ft. cliff stretching entirely across We must make 4-day camp near Grand Gulch, for the entrance, only 50 yards from the San Juan River. We Harry, Dick and Jack plan to explore the Gulch on foot if were able to scale it by going 100 yards downstream where it can be done. There is no record of anyone having ever huge boulders were strewn in such a way that we could use succeeded in doing this. them as steps. Recon from the air last Friday, early in the morning, by At this first cliff were small pools of clear spring water, Joe Moser and Jack Turner, revealed a dry waterfall approxi- deep enough for me to bathe in tomorrow, unless I choose mately a day’s hike from the river. This obstacle may be to take a shower where this water runs over the cliff. From insurmountable, in which event their exploration will be the top of this cliff, or bench, one can see only a short dis- for only two days. tance up the Gulch, or canyon, due to abrupt changes in In any event, Dudy and I will keep camp on the river the direction in which it runs. in their absence. So, at four o’clock today, we start looking I predict that Harry, Dick and Jack will return to camp for a good campsite near the mouth of Grand Gulch. tomorrow evening, bringing word that they were stopped We must have good beach for the boats, protection by a wall which cannot be scaled. This country is full of from sun and from rain, plenty of wood for fire. Finally, we such. I’m sitting between two of them right now! select a site about 1/4 mile above the Gulch, where there are overhanging rock ledges to sleep under. Driftwood, 5/18 however, is scarce, so after making camp, we all scatter up Fred Kimball was born 27 years ago today. How time and down the river on the right bank, going along the talus flies! And at home, Back o’ Beyond, Grummy is entertain- Fall 2003 page thirty one ing Marty and her two kids; Chuck will join them next tails fly in, cap their wings and settle down on the water. If Friday. Wish I could join them, too. Why didn’t they come I had my shotgun here, we would have duck for dinner, at a time when I could be home! roasted in a dutch oven. Dudy is in camp, taking a bath. I I’m writing this standing up, using a huge boulder for a had one yesterday a.m. in the river. Melted snow is cold! desk, up in Grand Gulch about a mile. I think that Meiser 5:05 - The hikers came sneaking into camp just as I was wrote that he ascended the Gulch about a mile and found shaking the sand out of my bed. the boulders so large that he did not go further. They were gone three days and two nights. Their Harry, Dick and Jack are far, far up ahead of us some- report is not ready for publication, but they made impor- where, but I’m going to emulate Meiser. I’ve taken pictures tant discoveries! This morning I had made a big sign in the to show what I mean by “boulders.” It’s a beautiful warm sand, at the mouth of Grand Gulch, reading: day. Dudy has gone on up the Gulch a half mile, too far for Camp Sirocco ? mile Meals -Lodging It seems like we are in a strange WHISKEY BY THE DRINK world. No, we are NOT Guess what they demanded when they reached camp! in a strange world. Dinner consisted of chipped beef, potato cakes, dumplings, It is the outside world large lima beans. Retired early; all were tired. that is strange! 5/20 We are in the REAL world. Arose early and made up my bedroll for travel. Wanted to get my work done before the sun shone into the river canyon. Had our first taste of Withington’s canned sugar- my old legs and 205 lbs to follow. She is yelling at me but cured bacon which I had ordered from L.L.Bean, Inc.; also the words bounce back off the walls in a jumble which can- hot cakes, eggs, and (of course) coffee. not be understood. When I yell or whistle, I hear four Took to the river at 8:15, ran a few small rapids and echoes. I have the lunch with me so I know she will be then came to fairly placid water for long stretches. At back soon! Now she is back; we’re eating sandwiches - 10:30, we made a brief stop at the mouth of Oljeto cheese and braunschweiger between cold pancakes! (Moonlight) Canyon, to look around. Below Oljeto, the 2:30 -Back in camp on the San Juan. canyon walls are not so high, and after drifting two miles, 3:30 -Dudy arouses me where I had fallen asleep on the we found a canyon on each side where one could leave the sand, in the sun, and dangles a 12” catfish in front of me, river. But what good would it do him? He couldn’t go any- on the end of a line. She had found fish hooks and line in where. Dick’s survival kit. So I tried my luck and got nothing, 11:07 - We see a Moqui granary on R bank. while she caught two more, larger ones, with chipped beef 12:30 -1:00 -Lunch on R bank at mile 61. Salmon, wie- for bait. We had fillet of catfish for dinner. nies, tomato juice, cheese, cranberries, crackers, candy, cof- Now we are listening to Guy Lombardo’s orchestra fee. From here to mile 58 was three miles of rowing in music coming in on Harry’s battery radio. It seems like we shallow water, against an upstream wind. are in a strange world. No, we are NOT in a strange world. The river spreads out wide as the hills fall away, approach- It is the outside world that is strange! We are in the REAL ing Clay Hills Crossing. We landed here at 2:30 and hiked world. out on the right bank where the Indians crossed years ago. 5/19 We followed the old trail to a vantage point from which we Well, the hikers didn’t return. Today is their 3rd day up could see, looking North, one of the Tables of the Sun, and Grand Gulch. What are they experiencing? What will they the Bears Ears; looking South across the river, we saw report? Monitor Butte, No Man’s Mesa and Hoskinini Mesa, with I have had breakfast consisting of Rath’s canned Navajo Mt. looming up SSW. sausages, eggs, potato pancakes and coffee, and am now sit- Returned from hike to a dinner of ham, pumpkin, ting under the overhang at the entrance to Grand Gulch, cornbread, coffee, chocolate pudding. Will retire early writing while our canteens fill slowly with spring water run- tonight and arise early tomorrow, for we have shallow water ning over the ledge. It’s a slow process, for the morning until we have passed on down through Paiute Farms. breeze flips the stream around so that one drop in a million 5/21 hits the small mouths of the canteens. I aroused the camp at 5 a.m., we had breakfast at 6, I just now glanced toward the river and saw two pin- consisting of hamburger, potatoes, (continued on next page) page thirty two THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) biscuits, coffee. Embarked at 7:15. Hot sun but cool breeze cerned, but a on the water. stiff upstream 7:35 -Boat grounded on bar in midstream. Harry and I get wind is coming out and push. in now. Water is 7:42 -In water again, still wide and both of us. Organ(?) We usually drink shallow, with Rock in Monument the river water; many tugging Valley is in view, far sandy but jobs to be done, away. We are in and out not too bad. in water. of water all morning 12:30 -Dick through Paiute Farms section. Harry has on shorts; I have and Dudy are my pants rolled up. At 10:30, I stepped in a hole breast hiking up deep. Wet all my pocket items -billfold and all in it, watch, Alcove Canyon compass, knife, lighter, etc. Lunch on R. bank at mile 53. on R bank, for 1:30 -We pull in at L bank for a long rest and to await spring water, abatement of wind. Upstream, blow has become so strong while we wait. as to completely stop our movement. At Mile 46.7, we We usually make camp at 2:30 (R bank), early because of wind near drink the river mouth of Spring Canyon and across from mouth of water; sandy Copper Canyon. Harry hikes 2 miles up Spring Canyon for but not too spring water. Found hogan, and glyphs on large rock. We bad. A few have baked chicken dinner at 7 o’clock and retire early. yards below Alcove Canyon, 5/22 we filled the I aroused the gang at 4:30. Breakfast at 6, then took off canteens at at 6:55. At 7:05, Joe Moser flew over and dropped message another canyon, and 3 packages of crackerjacks. With him are his son name not Donnie, Don Willard and Ed Ellinger. We signaled him known, i.e., the THIS PHOTO OF A WILSON CREEK that aviation gas is available at Oljeto strip, so we expect canteens which PETROGLYPH VERIFIES THE LONG HELD SUSPICION THAT THE ANASAZI WERE him to refuel and return soon. It’s nice to have friends who Dick hadn’t PRIVATE BOATERS. FOR SURE THE will fly 2-1/2 hours up to this wild country to check on our already filled at FIGURE IS MALE AND FOR SURE HE”S welfare! Alcove. HOLDING CARBON FIBER OARS. RIGHT ON, DUDE! The drop contained a long letter from Frieda. Claire The trip Mae, Marty, Charlie and Pam are visiting her. And yester- today was mostly between high walls again, but the river day was Kathy Jo’s birthday. Georgia Lee will be with bed is wide and the water is spread thin. At 3:30, we stop Frieda to meet us at Lee’s Ferry one week from today. to make camp at “Petroglyph Camp,” a splendid campsite, 8:00 a.m. -Passed Nokai Canyon L. bank and Nokai Dome where I photographed glyphs carved in a huge boulder. R. bank, mile 44. Mile 27. Twenty miles today. 8:30 a.m. -Passed Zahn’s Camp at mile 41.6. Old steam 5/23 boiler on L. bank, probably used to pump water for sluic- Well, anyway it looked like a good camp… I am ing operations. At Mile 40.5, we drifted along the left bank snatching a few minutes during pack-up period to pencil a just above Spencer Camp, old gold diggings and ruins of few thoughts. Breakfast consisted of bacon, eggs, pancakes, camp. Along this wall we saw the ends of several petrified coffee and sand. logs protruding slightly from solid Shinarump, and several Last night I slept with my mouth open, and this with their length protruding. We are in the Great Bend morning my teeth are pitted. Will be on the water in a few now, having entered it at around mile 4l. Will leave it at minutes, not free of the wind, but free of the blowing sand. about mile 28. At mile 35.3, Indian Ruin in wall of R Took to the boats at 9:10; it is now 12:20, but the 2-1/2 bank, and petroglyphs nearby. Lunch at 11:45 at mile 34, day battle against the shallows will soon end. Within an in boats tied up under tremendous overhanging cliff on L hour we will reach Paiute Canyon; after that is passed (L. bank, 4/10 mile above wall of Wilson Mesa. bank) the river narrows down and we will chute rapids Had good going this morning as far as wind is con- again. Fall 2003 page thirty three

