# Flows on the Ark



## bvwp1 (Oct 27, 2003)

Hi all,
Just a quick note about water moving through the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. We have been moving water down from Twin Lakes and Turquoise Reservoir to Pueblo Reservoir in preparation for spring run-off. Moving water from the upper reservoirs frees up space for the upcoming snow melt.

We are currently releasing about 160 cfs from Twin Lakes to Lake Creek.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin releasing water from Turquoise Reservoir to Lake Fork Creek. We will bump releases up from 3 to 30 cfs.

Water in Lake Creek and Lake Fork Creek flows into the Arkansas River, which carries it to Pueblo Reservoir. Pueblo is about 52% full.

Also in preparation for run-off, this week we are starting up the Mt. Elbert Power Plant, Colorado's largest hydro-electric power plant. This might break up the ice in both the Mt. Elbert Forebay and Twin Lakes up by Leadville, Colo. Ice-fishers and other winter recreators should be aware ice might become unstable. For more information, please check out our news release.

I will likely have other updates later this week and will keep you posted.

Please let me know if you have any related questions.

Best,
Kara

Kara Lamb
Public Information Officer
Bureau of Reclamation
Eastern Colorado Area Office
(970) 962-4326


----------



## Methinger (Sep 19, 2012)

Thanks for the updates Kara! They're really awesome for those of us who don't get to see the flows in person everyday. Keep the water (and the snow) comin!


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Thanks for the update Kara.

I have a question for you. My understanding is that 10k acre feet used to be the amount allocated to the summer component of the VFMP, but that Roy Vaughn has given CPW the power to decide when they want to move the 10k acre feet now? I have heard some concern that this will amount to significant portions of the VFMP water being moved at undesirable times for whitewater recreation in order to benefit the fishery, leaving less water available for the July1 - August 15th time period.

Can you comment on this?


----------



## cadster (May 1, 2005)

If you want to know about the Arkansas River's history of recreation and flow management read this: CFWE

And recent news from the fisheries biologist perspective:
TU members thanked for their efforts that created the Arkansas Riverâ€™s Gold Medal fishery - The Chaffee County Times: Free Content

Roy Vaughan is with the BOR which operates the dams, but doesn't control the VFMP.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

In 2009 the aquatic biologist along with the CPW changed the way the water was moved so we would have below boatable flows in the shoulder seasons or March/April or well if they had their way until June 1st. Then again on August 16. Their latest maneuver will get them below boatable flows before that just as it has the last 2 years on average of 5-6 out of 10 years..

It is true that now the aquatic biologist is who will be telling Roy how and when to move the water and it will = no water for the VFP on any water year we do not see huge spring snows. This is a recent change and a fact.

The ultimate goal of Policky and the CPW (he will say himself and in the article posted) it is to de-water the river during the summer as they have gotten it done in the fall and spring. This is the next step the aquatic biologist and rest of CPW will pursue to end the voluntary flow program. 

This water was historically set aside for boating use but the fisherfolk "appropriated" it to run year round when ever the aquatic biologist feels is best for the fish. It is a change and a big loss of water for boaters but the wildlife has taken over and parks basically has been marginalized.

I am tired of being the only one beating this drum as only Logan seems to even care and parks is taking private boaters for a ride - or there is no private voice that CPW even listens to well unless you have a fishing pole. Flat out private boaters had 0 input on this change and flat out had the wool pulled over our eyes.

So yes it is Roy's choice to move the water when the CPW tells him to as he has been pulled both ways he basically told CPW to choose. I believe Roy got tired of being the bad guy no matter what he choose so he told the CPW to choose how the water is moved. CPW put all of the "water" apples in the wildlife side of the basket and listens to one aquatic biologist as to when the water is moved so we boaters again get screwed.

Rob White should be the voice speaking for boaters and the VFP but from what I see he does not help out the VFP or keeping water in the river and does what the wildlife side of parks tells him.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Thx R'Nek. Some of us are trying to follow this. Always appreciate your input.


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

Similar type of nonsense taking place on Eleven Mile. No boatable flows due to one biologist with the backing of TU who advises Denver Water. 

It amazes me the lengths they go to managing flows for an invasive species. I've been fly fishing since I was a kid, but this just pisses me off to no end.


----------



## bvwp1 (Oct 27, 2003)

This from AHRA 
All,

Please see the below noted/attached information from Terry Dawson (BOR). This latest information means that an additional 27 cfs will be released into the Arkansas River starting on Tuesday (03.04.14) through Monday (03.31.14). Therefore, during March, the anticipated flow as measured at the Wellsville Gauge should be approximately 477 cfs (450 cfs noted in the email string below + the additional 27 cfs noted today).

Please let your AROA Water Committee Representatives (Mike Kissack / Andy Neinas / Bob Hamel) or me know if you should have any questions.

Thank you,
Rob

Rob White
Park Manager
Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area (AHRA)


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

I know part of the issue with Elevenmile is the reservoir is the deepest in DW's system so they use it as a primary storage facility and try to keep it as full as possible (very little evaporative loss). I have been spending more and more time with fisherman, fishing and talking lately and most of them that reside in the valley appreciate whitewater and many are former boaters. I believe that things are being changed and that these changes are being kept from the public, in fact most people seem to be in the same boat, believing 8 and 10 year old documents are accurate representations of water operations.

I believe these issues are far reaching for our community and should be openly discussed public information.


----------



## cadster (May 1, 2005)

Although it doesn't look like CPW can purchase a lot of water with $100,000, are they no longer committed to do so once the 10,000 AF is gone?


----------



## Theophilus (Mar 11, 2008)

I'll have to remind myself again this year why I buy an annual parks pass that supports the AHRA who doesn't appear to give a fat rats ass about our interests.


----------



## fella (Jul 29, 2008)

bvwp1 said:


> This from AHRA
> 
> Therefore, during March, the anticipated flow as measured at the Wellsville Gauge should be approximately 477 cfs (450 cfs noted in the email string below + the additional 27 cfs noted today).
> 
> ...


 
Ouch!!

I can't help but envision paddling 500cfs in July, thinking about how nice it would have been floating on the additional 477cfs "wasted" in March.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

The best flows for float fishing the lower two sections of the Ark are 350 to 500, correct? Will this increased March flow change the April flows and keep them out of this prime range?

The state obviously views the Ark as the next great fishing destination in the state, and with the amount of public access, ability to due multi-day trips, and the wild brown trout population, it is obviously the perfect target.

If they could find the proper way to balance things out, it would obviously benefit everyone, and while I have a raft primarily so I can fish, I do understand some of the concern. Would be nice if there was some more give and take, such as keeping more consistent rafting flows on the Colorado in exchange for the lower flows in the Ark or something. I know it isn't that simple though.

However, the gold medal designation, having the ability to access via 285 instead of I-70, being able to float fish earlier in the season prior to run-off, etc., are all pretty big wins for TU and the folks with rods...and the fish obviously.


----------



## formerflatlander (Aug 8, 2013)

[ 
If they could find the proper way to balance things out, it would obviously benefit everyone, and while I have a raft primarily so I can fish, I do understand some of the concern. Would be nice if there was some more give and take, such as keeping more consistent rafting flows on the Colorado in exchange for the lower flows in the Ark or something. I know it isn't that simple though.

Nice for the folks in Denver and other places. I DON'T live in Denver. I live on the Arkansas. The Colorado is hours away. Let us in our area have some input. If you're looking for perfect fishing waters, pick someplace else. 

Tourism is a major source of income here, including statewide interest is rafting the Ark. While I don't have figures, I would bet if far outweighs the dollars spent by fishermen. When the season is shortened, ultimately it will have a negative financial impact on the Ark corridor. 

I think Denver and the Front Range have plenty of rivers in their corridor to regulate, set up with fishing as the primary goal, etc. Denver is IN the state, not THE state of Colorado.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

formerflatlander said:


> If you're looking for perfect fishing waters, pick someplace else.
> 
> Tourism is a major source of income here, including statewide interest is rafting the Ark. While I don't have figures, I would bet if far outweighs the dollars spent by fishermen. When the season is shortened, ultimately it will have a negative financial impact on the Ark corridor.
> 
> I think Denver and the Front Range have plenty of rivers in their corridor to regulate, set up with fishing as the primary goal, etc. Denver is IN the state, not THE state of Colorado.


That's the whole thing though...the Ark is almost perfect. 102-miles of Gold Medal water with tons of public access. The fishing industry is much larger and will have a much greater economic impact on the Ark corridor. You are just spreading it out throughout the year. Also, the number of rivers in Colorado that can be fished from a boat are few and the seasons on many are super short. If you lengthen that season and provide more options, you will see more visitors and more money come to the area. Colorado is quickly becoming THE trout fishing destination for winter and early spring fishing.

I know I am going to be floating the Ark many times this month and next, and spending money in the area.


