Creek
Fording
 |
|
Whitewater
Creek
|
Whether thru-hiking
eastbound in spring or westbound in autumn, you will encounter creeks
and rivers that require fording. Most creeks are shallow enough that
you can slosh confidently across as dictated by the trail or terrain,
with wet feet and perhaps slippery rocks your only concern. Other
creeks and rivers may be running high enough that you'll need to wade,
or fast enough to warrant your full attention and a good fording technique.
In spring seasons of average to high runoff, or following recent heavy
monsoon-type rain such as in late summer or early autumn, a few drainages
may prove unmanageable, necessitating a detour.
Predicting generally
which creeks and rivers may be more or less challenging is easier
than trying to determine in advance which ones will or won't actually
be fordable. Drainage flow can vary considerably from day to day,
and even between night and day due to variances in snowpack melt rates.
And a creek that might pose less trouble for an experienced forder
with long legs could prove unfordable for someone else. For these
reasons, only a firsthand scouting of a drainage will reveal its true
nature. Don't adjust your itinerary solely on preconceptions about
this or that creek; rather, wait until you get there before deciding
whether you can safely cross it or should find another way.
The following
chart indicates which of the creeks and rivers confronted by the main
route of the G.E.T. may be running high and/or fast enough to warrant
consideration. The bypass options presented correspond with "alternate
route" descriptions in the online guidebook for each segment.
|
Milepoint/
[Segment]
|
Drainage
|
Seasonal
Concerns
|
#
Fords
|
Bypass
/ Detour
Necessary?
|
|
262
[14]
|
|
spring/poss.fall:
current, depth, # fords
bypass: detour on dirt & paved rds. avoids all but
1 ford
|
50+
|
sometimes
|
|
303
[16]
|
|
spring:
current
bypass: none convenient
|
1
|
rarely
|
|
330
[18]
|
|
spring:
current, depth
bypass: bridged crossing 1 mile away by road
|
1
|
rarely
|
|
337
[20]
|
Whitewater
Crk.
|
spring:
current, # fords
bypass: nearby trails and roads
|
20+
|
rarely
|
|
367
[21]
|
W.
Fork Gila R.
|
spring:
current, # fords ; fall: # fords
bypass: nearby trails avoid most fords
|
50+
|
sometimes
|
|
386
[22]
|
Middle
Fork Gila R.
|
spring:
current
bypass: nearby trails avoid all fords
|
6
|
rarely
|
|
591
[33]
|
|
spring/fall:
current, depth, width
bypass: bridged crossing 6 mi away by road
|
1
|
often
in spring
|
See the related
G.E.T. guidebook segments for a discussion of specific fording scenarios,
and when and how to avoid them. But please note here that the number
of fords dictated by a particular drainage is secondary in concern
to the condition of the creek or river itself. The multiple fords
of Eagle Creek and the Gila's West and Middle forks are a part of
the rugged trail experience in these scenic canyons, where steep cliffs
force the trail back and forth across the drainage at bends. Aravaipa
Canyon is similar in design, as is the normally gentle Alamosa Creek
near Monticello, New Mexico. When conditions are safe, these remote
and watery canyon experiences can be a memorable highlight of the
G.E.T. - challenging, in some cases, but also wild and rewarding.
 |
 |
| A
River Changed: (at left) San Francisco River runs waist-deep and
quick, spring '05, posing a much greater challenge than in fall
of the same year (at right). (Note: Due to flooding concerns,
the GET no longer follows the San Francisco River Gorge in AZ.) |
Fording the
Rio Grande
 |
| Rio
Grande in flood, early May '05 (photo taken from bridge along
detour) |
One river along
our route presents more of an obstacle to travel than a right of way.
The Rio Grande, which the G.E.T. reaches near the village of Polvadera
NM, is typically 20 or 30 yards wide, and in many spring seasons when
thru-hikers normally arrive is high and quick enough to categorically
rule out fording. Instead, eastbound hikers would detour to a bridged
crossing, adding several miles to the route in the name of safety.
Westbound hikers in autumn are more likely to find a still-wide but
relatively calm and shallow Rio Grande, and may prefer the adventure
and time savings of fording this ribbon of life in the desert.
A lightweight
packraft or extra-thick air mattress might present the option to float
across the Rio Grande, and may be worth considering for those who
enjoy such adventurous modes of problem solving more than following
detours. In fact one springtime thru-hiker, Li Brannfors, did precisely
this, having purchased a "car camping" style air mat at
the hardware store in Magdalena, then carrying it in place of his
regular pad for the remainder of his trip, floating the Rio with the
aid of a piece of found styrofoam as a "paddle." [ photo
of Li floating the Rio ]
Obviously a packraft
in particular would receive minimal use for the time spent carrying
it, but under the right circumstances these lightweight inflatables
might nevertheless come in handy. In fact a number of creeks and rivers
along the route would lend themselves to extended
packraft touring when running near flood stage, but then that's
another sport for another guidebook!
Current Streamflow
Conditions
The above table
also features links to USGS current streamflow data for several of
the more prominent creeks and rivers along the G.E.T. in Arizona
and New
Mexico.
In each of these
cases, the measuring gauges are located nearby the route, so data
is "representative" of field conditions as if you were confronting
these bodies of water in real time. However, in my experience the
"gage heights" shown on these graphs greatly overestimate
the actual depth of water that a forder would confront - perhaps by
200% or more. As well, it is impossible to compare the current of
one creek against another using these graphs, since streamflow measurements
(in cubic feet per second) alone say nothing about the creek's width
or variance of depth between banks. More useful is to compare the
current flow (discharge) and gage height of each creek to average
(aka mean) conditions for a given date; at springtime averages, most
of these waters would likely be fordable when arriving on a thru-hiker
schedule, with the notable frequent exception of the Rio Grande. But
whatever the case, wait until you actually see the river before deciding
what to do. (Please note that the triangle symbols on the USGS stream
discharge graph indicate median flow for a given date, rather than
mean (average), which is listed in the accompanying table.)
Beyond the larger
creeks and rivers, the USGS site lists additional streamflow data
pertinent to G.E.T. hikers, none of it related to fording concerns
along the route, but useful nonetheless in taking a rough sample of
water source conditions along or near the route. (None of this data
should be used to predict the current status of G.E.T. sources not
listed on the USGS site, nor those encountered a significant distance
upstream or downstream from the measured location.) These sources
include the following, listed from west to east:
Queen
Creek below Whitlow Dam (well downstream of GET crossing W of
Superior, Queen Creek is usu. dry at the GET)
Aravaipa Creek near Mammoth AZ (downstream of Aravaipa Canyon,
where flow is typically diminished)
Frye
Creek near Thatcher AZ (drains from Mt Graham in the Pinalenos)
Gila
River at head of Safford Valley (route crosses the Gila near here
on road bridge)
Bonita
Creek near Morenci (likely measured downstream of GET crossing)
Mogollon
Creek near Cliff NM (not near the GET, but possibly indicative
of Whitewater Creek & Mogollon Mtn drainages)
Gila
River near Gila NM (not near the GET, but closest measurement
to source waters in the Gila Wilderness)
 |
| Gila
River in springtime: near Kelvin AZ (above)
in the Sonoran
desert; West Fork,
(at right)
300 trail miles to the east in the Gila Wilderness |