12:30 - Paiute Rapids are plainly audible -a big roar! A few I didn’t run this rapid because I took pictures of the hundred yards above the head of the rapid, we stop, eat others in the lower rapid. The 2 hours delay here, as well as lunch, and then all reconnoiter to determine the safest way headwinds and sand bars, slowed us up so that we didn’t to make the rapids. The right channel looks much sportier, make the Colorado River. Pitched camp in the willows and but also more hazardous; capsizing possible. To line it tamarisks, L bank, 6 miles from the Colorado. would be “chicken.” We decide on the left bank channel which is full of boulders. We are frequently in the water for 5/25 Finished the San Juan run of 115 miles at 10:08, when the first 1/4 mile, but from there on we stay in the boat. we reached the confluence of the San Juan and the These rapids consume about 1 hour— a very interesting Colorado. We beached here for an hour and hiked out on hour. It is a series of rapids in which the fall is 25 feet in the R bank of the San Juan, which is the L bank of the one mile. We have just run the series. Colorado, i.e., a bank which is common to both rivers. At the top of the 1200 ft. red cliff directly above us on About a half mile climb brought us to where Dick, the R bank is a good-sized “window.” Wind up-stream is Dudy and Harry camped in November of last year, and terrific so we make early camp at M18 in forest of willows where Jack and I added our names to their own which they and tamarisk. had carved on a boulder with the date November 15, 16, Harry and I make up our beds on a fresh sand bench 17, 18. Near here we found a U.S. Gov’t. bench mark, and above the river because it is damp and packed hard. Had the altitude recorded as 3285.8 ft. very strong wind in night, possibly 40 mph, but we, in our Our first stop after entering the Colorado was at location, got no sand blast with it. Hidden Passage Canyon. And it is well-named! We hiked 5/24 up the canyon, a narrow slot, where I took a picture. Harry Have had our breakfast and are preparing for take-off. says that he has hiked up 2 miles, walking part of the time The river went down in the night so we have decided to in a clear-water stream. We ate lunch here, R bank, then make the Colorado today (18 miles), if possible. On low crossed to the L bank to visit Music Temple. Harry, Jack water like this, it will be tough. Syncline Rapid will be run and I went up the short canyon and into the high- today, and 13 Mile Rapid; we’re looking forward to some ceilinged Temple, or grotto, part of the ceiling of which is good sport today. Took off at 8:35. Navajo Sandstone, part sky. At 9:45, Dick photographed Harry and me in There is a small pool of clear water in the Temple. It Syncline. Disgustingly tame in low water! was named by Major Powell on his first river exploration in 10:15 -Reached Wilson Canyon. We expected to reach this 1869. point early yesterday but were prevented from doing so by Some of the members of that expedition have left their the low water and high adverse winds. Had we been able to names carved deep in the sandstone wall. Could they have reach this point, we would have rimmed out and slept on foreseen that other adventurers would read these names in top last night. This Canyon comes in on the R bank. years to come? We inscribed our names, too, but in a book Kelley Dickison was punching cattle for Babbitts in kept for that purpose. I read names of many friends, all 1918, near Tuba, and came to the river on L bank, forded, western people -river men and women. proceeded up Wilson Canyon and met Mr. Wilson for This afternoon I photographed Navajo Mt. from the whom Wilson Canyon and Wilson Mesa were named, river, and I think the mouth of Oak Creek will be visible in bringing the cattle down. the foreground. We ran Oak Creek Rapid, and made camp There is good water here, and we are filling all can- at 3:00 on a bar on the R bank at the head of Boulder teens. The other four members of our party take the old Rapid and at the foot of Boulder Canyon. All are resting trail to the top of the Kayenta bench, but I stay at the river. except Dudy who rests only after she is in her sleeping bag Only 50 yards up the trail are glyphs on a huge boulder. I at night, or floating down river in the boat. didn’t have my camera with me so Dick photographed it We spent 10 days on the San Juan; each night we set a for me. gauging stick at the water’s edge and each morning the river Now we are on our way again, and have about 13 miles had gone down. I think the Colorado will be different; to go to the Colorado River. there is considerable driftwood floating down, which means 1:00 p.m. Lunch at mile 11.6, where good creek enters rising water. river, at head of 13 Mile Rapid. The Colorado is far more beautiful than the San Juan. Portage necessary and lining part way. Portage started 5:10 p.m. and I have returned from a short hike to the at 1:15; we re-loaded boats and started down river at 3:20. mouth of Boulder Canyon, where I had a good bath and (continued on next page) page thirty four THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) shampoo in a clear, deep pool of spring water. Bridge. Dudy saw them go by, and they waved at each Boulder Canyon is another deep, narrow canyon, just a other. slot in the Navajo sandstone. Tamale Pie for dinner, with What a shock it must have been to the dudes to see a hot cherry pie for dessert, both cooked in dutch ovens. lone woman standing in such a spot far up the Colorado from anywhere! On the down trip day after tomorrow, the 5/26 28th, they will pass us again. Frieda will see him that Got away at 8:20 and ran Boulder Rapid immediately; evening at Cliff Dwellers Lodge and learn that we are on quite good sport, for the Colorado rose 18” in the night. schedule and will arrive at noon the 29th. Driftwood surrounds. Harry estimates a flow of 35,000 to 40,000 cu.ft. per second. The San Juan was running 1,500 5/27 c.f.s. when we At 8:10, two boats went down the river, the first with put into it, less outboard motor towing the second, with five men in all. At when we left it. 8:32, we take to the river on a beautiful morning. Had a At 9:05, we good night last night, with my bedroll spread on a silt flat, passed the free of sand and wind. Our best camp so far. River up 2” in mouth of night; lots of driftwood this morning. Forbidden Harry and I stopped at mile 53+ where he added to a Canyon and cache of foodstuffs which he maintains at that point. Lunch ran Forbidden in Face Canyon on L bank, into which we rowed 500 ft., a Rapid. Very narrow, winding channel, at mile 44.5. easily done. 1:30 -Kane Creek. The two boats we saw early this a.m. 9:20 -Stopped were tied in the mouth of the creek. Harry went in and vis- R bank to fill ited the five men while I held the boat. R. bank. canteens at 2:10 -We enter the mouth of Padre Canyon, R bank, M 40, spring in small poling the boat on water barely wide enough for passage. canyon. Jack After a few hundred feet, we have to leave the boat and picked up per- walk in water a few hundred feet farther to arrive at the fect flint arrow- point where the Escalante party in 1776 came down from head. the plateau, in steps hacked in the slick rock. Harry took 10:30 -Pulled my picture standing in these steps. On return down Padre into narrow Creek, we meet and visit with the 2-boat party whom we slot canyon on had seen at Kane Creek. Harry is now back up at the steps, photo: photo: Harry Aleson L bank. Rowed guiding them. It is now 3:30; haven’t seen Dick, Jack and BILL KIMBALL HOOFS IT UP THE 50 yards. Walls Dudy for 2 hours. They must be pretty well down the river 1776 ESCALANTE STEPS perpendicular, by now, or in a protected glen somewhere, waiting for us to about 750 ft. high, solid Navajo. Took picture looking out show. The wind is howling up-river, so they may have given toward river. Lunch on bar at mouth of a canyon on R up. River is still full of drift. I wonder what it looked like in bank. Indian ruins at top of talus, R bank, at mile 59.4. 1776. At 2:30, we make Rock Creek and establish camp, The Escalante party of 9 followed down what is now probably our best camp of the trip. called Padre Creek, to its mouth, then followed the R bank Men-folks leave Dudy in camp and hike up creek in the of the river downstream for a distance of 2 gunshots. In low water and out, to Moqui steps up precipitous slickrock, November water, they were able to cross with horses and which Elmer Purtymen and Dick had stumbled onto in equipment. 1950. They climbed them to the top at that time, but we We overtook the rest of our party at M37.4, where they passed them up. The steps are so badly worn from centuries had already made camp. The last 2.6 miles were the worst of aging that it is difficult to get a toe hold with shoes on - of our trip so far as wind, blowing sand and waves are con- and we are not accustomed to climbing slickrock with bare cerned. Had good camp and pulled away at 8:10 a.m. on toe holds. May 28th. While there, we heard motors on the river, and knew it Water rougher and upstream wind stronger than any we had to be Art Greene going upstream with dudes bound for have experienced. Couldn’t write en route. Passed Harry’s Forbidden Canyon, thence on a six-mile hike to Rainbow “Little Heaven” on L bank, then Cottonwood Creek (M33) Fall 2003 page thirty five on R bank, then Warm Creek on R bank at Arizona line (M28- River Medley 1/2). Passed Navajo Canyon (M25-1/2) on L bank. Diane Rapaport Filled canteens at good spring at base of talus on R bank. Passed Galloway Cave (R bank) at M17, then pulled into mouth I of Wahweap Creek, around Sentinal Rock, (so named by Major Braids of a river Powell) at 1:30. Had lunch and decided to camp. Languorously entwine We are “up the creek” about 1/8 mile in good shelter, on a Wildly spinning energies beautiful clear stream. Expect to break camp at 6 tomorrow and That separate and glide arrive Lee’s Ferry at 9:22, (according to Harry). Only 16 –1/2 Towards individual domains miles to go to meet Grummy. With one connected heart Art Greene went down river about 3:45 and recognized us. He will report to Grummy this evening that he saw us. II Caught in an eddy C.O. ‘Bill’ Kimball y So gentle, so fierce It enthralled me Held me fast in its circles No exit. One definition of madness Is doing the same thing over and over Expecting different results Trapped in habits tricky to escape.

III Disappointment and hope Swirl in the river’s reflections Intoxicating possibilities Of shadow and light Secrecy and desire Who the dreamer; who the dreamed?

IV Cloaked in opaque grays of fog Whirling, shifting, winding, dancing Direction masked and shadowed Only the river’s cadence is constant Is death or life pulling at my heart?

V What does the river sing of Love’s intricacies? Tapestries of despair and sorrow? Tu r b u l e n t ye a r n i n g s ? These skeins Weave and coil Curl and spiral Unfurling into the sea Medleys for all seasons. y

Copyright 2003 by Diane Rapaport page thirty six THE Waiting List Déjà Vu in Grand Canyon, Or, Why is My Kitchen Floating Away?

f you were boating in Grand Canyon in the early 1990s – or earlier – and were down the river this past winter, you may have experienced an eerie sense of déjà vu. As part of a set of experi- Imental flows that were implemented this year and will be again in 2004, daily releases from the dam are fluctuating from a low of 5,000 cfs to a high of 20,000 cfs to disadvantage rainbow trout, which are thought to be negatively affecting the endangered humpback chub. Confused already? Join legions of others who can't figure out what the heck is going on with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, the Interior Department program which is proud to bring you these wildly fluctuating daily flows, along with other experimental dam releases and management actions designed to improve the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon. It's almost a full-time job keeping up with what's happening. So that you can keep your day job and run the river in your spare time, I'll give you the cliff notes on the AMP and what it's doing to the canyon now. My name is Pam, and I'll be your tour guide through the acronym hell of the AMP. A quick background on the AMP… in the early 1980s the Bureau of Reclamation wanted to rewind and upgrade the generators at Glen Canyon Dam. But when they held public hearings, they got an earful about how the beaches were disap- pearing due to the high fluctuations in releases from the dam. Reclamation decided to take a look at that issue, and Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) was born. After much study and two whole Phases, GCES determined that yes, operations of the dam were having a negative impact on the downstream ecosystem. In 1989, Interior Secretary Lujan initiat- ed an Environmental Impact Statement on operations of Glen Canyon Dam. Congress weighed in with the Grand Canyon Protection Act in 1992, and directed the Secretary to "protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve" the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established, using dam operations and other authorities. The Final Environmental Impact Statement was released in 1995, recommending a flow regime known as Modified Low Fluctuating Flows, but more importantly recommending an adaptive ecosystem management program involv- ing a wide range of stakeholders. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt signed the Record of Decision on Operations of Glen Canyon Dam in 1996, and the AMP was born. The concept behind adaptive management is that the complexity of ecosystems precludes a precise determination of proper management up front, and that continued experimentation should elucidate new knowledge that informs manage- ment. In other words, we know that there are things that we don't know, so we will try to figure those things out so that we do the right things. As managers frame questions about the ecosystem, they are translated into hypotheses that can be tested. Through experimentation, new understanding of the system is revealed and is used to either validate or change current man- agement. The Glen Canyon Dam AMP has thrown another element into the mix. Where the "manager" part of adaptive manage- ment is traditionally a government agency, the GCDAMP has added a stakeholder component. Twenty-six representatives of federal agencies, the seven Colorado River basin states, tribes, state wildlife agencies, customers of power from Glen Canyon Dam, recreational interests, and environmental groups advise the Secretary of the Interior on how s/he should manage the dam. So instead of one manager, there are in essence 26 managers of the system, representing the whole spectrum of interests and values. Understandably, this group – the Adaptive Management Work Group, or AMWG – has a hard time coming to agreement. Since we are already behind in our acronym quota, let me introduce you to the other groups that are part of the AMP — the TWG, the GCMRC and the SAB. The TWG, or Technical Work Group, is the group of technical level folks from the same interests represented on the AMWG. The GCMRC, or Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, is the science arm of the adaptive management approach, which conducts the experimentation, monitoring and necessary research. Finally, Fall 2003 page thirty seven

the SAB, or Science Advisory Board, is the panel of independent scientists from other systems that review and provide advice on the science issues that confront the program. If you aren't asleep already, you are probably asking, "When is she going to tell me about my kitchen floating away?" Patience, my friends. I haven't finished the set-up yet. Remember back in 1996 when the Bureau of Reclamation did the spike flow (aka the "flood flow", the "experimental flow", or the "Beach/Habitat Building Flow" (BHBF) out of Glen Canyon Dam? They opened up the bypass tubes at the dam to send flows up to 45,000 cfs for about a week. The idea was to move sediment from the bottom of the river up onto the sides and rebuild beaches. It sort of worked, but sort of didn't. Beaches built during about the first 2-3 days of the flood, but then apparently didn't really build after that. And since Reclamation followed the experiment with several months of steady 27,000 cfs flows (runoff was high and they had to dump water)?, the new beaches didn't last very long. I mention this because it highlights the first of the two problems we are now trying to address in the AMP: sediment loss. More on this in a minute. The second problem we are trying to address in the AMP is fish. Endangered humpback chub, to be specific. We've got the only population of this fish in the lower basin residing in the Little Colorado River (LCR)? near its confluence with the main Colorado River. They are in a steady decline and approaching dangerously low numbers. We know that there are a number of factors that are causing the decline, such as cold, clear water in the mainstem and predation and competition from nonnative fish (think rainbow trout, brown trout, carp and catfish, but we're not sure how much each of the factors con- tribute to the decline.