----------



## formerflatlander (Aug 8, 2013)

Kayak and rafting interest aren't wanting year round boating water. We want the historical season: late May to Sept. The waters have been managed this way for years. For thousands of years the fish dealt with natural flows. 
Now all of a sudden, this specific river must be managed with fishing being highest priority?! Balance is the word. Some sections of the river see very little/no commercial rafting and few recreational boaters, in part out of consideration for fishing. Those of us who live and work in this area want a local place to paddle. Many on this forum live where they do because of the proximity to the Ark and nearby paddling runs. 
Should the spring and fall seasons, and summer to a lesser extent, be managed with the entire recreational community in mind? Absolutely. The entire western US is seasonal on its rivers; let the seasons, including water cycles, run reasonably close to natural cycles.
I personally know the owners of two local rafting companies. And know their struggles. Fishermen typically don't bring 4-8 people on river, spend 4-8 people's $ in local restaurants, hotels, gas stations, etc. and tell their friends to do the same. They come spend a few $ on food and gear, hit the river with their gear, and may spend a night or two in local lodging. The summer months are the major source of income for local tourism in Canon City, in part due to boating. 
Come, fish the shoulder seasons, enjoy them. And let us enjoy the high water seasons. Like you said, plenty of other rivers with super short seasons, fish them in the summer. Lots of the Colorado with flat or nearly flat water west of you. 
Locals live here, and want to enjoy the river for all of its seasons. And those who paddle deserve a decent season too.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

I meant very few rivers that are floatable for fishing...they have super short float fishing seasons. There is more money in float fishing for the guides and shops then there is in guiding wade fisherman.

This proposal is to increase flows in the shoulder seasons...right? Obviously, it will effect summer flows a little, but there is still the guaranteed 700 CFS from July1 through Aug 15th. That hasn't changed. This just allows people to float the river in March, April, and early May.

Will there be any increased flows in the fall to get the river in that 350 to 500 range? Would love to float for fall browns with their big hooked jaws.


----------



## ag3dw (May 13, 2006)

So should I hope for warm weather in March so I can come up and boat, or more snow to melt later?


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

ag3dw said:


> So should I hope for warm weather in March so I can come up and boat, or more snow to melt later?


I am guessing more snow. Seems like they have a specific window of flow levels they want, so they will just hold back water in March if it is warm to maintain those flows. Pray for lots of snow and a warm June.


----------



## tango (Feb 1, 2006)

gretch6364 said:


> This proposal is to increase flows in the shoulder seasons...right? Obviously, it will effect summer flows a little, but there is still the guaranteed 700 CFS from July1 through Aug 15th. That hasn't changed. This just allows people to float the river in March, April, and early May.


Nope, not guaranteed.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

After looking at my first post there is a typo that should read boatable flows in March maybe very early April with below boatable flows in April, May, late July, August, September, and October. The rainbow spawn in the spring and the reason for moving water before the rainbow spawn. Sorry for the confusion. It is a FACT that over the past few years we have seen MORE water in the ditch in March/April that we have in July/August all due 100% to CWP. Gretch how is this equatable at all? 

What is disappointing is that they manage the Ark only 6 short weeks a year for boating the the fishing interests have cut into this to make it smaller with the implicate and stated goal of running all the VFP water either in March/April or spread out over September - so we dont see anywhere close to 700cfs in early to mid August. 

The recent changes have made the VFP almost useless and unable to provide any water in any year where there is not a banner late season snow pack. The last 2 seasons proves this.. 

You dont have to look far or we 100% for sure would have had a full VFP in 2012 if the fishermen did not force BOR to move 50,000 acre feet of water in March of 2012. Moving that much water or 5 times the water that is allocated for the entire flow program guaranteed that the targeted flows of the VFP would not be reached that year. Would it have been a high water year - hell no but we would have seen way more water in the ditch than we did. Again in 2013 we faced this same deficit in storage (left over from 2012) and in 2013 we did not see the full VFP again because of CPW requesting that so much water be moved in March of 2012. Guess what it (the deficit) is again there this year and the water that may well make up what is the limited VFP for 2014 flows down the river right now. Not in July or August but right now that is what the history/reality of the past 2 years has shown. Ask the fishermen who are telling the BOR how to move the water and they see the past two years as a success.. Yes success they will tell you... 

Keeping lower flows on the Ark in return for higher flows in the Colorado makes no sense on any level so not sure how to respond.

The fish are better than ever - even the 2008 high water spring blow out did not hurt the fish. In all likely hood the increased size is largely to do with Superfund clean up with some applied to flows. To only manage to the fishermen while ignoring the boater user groups seems to be the path of the CPW but I think that a better solution that would not hurt the fish at all could be achieved. 

It is sad that it looks like the VFP has been eroded so far that it is at the point where it is now guaranteed to never be able to provide water on the years where we will actually need it. 

All boaters have ever asked for is that 10,000 acre feet for the small 6 week window that the Ark is managed for boating be secure before they start spring releases and while the CPW said this would happen their actions prove different and in reality the exact opposite.

I doubt with the way the VFP has changed that we actually see 700 on August 14th 2014 unless it is a rain event. Yes even with 110%+ of snowpack. I know the last 2 years it was not even close to 700 for most of July or any of August. Well that is the goal of CPW so I guess you could say and the CPW is saying that the VFP over the past 2 years is a 100% success......


----------



## cadster (May 1, 2005)

The Chaffee County RICD seems to have been written with the VFMP in mind.
http://cwcb.state.co.us/environment/recreational-in-channel-diversions/Documents/ChaffeeCounty/ChaffeeCoDecree.pdf

Why isn't it enforceable?


----------



## Id725 (Nov 22, 2003)

Theophilus said:


> I'll have to remind myself again this year why I buy an annual parks pass that supports the AHRA who doesn't appear to give a fat rats ass about our interests.


Eff the AHRA a-holes. I poach every putin and takeout. I won't buy a season pass and I won't use any pay access points. They want to charge an arm and a leg and more every year for ever-bigger, more heavily developed access points to a river with ever-decreasing boatable flows.

The AHRA and this whole situation is a JOKE.

LEAVE THE RIVER ALONE and let us carry our boats down to the water and go. The fish can adapt to a natural, un-EFFED-with river system, and so can boaters. Maybe the fishermen can figure it out, too. Quit bull-dozing and paving the banks and quit screwing with the flows. Leave the damn river alone.


----------



## formerflatlander (Aug 8, 2013)

Gretch- 700 cfs is effectively flat water. May be nice for floating a raft to fish. I'm a beginning/intermediate boater running an IK. And I'm not excited about 700 cfs. It's called WHITEWATER RAFTING/KAYAKING for a reason. What you want is WHATWATER RAFTING. Your fishing is an artificially created environment for two species of nonnative fish. When will the Denver/Front Range realize the state doesn't exist just for their desires?! Go create your artificial environment on the South Platte. Let those who live HERE manage LOCAL rivers.
Per USGS Parkdale site (59 year median): mid May 800-1200 cfs/ Mid June 2200-2400 cfs/ Mid July 1200-1400 cfs/ mid Aug 700-900 cfs/ early Sept 500-600 cfs
Those are the historical medians. You fishermen are so self centered other users can't get 3 months of decent water? 
As far as local economy, the Canon City area dries up in September. Where are your dollars? I know hotel managers, restaurant owners, rafting/zipline company owners... and I am self employed. Fishing brings a little over 0$ to my community. But get a good river year and everyone here makes some change.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

Woe there angry spice. I am not the one making these decisions and I did not campaign for this flow level. I am not going to bitch and complain, which doesn't help anyhow, though. I am going to get out and enjoy it...it is what it is.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

RDNEK said:


> Ask the fishermen who are telling the BOR how to move the water and they see the past two years as a success.. Yes success they will tell you...
> 
> I doubt with the way the VFP has changed that we actually see 700 on August 14th 2014 unless it is a rain event. Yes even with 110%+ of snowpack. I know the last 2 years it was not even close to 700 for most of July or any of August. Well that is the goal of CPW so I guess you could say and the CPW is saying that the VFP over the past 2 years is a 100% success......


Thank you! I was thinking all day how to sum up the main issue of this entire discussion and this sums it up...and if they can't maintain the current crappy target of 700 at Wellsville until Aug 15th then imagine what is going to happen next time we see 75-80% of average?

Keep in mind this coming from someone who takes pride in trying to get a boating day every month of the year. I would still rather see big summer flows when the weather is nice and people want to come visit than a constant low/medium flow year round... That shit is even less natural than how it has been, and in my opinion is not in the best interest of the watershed.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Yea Logan what is the most interesting/sad part is that wildlife just walks all over parks since the merger or the "wildlife side" who is Poliski n crew just tell Rob what to do and he does whatever he is told - end of story. There is no "parks" input anymore just "wildlife" and the old "parks" guys just roll over for the "wildlife" side so the "wildlife" folks make the decision with little to no input from the "parks" side. 

