Greetings fellow members Fall/Winter 2024 Newsletter
The GCPBA Board met with Grand Canyon National Park Superintendent Ed Keable and Steve Sullivan, chief of the Permits Office in Flagstaff on September 28, 2024. We discussed the following topics with Ed and Steve – some are a continuation of topics mentioned in the June 2024 newsletter.
Navajo Docks: We confirmed with the Corps of Engineers that the Navajo Nation’s permit to construct docks immediately downstream of Lees Ferry has lapsed. The Navajo have not asked for an extension. As you know, GCPBA has been greatly concerned that construction of docks could result in another Quartermaster at the Park’s East end. Ed mentioned that the Park is in consultation with the Navajo to explore other options of economic development. No details were provided.
Waitlist: For those on the waitlist, make sure the Permits Office has your current email address. Steve said that they have a number of people who have bubbled up to the top and cannot be reached due to out-of-date contact info.
Revocation of Permit: To recap from the June 2024 newsletter; back in June of 2023, a private permit was pulled at the time of launch. Citations were issued to a number of individuals for not sharing costs, i.e. the trip was deemed a pirate trip. The permit holder asked GCPBA for assistance 6 months later. A comprehensive investigation by GCPBA found that it was not a pirate trip.
We reported our findings to Ed and Steve and asked that the permit be reissued. A few weeks after our meeting, Ed informed GCPBA that the permit had been reissued. The permit holder now has the choice of any future date. This incident segues to the next item of discussion.
Cost Sharing: Board members explained to Ed and Steve that not sharing costs, whether partially or equally, does not equate to a trip being a pirate trip. We gave examples of families with children taking a trip and parents footing the bill; or, some participants renting boats and others bringing their own. GCPBA’s view is for private trips to figure out how to work the finances between participants – there are all sorts of permutations of how this done and should not be regulated.
Prior to the meeting, GCPBA had requested that Paragraph B on page 2 of the regulations, under section ”Definition of a Noncommercial Trip”, be deleted. The Park has agreed to strike this paragraph. Paragraphs A and C more than adequately state the prohibition of receiving compensation for guiding trips.
Additionally, per the Park’s request, GCPBA recommended other minor changes to this section. We also requested a change in 36 CFR 7.4. (3) iii. Striking the italicized sentence below would be in concert with this section’s other revisions. “An operation is commercial if any fee, charge or other compensation is collected for conducting, leading, guiding, or outfitting a river trip. A river trip is not commercial if there is a bona fide sharing of actual expenses.”
Abandoning Equipment GCPBA was asked to provide legal counsel concerning an incident where the permit holder was fined for “abandoning” one of their rental rafts. The citation referenced 36 CFR 2.22 (1,2), which states that you cannot leave personal property unattended for more than 24 hours.
Due to a series of unfortunate incidents, involving an evacuation, the group was forced to leave one raft behind because they lacked skilled rowers. The boat, entirely operable, was to be picked up and transported via a motorized river patrol a few days later. The river patrol unit was subsequently instructed to stand down. This required the outfitter to send 2 individuals down to Phantom Ranch, catch a ride with a commercial outfitter to RM 103 where the raft had been left and take it to Diamond Creek.
GCPBA, based on conversations with the Permit Holder and the outfitter, found that legal counsel defending the PH would not be justified. The PH, who is not a GCPBA member, simply paid the fine – the cost of legal action would far exceed the fee. This incident is a reminder that, in addition to spare pfds, to also have “spare” rowers.
However, the lack of cooperation by the Park was troublesome. “We’re all in this together” is the approach taken for all of us traveling the river corridor – we extend help to one another when in need. Was this a change in policy? Ed assured us that there is no change in policy, and attributed the incident to miscommunication between the permit holder, the outfitter and law enforcement.
Hualapai Enforcement of Trespassing. GCPBA received information that a private and a commercial trip were cited by a Hualapai river patrol for being at and touching tribal lands while at Pumpkin Springs. The Hualapai rangers required signing acknowledgement of trespass, payment of fees or have personal property confiscated. The private party paid, the commercial outfitter did not citing no authority to do so.
Here we go again. In the past, the Hualapai posted no-trespassing-signs at National and stated that rangers would be there for enforcement. Now, given a new Tribal Council, the Hualapai have raised the boundary issue again. We reaffirmed with Ed, GCPBA’s long standing finding, that the boundary is at the high water mark. All camps are below this delineation and allow both private and commercial trips to camp on the left side. Ed agreed that this finding is correct. He will be working with the Hualapai to find a mutually agreeable solution.
While on this topic, we asked Ed if he knew where the high water mark is. Stating that he did not, we provided him with GCPBA’s engineering analysis in a paper entitled “Colorado River Historic High Water Level Within the Grand Canyon.” The paper can be found in the archives section of gcpba.org
Glen Canyon Dam Modification Presentation
I gave a short presentation of recommended modifications to Glen Canyon Dam. The presentation was a synopsis of my paper entitled “What to do with Glen Canyon Dam? – An Engineer’s Perspective.” (see the June 2024 Newsletter for the link in gcpba.org)
Being a Civil Engineer and past Chief of Dam Design for the California Dep’t of Water Resources, Ed had previously asked for my thoughts on transporting sediment past the dam – hence the presentation. Ed mentioned that he and the USBR’s Regional Director had taken a trip to show the condition of the river corridor and the impact that operation of the Dam has on its ecosystem – he jokingly suggested that I do likewise.
Mention was made that consideration is being given to dredging the channel at Quartermaster due to the build up of sandbars. The lower flows and the channel’s large cross-sectional area at this location results in a very low velocity and subsequent deposition of suspended sediments. So, for the proponents of a night float, stay awake to avoid bumping into a dredge.
Wrapping up:
Ed emailed GCPBA subsequent our meeting. His email, in part, is as follows:
________________________________
……….I have forwarded John’s research paper to Reclamation’s Upper Colorado River Regional Director Wayne Pullan. Wayne is responsible for managing the Glen Canyon Dam as I mentioned on Saturday.
Finally, I want to let you know that I continue to be impressed with your love of the Grand Canyon and your commitment to work collaboratively with the park to address matters of interest to you and your members. Thanks.
Ed
________________________________
We ask that you consider renewing your membership if it has lapsed. Board members volunteer their time and financially support GCPBA as well. Your support, whether renewing your membership or in the form of a donation, allows us to continue to work on your behalf.
As always, your comments or questions are welcome. You can email us at GCPBAmail@gmail.com. Also note that we changed our mailing address to:
GCPBA
PO Box 17727
Munds Park, AZ 86017
The GCPBA Board wishes you a joyful holiday season.
Best wishes to all,
John Vrymoed, President
Grand Canyon Private Boaters’ Association