"KITCHEN, PAM, TELL ME ABOUT MY KITCHEN ..."

year ago, with some prodding by Southwest Rivers, Grand Canyon River Guides, and Grand Canyon Trust (all repre- Asented on the AMWG), the AMWG decided it better try to do something about these two problems, sediment loss and decline of humpback chub. Back in 2000, the Grand Canyon sediment experts came to the AMP and said, "We were wrong when we thought that sediment accumulates in the bottom of the river channel. Sediment that comes in the system pretty quickly moves on out to Lake Mead, so if we want to conserve sediment that comes into Grand Canyon from tributaries, we need to take action pretty quickly after it comes in." They put forward three options to deal with this new paradigm: (1) increase dam releases during or immediately after tributary inputs of sediment to deposit them on beaches, (2) hold flows low during/after tributary inputs to reduce sediment transport until high releases from the dam can be accomplished, or (3) go to sediment augmentation. Focus needed to be on sediment inputs from the Paria, since the reach known as the Marble Canyon reach, from the Paria to the LCR, was losing sediment the quickest. However, the Paria tends to flood most frequently in the late summer or fall during the monsoons, which is exactly when flows above powerplant capacity (31,500 cfs) are not explicitly authorized. As the AMWG worked in 2001 to design part of an experimental flow package to conserve sediment, power and water interests fought tooth and nail to keep BHBFs in the late summer and fall out of the equation, even though this option had the best possibility of conserving the most sediment (which is why the conservation interests supported it). They won. The recommendation to the Secretary was that if at least 500,000 metric tons of sediment came in from the Paria between July 1 and October 31, 2002, dam releases would be reduced to a series of alternating 2-week long steady 8,000 cfs releases and 2-week long 6,500-9,000 cfs fluctuating releases (to see which would better limit transport of the sediment). If at least 1,000,000 metric tons were present in the Marble Canyon reach by October 31, the alternating low releases would continue. Then, if at least 800,000 metric tons were still in the Marble Canyon reach on January 1, 2003, there would be a 2.5 day BHBF (between about 42,000 and 45,000 cfs) to move the sediment up onto the beaches. Guess what. We didn't get the sediment input. So it isn't the BHBF that you have to worry about washing your kitchen away. But this whole scenario could happen later this year, if we get the sediment. The other side of the experiment was designed to help the humpback chub by disadvantaging rainbow trout. There are an estimated 1.25 million rainbow trout in the Grand Canyon, arguably way over carrying capacity. Their numbers appear to have been increasing downstream of Lees Ferry, which is of particular concern. Humpback chub numbers have dropped from over 8,000 adults in 1992 to somewhere between 1,100 and 2,000 in 2002. The AMWG in 2001 decided to focus experi- ments on trying to reduce the impact of nonnatives, especially trout, on humpback chub, and included two elements in this part of the experiment. One was to go in and mechanically remove trout from the mainstem of the river (continued on next page) page thirty eight THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) five miles above and four miles below the mouth of the LCR. The other was to replicate flows from the days before modified interim flows were put in place in the early 1990s, when rainbow trout appeared to do rather poorly. In combination, these two parts of the experiment were designed to take some of the pressure off of humpback chub from trout. This part of the experiment was not conditional, so it is currently in place. If all goes according to plan, starting in January, releases from the dam will go to 5,000 to 20,000 cfs daily fluctuations, and will remain in place until April 1. So if you are down in the Canyon sometime before April 1, make sure your kitchen is above the 20,000 cfs line, or it may be washed away. (There! The suspense is over!) The hope is that these flows will leave trout eggs high and dry and/or stress the young trout fingerlings below the dam so greatly that they die or are eaten. The downside of these flows is that they are likely to accelerate the erosion of beaches downstream. The GCMRC is monitoring all these potential effects, and we should have answers later this year. Starting this April 1, flows will go back to "normal" fluctuations, which are expected to be about 7,000 to 13,000 cfs until at least May. Mechanical removal has been underway as well. Two trips have gone down this winter with electroshockers and removed a total of about 6,000 rainbow trout from that nine mile stretch around the mouth of the LCR. Another trip is scheduled to go in March, with additional trips in July, August and September. Electroshocking occurs at night, and all the trout that are then euthanized are being removed from the Canyon and provided to the Hualapai Indian Tribe for use as organic fertilizer in tribal garden plots. In a related action, the National Park Service has constructed a fish weir in Bright Angel Creek near Phantom Ranch. Brown trout, which are voracious consumers of other fish, have been observed running up Bright Angel Creek to spawn. The weir has been an experiment to see how many brown trout can be caught and removed from the creek, as a measure to bene- fit humpback chub. From November 18th to January 18th, a total of 411 brown trout and 106 rainbow trout were caught at the weir, most of them in spawning condition. The brown trout were euthanized, and their stomachs were removed for analy- sis. The rainbow trout were released, since they were not authorized to be killed. With the success of this test of the weir, NPS will be doing environmental compliance on permanently operating the weir, hopefully with an authorization to remove both brown and rainbow trout. All this action to help humpback chub may not do the trick. It is highly focused on nonnative predators and competi- tors, without really tackling habitat limitations and a whole host of other potential threats. Grand Canyon Trust and Southwest Rivers have been pressing for a comprehensive research and management program for the humpback chub in Grand Canyon, and a group within the AMP is currently working on developing such a program to put before the AMWG at a special meeting on March 28th in Flagstaff. Actions being considered include the development of a comprehensive action plan, permanently implementing the weir at Bright Angel Creek, removing non-natives from other tributaries, moving some humpback chub up above Atomizer Falls on the LCR, installing and testing a temperature control device (TCD) on the dam (after completion of a risk assessment), removing some chub individuals to a hatchery for a refugia or broodstock (after com- pletion of a feasibility analysis), control of Asian tapeworm, development of a hazardous materials response plan upstream in the LCR, development of a watershed management plan for the LCR, and development of a public outreach and education program. Hopefully we can stop taking a piecemeal approach to saving the humpback chub, and put a lot of actions into place in concert. So that's the sccop on the AMP. If you want to follow what is going on with it on your own, point your browser to http://www.uc.usbr.gov/envprog/amp/index.html and check out the latest. Happy boating, and don't forget to put your kitchen above high water line! Pam Hyde, Executive Director, Southwest Rivers y

Illustration by Randell D. Babb Fall 2003 page thirty nine

Chubby Checkers Experimental Effort To Benefit Native Fish Being Expanded In Canyon

n experimental effort by the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program to benefit the endangered humpback chub in a small section of the Colorado River in the Grand A Canyon is being expanded. Humpback chub have been affected by a variety of factors such as dam operations, cold-clear water, competition and predation by non-native fishes, and diseases. Trout and other non-native fish are known to feed upon native humpback chub, which is an endan- gered species. The experiment entails removing these species of fish to give humpback chub a better chance at survival and hopefully, increased reproduction and recruitment. The area being targeted is in a portion of the Grand Canyon seldom fished by anglers, other than river rafters. The current project area is 10 miles long and approximately 60 miles downstream from Lees Ferry, which is a renowned trout fishery below Glen Canyon Dam. The proposed modification would expand the experiment seven miles downstream, to a point 12 miles below the mouth of the Little Colorado River. Survey and National Park Service. The research is being The experiment responds to specific Adaptive conducted by U.S. Geological Survey’s Grand Canyon Management Program goals that include maintaining a Monitoring and Research Center based in Flagstaff. quality rainbow trout fishery at Lees Ferry while protecting The initial portion of the experiment was conduct- and enhancing native fish populations downstream of Lees ed this year from January through March and resulted in Ferry. It also responds to National Park Service manage- removing 7,573 fish, with 6,703 of them rainbow trout. ment policies that favor native species within national There were also 130 brown trout and 135 common carp parks. The removal effort is designed to benefit native fish removed. downstream from Glen Canyon Dam without impacting The non-native fish removal experiment is part of the tail-water trout fishery. the adaptive management process. This is just one small The experiment was developed and recommended reach of river in the 277-mile Grand Canyon, but the effort to the Secretary of the Interior by the Adaptive has been more successful than originally anticipated. This Management Work Group, a Federal Advisory Committee unexpected success has led scientists to recommend down- that includes 25 stakeholders made up of Federal agencies, stream expansion of the project. If successful, the expansion State agencies, Native American Tribes and non-govern- should increase the amount of improved habitat for mental organizations, as part of the ongoing Glen Canyon humpback chub by removing predators. Dam Adaptive Management Program. It is being imple- “Now we will have to monitor to determine if mented by the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological reduced non-native numbers result in (continued on next page) page forty THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) a benefit to the humpback chub. river near the Little Colorado River. That’s why it is called adaptive management. You try some- WHY EXTEND THE EXPERIMENT thing, if it works, you can repeat or expand the process to SEVEN MILES? achieve greater results. If it doesn’t work, you move on and try something else,” said Steve Gloss, a scientist with the ncreasing the magnitude of the treatment offers the best U.S. Geological Survey. Ichance of obtaining an unambiguous experimental result. Scientists say the worst that can happen is that The extension will affect a larger portion of the area where trout and other non-native fish are removed from a small humpback chub and non-natives are believed to interact segment of river that is in the heart of a national park and and possibly result in increased survival of juvenile chub. seldom fished. The advantage of this operation is it can be Young humpback chub entering the main stem of done now, does not require any elaborate ecosystem alter- the Colorado River from the Little Colorado River (LCR) ations and there is little likelihood of encountering almost exclusively occupy habitat downstream of the LCR. unknown and unwelcome environmental surprises. They are more vulnerable to predation when they leave the warm, muddy LCR and enter the cold, clear Colorado HUMPBACK CHUB River. The cold water from Glen Canyon Dam makes it difficult for small native fish to swim, and also severely lim- he endangered humpback chub is one of eight native its their growth. Tfish species that were once abundant in the 277-miles The removal area upstream of the LCR is intended of river flowing through the Grand Canyon. The hump- as a buffer to reduce the likelihood of immigration down- back chub is a “big-river” fish that grows to 20 inches. It is stream by non-native fishes. Extending the removal down- superbly adapted to survive in the wild and turbulent stream by seven miles could potentially more than double Colorado River that had historic flows ranging from 500 to the improved habitat for young humpback chub and result 300,000 cfs. Small eyes protect it from swirling silt. in improved survivorship. Scientific monitoring data for the last ten years If the experiment is successful we expect to see indicate that HBC populations have declined. Those improved survival of humpback chub and an increase in declines have been due to a variety of factors, such as dam their population size. It could take three to four years to see operations, habitat alteration, predation and competition such an increase. with nonnative fishes, and parasites. The government agencies and groups cooperating in the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program EXPERIMENTAL ACTIONS TO HELP NATIVE FISH include the Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power AND LEES FERRY TROUT FISHERY Administration, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Arizona Game The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Program was formed in 1997 to advise the Secretary of the Navajo Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Hopi Interior on actions to improve resources in Glen and Grand Tribe, National Park Service, Hualapai Tribe, Southern canyons. Paiute Consortium, Pueblo of Zuni, Southwest Rivers, In January 2003, the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Grand Canyon Trust, Grand Canyon River Guides, Management Program began an experiment to remove non- Federation of Fly Fishers, the seven basin states of Arizona, native fish from the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, California, Nevada and (ed. note: see accompanying article “Deja Vu, Or Why Is Wyoming, the Colorado River Energy Distributors My Kitchnen Floating Away?”). Association and Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems. The experiment had two thrusts. One was releasing experimental high-fluctuating flows from the Glen Canyon Dam to disrupt the non-native trout spawn in the Grand Source: US Bureau of Reclamation Canyon and to attempt to improve growth and condition (http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envprog/amp/) y of the Lees Ferry trout fishery. The other was physically removing non-native trout near the inflow of the Little Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, some 60 miles downstream of Lees Ferry. One objective of the experiment is to reduce the number of non-native fish that prey on and compete with the federally endangered humpback chub in this reach of Fall 2003 page forty one Lake Powell and the Colorado River Water Quality Studies Continue

esearch continues involving the study of the water quality and water chemistry of the Colorado River system and the impacts from Glen Canyon Dam operation on the ecology Rand water quality of the river systems in Grand Canyon National Park. This included the interpretation of data collected from two large scale synoptic sampling studies in November 1990 and June 1991. Results of this research will assist in developing an understanding of the occurrence, distribution and chemistry of water quality constituents related to controlled and variable hydrologic discharge and impacts from tributary contributions. Studies were undertaken to establish the chemical water quality of tributaries to the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon to develop an understanding of the ecological impacts of land use in the water sheds of the tributaries. Mixing processes below confluences of these tributaries are being studied. A report on the two synoptic studies is in process. Studies continue to evaluate the occurrence, distribution and interaction of trace elements in the delta sediments in the Colorado River and San Juan River arms of the Lake Powell reservoir. These studies involve developing sampling tech- niques and statistically determining the spatial distribution of sediment trace metal contamination in Lake Powell. Results of this study will be used to evaluate the redistribution of contaminants in the reservoir. A research project is underway to study the water quality, using state-of-the-art technology, of springs and seeps on a temporal and spatial basis in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in collaboration with the National Park Service. The purpose of this study is to establish baseline concentration levels of chemical constituents in springs and seeps used as drink- ing water sources and correlate these concentrations with geological formations and land use activities (mining, cattle grazing, etc.). Results of this study will be used to establish a long term monitoring program. Source: US Geological Service (USGS) y COLORADO RIVER ECOSYSTEM SYMPOSIUM