The AHRA is also real good or works real hard at keeping "secrets" from the private boaters. They will not even get out the min to the CTF meetings until after the next meeting has happened. Or they will not appoint anyone to any CTF or other position who will speak up. The AHRA does not want a private on the CTF that will make waves it is that simple. The AHRA has even shown will go as far as threatening folks who just want the real info out there. 

One last thing is that all private boaters should thank your local outfitter or AROA (Arkansas River Outfitter Association) outfitter members as with out them there would be no water in the river at all for the flow program. 

Folks like Tony Keenan of WAO, Andy Neinas of Echo Canyon, and more recently Mike Kissick of AAE have done countless hours of work to keep as much water in the ditch as they can for their clients and in turn all of us to use. Commercial outfitters (not the AHRA or "parks", ) fight the fight yearly with "wildlife" and it is interesting to me that the AHRA as well as others seem to represent the commercial outfitters as the big bad wolf in the room when it is actually the big government of the CPW & AHRA that is the wolf in sheep's clothing and are the ones who are floating private boaters down a river with no water in it. Believe me or not but the commercial outfitter is the private boater's best friend on the Arkansas River...

I would say at this point to let Leslie or Mark know your concerns but I dont think the AHRA will listen or that it even makes a difference. I guess if you are planning on coming to the ark to boat I would do it in June and not August as there is a very good chance there will be no water in the ditch this year in August.


----------



## pilom (Dec 28, 2010)

I'm a newbie on the history of managing the Ark. I moved to Denver in 2011 and have boated almost every section but I know almost nothing about how the river is/has been managed. I barely know who the decision makers are. Almost all of my boating friends have also moved to Colorado since 2010. I understand a lot of boaters (both private and commercial) are upset, there seems to be some agreement about 10k acre-feet for boating flows, the agreement/agreements have changed in the past 10 years, and I keep getting my facts mixed up.

Is there a good resource to get me up to speed that isn't done by someone so red in the face that they forget not everyone knows as much about it as they do?

I'd love to help with lobbying efforts but I need to get educated first.


----------



## Mike Harvey (Oct 10, 2003)

cadster said:


> The Chaffee County RICD seems to have been written with the VFMP in mind.
> http://cwcb.state.co.us/environment/recreational-in-channel-diversions/Documents/ChaffeeCounty/ChaffeeCoDecree.pdf
> 
> Why isn't it enforceable?


The RICD is a junior water right with a appropriation date in the 2000's (I can't remember the exact year), but the bottom line is on a river where a lot of the water rights date back into the 1800's a 2006 (or whatever it is) date doesn't give you priority on any year where it matters. 

In other words, if there is enough water on a given year then putting in a call for the water doesn't matter since its already in the river. In a year where you would want those flows there isn't enough water and there are senior water rights that are being called and would be injured by delivering Chaffee County's water. 

What the RICD does is give Chaffee County and our recreational economy standing in water court if a proposal came along that would significantly reduce future flows in the river. Its basically a long term insurance policy.



lmyers said:


> Thank you! I was thinking all day how to sum up the main issue of this entire discussion and this sums it up...and if they can't maintain the current crappy target of 700 at Wellsville until Aug 15th then imagine what is going to happen next time we see 75-80% of average?


I basically agree with NEK's concern with this issue and I have been concerned about this since the change was instituted even though, like Logan, I paddle year round and like paddling 500cfs in February or March. 

This point Logan is making is the issue. This year we will probably be fine. I just talked to AHRA today. They have 15,000 AF committed already for this year for the VFP, July 1-Aug 15 and we will likely have plenty of run off. The larger point is on the bad years they should be holding water until later in the summer and wildlife would prefer the flows drop to native on those years so the fish can put on weight. This is not likely to get better now that the Upper Ark is "Gold Medal" trout water. 

I have said this a lot here and other places, but it is important to keep the perspective that we are talking about two RECREATIONAL interests arguing about which water management strategy is better for their specific RECREATIONAL activity. Brown and Rainbow trout are not native to this river or any other river in the Rocky Mountain west. They have been grown and planted by Wildlife so they can sell tickets to trick them and stick them in the lip with a hook. No one has the environmental high ground here. This river is a plumbing conduit for big front range water interests. They own the water. We are just talking about when to deliver it so it works best for our interest.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks for that, Mike...


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Very good points Mike. I enjoy fishing as well, granted not as much as whitewater, but it seems like there should be negotiation between both recreational interests to find the most beneficial release pattern for everyone. What I have seen recently however is wildlife getting what they want, and whitewater interests dealing with what is left (at least in years that are anything less than historical average).


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

Logan and *******,
Thank you for the work you do in keeping the boating public informed of the Ark issues.

Mike,
Great reminder of the perspective that boaters need to remind ourselves of. It's an unfortunate buzz kill to realize that recreational water rights are less of a priority to most other water rights in CO. It's even more unfortunate to see two juniors fighting over the leftover scraps. 

I'll never forget standing in front of a bookshelf that had all of the Colorado Revised Statute books neatly organized in a row. I noticed that the one labeled, "Water and Irrigation" was almost double the thickness of the majority of other types of law (criminal code, children's code, vehicles and traffic, etc.) I thought to myself that this really puts into perspective the complexity of a legalistic society that decided to populate a desert area that has limited water supplies.

Cheers to a big snow year, so that we can all enjoy a bountiful run-off!


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Good info and perspective Harv. Also good work on the boat chute I have looked at it and you guys did a good job. Oh yea the AHRA promised that would take a year and it only took what 4?? 

I also wonder where AW and CW is on Ark river flows as it seems it might be important to boaters to keep a eye on flows on the Ark. I have never heard single word from either organization. 

I just want to add a few FACTS pertinent to this thread just to give perspective of who private boaters should trust.

1. It is a fact that the same folks AHRA folks Harv talked with guaranteed 12,000 to 15,000 acre feet for the VFP in March of 2012... How did that turn out? Truth is they told us a lie in 2012 and will be a lie this year if it does not snow. If we see a warm March/April with little snow it is a FACT that running this much water this early will guarantee that there is little to no flow program water for boaters. Once bitten twice shy - twice bitten well you know..

2. I am in the Mtns around here more than almost anyone and I agree with snowtel data that show us only 1.29" of snow water equivalent ahead of where we were in 2012 on the exact date. How did that summer work out again?

3. It is a fact that the goal of the CPW and in turn the AHRA is to dewater the river as much as possible by any means necessary from May 1st - Oct 31st.

4. It is a fact that the CPW succeeded in dewatering the river by requesting so much water is released early that flows on the Ark were higher in March of 2012 than it was in July or August of 2012.. It is another fact the flows will be higher in March of 2014 than it was in July or August of 2013 . It is a fact and the CPW/AHRA feels both of these years was a great success.

5. It is a fact that the change was made this year where any historical VFP boating water will be shared with fisherfolk and the fisherfolk will be able to say when it is released. In turn this will result in the VFP getting spread so thin that as historically shown will result in the VFP not even getting close to 700 on August 14th 7 or 8 out of 10 years... 

6. It is a fact that the TU as well as the CPW are attempting or have requested totally closing sections of the Ark to any type of and all private boating. This is such a horrible idea and precedent but it is what the CPW wants to do.. 

I have seen what has happened in 2012 and if my memory is correct - it is a fact that the AHRA cant guarantee 15,000 acre feet at this point. The AHRH has made so many hollow promises that they did not keep just to pull the wool over the eyes of private boaters. I would say that it is foolish to believe the promises that are dished out ever so easily and rarely lived up to over at CPW/AHRA.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

RDNEK said:


> 6. It is a fact that the TU as well as the CPW are attempting or have requested totally closing sections of the Ark to any type of and all private boating. This is such a horrible idea and precedent but it is what the CPW wants to do.


Do you have any more information on this? TU doesn't usually promote decreasing public access, so I am curious what they are thinking.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Talked to a fishing guide this morning and he said that they want the water in the rio in August to keep the fish cool. Also, that they want more than base right now for the health of the fish. Curious about their position on late summer water...


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Phil

That is a ruse even in 2012 with hot temps and low water the water temperature did not get where it would harm the fish. This is what the CPW will say. 

The truth is that the fishermen dont want to see 700 in late summer and want to get that 700 number as low as they can in late July and August. If they can run the water in November they would.. Dont doubt that the CPW is pushing hard as they can and attempting to find any way it can to cut back on the flows in late July/Early August.