The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program and the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center will be hosting a symposium on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. The symposium will be held in Tucson Arizona, October 28-30, 2003, and is open to all interested persons (public and students welcome!). The symposium will address ques- tions such as: Was the Low Steady Summer Flow in 2000 good for the river? How can conditions for the endangered hump- back chub be improved? Are the new flows and experimental removal of non-native fish working? What is the role of experi- mentation under the Record of Decision? Registration is free, but please register your attendance online using the website link below so organizers have enough meeting materials and light refreshments available. The program will run from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day, with a special poster session the evening of October 28th. The program and flyer are available at http://www.gcmrc.gov/symposium/2003/symposium.html The Symposium will be held at the Sheraton Tucson Hotel and Suites, 5151 E. Grant Road, Tucson, AZ 85712. For further information, con- tact Serena Mankiller, USGS/BRD, Southwest Biological Science Center, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 2255 N. Gemini Dr., Flagstaff, AZ 86001, Ph: 928/556-7094, E-mail: [email protected]

Source: RRFW Riverwire - October 6, 2003 page forty two THE Waiting List

Preparing Your Drinking Water The Virus Formerly Known As Norwalk

ou may have read about the outbreaks of the Norwalk virus (now officially known as Norovirus) last year on cruise ships, how large percentages of crews and passengers became Yill and ships were forced into early dockings. These were followed by reports of ships being scrubbed bow to stern, sent out on new voyages, and outbreaks occurring again. How the out- break was initiated and how the virus was transmitted are still questions begging answers. You may not have known that, parallel to these outbreaks, over the last two summers some outbreaks have occurred on a number of Grand Canyon river trips. Four(?) have been reported by commercial companies, which required some NPS assistance to help suffering passengers, WHY, OH WHY, DO THEY DISCHARGE other pathogen-mediated afflic- and possibly some disease was mani- tions. fested by private trips as well, though EFFLUENT INTO It is important for all none have been reported to either the THE RIVER? trips to identify activities that are susceptible to contacting or Park or the Center for Disease Control spreading disease-causing microbes. On river trips these (CDC). include, but are not limited to, toilet management, prepar- Again, how the outbreaks were initiated and how ing and consuming drinking water, and preparing and con- the virus was subsequently transmitted is still unknown, suming food. but some clues are available. Though contaminated drink- Obviously anyone involved in these activities must ing water is immediately identified as a likely vector for be strongly encouraged to wash their hands frequently and virus transmission, there are certainly other possibilities. By thoroughly. Copious amounts of lotion are needed to avoid now you may have heard that a wastewater treatment plant the subsequent drying and cracking of skin. is located in Glen Canyon Dam which treats wastewater In general, private trips probably have more flexi- from the Carl Hayden Visitor’s Facility, located adjacent to bility in dealing with possible microbial disease outbreaks the dam. The treated effluent is discharged into the river than do larger commercial trips. Because all members of a downstream from the dam. This effluent has tested positive private trip are theoretically involved in the execution of for Norovirus, or at least fragments of Norovirus, which the trip, there is a larger pool of workers available for vari- may be enough to cause the disease. Samples collected near ous tasks. If possible, it is not a bad idea to have one or two Lee’s Ferry also tested positive for Norovirus. But apparent- people designated as the trip sanitary engineers, responsible ly these virus remnants were genetically dissimilar from the for both toilet management and drinking water prepara- ones associated with the sick folks. tion. This will allow for greater consistency in sanitary prac- All of this raises some interesting questions: Is tices. Norovirus more prevalent in the population these days? Is Further, while commercial trips must ‘make water’ the virus still active after many days in cold Colorado river almost every day, private trips are typically able to plan water? Why, oh why, do they discharge effluent into the their water gathering at strategic locations and thus store river? And how does that effluent get onto those cruise drinking water for days at a time. This points to a critical ships? And more. But probably of much greater interest to strategy, that of securing the highest quality source water you river trippers, self-outfitted or commercially-supported, possible. Side streams or springs are often perceived to be of is how do we avoid getting infected? We have some prelimi- higher quality than the river, which may well be true. If nary guidance that we are offering here, but note that due you have to use the river it is suggested that you use water to the limited amount of Norovirus-specific data out there, from the center of the flow, i.e. avoid eddies, which is diffi- this has to be considered Draft Guidance only. Nonetheless, cult to do when in camp. it should not only provide peace of mind but also a fairly At a later time we will address toilet management effective approach for avoiding not only Norovirus but also practices in more depth, but for this article we will focus Fall 2003 page forty three primarily on drinking water treatment. The Draft 2. Each filter must be operated and Guidelines for treating water in the Canyon are presented maintained according to the manufacturers below. It must be emphasized that these are Draft and are specifications waiting comments from various entities prior to finaliza- 3. Disinfection tion. Some comments on these guidelines. If water is not boiled as listed above, then a chemical disinfectant is required after filtration. One of DRAFT WATER TREATMENT AND DISINFECTION the PROCEDURES FOR RIVER TRIPS ON THE COLORADO RIVER WITHIN GRAND CANYON following methods, or another method as approved NATIONAL PARK by the NPS / Public Health Program, must be used. A. Chlorine he National Park Service, Public Health Program and 1. After filtration, add enough chlorine to TGrand Canyon National Park require that all water the water to achieve at least a 0.2 to 4.0 used by commercial and private boaters within the park milligrams/liter (mg/l) or parts per boundaries for drinking water, hand-washing and food million (ppm) concentration of free chlorine. service equipment/utensil washing be treated and disinfec- 2. A water test kit must be used to determine ted. If water, intended for drinking, hand washing, or food that the correct free chlorine concentration has service equipment/utensil cleaning, is not from municipal been achieved or other approved sources, it must be treated and disinfec- 3. Allow the water to stand, unused, for at least ted using the following procedures. 30 minutes to allow the disinfection process 1. Source to work Water for drinking, hand washing, and food service B. Iodine equipment/utensil cleaning must be obtained from 1. After filtration, add enough iodine to achieve the main current of the Colorado River or any at least a 0.5 to 1.0 mg/l concentration approved side drainage. 2. A water test kit must be used to determine that the correct free iodine concentration has 2. Pretreatment been achieved A. If water is cloudy, pretreatment with a coagulant 3. Allow the water to stand, unused, for at is required. least 30 minutes to allow the disinfection B. Suggested procedure process to work. 1. Fill one or more containers with water Some comments regarding the guidelines may be 2. Add aluminum sulfate (alum) at a rate useful. Regarding the pretreatment step using alum, if the of approximately 2 teaspoons of alum per 5 gal- water is already relatively clear, this step is not needed. lons of water However, it is a good idea to carry some alum just in case 3. Stir the solution to mix you need to treat turbid water. Those suspended sediments 4. Allow to settle for at least 30 minutes or that are being flocculated out are great hideouts for bacteria until the water is visibly clear (sediment will and their ilk. The sediments also create a greater disinfec- drop to the bottom of the container) tant demand that may result in under-dosing. When mix- 5. Slowly decant the clear water into another ing in the alum it is helpful to pre-dissolve it so that you container get more effective contact. Stir the water vigorously for 3. Treatment about 30 seconds and then very slowly for a few minutes. One of the following treatment methods must be used: Regarding the treatment step, NSF Standard 53 is A. Boil water for one minute plus one relevant to this application relative to removal of cysts (e.g. additional minute for each 1,000 feet above sea giardia, cryptosporidium) and reduction of turbidity. level or Generally you can address this effectively by using filters B. Filter clear water using a filter that meets with a nominal pore size of 1 micron. Though your filter the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) may not have the NSF Seal, a 1-micron filter should do the standard 53 trick. Note that these guidelines are written very prescrip- 1. If filtration is used, guides must be trained tively because of the commercial guides and companies in the use of each filter type that they will who have somewhat tight oversight on their activities and be using compliance. Regarding the Disinfection step, this is where page forty four THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) much of the confusion and uncertainty resides, due in part to the dearth of information on Norovirus, but also to the vari- ability in chlorine effectiveness due to pH and temperature. In general, it appears that Norovirus is susceptible to disinfection by chlorine. Great! But, we have to note that chlorine effectiveness can change dramatically with pH. When chlorine (Cl2) goes into water, it dissociates or dissolves into two major species, hypochlorous acid (HOCl) and hypochlorite ion (OCl-). HOCl is much more effective as a disinfectant than OCl-, so therefore we want as much of the chlorine as possible to stay in that form. However, looking at the table below, we see that somewhere between pH 7 and 8, HOCl and OCl- reverse their dominance. pH 32o F 68oF Percentage HOCl 4 100 100 As you can see, the percentage of the much more effective HOCl declines 5 100 99.7 significantly between pH 7 and 8, which is the pH range one finds in the 6 98.2 96.8 Colorado and in many western rivers. So if you have some way to measure pH 7 83.3 75.2 (have any friends with a pool?), you can check and possibly adjust the pH of your 7.5 61.3 48.9 water. But realistically, who has that equipment and brings it on river trips? We 8 32.2 23.2 don’t. Generally, try to get the water as clear as possible, then chlorinate, let sit for 9 4.5 2.9 at least 30 minutes. If you are inclined to over-chlorinate just to be sure, it has 10 0.5 0.3 been reported that you can reduce the objectionable chlorine taste with hydrogen peroxide or even Vitamin C. Wastewater treatment plants are required to de-chlorinate their disinfected effluent prior to discharge into receiving waters. They typically do this with some type of sulfur containing compounds, but we recommend the hydrogen peroxide or Vitamin C due to their availability and objectionable tastes and odors associated with sulfur. In the meantime, we are working out a plan with the Park and outfitters to do some testing on the river to determine what dosages of chlorine, and, if needed, pH-lowering substances, will optimize treatment and disinfection of drinking water. Ideally we will do this work at various locations on the river, due to the influence on river chemistry from side drainages, using both river water and creek and spring water as sources. GCPBA will keep you updated on this via e-mail or special mailings so that it can be available in as timely a fashion as possible. y Willie Odem GCPBA NEWSWIRE - INTESTINAL ILLNESS FORCES EVA C U ATI O N - SEPT. 12, 2003

ccording to Michael McGinnis, GCNP River Sub-District Ranger, on September 9, 2003 NPS Rangers evacu- Aated 2 individuals from a commercial river trip with GI illness. The evacuation took place from just above Crystal Rapid. The illness was first reported by a passenger on this trip on 9/2/03 near river mile 30. The illness has spread through the group. At this point we have conflicting reports that anywhere from 7 to 19 people have become ill. McGinnis cautions all river runners to review and follow proper sanitation practices while on the River. River runners should also review and then follow reporting procedures when someone becomes ill.

Advertise in the Waiting List David Levine Your advertisement reaches an Associate Vice President 111 S. Tejon St. #600 audience of dedicated river runners Colorado Springs, CO 80903 and it helps to pay for our 800-359-7359 (more or less)quarterly publication. For more information contact: [email protected] Fall 2003 page forty five PRIVATE TRIP JOURNALS Bed Rocks olorado River - Grand Canyon -November 8th 2001 - Bedrock mile 130.5 - To go left is Ca route very few rafts go, and none ever go there on purpose. Bedrock the instruction in the guidebook was quite clear, it read, "go right, and if you go left hit the floor of your raft and pray." Today I rode on Ned's raft. After lunch at the Doll's House we scouted Bedrock rapid. Bedrock is a large chuck of rock in the Colorado River, the size of a house. You cannot scout to see what the river is doing to the left side of Bedrock you know that a lot of current is heading that way, and it looks ugly. The entire area behind Bedrock is obscure from vision both up and down river of Bedrock. The current wants you to go left, it pulls you to the left, and to keep to the right side of the rock it requires a dozen or so really good oar strokes. Unfortunately for us, we had an equipment failure at the wrong time, Ned's left oar popped out of the oar stand, so here we were; critical strokes were required with only one oar in the water; these critical strokes were not possible. The raft was sucked into the hole on the upstream side of Bedrock, where we had to perform the 1st of many high sides in rapid succession. You high side your raft to help prevent it from either wrapping or flipping. Ned managed to get into a strong eddy that took us up river, what seemed like at about 20 miles an hour. So here we were given another chance to get to the right side of Bedrock. The eddy fence was just too strong for Ned to break through, so back down the left side of Bedrock we go again, more highsiding. Now things get really intense as the raft went up the side on a point on Bedrock. Ned was ejected flying across the aerated water like a skipping stone, before he was sucked under, and spat out the bottom. Fortunately for Ned, another boatman, Venable, had managed to eddy his raft out at the downstream side of Bedrock. Ned swam aggressively to Venable's boat. Kate, a passenger, pulled Ned into the raft; he was a little shaken up by the swim. Meanwhile I got thrown out of the raft, and came up underneath the tube, it immediately brought back memories of a nasty swim that I had on the Matanuska River in August of this year, where I had got stuck under my raft much longer than I care to remember. This time I wasn't stuck under the raft, my head hit the raft once, then I popped out and I could breath, what a wonder- ful feeling that was, and the raft had not flipped, then sudden a surge took us both upstream. My thoughts were how do I get back into this 18 foot raft from the water, whatever I did I had to act immediately as there was a strong possibility that I could get crushed between the raft and Bedrock. Then I saw it a little niche in Bedrock that I could step onto. Both oars were floating in the water; fortunately they were tethered to the raft. The surges were great as I was holding the raft at ankle level one second, then the surges took the raft up to chest height, these surges were happening every 30 seconds or so. I man- aged to maneuver the raft into a position to get 1 of the oars into the raft. I looked up and Dave had climbed onto Bedrock from Venable's raft and had come looking for me, I yelled at him to let everyone know that I was okay. Then I had Dave climb down to the niche I was on and get into the raft and pull the other oar into the raft and put both oars into the oar stands. Dave was ready to attempt to row the raft out of there, I told him to come hold the raft as he wasn't dressed to go for a swim, I was wearing my drysuit. I got onto the raft and positioned myself to attempt to row the raft out, and then I saw Ned climbing over Bedrock, he yells at me, "You are going no f %*@*#&% where without me." Ned jumped into the raft, I yelled at Dave, "Push out on a surge". The noise behind Bedrock was so loud; it was like a 747 warming its engines up. The only way we could communi- cate was to shout and shout loud. Dave pushed the raft, my left oar immediately hit Bedrock, and you guessed it, the oar popped out of the oar stand, there just was not enough room to have both the oars in the water. The surge took us back upstream to Dave, this time he kicked the raft out. I dropped the right oar blade into the current running downstream, and held on with both hands. Now I was 100% focused on keeping the raft going down stream, and knew if I lost this angle of the blade in the water we would be sucked back upstream into the surging hole or some other unpleasant things could happen to us. The oar bent on the stand like a crossbow, I was leaning back holding the oar with every ounce of strength and concentration that I could muster. The force of the water on the oar blade pulled me out of my sitting position, I was leaning back, I could not loose the angle that I had established, I could not let the oar and the river have their way. Then all of sudden the raft moved into the current and we were flushed out from behind Bedrock and we reunited with the rest of our party. Ned did a backward summersault into the river from the bow of the boat to celebrate our success in get- ting the raft out of there intact, with the bottom side down. I did not celebrate quite as elaborately as Ned, I just sat in the raft being grateful the River Gods had only toyed with us this day and then released us after they had finished using us for entertainment. Keith Hawkings y page forty six THE Waiting List Unlikely Stories Out of the Past 100 years ago - May 23, 1903 - “Wild Man” of the Grand Canyon