As asked below is the link to who appoints the CTF reps..... You can see TU does appoint a fishing rep to the CTF - this rep is Fred Rassusmen. I was in the meeting and heard it come out of his mouth when he explicitly asked for sections of the Arkansas River be closed to boating and only approve walk in fishing. You can look over the meeting min for when it happened if you need... Is that explanation enough for you? Now will you please show all of us proof where TU and reps are not attempting to close sections of the Ark. I will be waiting for your reply - thx. 

http://cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/p...Area/Documents/CTFNominationAddresses2013.pdf


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

RDNEK said:


> Is that explanation enough for you? Now will you please show all of us proof where TU and reps are not attempting to close sections of the Ark. I will be waiting for your reply - thx.
> 
> http://cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/p...Area/Documents/CTFNominationAddresses2013.pdf


Thank you for the info. I will not be showing you any proof because I never said they were not attempting to close sections...I was just looking for more info and said that it is not a typical practice of TU since their mission is to open more areas to the public. What you posted isn't the minutes, can you tell me which meeting you heard it at?

I would seriously like to contact the individual and tell them that blocking off parts of the river is not within the mission of TU and it is wrong.

This is obviously a sensitive subject, since I have never pushed for any of this or said I agreed with it, just that it could become a great fishery, but yet you are mad at me.

Also, as far as not screwing around with the river and leaving it natural, none of the VFP flows are natural. If you truly want it natural, putting some of the VFP flows into the spring and fall when things are really low is just as unnatural as boosting flows during the whitewater season.


----------



## climber-420 (Jan 10, 2014)

So what you are saying is don't go fishing now?


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

gretch6364 said:


> Also, as far as not screwing around with the river and leaving it natural, none of the VFP flows are natural. If you truly want it natural, putting some of the VFP flows into the spring and fall when things are really low is just as unnatural as boosting flows during the whitewater season.


This is not necessarily true. You are correct that western slope diversions are not natural, and neither are dams, but you can mimic natural patterns with the release program. The river naturally rises in late May and generally melts until around early/mid July. That's when the rain starts, and typically we see 1 or 2 late summer flow peaks comparable or higher to the snowmelt peak...so it is arguable that releasing all extra stored water during the Summer is significantly more natural than the current program.

However, I know it is not as easy as that. There are issues with maintaining a certain reservoir level for the power plant at Twin Lakes as well as maintaining ditch water for ranchers in the upper valley...but the vast majority of water rights holders either take their water from the pump station or from Pueblo and downstream, so the time of releases for them are not as important.

Also, I as well witnessed Mr. Rasmussen make the request to close the Ark to boating above Granite. I believe the meeting was in November of last year, but not sure. If not, it was the meeting before that. I tried to get a link to the minutes for you, but I think the web page is down... I got an error message.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

climber-420 said:


> So what you are saying is don't go fishing now?


Fishing is actually pretty good on the warmer days right now, at least in Salida and below. Had a friend tell me he caught 20+ browns in 2 hours just below the main hole in the Salida park, but I think the fishing would be just as good with a little less water...


----------



## climber-420 (Jan 10, 2014)

lmeyers, thank you for the info. I was meaning to go float fishing now. I have a 14' raft and kinda got the itch to go down and go fishing now.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

lmyers said:


> Also, I as well witnessed Mr. Rasmussen make the request to close the Ark to boating above Granite. I believe the meeting was in November of last year, but not sure. If not, it was the meeting before that. I tried to get a link to the minutes for you, but I think the web page is down... I got an error message.


Thanks, wonder what the point is? Keep the redds from being trampled maybe? That is pretty far up stream, so that is my only guess. If it isn't supportable by biology and he just wants it to be a fishing specific area, it won't fly.


----------



## klamb (Oct 14, 2003)

*Flow Program stuff*

Hi all,
As always, there's been great discussion on this thread regarding the Flow Program. And I'm sorry to come late, but Logan asked me to wade in. As you all know, it's a pretty complicated program as it strives to balance out the competing demands on the river--each important in its own way.

Logan asked me in the beginning of this thread:
I have a question for you. My understanding is that 10k acre feet used to be the amount allocated to the summer component of the VFMP, but that Roy Vaughn has given CPW the power to decide when they want to move the 10k acre feet now? I have heard some concern that this will amount to significant portions of the VFMP water being moved at undesirable times for whitewater recreation in order to benefit the fishery, leaving less water available for the July1 - August 15th time period.

I talked with Roy about that this morning. The 10KAF _is_ set aside--that hasn't changed. But in water tight years, setting aside that much becomes increasingly challenging. And we've had our fair share of dry years lately. Plus, we are seeing changes to the Flow Program: it's become more inclusive. Some remember dry years like 2002; others don't. Many more voices are participating in the discussion. And I think it's a good thing. 

Input from white water folks, fisher folks and others is getting heard--even though it doesn't always feel like that--and there's a lot of value placed on what people say they want. Of course, not everyone wants the same thing. At the kick-off meeting for the Flow Program the other day, I think it went to full discussion regarding how all of this should be managed this year, considering what the forecast is showing right now--and recognizing that this might change.

bvwp1--who posted my e-mail that started this thread (thank you for doing that, BTW)--also posted a good clarification from Rob White at AHRA. Rob had sent an e-mail that included my colleague, Terry's, info about releases from Twin to the river and clarified what they will mean, in March, for Wellsville. Then, Rob listed the AROA Water Committee Reps--also good to know because input from _everyone_ really helps in the collaborative nature of the program. Those reps go to the Flow Program meetings.

I think RDNEK's descriptions are pretty good and I appreciate his translations of the bureaucratic balancing act. One thing I would add to his second description in this thread is that in 2012, as you all probably recall, we had the bottom drop out of us on snowpack. We all know that March is our biggest precip month of the year. "Forcing" decisions during that early forecast is a gamble, always. I was at the kickoff Flow Program meeting that year and people were really pushing for water early in the season before anyone knew what March would deliver. Turns out that year, it didn't. That's why we--Roy, Terry, and the rest of our office on both the Fry-Ark and the C-BT--like to hold off on a formal forecast until May. By then, we have the two biggest months of the year, March and April, under out belts and feel we can give the most accurate forecast at that time. 

Of course, things don't always play out that way and we do the best with what we have at the time. Compromise and flexibility are key, and both of those fall short when there's not enough water. In 2012, we eked it out when there was a possibility there might not have been _anything_ for late summer.

I guess my point is: this stuff comes down to how well everyone works together. The collaborative nature (and debate is a healthy sign of collaboration) of this thread is reflective of the nature that is developing on the Flow Program. I know it can be frustrating, but please know that we're listening and we follow the discussions and encourage the talk between _all_ the groups.

So, Logan, I don't know if that really answers your question. RDNEK--it's definitely not an answer for what happens in water tight years, but I beg understanding on our part that we're trying to serve a multi-purpose project with a limited supply. If I remember right, I think the authorizing language of the Fry-Ark Project which we are required to follow goes something like 'for the purposes of supplemental water for agriculture, municipal and industrial use and power generation with the incidental benefits thereto for the enhancement of recreation, fish and wildlife.' 

Meanwhile, on Monday, we're going to bump up releases from Turquoise Res and Sugarloaf Dam to Lake Fork Creek from 15 to 90 cfs. Making space for run-off.

You all have a great weekend and let me know if I've raised more questions than I've addressed. I'll do my best to answer what I can.

Best,
Kara


----------



## klamb (Oct 14, 2003)

Trying to quote the authorizing language of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project puts me in the mood for a shameless plug (Flow Program is referenced as "collaboration" in the last third): The Fry-Ark movie. 

Sorry, y'all, but it's Friday.
--Kara


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

You're great Kara, I (and many, many others) appreciate the work you all do, and especially the fact that you take the time to read this forum and make public comment on sensitive issues. Your response was well written and makes sense. Hopefully in the future more people can speak up about their opinions on these issues so we can have a more balanced discussion.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

climber-420 said:


> lmeyers, thank you for the info. I was meaning to go float fishing now. I have a 14' raft and kinda got the itch to go down and go fishing now.


Salida to Rincon, Rincon to Valley Bridge and Valley Bridge to Bighorn Campground in Coaldale are probably your best bets for float fishing right now, or Stone Bridge to Salida. Interestingly these ate stretches that Fred Rasmussen has expressed interest in converting to a permit to float due to exceeding rationed boater counts and stress on the fishery...


----------



## cadster (May 1, 2005)

Logan, you deleted your comment that discouraged my participation by calling my information outdated. Knowing the history of river recreation gives the current debate context.

The VFMP seems not just for extending the rafting season, but also used to keep the flow above 250 CFS throughout the year for the fishery. Rafting flows are reduced when BOR projects there won’t be enough storage to maintain the 250 CFS.



lmyers said:


> You're great Kara, I (and many, many others) appreciate the work you all do, and especially the fact that you take the time to read this forum and make public comment on sensitive issues. Your response was well written and makes sense. Hopefully in the future more people can speak up about their opinions on these issues so we can have a more balanced discussion.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

I apologize. I get a little worked up. Your information was old, but its good background info for those unfamiliar. Your input is appreciated whether you agree with Rdnek and me or not, but there are changes to the program that are happening under the table, priorities are changing...