any stories have been told of the “wild man” of the Grand Canyon, most regarded as ingenious inventions of imaginative travelers. But I. W. Stevens of Cedar, Colo., says the Mwild man is not a myth. On a trip into the extreme lower end of west Grand Canyon, Stevens had an encounter on the river, seeing the man on a bench of rocks. “I saw sitting on a large boulder a man with long white hair and a matted beard that reached to his knees. The crea- ture was unaware of my approach and I gazed upon him for some moments unobserved. He wore no clothing and upon his talon-like fingers were claws at least 2 inches long. A coat of gray hair nearly covered his body with a spot of dirty skins here and there.” At that time, a rock loosened by an animal came rolling down and the creature turned his face towards Stevens. “Horrors! What a face! It was seared with green eyes. With a wild whoop and a leap he was off up over rocks and cliffs like a mountain sheep for about 75 yards. Then he stopped. He was armed with a queer-shaped club, large enough to fell an ox.” The beast came toward Stevens, shrieking and chattering, when a female cougar and two cubs showed up. With the mother cougar crouched, the wild man braced himself. Stevens shot the cougar dead. “The wild man was standing over the two cubs, which also were dead,” Stevens said, “he having beaten the life out of them with his club. He stood a moment gazing on the carcasses, then got down on his hands and knees and drank the warm blood as it flowed from the death wounds. The sight sickened me.” Some guessed that according to tradition, three men had been captured years earlier by hostile Indians, bound to logs and sent down the river. It may be that the wild create is one of those unfortunate, who freed himself, escaped death and went insane. Drifter’s note: The preceding news items were taken out of the Williams News (1889-1981) and the Grand Canyon News (since 1981). The clipping which Wayne Ranney sent me reads “wild create” (not “wild creature”) in the last sentence. On the margin of the column, Wayne wrote “Williams News May, 2003” but the editors note seems to imply this publication currently goes by the title “Grand Canyon News” EXCERPT FROM “ARCHAEOLOGICAL COVERUPS” erhaps the most amazing suppression of all is the excavation of an Egyptian tomb by the Smithsonian itself in Arizona. A Plengthy front page story of the PHOENIX GAZETTE on 5 April 1909 (the Waiting List, Vol. 5 No 3, Fall 2001, pp 6-7 ), gave a highly detailed report of the discovery and excavation of a rock-cut vault by an expedition led by a Professor S.A. Jordan of the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian, however, claims to have absolutely no knowledge of the discovery or its discoverers. The World Explorers Club decided to check on this story by calling the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C., though we felt there was lit- tle chance of getting any real information. After speaking briefly to an operator, we were transferred to a Smithsonian staff archaeologist, and a woman’s voice came on the phone and identified herself. I told her that I was investigating a story from a 1909 Phoenix newspaper article about the Smithsonian Institution’s having excavated rock-cut vaults in the Grand Canyon where Egyptian artefacts had been discovered, and whether the Smithsonian Institution could give me any more information on the subject. “Well, the first thing I can tell you, before we go any further,” she said, “is that no Egyptian artefacts of any kind have ever been found in North or South America. Therefore, I can tell you that the Smithsonian Institute has never been involved in any such excavations.” She was quite helpful and polite but, in the end, knew nothing. Neither she nor any- one else with whom I spoke could find any record of the discovery or either G.E. Kinkaid and Professor S.A. Jordan. While it cannot be discounted that the entire story is an elaborate newspaper hoax, the fact that it was on the front page, named the prestigious Smithsonian Institution, and gave a highly detailed story that went on for several pages, lends a great deal to its credibility. It is hard to believe such a story could have come out of thin air. Is the Smithsonian Institution covering up an archaeological discovery of immense importance? If this story is true it would radically change the current view that there was no transoceanic contact in pre-Columbian times, and that all American Indians, on both continents, are descended from Ice Age explorers who came across the Bering Strait. (Any infor- mation on G.E. Kinkaid and Professor S.A. Jordan, or their alleged discoveries, that readers may have would be greatly Fall 2003 page forty seven appreciated.....write to Childress at the World Explorers Club ... ) Is the idea that ancient Egyptians came to the Arizona area in the ancient past so objectionable and preposterous that it must be covered up? Perhaps the Smithsonian Institution is more interested in maintaining the status quo than rocking the boat with astonishing new discoveries that overturn previously accepted academic teachings. Historian and linguist Carl Hart, editor of WORLD EXPLORER, then obtained a hiker’s map of the Grand Canyon from a bookstore in Chicago. Poring over the map, we were amazed to see that much of the area on the north side of the canyon has Egyptian names. The area around Ninety-four Mile Creek and Trinity Creek had areas (rock formations, appar- ently) with names like Tower of Set, Tower of Ra, Horus Temple, Osiris Temple, and Isis Temple. In the Haunted Canyon area were such names as the Cheops Pyramid, the Buddha Cloister, Buddha Temple, Manu Temple and Shiva Temple. Was there any relationship between these places and the alleged Egyptian discoveries in the Grand Canyon? We called a state archaeologist at the Grand Canyon, and were told that the early explorers had just liked Egyptian and Hindu names, but that it was true that this area was off limits to hikers or other visitors, “because of dangerous caves.” Indeed, this entire area with the Egyptian and Hindu place names in the Grand Canyon is a forbidden zone - no one is allowed into this large area. We could only conclude that this was the area where the vaults were located. Yet today, this area is curiously off-limits to all hik- ers and even, in large part, park personnel. I believe that the discerning reader will see that if only a small part of the “Smithsoniangate” evidence is true, then our most hallowed archaeological institution has been actively involved in suppressing evidence for advanced American cul- tures, evidence for ancient voyages of various cultures to North America, evidence for anomalistic giants and other oddball artefacts, and evidence that tends to disprove the official dogma that is now the history of North America. The Smithsonian’s Board of Regents still refuses to open its meetings to the news media or the public. If Americans were ever allowed inside the ‘nation’s attic,’ as the Smithsonian has been called, what skeletons might they find? by David Hatcher Childress (October, 1999) Grand Canyon Mystery By Harry Aleson July 19, ‘43. Monday. Second cloudy day. Sprinkles of rain. Good stiff hike upon first bench. Followed well defined ancient foot trail for miles-2 or 3 hours. This afternoon I stood quietly in the weather-wrecked remains of a fire-scarred mescal pit. Suddenly, a strange sound came, as though it might be the swish of a falling meteorite. Directly overhead, I looked. A great eagle was diving in a steep angle, his wings folded half back. He swooshed on directly toward the Colorado River. He wobbled like a plane in air pock- ets. A thousand feet lower, he passed out of sight over the rim of the Lower Granite Gorge. Wonder what he saw? A coyote set up a song up in a canyon in the Arizona Strip. Not far from the ancient mescal pit, and near the trail lay something that froze me in my tracks. A skeleton! It had been there a long time in the weather. On close observation it appeared to be com- plete. The skull, with its empty sockets and full set of good teeth, had an eerie expression. The legs, hips, vertebrae and chest were quite intact. The flesh of the legs was well shriveled, mummified. The skin of the legs and chest was tough and leathery. The body had sustained a terrible twist. Several vertebrae were pulled out off place in the small of the back. The head and chest were facing directly backward. Animals and the weather had destroyed the vitals. But near the broken back, laying in what may have been the stomach contents, a small object focused my attention. I picked up a bullet. It had been a dum-dum or hollow-nosed bullet. For no reason at all I turned and looked directly behind where I was squatting. Not forty feet away, in the broken [p.170] rock-flat lay another skeleton. It was generally in the same state of mummified preservation as the other. But one leg was gone, pulled away at the hip. Coyotes, no doubt. There were no shoes or signs of shoe leather or clothing. Where the first was dark or black haired, the second was definitely red haired. There was no bullet hole in either skull. A stump of leathery ear clung to the second skull. Only one tooth was missing, a lower, but it lay a few feet away. There were no tooth fillings, in fact, no decay, or even traces of natural wear; a sign of youth. My attention was drawn over my shoulder. And there lay another skeleton! It was on its side, in an awkward posi- tion. It was as complete as the first, with the same leathery-drum-taut skin, where not torn away by animals or birds. But the abdomen and thorax were empty. Black hair clung to the skull skin. What? Was this some sort of a battlefield? Or an ambush, without a chance to fight back? All teeth were in place, but the third skull was definitely older. In searching about outside this triangle of tragedy, no more skeletons were found. But the missing leg was found, complete, excepting flesh and skin. Protruding from beneath was a bit of metal. It was a cartridge shell, partly crushed by teeth marks. It was an RMC 31. When was this calibre cartridge manufactured? I hurried away so as to be (continued on next page) page forty eight THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) in camp by nightfall. Endnotes *These notes are from the diary of Harry Aleson, veteran river runner, made while on a Colorado upriver expedition in 1943. Mr. Aleson adds the following comment: “It would require several days to hike into this uninhabited country. Unless someone has definite information on the above tragedy, it is better to let the remains return completely to the desert.” “4,000-YEAR-OLD UFO FOUND IN GRAND CANYON! U. S. MILITARY RUSHES ALIEN STARSHIP TO SECRET BASE! INSIDE: AMAZING PROOF OF ALIEN COLONY IN AMERICA - 3,500 YEARS BEFORE COLUMBUS!

lagstaff, Ariz.1 - A team of experts called in to examine strange debris at the bottom of the Grand Canyon discovered the Fwreckage of a UFO that crashed a mind boggling 4,000 years ago! The scientists, members of a highly secret joint military task force on UFOs, inspected the spherical craft and found it to be in good condition despite its rough landing and incredible age. The relic is made of an unknown metallic substance and emits low levels of radiation, according to leaks from highly placed sources. It was immediately removed from the site and is now in a secret location. My contacts tell me this craft is definitely of extraterrestrial origin and without a doubt carried a crew of 12 to 20 individuals, said Dr. Henry Leaumont, a California based astronomer who contacted this reporter after he was shown secret air Force documents relating to the find. Carbon dating shows it crash landed at the base of the canyon around 2,000 B.C. Cabin features suggest that the crew members were much like humans, although significantly smaller. They apparent- ly breathed oxygen, guided their atom powered craft with a magnetic steering system and carried supplies of food and water on board. According to reports filed by the scientific team, the spacecraft was lodged in limestone rubble at the base of the canyon not far from an area called Comanche Point. A thorough inspection of the landing site revealed that the spacecraft’s occupants left their ship and lived near it for a number of years after it crashed. The finding proves the existence of a space alien colony on this planet nearly 3,500 years before Columbus! This impression is confirmed by Indian cave paintings made at the time, the Air Force secret documents attest. The paintings, found near the crash site, show strange humanoid creatures with bulbous heads. Experts believe these creatures were the same aliens who arrived in the ancient UFO. The secret report said all traces of alien occupation disappeared within 50 years or so of the crash date. There is no indication of what might have happened to the extraterrestrials, the documents reveal. The ship is made of an extremely light metallic fiber, Dr. Leaumont said. It measurers about 50 feet across at its widest point and it is 102 feet long. It’s an incredible find - the latest in a series of artifacts collected secretly and hidden away in government UFO study centers. There’s a lot of official concern about keeping this latest discovery a secret. They’ve been covering up the truth about

A PHOTO SAGA: SCOUTIN’ CRYSTAL Fall 2003 page forty nine alien contacts for 50 years and they’re not going to stop now. They want to study this thing, but they want it only for them- selves. Who knows what scientists might learn if they’d share this priceless find with the rest of the world?” Lisa Merakis - Weekly World News 1(From http://www.burlingtonnews.net/grandcanyon2.html) I found this one with a google search using ‘ufos “grand canyon”’ as keywords. The original version seems to have appeared in the Weekly World News, September 27, 1994, as the article highlighted on the cover under the title: “4,000-YEAR-OLD UFO FOUND IN GRAND CANYON! U. S. MILITARY RUSHES ALIEN STARSHIP TO SECRET BASE! INSIDE: AMAZING PROOF OF ALIEN COLONY IN AMERICA - 3,500 YEARS BEFORE COLUMBUS! “What Happened to Bessie Hyde? Outside Magazine, October 1985, p. 108, Scott Thybony, (section entitled ‘Parting Shot’)... Fall, 1929. Glen and Bessie Hyde have reached the heart of the Grand Canyon in record time. They are spending their honey- moon running the dangerous Colorado River, and, although inexperienced, Bessie is the first woman to make the attempt. They hike to the rim to talk to Emery Kolb, photographer and river runner, who discovers they do not have life jack- ets. He offers his own, but Glen refuses. As they prepare to return to the river, Bessie stares at the ground and says she does not want to go. Glen insists on continuing and finally picks her up and carries her onto the boat. Weeks later, their boat is found abandoned in the lower canyon. All supplies are intact, and Bessie’s diary is still on board. Also on board: a camera and a roll of exposed film, which includes photos of Bessie, Glen, and the empty boat shown above. (reference is to the lower photo in article: no doubt available from NAU) The searchers guess that Bessie had been holding the bowline when the current pulled her in, and Glen dived in to save her. But no sign of the honeymoon couple is ever found. Fall, 1971. An older woman named Liz books a 20-day rowing trip on the Colorado River, the longest available, through Grand Canyon Expeditions. Accidents plague the trip, and one evening, a boatman begins telling the story about the lost bride and groom. Liz claims she knew the couple and begins adding unusual details. George Billingsley, another boatman on the trip, wonders, how does she know all this? As her story unfolds, Liz admits, matter-of-factly, that she is Bessie Hyde. She says that Glen was a son of a bitch who often beat her. When they stopped above Diamond Creek, one of the few exits from the canyon, she insisted on being allowed to walk out. Glen refused. She then stabbed him, pushed him into the river, and let the boat loose. After hiking up, she caught a Greyhound bus heading east, where she began a new life. When she finishes her story, the others don’t know what to think. Liz tells them she isn’t worried about getting caught. Nobody would believe her anyway. Compiled by Drifter Smith y (editors note: For further reading on the Glen and Bessie Hyde story, see Brad Dimocks excellent book, Sunk Without A Sound, Fretwater Press)

CONTINUED ON PAGE 54 all all photos: Andy Hammer page fifty THE Waiting List

“... MESSING ABOUT IN BOATS ...” Saving the Canyon’s River Running Legacy n Wednesday, July 23, the Grand Canyon National Park Foundation, in collaboration with the National Park Service, embarked on an effort to save the Grand Canyon’s river Orunning legacy by conserving fifteen historic boats currently suffering from decades of benign neglect. These boats constitute the backbone of Grand Canyon’s history of river explo- ration and recreational use of the Colorado River. While experts from the National Park Service and the river running community agree on the need to protect and conserve these rare boats, funds have not been available to care for the boats properly. The “Save Our Boats - the Grand Canyon Historic Boat Project” is an estimated three-year $300,000 effort to:

* remove these boats from inadequate outdoor storage conditions, * provide a thorough cleaning of the craft, * conduct conservation treatments to stabilize and protect the boats in their used condition; and * capture the history and stories associated with their use on the Colorado River. “This project is very exciting to us,” said Joe Alston, Superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park and a river boatman. “These boats tell the story of river running on the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. The opportunity to make right the damage caused by decades of neglect, and protect these boats and their history, is incredible. We appreci- ate greatly the Foundation for initiating this effort.” “We are delighted to be in partnership with the park MEASURING THE EDITH FOR A SCALE DRAWING. on this project,” stated Deborah Tuck, President of Grand Canyon National Park Foundation. “With the help of a coalition of dedicated boatman and boat company owners, we have quickly positioned ourselves to jump-start this project, contributing energy and expertise to conserve this piece of Grand Canyon’s legacy.” On July 23, 2003, the Foundation initiated the first major step to preserve this important part of American history. In the true spirit of partnership, members of the Foundation, the National Park Service, and the river running community moved three boats from the outdoor display area at the park’s former Visitor Center, where they have been moldering from weather exposure for more than three decades, to a newly established indoor Conservation Workshop. Conservators will then clean and assess the condition of these three wooden boats, the oldest in the collection. The three boats already moved are: *The Stone Boat, 1909 - The oldest of all the boats, the Stone was part of the Julius Stone Expedition that began in Green River, Wyoming and ended two months and 1300 miles later in Needles, California. Trapper Nathaniel Galloway designed this and three other flat-bottom craft for the trip. *The Edith, 1911 - Emery and Ellsworth Kolb rowed the Edith and the Defiance on their first Canyon filming expedition. Stone furnished Galloway’s plans for these white cedar and oak-hulled boats. Fall 2003 page fifty one

*The Glen, 1923 - The U.S. Geological Survey used this oversized Galloway boat on a trip to survey possible dam sites along the Colorado River as part of the Birdseye Expedition. Emery Kolb acted as head boatman. In October, the next group of boats will be simi- larly moved indoors, cleaned and conserved. The Grand Canyon Historic Boat Conservation project also involves the creation of line and construction drawings of these watercraft. The drawings are intended to assure that information regarding the original con- struction, structure, and the present day condition of these boats is permanently maintained. The production of such drawings is an important step in the comprehen- sive process needed to ensure the long-term preservation of these historically significant boats. Another component of the project involves recording oral histories of people who have personal or professional experience, knowledge, and background about the boats and the history of river running on the Ashley Falls, Green River, Red Canyon UT, Emery Kolb in Colorado River. The National Park Service will use these boat, "Edith" running the chute in Ashley Falls 18 Sept 1911 interviews in developing interpretive display materials. Kolb Bros. The Foundation hopes to raise an estimated $300,000 to conserve all fifteen boats in the park’s collec- tion. Readers are asked to help preserve the unique legacy of river running in the Grand Canyon! By making a tax deductible donation to support this project, you play an active and important role in the steward- ship of Grand Canyon. Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association (GCPBA) joined the effort with a $500 donation to the project. After all fifteen boats are conserved, the National Park Service plans to display the watercraft for the public’s pleasure. If you wish to become involved with the “Save Our Boats - the Grand Canyon Historic Boat Project” please contact the Grand Canyon National Park Foundation at (928) 774-1760 or at www.grandcanyonfoundation.org. Source: Grand Canyon National Park y Grand Canyon National Park Foundation

Editor’s Note: Additional photographs of the Stone Boat, Edith, and Glen posted at www.nps.gov/grca/media/22jul03.htm. page fifty two THE Waiting List Hot Off the Internet David Asked~What Is Your l Holland replied: In keeping with this list’s love of vitriolic exchanges, I’d suggest the varsi- ty grump of Colorado authorities: Robert Brewster Stanton, Colorado River Controversies, ed. AJames M. Chalfant (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1932; reprint with commen- taries by Otis R. Marston and Martin J. Anderson, Boulder City, Nevada: Westwater Books, 1982), followed by: Eilean Adams, Hell or High Water: James White’s Disputed Passage through Grand Canyon, 1867 (Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 2001), which does a mighty good job of keep- it off to get printed. ing grumps at a minimum while rototilling Best fiction: Requiem for a River Rat by Neal Ekker, a glimpse of what it would have been like if we’d been less Stanton and a few other would be historians. sober and responsible, back in the ‘good ‘ole daze . Favorite Drifter Smith wrote: It’s hard to have a single favorite, river poem: Whang Leather - which alone is worth the price when you’ve got a couple shelves full. But if anyone needs of the book, if you can find a copy. some help, here’s the standard reference index to the litera- Best (unintended) humor: Canyon by Michael P. ture of the Grand Canyon... Ghiglieri. Read it around the campfire at night. Don’t laugh so hard you fall in the fire. Sample laugh (from front http://www.grandcanyonbiblio.org/search/ cover): The ultimate book on whitewater rafting in Grand ... whatever your interest, you’ll find more than you Canyon! Don’t hurt yourself. dreamed existed in there. Suggested antidote to Canyon : BREAKING INTO Downcanyon (Zwinger) and River Runners of Grand THE CURRENT Boatwomen of the Grand Canyon by Canyon (Lavender) might have been good books if they’d Louise Teal The most sensitive exploration I can point to of been based on original materials rather than rehashed sec- why people boat the canyon, which is only incidental to ond hand accounts; as it is, they demonstrate what you get her topic. I’m in the chapter on male chauvinist pigs... when you don’t bother to get your facts checked by some- Disclaimer: I’ve known Louise nearly half of my life, and one actually familiar with the material...good idea, bad real- I’m looking forward to our next trip together, whenever ization. that is, Inshalla! My all time river history favorite: Sunk Without A I choked on Patch’s River Runner Recipes so badly I Sound by Brad Dimmock. I suspect that Dimmock knows never tried CANYON SOLITUDE, A Woman’s Solo River more about Grand Canyon river running history than any- Journey Through Grand Canyon by Patricia C. McCairen one else alive today. He’s a better historian than Powell, The only time we did a trip together, she left the menu Dellenbaugh, and Marston put together. I’m tempted to planning up to a couple of us to work out (and shop) on throw in Darrah, Stegner and Worster as well, even though the way to the ferry. We never did manage to find an appe- Brad and I still disagree on a few things. I’d be happy to tizing application for the case of Mackerel she’d bought. defend the proposition that he knows more about boating Everybody noticed how she always had to go meditate in the Grand Canyon than I and the rest of you put when it was time to prepare meals. No doubt that explains together. Who else has run 40’ motor rigs, rubber rafts, the quality of the Recipes in her book...and perhaps Whitehalls, kayaks, dories, a scow, and the Julius ? (I prob- explains why nobody would go with her next time. ably left out something...sorry!) Coming soon from Brad Bob Webb’s Grand Canyon: A Century of Change also is (Fretwater Press): the original journals from Kolbs, an absolute necessity. H.G. Wells ( The Time Machine ) Holmstrom, and Nevilles. would be envious...Bob’s got the real thing. Nomination for worst attempt at river history: The Gotta mention: Dan Cassidy and 5 Quail Books. If Great Unknown by John Cooley. A literate high school stu- you need it, he’s probably got it. If not, he’ll eventually get dent with access to a xerox machine and a pair of scissors it. He also sells NEW BOOKS on the canyon Drifter probably would have done better. If you are going to write Two books that I (re)read almost every year on an history, you need to READ what you write before you send Fall 2003 page fifty three