And the only thing I edited out of my comment was your name.


----------



## Stripperclip (Jan 16, 2012)

gretch6364 said:


> Thanks, wonder what the point is? Keep the redds from being trampled maybe? That is pretty far up stream, so that is my only guess. If it isn't supportable by biology and he just wants it to be a fishing specific area, it won't fly.


It is my understanding the reason for keeping the flows lower in April and early May is for the Brown Trout fry that are hatching.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

From the link Cadster posted regarding Gold Medal waters:

"They also try to limit when the spring release comes as far as run off. If they hold it off until May or the third week in May, this lets the Rainbows spawn in the spring without the risk of them being washed away."


----------



## cadster (May 1, 2005)

Below is a graph of the last five years of flow at Wellsville during the VFMP rafting season.

Only 2012 fell below the 700 CFS goal. 2012 also had a May 1st snowpack at 28% of normal. 2011 had the highest May 1st snowpack of 132%. The remaining years of 2009, 2013, and 2010 were at 98%, 93%, and 83% respectively.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

Good info Cadster.

I understand what they are trying to do with the flows, I was speaking to the point of closing down certain sections of the river to boat traffic.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Kara thanks! 

You are the only one who will let folks know what is really going on. The AHRA works so hard at keeping information from the private boater that it is refreshing to have some one take the time to update private boaters.

Also so everyone knows Kara, Roy, and the rest of the folks at that level are the most honest and straight shooting of the bunch. They say what they will do and then do it. My complaint is not with you Kara or anyone on that level but the fact that the AHRA does not listen to or has worked to totally silence the private boater who in turn is totally cut out of the loop as far as recreational water. 

I do have some questions for you.

#1. Who do you see as representing the private boater in the VFP discussions? I know the municipalities well represented. The fishermen have Krieger, Poliski, White, and TU is well represented in the room. Commercial rafting has several in the room as well as Flack who is a god send for all of us boaters. For the life of me I cant seem to figure out who represents the private boater? We all know it is not CW or AW as they have been totally silent and from where I sit CW must not care about flows on the most boated river in Colorado. So do the private boaters even have a rep at the table cause I cant think of who it would be? 

#2. These releases this year as well as the ones in 2012 started in March when IMO snowpack was/is still in question. As per the AHRA this year the snowpack is not in question so the AHRA is guaranteeing 15,000 acre feet for VFP flows this summer. At this point have you and in turn can they guarantee this amount of VFP water? If the answer is 100% yes I will move on as the discussion is over. If everyone has to wait until the end of April to make this decision how is the AHRA guaranteeing boaters 15,000 acre feet at this point? Can the AHRA on March 12, 2014 live up to their explicit guarantee that we will not see another 2012? 


It seems as if and to use a analogy - that we are going to Vegas and blowing all our money then telling everyone how well food stamps works... As I have said - all the private boaters I talk with would like to see is that the 10k is in place for the VFP BEFORE the spring releases start and as per the promise of the AHRA it looks like this is the case so I am satisfied with that. Now if that is not the truth (like 2012) the accountability squarely falls on Rob White at the CPW/AHRA as they are the ones explicitly asking for this much water to be moved so very early. Am I correct in this assumption? 


#3. You are spot on with your language and us that float on the Ark are happy to have the water we get but the quote "authorizing language of the Fry-Ark Project which we are required to follow goes something like 'for the purposes of supplemental water for agriculture, municipal and industrial use and power generation with the incidental benefits thereto for the enhancement of recreation, fish and wildlife." is not correct at this point after CPW took over the AHRA. 

I think that after 2009 and since CPW has totally taken over control over at the AHRA that the last sentence should be changed to "enhancement of fish and wildlife with incidental benefits to recreation. Because in reality this is what is happening.


Thanks for your time and thanks for being the ONLY one at your level who will give the straight dope to boaters.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Thanks for the graphs as it is good to hear all perspectives.

Here are the flow graphs first in 2012 when releasing so much water before anyone knows what the snowpack is resulted in.

The only time it got above 475 in the summer of 2012 or what the river is running right now was due to rain.











In 2013 I was part of the discussion where the flow target was reduced.. What happened is we saw a great monsoon season or we would have seen below 600 at wellsville from July 1st on. 

So I have to disagree that the VFP delivered the 700 cfs as VFP water was not the reason for the targeted flows in 12 or 13. Rather is was folks like Kara doing what ever they could to get us as close as possible.











Gretch have you had time to talk with Mr Rasumssin about why TU is requesting that the CPW/AHRA totally ban boating on sections of the Ark? I have to disagree with you that "this wont fly" or the CPW is looking at shutting down section this is a fact. You said earlier you would contact him so please report your findings. Until then could you please state facts and not innuendo as I look forward to what you find out about what Mr Rasumssin as well as TU's position is and the reason for it.


----------



## Stripperclip (Jan 16, 2012)

lmyers said:


> From the link Cadster posted regarding Gold Medal waters:
> 
> "They also try to limit when the spring release comes as far as run off. If they hold it off until May or the third week in May, this lets the Rainbows spawn in the spring without the risk of them being washed away."


I'm guessing it might be a combination of both events. The Brown trout young and Rainbow redds. According to this years "Central Colorado Fishing Guide" on page 14. The author, Tom Palka, says "the timing of these high flows might keep the emerging brown trout fry from feeding well and putting on weight."

Tom's article is nice compact history of the Ark fishery.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

Thanks Stripper. Is that guide available online anywhere?




RDNEK said:


> I think that after 2009 and since CPW has totally taken over control over at the AHRA that the last sentence should be changed to "enhancement of fish and wildlife with incidental benefits to recreation. Because in reality this is what is happening.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your time and thanks for being the ONLY one at your level who will give the straight dope to boaters.


I do think it should be pointed out that fishing is also recreation, and individuals who are float fishing are also "boaters." They just happen to enjoy floating at slightly lower flows.


----------



## cadster (May 1, 2005)

So you are stating that this article is wrong about last year's VFMP?

Was Rob White not correct when he is quoted saying the goal is 700 CFS?



RDNEK said:


> In 2013 I was part of the discussion where the flow target was reduced.. What happened is we saw a great monsoon season or we would have seen below 600 at wellsville from July 1st on.
> 
> So I have to disagree that the VFP delivered the 700 cfs as VFP water was not the reason for the targeted flows in 12 or 13. Rather is was folks like Kara doing what ever they could to get us as close as possible.


----------



## klamb (Oct 14, 2003)

*Your questions*

Hi all,
Sorry I was away from this thread for a while. I had a death in my family (grandfather) and was out with that and my kids on Spring Break most of the past two weeks. It's been a little crazy.

There are really good questions here. I will get with Roy tomorrow and see if we can get some answers for you. I want to look these over more closely, see how Rob White's e-mail today helped address them, and see if I can't shed some light on some of the grey areas. It'll be good for me, too. I always learn something from the great questions you all ask.

Thanks for your patience (and your compliments!).

Best,
Kara


----------



## Id725 (Nov 22, 2003)

Sorry about your loss, Kara.
I really appreciate your continued contributions to this discussion.
-Mike G


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

I think Mike just spoke for many of us, Kara. Please take your time...



Id725 said:


> Sorry about your loss, Kara.
> I really appreciate your continued contributions to this discussion.
> -Mike G


----------



## klamb (Oct 14, 2003)

*Answering questions*

Hi all,
This is a long one, so please bear with me!

Hopefully these answers will help clear up the questions Jahve had earlier in this thread. There were three question sets, so we've answered them in that order.

Response to Fry-Ark VFMP Questions:
1. There are various opportunities for private boaters to be involved with VFMP discussions. The Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area Citizens Task Force (Task Force) provides opportunities for input. I have been given a list of the names for those folks, but am not familiar with how they prefer to be contacted and I feel a little funny just listing their names and term limits on the Task Force in this thread. I've had too much Privacy Act training, I guess. Instead, I'm hoping they will volunteer their information--or maybe someone knows of a website that lists the Task Force members? These private boating representatives are nominated by the public and the Colorado White Water Association. 

Commercial outfitters have their own representatives on the Task Force. The Task Force serves as an advisory group to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management AHRA Manager, providing recommendations regarding management, growth, and development throughout the recreation area. Please contact AHRA for the current schedule of Task Force meetings. Additional VFMP coordination meetings will be scheduled this spring in anticipation of the May 1 forecast. The May 1 forecast is used for District allocations, including decisions about water budgeted for the VFMP. 