Favorite GC Book? extended trip are Desert Solitaire by Ed Abbey Desert Notes Canyon by Louise Teal WOMAN OF THE RIVER Georgie and River Notes by Barry Lopez While they are not about White Clark White-Water Pioneer By Richard E. the GC per se, they are both evocative of the landscape. Westwood. Also THERE’S THIS RIVER Grand Canyon Chris Boatman Stories, edited by Christa Sadler And for real adventure and laughs WE SWAM THE The Colorado River through the Grand Canyon, Carothers GRAND CANYON, The True Story of a Cheap Vacation and Brown, Grand Canyon Geology—almost only of interest That Got a Little Out of Hand by Bill Beer BUT for my to a geologist geek like myself Quest for the Pillar of Gold, MOST favorite reading about GC it’s my own journal of a Billingsley River Runners of the Grand Canyon, Lavender 16 day trip from Lees to Pearce in July/Aug of 1997. My Downriver, Zwinger, The Colorado River in very first night camping from a the Grand Canyon, Larry Stevens. In keeping with this list’s love raft was at mile 16. This was a trip Ron R of vitriolic exchanges, I’d of a lifetime. An unique trip, as it I forgot to mention another favorite, suggest the varsity grump of was a private trip consisting of one Colin Fletcher’s book The Man Who Colorado authorities: Robert 17’ cataraft and two people, a man Walked Through Time . An account of a age 53 and a woman (me) age 56. solo hike from Havasu Canyon, across the Brewster Stanton, Colorado Jeanette Tonto Plateau, and then up and out River Controversies ... I really enjoyed and learned from Nankoweap to the North rim, made in West of the Hundredth Meridian, if 1963. I think it was Nankoweap. I recall the title correctly, by Wallace Stegner. I lent it years Robyn ago, and haven’t seen it since. It’s about Powell and his Bob Marley contributed: Start and end points are correct. explorations. Tom R (see above note, ed.) Actually much of his (Fletcher’s) Writing Down the River by Kathleen Ryan is one of my lengthy hike was on the Esplanade (the top of the Supai), favorites. Ron S then the Tonto Trail, and lastly along the river to Nankoweap from Hance Rapid. Best book written by Grand Canyon Wildflowers by Art and Barbara Phillips someone who has done a long walking trip in Grand (I think). Subject self explanatory... Robyn Canyon. He later did one called River I believe that is a more boating oriented read (a trip he did from the source Canyon by (probably going to misspell this:) Michael of the Green to the Gulf I think, post dam of course). Gigulioti (??) (ed. note Ghiglieri) ... I recommend it because His accomplishment is not that novel any more as it has some GREAT descriptions of what’s going on with at least one person has walked down one side of the river the geology that you see in the canyon. from Lees to the Grand Wash cliffs and returned on the We read the section leading up to Lava as we floated other side in one trip. Cree and I walked from Diamond to the canyon above the rapid. The person who was rowing at Lee’s in 1980 (the trip most rafters do in reverse, see the time, who was going to be rowing Lava (but had never http://www.kwagunt.net/gctrek/gctrek1.html ). seen it yet) finally begged us to put the book away until Kenton Grua was the first to walk from Jackass to the after the rapid, because the chapter had so much impend- Grand Wash cliffs and that was written up in the New York ing doom written into it (building the suspense in the Times weekend magazine of the time. However none of us story of running the rapid). were able to verbalize the adventure as well as Fletcher did The description of the Toroweap fault system, how with his much shorter hike (his 100 river miles vs 225 and why the Lava dams had occurred, the number of flows Diamond to Lees or 285 river miles Lees to Grand Wash that had blocked the canyon and had been broken down— Cliffs by more recent folks). Bob Marley all great descriptive writing. And really gave a bunch of non-geologists a greater appreciation of what we were CANYON SOLITUDE A Woman’s Solo River Journey looking at. Through Grand Canyon by Patricia C. McCairen BREAK- After reading that, stop at Whitmore Wash and either ING INTO THE CURRENT, Boatwomen of the Grand hike up the wash or hike up to the bench above the lava page fifty four THE Waiting List

(continued from preceding page) flows (downstream of the wash on river right). You can see Here’s a book some of you might find fascinating. the different layers denoting the different lava flows, and Down the Great Unknown, by Edward Dolnick. I found this the sight of the upper wash drainage slicing though the lava book incredibly interesting because it takes three journals flows is incredible. Chris from three different participants from the original Powell trip. There is Powell, Sumner,and Bradley. We Swam the Grand Canyon by Daggett and Beer. great The author gives three views on each day. One adventure, big font, plenty of pix, a good fast read, can be epiphany Bradley has on the trip is questioning the bible read by many on one trip. Enjoy! Smooth and Genesis through geology. Donnie Dove Well, everyone It would be really great if Two places to go to satisfy the yen to know: someone compiled all of the already answered all I ‘Great Books;’ to read on the www.grandcanyonbooks.com/ was going to say, about gcpba website .. . So it is not www.grandcanyonbiblio.org/search/ Earle Spamer’s bibliogra- smattering of info . . . and per- phy and RIVER being haps someone has that idea all ready and I missed it. . . . or down the Green. you could inveigle me to do it. Maury I remember reading RIVER and at one point he starts reminiscing about his service in WW II in Italy and stops ... my favorite GC book is Breaking Into the Current by talking about where he was on the river, to my dismay Louise Teal. Mostly because you don’t read much about although the war memories were interesting. (The very best women on the river. Lori book on the Green, by the way, my own included, is Ann Zwinger’s RUN, RIVER, RUN, which is one I always carry The Complete Walker was a seminal book for me. I with me, have transcribed long quotes into my river guides, found a first edition back when I was 9 or 10 years old in and still go back to for inspiration. It is all her first hand the library and between that book and Ed Garvey’s experiences and so avoids the problem that Drifter men- Appalachian Hiker , they set me on a path towards the out- tioned for DOWNCANYON, of being second-hand.) Like doors at an early age. So if you can blame them for me others have said, THE COMPLETE WALKER was a great eventually getting into river running and thence to Grand inspiration for me, when he wrote in the beginning about Canyon river politics for being such a pain in the ass to standing at some viewpoint and seeing happy, scratched you all here. Funny how stuff like that works. Books are people come out of trail and vowing that he would always the most wondrous things... you never know where a book be the one coming out, not the one looking in. I likewise will lead you when you pick it up. loved THE MAN WHO WALKED THROUGH TIME, and Warren use one part to justify my laziness in not carrying a camera, where he talks about at one point his camera getting bro-

OUR CRYSTAL PHOTO SAGA CONCLUDES

photos: Andy Hammer Fall 2003 page fifty five ken so that he had to wait for a replacement to be brought in: Freed from the tryanny of the camera, I found myself stopping, and staring... or something like 2003 GCPBA Annual Meeting that. But his THE MAN FROM THE CAVE I almost November 2, 2003 dropped before I finished it; who cares?, I kept asking myself. Salt Lake City, Utah As is usual, I agree with much of what Drifter says, GCPBA ANNUAL MEETING especially in the field of books. I liked Lavender’s RIVER RUNNERS OF THE GRAND CANYON but it was Saturday Night -No Host Party With the Board obviously written right out of Marston’s collection at the 7 PM Squatter’s Brew Pub 147 W 300 South Huntington, and reflect’s the latter’s prejudices. Sunday - 1:00 PM Introductions, Election Results & I feel the same as Drifter does about Ghiglieri’s Meet the GCPBA Board. CANYON; for a special laugh, read the whole section 1:00 PM Program: “What A Long, Fun Trip It’s Been!!!” about the Powell Steps, somewhere above Lava, wherein (hum along with GCPBA and The Grateful Dead) he postulates that Powell’s men moved 200 pound rocks to make steps so they wouldn’t have to walk in the mud. HAVING A GREAT PRIVATE GC TRIP Starving men, who had been living outdoors for months 1. Richard Martin – negotiating without getting in by that time, squeamish about stepping in mud. Right. weeds – how to talk with other trips about I’ve never written specifically on the Grand Canyon; camps, hiking, etc. my book on Bus Hatch contains a chapter on the 1934 2. Willie Odem – water purification Dusty Dozen trip, and a bunch of the photos in CALL 3. Leave no Trace – how to leave the Canyon better OF THE COLORADO were taken in the Grand, but my than you found it! own works have always concentrated on the Green, Yampa, et al, my home river. Where: Main Salt Lake City Library Roy Webb Auditorium 210 East 400 South Nice discussion, better than calling each other Salt Lake City, Utah Running Dog Lackeys of the Imperialist Roaders ... When: November 2, 2003 MY Favorite Grand Canyon Book: River to Rim, 1:00 PM Place Names of the Grand Canyon, by Nancy Brian. Ktch Srmbt More Info: Dave Knutson, 801-521-5751 Hey y’all~ Come On Down! Collected from: [email protected] y page fifty six THE Waiting List Lobsters Bit MyToes

t was late on a crystal summer afternoon as we floated down the Rio Grande’s easy curves. Earlier that day the five of us had made what may have been the last possible uncontested Ilaunch in Española. Nowadays it seems like the Pueblos have closed the river, at least that’s their story. We had drifted past Black Mesa, that place where in my youth I had experienced great spiritual awakenings as I looked down upon the land my father had grown to love. The Rio spun quietly but insistently through the bosque and swept away the incoming flow of the Rio Tesuque. We played for a while in the Tesuque, mildly nervous that our children, ages 6, 4 and 2, would get hepatitis from the water that drained through three pueblos on its way from the source in the holy mountains to the east. We were also a bit worried that we would be caught trespassing the way we were. Happily, there were no people in Pueblo trucks. There weren’t even kids with .22s doing what comes natu- rally. There were only we parents, our kids, the boats, and the river. We had our old 12-foot black market Air Force raft and a much-used inflatable kayak. When I rowed the raft away from the Tesuque, we tied the IK to the rear as a trailer so the kids could have some time alone and get the feel of independent boating without all the risk that attends true independence. Once in a while we would let Charles, the eldest, paddle by himself. It was good to let a boy his age have his own boat. In fact, it was essential in the drama that played itself out in another story for anoth- er campfire – he saved my life just a month later. But for this afternoon, it was Sara’s turn to trail her hand in the river over the balloon edge of her floating playpen. She could drool and prattle and splash and whine all she wanted without disturbing the rest of us very much and still feel like she had the power to torment if she chose. She chose. With the sly grin that experienced par- ents recognize as a statement of autonomy, Sara slipped Illustration: Petey Priedhorsky quietly over the side and out into the warm water. Marilyn’s grip strengthened on Ben’s leash and I stroked away about 12 feet. Sara was in the calm pool before a riffle, the kind of pool where, as the boat drifts over the rocks and the rocks seem much closer and appear to be moving much faster upstream than they are and the fish become alarmed at your presence and dash into shadowy safety upstream, dark forces lurk She looked so cute in her little red Type-V life jacket with the crotch straps. Her body was spinning in slow circles driven by the gentle motion of her hands: she was learning to row. My boat was losing ground to her because I had left her off in the thalweg and I was in slower current. The twelve feet had become twenty. Her legs hung down and scared the fish. The rocks weren’t afraid and sped closer and closer. That is, they “sped” at about one-half foot per second. AAAAAIAIIIIAAAAAAAAEEEEEAAAHHH! She screamed. Fall 2003 page fifty seven

Oh, God, not again! Sara’s throwing one of her fits because she got cold or something. AAOOOOHHHHEEEEAAAAAIIIIIWEEEEEEEEaaaaAAA!! She took off again. OK, well maybe this is something to consider. Maybe she got cramps or a bee sting. Better row over closer and have a look. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Lobsters Are Biting My Toes!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Oh. So that’s it. In the next few milliseconds I reasoned, “There are no lobsters here although she doesn’t know that. It’s the closest thing she can imagine to explain the tippy-taps on her shoes. She has her shoes on, as the family rules require for river swims, so her toes aren’t in danger. The water is getting shallower as it always does in this river situation, so the “lobsters” must really be smooth rocks. Now doesn’t that seem like the sweetest thing of all! I could say ‘Ah, isn’t that cute? Ha ha!’ but it would hurt her feelings and frighten her even more. I hate embarrassing kids. I remember when my Dad misled me and I was hurt because of it. Not that Dad is a bad guy, far from it. Anyway, what can I do to save her without a big panic?” In one of those rare moments when wisdom triumphs over reaction I shouted loudly enough for Sara to hear, “Charles! Jump in the river and go save your sister!” And then I whispered … Psst!!!! Charles, they aren’t lobsters. It’s the river bottom. Sara calmed down. Charles got into his hero mode. The parents stayed dry. Sara didn’t have to deal right away with being wrong about large-clawed crustaceans in the river. The parents didn’t appear to be the cause or the cure of the problem. It was a perfect rescue. Charles swam over and had her lift her feet and float on her back facing downstream: another river safety lesson learned without parental interference. We reunited, warmed up, and rejoiced in the narrow escape from the lobsters.