2. Fry-Ark Project water managed by Reclamation comprises less than 20 percent of all water in the Arkansas River basin. Reclamation is constrained in its ability to store and quickly release water in the upper reservoirs (Turquoise and Twin Lakes). Because of these physical constraints, reservoir operations must anticipate snowpack accumulation trends. Space in the upper reservoirs must match forecast imports in order to maximize Project water storage. To make sufficient space available, Reclamation begins moving Project water from the upper reservoirs to Pueblo Reservoir in November, in anticipation of a low to average water year. At any given time, water in the river can include varying proportions of native flow, water user requested releases, and Project water. Project water releases from the upper reservoirs are adjusted throughout the winter and spring season if forecast trends suggest greater storage is needed. For the current water year, based on increasing forecasts from February to March, additional Project water releases in March and April are needed to make sufficient space in the upper reservoirs for the projected west slope imports. The greatest precipitation months are March and April and month-to-month changes in forecast volume can vary by 30,000 acre-feet. Peak accumulation is typically observed in mid-April. *The May forecast is used to develop water allocation budgets, including water budgeted for the VFMP*. In an average year, an estimated 10,000 acre-feet of Project water is allotted to support the VFMP. Additional amounts are subject to discussions among the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Reclamation and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). Other water contributors to the VFMP include the Board of Water Works-Pueblo and CPW.

3. The federal authorizing language for the Fry-Ark Project is not subject to change absent Congressional action. There is no prioritization among recreation, fish, and wildlife uses in the authorizing language. We rely on coordination among the various stakeholders to continue to guide the VFMP in optimizing river conditions for multiple benefits and users, while working within the operating constraints of the Fry-Ark Project. 

Those answers may generate more questions than they satisfy. I'm on business travel until Monday, but I'm happy to address what I can when I get back. Meanwhile, happy boating!

Best,
Kara


----------



## cadster (May 1, 2005)

CTF contacts:
http://cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/parks/ArkansasHeadwatersRecreationArea/Documents/CTFContactList.pdf


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

So what I am reading from Kara is that boaters have been in an uproar for years over fishermen wanting early releases for the trout, which sets up the whole boating season to be screwed, but really the fishermen have nothing to do with it at all? So how did all this blame game against TU get started? Is there anything to it?

Granted I think doing early releases based on a weather FORECAST as opposed to actual SNOWPACK later in the season is quite stupid. It would be like me basing my entire retirement plans on winning the lottery. Maybe we can wait to see what we've got before we send it away? Poor planning by someone, no doubt, but why is TU being blamed? 

I did talk to a prominent member of TU who is going to the state meeting next week, and he was greatly offended that anyone would suggest TU is trying to reduce boating on certain sections of the Arkansas. He says that its plain untrue and not in the interests of TU at all. He said he will ask at the meeting next week what this is all about.


----------



## Sinjin Eberle (Nov 8, 2011)

*TU's position on this issue.*

Hi there. My name is Sinjin Eberle, and I am the Immediate Past President of Colorado Trout Unlimited (and life-long whitewater rafter and kayaker). I have been following this thread for a bit now, and would like to throw out a few points from the TU perspective. I would also like to address a couple of misconceptions that may be muddying the water (sorry) on this topic...

1) Trout Unlimited is a conservation organization first and foremost, and a fly-fishing advocacy group a distant second. But just like any organization, there are people within the group who have different priorities and approaches about how we all interact with the river. As with any group, there are also a variety of opinions about how rivers should be 'managed' within the context of either the environmental benefit, or the best conditions for their chosen sport.

2) Given that, one should understand that TU approaches management of the river from the perspective of what is best for the fishery. Now, that does not always mean what is best for FISHING, but what is best for the aquatic habitat as a whole. While I do not live in the Arkansas Valley (I live in Durango), my understanding is that the negotiations over many years on the Arkansas have revolved around how the state needs to manage the water resources, the desire for boaters to have a long, productive, and exciting boating season, and TU/Anglers desire to attempt to mimic a natural hydrograph for the benefit of the fishery (flushing flows in the spring, returning to a natural cycle disrupted by the dams). In my experience, and I am certainly no expert on this exact subject, this has been where the grumpiness has come from.

3) While it may seem like splitting hairs (and it very well may be!) in THIS case, Fred Rassmussen is the Angler Representative on the Citizens Task Force, NOT necessarily representing TU in this forum. Yes, Fred is a long time TU chapter leader (the Collegiate Peaks Anglers Chapter operates in the Leadville to Salida corridor) but in this forum he is not necessarily representing TU the organization. In fact, Steve Craig, who has been the Chapter President for the last few years, often attends these meetings as well and is the primary representative of the local chapter. Yes, splitting hairs, but it actually does matter. The chapter needs to continue to engage and interact with members of the local community, local regulators, and partner river users on what would be best for the river overall. Fred may be looking at the issue solely from the angling perspective and could be projecting only what would be best for the fish in that one stretch of river at that one time. (I did see some reference to protecting spawning redds and habitat and that may be where Fred is coming from - I have not spoken to him directly on this).

4) Finally, lets talk about TU's perspective on access. While there are always exceptions to the rules and a variety of 'yeah, buts...', IN GENERAL TU is all about increasing and improving public access to Colorado's exceptional rivers and streams. We help determine, fund, and build public access points, boat ramps, and other widely used river features all across the state. We work hard in the state legislature and federally to keep water in rivers every day, for all of our enjoyment, and we work hard in communities to establish a connection to the rivers that not only fuel our souls, but fuel our economies as well. Is TU perfect? Hell no, but we are dedicated to the health of our rivers, across the state, and very much believe that if people do not have access to these wonderful assets, then why should they care for their preservation. I for one want to be able to play and enjoy these amazing places where we ALL want to recreate, no matter if you have a fly rod or kayak paddle in your hand or not.

So, in closing, I hope that we can all get past one comment from one TU member (who was not representing TU in that forum) about a possible solution to a problem off the cuff. There are so many moving parts in any of these issues that must be explored and discussed. The boating community is more than welcome to say Hell No to closing a section of the river to boating - I personally would stand with you on that. But let's also give the local chapter a chance to officially weigh in on the issue in a more concrete and thoughtful way before we jump to "TU Said" conclusions.

Thank you for your time and interest in this issue!

Sinjin


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

jennifer said:


> I did talk to a prominent member of TU who is going to the state meeting next week, and he was greatly offended that anyone would suggest TU is trying to reduce boating on certain sections of the Arkansas. He says that its plain untrue and not in the interests of TU at all. He said he will ask at the meeting next week what this is all about.


I was at the last CTF meeting when Fred brought this up. He was basically shot down on his idea and suggestion.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Sinjin Eberle said:


> Hi there. My name is Sinjin Eberle, and I am the Immediate Past President of Colorado Trout Unlimited
> 
> 3) While it may seem like splitting hairs (and it very well may be!) in THIS case, Fred Rassmussen is the Angler Representative on the Citizens Task Force, NOT necessarily representing TU in this forum. Yes, Fred is a long time TU chapter leader (the Collegiate Peaks Anglers Chapter operates in the Leadville to Salida corridor) but in this forum he is not necessarily representing TU the organization. In fact, Steve Craig, who has been the Chapter President for the last few years, often attends these meetings as well and is the primary representative of the local chapter. Yes, splitting hairs, but it actually does matter.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply and I do have some questions. It is your position that Fred does not represent TU am I correct on this? 

I would have to disagree as it is clear to everyone who attends CTF meeting - Fred does represent TU. Also so you know Fred has pushed the no boating above Twin Lakes for more that a year now and it was considered until there was push back or the truth that there that there was a "organized" push to eliminate boating on a section of the Arkansas River. 

As I look back TU signed off or has recommended Fred for the position for over 10 years. Before the meetings Fred represents himself as a TU member, chapter head, and rep. At every meeting he wears a TU shirt or hat on and as a bare minimum a TU pin to identify himself as a TU rep. The position Fred represents is not a one time instance from Fred as he has related the idea of shutting down a section of the Arkansas River to boating for over a year - while literally wearing his Tu hat but you could be right that I am splitting hairs. 

Fred again with TU hat and shirt on was also against the section 3 experiment and wanted to see private rationing of boaters around Salida. These are FACTS that are saved in meeting min. If you disagree so whole hardheartedly with this position why would TU recommend him for over 10 years? Has TU rebuked Fred for any action or position while he has served as your rep to the CTF for the past decade? If you so fully and hole hardheartedly disagreed with his positions why would you recommend him for more than a decade? 

If you were in the meetings or had any knowledge of them you would know that Fred represents a constant distaste for kayakers, sup boarders, recreational rafters and commercial rafters. This is not a one time statement but a constant beating of the drum from a rep who is appointed by TU, has been the local chaper head but obviously does not voice the opinion of TU. What is the old sayin if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck well.... 

From the 8 years I have been attending the CTF meeting IMO it is hard to deny that Fred represents himself as speaking for TU and does represent the TU position. If he does not it is well with in TU's power to appoint another rep. 

I also have a question about your organization and their support of a "right to float" bill or other law in Colorado. Did your organization support this legislation of a couple of years ago? 

I think this is a great discussion and so you all know I have fished and seen the Ark for decades. I got in glory days before the fish kill and have good old days pics where the smallest fish is 17".. Started fishing the Ark in 1979 when you could drive into Browns Canyon, have guided float fishing since 1992, and still do to this day. I was in BVHS the year that the high school started helping the DOW keep track of the heavy metals in the rio. I also have been to my share of CTF meetings over the past decade and have seen the drastic changes in the past 4 years that will effect boaters who like to boat on water. I have seen the river with every single fish dead in it and floating on the surface and I have seen the fishing while not back to as good as it was in 80's getting better. 

There needs to be balance and we have lost the balance that was reached when DOW and Parks were separate. With that change the tide changed and the CPW now instead of attempting to save water for the short 6 week window that boaters have traditionally had is now doing everything they can to keep the flows as low as they possibly can in May, June, July, Sept, and Oct. All the time the private boater never gets in a word. 

Thanks for the continuing discussion as it looks like we are finally getting somewhere.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

Jahve said:


> CPW is now doing everything they can to keep the flows as low as they possibly can in May, June, July, Sept, and Oct. All the time the private boater never gets in a word.


I think you are being slightly dramatic here.


----------



## Sinjin Eberle (Nov 8, 2011)

Jahve said:


> Thanks for the reply and I do have some questions. It is your position that Fred does not represent TU am I correct on this?
> 
> I would have to disagree as it is clear to everyone who attends CTF meeting - Fred does represent TU.
> ----------------------------
> ...


Hi there, Jahve, thanks for your comments...

I am glad that I foreshadowed 'splitting hairs' because this response will really cook your noodle...

1) OFFICIALLY, Fred is the ANGLER representative on the CTF, and has been for quite a while (as you cited). Yes, Fred is a TU member, and occasional TU chapter officer, and certainly and proudly wears his TU affiliation on his sleeve. But in the context of the CTF, even if he is wearing all green pajamas with TU fish all over them, OFFICIALLY he is only representing the angler perspective in these forums, and NOT speaking for TU THE ORGANIZATION. Now, let's be real - perceptions are perceptions, and I get that. Especially in a small town/small valley - everyone overlaps everything and so it can certainly be perceived that he is speaking for TU. I received an email from him last night, essentially verifying everything I just said, so at least two of us are on the same page. Might there need to be a bit more diligence, sure. But it's like saying that because someone voted for Hickenlooper do they necessarily uphold every position that Looper has made? Of course not (or insert Obama or Romney or whatever...you get it.)

Additionally, Yes, the local TU chapter (and maybe even the state organization) nominated Fred to be in that position on the CTF. But that is only a NOMINATION, and he has to be voted and approved to be placed on the committee - we don't do that, we only nominate. And, if you have any experience in these kinds of things, often the guy who raises his hand and volunteers to go do something will get the nod. You should know, we have 25 chapters across the state, and have a wide array of people sitting on committees and boards and working groups of all stripes. Predominantly, TU is a volunteer organization (all the way to the President) - I have never been paid a dollar for my 10 years of volunteering for the organization at the state and national levels, let alone locally. So when people step up, we take that with gratitude.

Ok, so that's the Fred issue...

2) On the Right to Float issue - prepare for more hair splitting...:evil:

Recall when this issue came up initially, it was a wealthy private landowner (on the Taylor) being upset because commercial rafting operations were 'disrupting' a private fishing experience for his clients on a shore-based property. Also recall that TU's mission, and our sole purpose for existing, is "to conserve, protect, and restore Colorado's fisheries and their watersheds." Because a commercial rafting vs. private landowner issue has nothing to do with protecting Colorado's rivers (directly) we were able to abstain from jumping into the issue. Now, before you flame me - does supporting commercial rafting on (and therefore affection for) Colorado's rivers in our best interest? Sure, but there is also nuance that must be used in these very complicated issues.

After the issue got rolling, members of the state legislature essentially twisted the initial issue around, making it be more like commercial rafting vs. recreational angling, which really put us into a bad spot. Now what do we do?? I was President at the time, and my decision was that we needed to ENGAGE in the conversation, but not take a POSITION. Wimpy?? Maybe, but it would have done our organization, which I was responsible for, irreparable harm from one camp or the other, to take a position when the issue was STILL clearly NOT a river conservation issue - it was an access issue (and if you know anything about TU, you know that we have struggled with access NATIONALLY forever...). 

In short, the legislature twisted the issue and then ducked it by assigning a 'study' to be done...so...

Then, Governor Ritter convened a workgroup to study the issue and put forth a recommendation. Myself, along with two other state and National TU leaders, applied to be on that workgroup - our intention there was to be part of the conversation, and provide a mediating voice on the issues from both sides - we certainly use and have influence on both sides of the argument, so we should have at least a seat at the table. All three of us, who applied to be on the Governors committee, were denied.

In closing, issues like these are extremely difficult to navigate. It is never just as easy as picking a side and rolling with it - there are way to many attributing factors, and in an organization like ours, there are a million different 'what-ifs' to consider. Just wait till someone asks me about the Cristo debacle... 

Sinjin Eberle
Immediate Past President, Colorado TU


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Thank you for your comments Sinjin. For public reference here is the discussion from the last meeting's minutes:

"The group then began with Section 1A - Leadville to Granite. 

 Fred suggested that Segment 1A should be angling only, since it is narrow and fairly shallow, and most of the year it won’t support a boat. Fred said this would not be a major concession to give up 10 private boats per day (bpd) for 4 miles of the river. Joe wondered if there are any high flow levels when there are no anglers, as use could be based on flow levels. Fred remarked there shouldn’t be a problem with an angling only section, which would be from the Highway 24 Bridge (Hayden Meadows) to KOBE. Susan also noted this section is also an important area for bird nesting. 

Rob W mentioned that the river from Crystal Lakes to Hayden Meadows is more exclusive to anglers, and he noted that during high river levels, there are some boaters in 1A from the Highway 24 Bridge to KOBE. Fred said philosophically he would like to see one section of the river for angling only and this seems like the most reasonable. Fred also commented that over the years anglers have made a number of concessions to boating. 

Bob H remarked that the upper stretch is a good place at higher water to float. John K noted this is for private boaters only, no commercial boating is allowed. Susan commented she would like to see fishing only from Crystal Lakes to KOBE. Mark R commented he would like to be sure there is a section above Granite for private boaters, and he knows a number of privates that like Section 1A for uses such as standup paddling and duckies. Mark commented he does want to accommodate Fred’s proposal, but would rather like to allow certain private boating use on the river where it is most appropriate. Christina K asked if there is any float fishing in 1A, and Bob said the river is too narrow, and Fred added the river here is much better if fished from the bank. 

Mark mentioned there haven’t been any issues to date, so we should leave the private bpd capacity at 10. Wendy R commented she would like to keep multiple uses an option. Rob W explained that there is no boating access (boat ramps) between Hayden Meadows and Crystal Lakes due to the railroad (trespass). Rob said we would potentially have to add a new river section for 1A if we excluded boating use for any part of it. 

Mark agreed that above the Highway 24 Bridge, he might not have a problem with not allowing private boater use, but does not want to extend this exclusion below Hayden Meadows. 

Fred said that as the angler representative, anglers would like there to be no boating from Lake Fork to Kobe. 

There was further discussion and the other CTF members generally agreed there should be no boating from Lake Fork to Hayden Meadows, but private boating be allowed below Hayden Meadows. Rob W asked if Fred perceived conflict with anglers and boaters here, and Fred said he didn’t know. Fred explained that the reason he brought this up is because anglers who mostly fish from section 2d and down are getting over-ridden by private boaters, and he would like a refuge for anglers."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not personally in agreement with Mr. Robbins that private boaters would be willing to concede the river above the Highway 24 bridge. Who's opinion is it anyway that the stretch is too "narrow for boating"? I don't imagine these folks think Clear Creek or Lake Creek are navigable either. There is no stretch of the river that is off limits to anglers and the same courtesy should extend to private boaters as well. In fact the argument could be made that anglers should be eliminated from the playparks. I have personally had issues with fishermen casting into the features while being used by freestyle boaters...

There is another meeting today at 930 at the Chaffee County fairgrounds.

There will also be a public scoping process for the suggested revisions to the Management Plan once the process of CTF input is completed.

Logan


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

I attended the first half of today's meeting and personally think it was very productive. This site and thread were discussed, as well as the reasons why the flow pattern is being handled the way it is.