© David Yeamans, 2002 Illustration © Petey Priedhorsky, 2003 y

Custom Raft Frames ~ Raft Specific Trailers Marshall’s boater built frames are made from 6061 T-6 Aluminum using Speedrail free construction. The strongest and lightest river frames available - withstanding hitting the pavement at 75 MPH! Our Custom Raft trailers feature 3500 LB axles, with tie downs where you need them and no sharp edges to hurt your boat. Winches and such? No problem. Fabricated to meet YOUR needs Custom doesn't have to cost more — Don't settle for less! Marshall Welding and Fabrication Salida, CO 81201 - 719-539-4417 page fifty eight THE Waiting List

CRITTERS IN THE CANYON Chuckwallas & Gila Monsters

he chuckwalla found in the Grand Canyon is Sauromalus obesus obesus, the western chuckwalla. This large lizard ranges in size from 5.5 to 8 inches in length and is a speckled Tgrayish color (adults). Chuckwallas are wide-bodied (flat oblonge-shaped) with lose folds of skin primarily on the sides and neck. The young are an orangeish color with black bands. Chuckwallas are often seen on a rock, ledge, or rock wall in the sun. Yet, when disturbed, they will wedge themselves in crevices and inflate themselves (as to not be pulled out). I have THE BANDED GILA MONSTER IS FOUND, been told that the Native Americans used a BUT RARE, IN THE WESTERN AREA OF spear to 'pop' the inflated, wedged chuck- THE GRAND CANYON,FROM AROUND 209 walla and would eat them. MILE/GRANITE PARK DOWNSTREAM. They are herbivores and are distributed throughout the canyon. They can frequently be seen at some of the popular spots in the canyon, such as the mouth of the Little Colorado River, Deer Creek (down by the tie up, the mailbox, in the narrows, and patio area), around Tapeats (racetrack camp), Stone Creek, and the Ledges camp. From June to 'potentially' August, a clutch of 5 to 16 eggs are laid (Stebbins, 1985, Peterson Field Guides: Western Reptiles and Amphibians). There is another subspecies of the chuckwalla in the area, the Glen Canyon chuckwalla (Sauromalus obesus multiforinatus). This subspecies is found from Page, Arizona to near Hite and in the Henry Mountains, Utah. This adult of this subspecies has bands on the tail: 5-6 dark bands with 4-5 light bands, Photo by Paul Perrett usually ending with a dark band. GILA MONSTER ila monsters (Heloderma suspectum) are found in the Sonoran Desert area of southern Utah and Nevada, through Arizona Gand New Mexico into northern Mexico. There are two subspecies that inhabit Arizona: the banded Gila monster (Heloderm suspectum cinctum) and the reticulated Gila monster (Heloderm suspectum suspectum). The banded Gila monster is found, but rare, in the western area of the Grand Canyon,from around 209 mile/Granite Park downstream. The banded Gila monster is in fact banded. They have black bands with spots on an orangeish, pinkish, or yellowish body. However, the tail is mostly lacking the spots within the bands. They also have a black mask on their face. They have a stout, rounded body with a big head and thick round tail, and their skin is bead-like on the upper surface. The Gila monster is the only venomous and is the largest lizard in the United States. Adults may be up to 22 inches in length, yet usually are less than 20 inches. Many large healthy males, less than 20 inches in length, may weigh just a little over one pound (18 inches=1.2 to 1.4 pounds). However, large adults in the field after a good feeding and large obese captive Gila monsters may weigh over two pounds. Gila monsters are diurnal and are seasonally out feeding from March through June in northwestern Arizona. They are long-lived reptiles that return to the same den (cold season) site year after year. They may be seen basking in the sun in the winter from a few minutes to up to 5 hours. They are considered carnivore specialists preying on newborn and nestling rodents, rabbits and hares. When the opportunity arises, Gila monsters will prey on birds and lizards, along with eggs of birds, Fall 2003 page fifty nine lizards, snakes, turtles, and tortoises. As mentioned they are venomous, yet rather sedentary. As mentioned by Lowe et al. (1989, The Venomous Reptiles of Arizona, Arizona Game and Fish Dept, Phoenix), Gila monsters are 'shy, slow-walking, inoffensive creatures' that 'mind their own business, which is more than can be said for the people who abuse them.' The Gila monster's venom is located within the teeth. When bitten, usually from handling the reptile, the Gila monster will clamp its jaw shut on the subject and then begin to grind its teeth and secrete the venom. The most important thing to do if bitten is to, as soon as possible, pry the jaws of the reptile off the 'victim.’ However, Lowe et al.(1989) also refer to two types of bites, a 'minor' when the reptile bites yet is flung off before the grip was fastened, and the 'major' when the jaw need to be pried off the 'victim'. Lowe et al. (1989) also mention that the bites incidences are not 'relatively rare' in Arizona, and that most occur by a person handling the reptiles (they refer it to those as 'illegitimate' bites). Only a few bites have been fatal in the last century, and most of these were 'complicated by alcohol, drugs, and/or poor health.' This seems similar, yet not quite the same, to rattlesnake bites. Gila monsters are not as defensive or 'aggressive' as rattlesnakes are considered to be, yet, they will fight back if provoked, just like the rattlesnake or any other animal. Nikolle L. Brown y

CONCESSIONAIRE REVENUE REPORT Company User Days Gross Receipts Franchise Fees*

2002 2001 2000 1994 2002 2001 2000 1994 Aramark Leisure Svcs 9,456 2,132,894 2,301,419 2,299,613 1,654,225 188,015 107,665 118791 81,619 Arizona Raft Adventures 10,368 2,253,254 2,142,779 2,097,325 1,728,515 205,567 192,760 113,048 47,865 Arizona River Runners 10,400 3,266,688 3,206,835 3,242,798 2,194,779 332,003 324,820 209,424 131,687 Canyoneers 4,403 1,276,199 1,246,089 1,164,447 965,599 80,137 76,465 35,519 52,685 Canyon Expeditions 2,960 723,556 634,846 650,855 574,948 34,457 27,346 10,305 7,857 Canyon Explorations 4,063 914,188 888,574 777,716 658,590 44,357 46,171 14,237 12,892 Colorado River & Trail 2,848 678,674 604,276 602,765 493,306 34,294 28,342 10,138 26,275 Diamond River Adventures 7,203 1,612,824 1,694,980 1,591,688 981,962 104,508 131,088 70,534 53,026 Grand Canyon Expeditions 13,967 3,026,879 2,923,130 2,801,731 2,424,860 303,225 290,776 174,139 141,193 Hatch River Expeditions 11,027 2,139,260 2,073,648 2,033,111 1,406,145 157,238 150,351 88,225 71,304 High Desert Adventures 3,323 841,074 670,421 773,692 488,160 38,764 26,902 13,455 20,414 Moki Mac River Expeditions 3,693 850,661 773,782 825,573 544,680 39,992 33,258 15,459 16,180 OARS 7,355 1,999,942 1,859,688 1,918,125 889,048 167,584 156,134 99,959 19,177 Outdoors Unlimited 4,821 1,240,697 1,285,967 1,161,626 498,320 82,380 87,674 46,962 10,282 Tour West 4,823 1,074.928 928,156 926,586 967,804 57,584 50,929 23,711 41,146 Western River Expeditions 14,001 5,606,724 5,638,212 5,280,530 4,313,518 556,885 565,884 337,306 206,059 $TOTALS 27,505,548 28,872,802 28,148,181 20,784,459 2,238,975 2,296,565 1,381,212 941,334 (*2000, 01 and 02 *Colorado River Fund fees applied to total franchise fees 2,251,591 2,365,398 2,306,163) $ Change -1,367,254 +724,621 +7,363,722 -113,807 +59,235 +1,364,829 %Change -.05% +.03% +35%** -.05% +.03% +24%** **growth in gross receipts and franchise fees in these columns represent a six year time span Data Courtesy of River Runners For Wilderness, GCNP and GCPBA page sixty THE Waiting List

Matters of Opinion ~ Dave Yeamans Commentary GRAND CANYON RIVER GUIDES “PREZ BLURB” REVISITED

ichael Ghiglieri’s “prez blurb”” from the Boatman’s Quarterly Review, Fall 2003, requires some comment. First, because agreement is usually more productive than dis- Mcord, 1) new companies can challenge the sixteen commercial outfitters who have exclusive rights to the “relative gold mine ” – agree, 2) private boaters have to wait over ten years for maturation of their place in line to hold a permit – agree, 3) there should be an accounting of NPS resource and science trips – agree, and in fact it is required by the settlement the NPS signed to the lawsuit that re-started the CRMP process. But I disagree first with his assertion that guides are the unique guardians of the quality of the Grand Canyon expe- rience. As an eleven-year guide and a forty-two-year boater I never thought that I was responsible for anybody’s experience but my own. Of course I used every tool at my disposal to help my passengers, other passengers, and all the other Canyon users have a safe and meaningful experience, but each individual is the guardian of his own experiences. I found out that the more different rivers, different boats, and different kinds of customers I dealt with, the more I enjoyed my own trips and the more positively I influenced others. I found out that “the experience” is far grander than Grand Canyon. Merely because I am a guide, I am a unique guardian of the most-holy-experience? This is narrow, childish, arrogant, and narcissistic. At least some of us guides are private boaters. I was one for five years before becoming a guide and for 26 years afterward. As a “guide into the lost canyons of joy within the human spirit,” (sic!) I’m irritated to be smeared: all private boaters are drinkers, comparers of apples and oranges, insincere speculators in trip permits, and data haters. How can I be a GUIDE and still be the implied scum bag?! I’m the more irritated in that I co-authored and edited the Grand Canyon Private Boaters Association 50/50 sharing of recreational allocation proposal, which enumerated all the good points that Dr. Ghiglieri now takes credit for. As an example, take the point of data collection. The Plan (found at www.gcpba.org) calls for using a web-based interface to allow NPS to collect data that would help inform future decisions. This requirement is based on the 1998 NPS guiding principles requiring that scientific data be used in making future decisions about allocation. All of us hope that NPS is abiding by its own rules, and the long awaited “gateway” concept for collecting information will be used. Point two – Michael attests that no allocation exists for science/resource monitoring trips. It probably won’t because the NPS has been reluctant to let us Philistines suggest ways of improving their operations. But in lieu of an allocation, the resource trips’ information should be posted on the web. I would like to see trip purpose and roster (complete with function of each person including guides and friends), itinerary, outfitting details, and proposed titles of papers to be published based on the trip’s activities. Among other things, this should help the public view their government as more participatory and less cliquish. Not incidentally, it will provide some real perspective on how much administrative use there is relative to commer- cial passenger, to guide, and to non-commercial use. Beyond points he harvested from others, and assertions a good editor might have toned down a little, there are some false statements offered by the good Doctor that need to be noticed. It takes only the most superficial inspection to show that repeat users of the canyon do not lengthen the wait for any person on the waiting list. While the ““blurb”” didn’t actual- ly make the opposite point, it isn’t far from it with the assertion that a person who hasn’t gone down the Canyon yet is more deserving than one who has. Any guide who believes that, should quit his job or, at least, refuse to take repeat passengers. If there is value in a guide being experienced, then there is also value in a private trip participant being experienced. If not, then is the ““blurb”” suggesting that real practicing guides should be hired on private trips because only we true guides with “far superior knowledge” and “greatest positive effects” should be allowed to rule in lordly beneficence (‘baby sit’ were the actual words) over the newcomers? Or does the ““blurb”” hypocritically suggest that, for guides, repeat use is the pathway to far superior knowledge and a Saint Peter position at the Canyon Gates, but for private boaters repeat use leads to perdition, torture, and scorched earth? Fall 2003 page sixty one

The ““blurb”” also implies that private boaters, like many of us guides would like to be when we aren’t working, are adept at “playing the system” to get ourselves on more than one trip per year. There is no skill or guile required to schedule oneself on several trips a year. It is allowed and it is easy. Obviously there are wait listers who seek my and other retired guides’ experience on their trips. Is it somehow contemptible for them to want access to this body of experience, but com- mendable in commercial passengers? Should science and park staff be required to preserve their moral purity, by forbidding them the use of experienced boatmen? About 13% of non-commercial use is repeat use; if you eliminated it completely and if you made the assumption that these boaters were even on the list (of course, after the first time repeaters are off) that would still shorten the wait by 1/8 – between 1.5 and 3 years, depending on whether you look at this year’s cohort of wait- ers, or those whose number is in the 7000 range. Ghiglieri opines that people who cancel private launch dates represent wholesale irresponsibility. Take a moment right now and predict whether in your own life, complete with spouse, children, health, finances, ambition, political struc- ture, friends, career, and skill with camera or gun, you can take an African safari 10 to 20 years from now. If you’ve been honest, you probably answered, “no, I can’t predict that.” But you had better sign up now or your chance of going is zero. Would it be irresponsible to sign up now and regretfully cancel later? Not in my book. I agree with the prez that we need to “sit at the table and hammer it out.” Private boaters have been trying to do this for decades. We are glad to welcome GCRG to the party.

©David Yeamans y

FROM LEE BENNION’’S CANYON SKETCHBOOK— OLO DATURA page sixty two THE Waiting List EVERYTHING BAG

800-421-7007 www.toughriverstuff.com

page sixty four THE Waiting List Fall 2003 Show Us Your Boats NPS NPS photo: Leding

Emery Kolb and his daughter Edith pose with the Edith, one of two boats used on the Kolb’s 1911 Colorado River expedition. this photo was taken when the Edith was moved to the NPS Visitor Center courtyard, May 1959.

Grand Canyon PRESORTED Private Boaters US POSTAGE PAID Association JEROME, AZ Box 2133, Flagstaff, Az 86003-2133 PERMIT #4