It needs to be stated again that Fred's recommendations to the AHRA management are his personal recommendations as Angler Rep, and they do not represent the recommendations of Trout Unlimited. Also, it was made very clear that Trout Unlimited has never made an official recommendation to the AHRA/CPW regarding their preference in flows. Any recommendations regarding minimum and maximum flows and timing of water movement in regards to the fishery are made by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife biologist for the Upper Arkansas.

The current recommendations regarding boating above Granite go as follows:

Anglers Representatives recommend private boating only be allowed above the Kobe site from November 1st to June 30th, closing it to boaters from July 1st to October 31st. Leaving Kobe to Granite open to private boaters year-round.

Commercial Outfitter Representatives recommend commercial boating be allowed during the same time periods and with the same restrictions as privates (currently no commercials are allowed above Granite).

Private Boater Representatives have not yet stated an official recommendation for this stretch.

I am of the opinion that there is currently not an issue there, so further regulation is not needed. Most of the year this stretch is too low to float anyway, so why make specific rules regulating an activity that never occurs?

What are some opinions from other private boaters? I don't see the proposed regulations causing a problem, I just don't like the idea of something saying "boating not allowed", and the possibility of it leading to potential rationing of private boating in section 3.


----------



## pilom (Dec 28, 2010)

Seems like this is a pretty big concession the private boating community would be making (the Rubicon of "no boating on this river").

Also, how would this be enforced? Signs at usual put-in's and takeouts with date ranges?

Can we trade this concession for "no fishing in any playpark features" or something similar?


----------



## Id725 (Nov 22, 2003)

There is no way we are agreeing to "No boating" on ANY stretch of river without darn-good cause and a big fight, people. Nick is right; that is ABSOLUTELY crossing the Rubicon. It's a principle.


----------



## DoStep (Jun 26, 2012)

Regarding Hayden to Granite, There seem to be solutions presented that don't have a problem. 

I've run that stretch a few times and its only boatable for a few months or even weeks per year. I've never seen fishermen along the stretch, possibly because the water is so high and fast when the boating is good. When the fishing improves, the water is usually too low to launch watercraft. So it would appear that for the most part, only one of these user groups is likely to be using that stretch at any given time, so I would echo the thought that nothing needs to be done from Hayden down, there is simply not enough boat traffic to warrant changing things up. As a private boater, I'd be happy to agree to staying off the stretch above Hayden. No skin lost there at all. BTW, the Hayden-Granite Stretch is absolutely beautiful. Mts. Massive and Elbert dominate the landscape.

But I would NOT agree to restrict boaters from ANY stretch between Hayden and Pueblo Res. This is a world class 120+ mile stretch of passable river from 300 cfs on for a wide variety of watercraft. 

When I come across fishing folk, I always take a wide line around them and smile. Never had a conflict with an angler. Simple courtesy and respect among the user groups goes a long way. But if everyone got along, we wouldn't need this CTF now, would we.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Thank you for the responses. I would encourage everyone reading this who has an opinion to please send an email to Leslie Tyson at: [email protected]

She has done a great job as a private boater rep, but needs more input from boaters. I can show up to meetings and tell everyone what I hear, but to have documented emails from different individuals goes a long way. Worst case scenario we will have to get boaters to come out in force when the scoping process commences.


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

This "angling only" idea is a discriminatory policy, and I question whether it would hold up in a state court. Generally, for a discriminatory regulation to stand a stricter scrutiny is required - the party would need to demonstrate why this regulation serves a legitimate purpose, and that their purpose could not be served by other available nondiscriminatory means. I doubt that this "angling only" case would be able to meet that test. 

Furthermore, according to C.R.S Title 33, Article 12.5 (Arkansas River Recreational Act), the commission does have "the authority to regulate recreational use on the Arkansas river" to "safeguard the *recreational quality* of the Arkansas river." However, the legislative declaration also stipulates in 33-12.5-103(3) that "the commission shall, to the maximum extent possible, but consistent with section 33-12.5-102, keep the regulation of the recreational uses of the Arkansas river to a minimum."

How will the recreational quality of the Arkansas River be enhanced and safeguarded by the implementation of a discriminatory policy? And would the commission be exercising - "to the maximum extent possible" - a minimum amount of regulation on the Arkansas by implementing a discriminatory regulation?


----------



## Id725 (Nov 22, 2003)

marko said:


> This "angling only" idea is a discriminatory policy, and I question whether it would hold up in a state court. Generally, for a discriminatory regulation to stand a stricter scrutiny is required - the party would need to demonstrate why this regulation serves a legitimate purpose, and that their purpose could not be served by other available nondiscriminatory means. I doubt that this "angling only" case would be able to meet that test.
> 
> Furthermore, according to C.R.S Title 33, Article 12.5 (Arkansas River Recreational Act), the commission does have "the authority to regulate recreational use on the Arkansas river" to "safeguard the *recreational quality* of the Arkansas river." However, the legislative declaration also stipulates in 33-12.5-103(3) that "the commission shall, to the maximum extent possible, but consistent with section 33-12.5-102, keep the regulation of the recreational uses of the Arkansas river to a minimum."
> 
> How will the recreational quality of the Arkansas River be enhanced and safeguarded by the implementation of a discriminatory policy? And would the commission be exercising - "to the maximum extent possible" - a minimum amount of regulation on the Arkansas by implementing a discriminatory regulation?


Brilliant! Thanks for posting that, Marko. "keep the regulation of the recreational uses of the Arkansas river to a minimum."
Boy are there some folks at AHRA and other entities who need to be reminded of this clause!


----------



## ag3dw (May 13, 2006)

*Ark Flows*

New thread. Anyway to know if flows will continue? Will "they" let us know when they change the gates? Looks like it will be 55-60 f next tue wed.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

I "heard" that we won't see less than 500 until Aug 15th at the soonest.

That was from a connected fishing guide.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

At the CTF meeting last week Rob said they were going to drop flows back to native in May if they move all the water they need to by then. They are a couple weeks behind where they want to be due to work that was done on the turbines at the Twin Lakes power plant.

Forecasts are calling for 20-30% more west slope water being moved than average.


----------



## ag3dw (May 13, 2006)

Thanks guys, sounds like it will be up most of the spring and summer. I have got to get up there more this year, love the Ark! Don't think I can make it up this week, but I did get my creeky river runner out and checked the fit and refit it. Should be able to get on Smelters next week to get some moving water paddle fitness going to be up for the numbers. Ye ha. 

ps is some of the camping opening up yet? Mtb?


----------



## climber-420 (Jan 10, 2014)

It looked really low this past weekend, when I drove down 285, and went towards Salida.


----------



## Tim Kennedy (May 28, 2004)

climber-420 said:


> It looked really low this past weekend, when I drove down 285, and went towards Salida.


I think that "really low" is somewhat relative. The Ark is currently running higher than it was in April 2013 and comparable to flows that we saw during the VFP period last summer (7/1 to 8/15).

View attachment Ark Below Granite 040113_040813.pdf


View attachment Ark Below Granite 071013_081513.pdf


View attachment Ark Below Granite 040114_040814.pdf


While it's not raging by any means, t's certainly been boatable flows the last few weeks.


----------



## climber-420 (Jan 10, 2014)

Sorry, maybe I am in the wrong section. I was thinking for float fishing from a raft.


----------



## DoStep (Jun 26, 2012)

It's been steady at about 600 cfs through Brown's for quite a while. Plenty of water to float fish from the raft. Unless we get a cold spell, it seems unlikely it will get much lower. 

Those in the know and that aren't guessing about BOR releases should feel free to chime in about now...


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

climber-420 said:


> Sorry, maybe I am in the wrong section. I was thinking for float fishing from a raft.


I thought right around 500 was when it got comfortable to float fish from a raft?


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

DoStep said:


> Those in the know and that aren't guessing about BOR releases should feel free to chime in about now...


Rob White responded to Angler Rep questions at the CTF meeting last week about the flow dropping in April by saying they would try and reduce it to native in May if all the space necessary to accommodate imports has been evacuated in Twin Lakes and Turquoise....so flows run a good chance of being slightly lower than now at Paddlefest unless runoff kicks in. Although the dust layers tend to make me believe we will transition into runoff sooner than later. Perhaps Kara knows the exact target pool height at Twin Lakes, but I doubt you are going to get exact details from anyone yet...


----------



## MikeThulin1972 (Mar 23, 2012)

*Ark flows ?*

Hey does anyone know if they cut off the water or just cut it back on ark ?
Looks like it's dropping. ?
Thanks 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## streetdoctor (May 11, 2012)

I saw that also, looks like it's bumping back up now though


----------



## cadster (May 1, 2005)

Not really new news, just being reported recently:
Arkansas River fishing is better than ever before - The Denver Post


----------



## bvwp1 (Oct 27, 2003)

Just got this from State Parks

Yes... they will bring the flows back up as soon as possible if they do not find any problems... I would imagine the ramp up will start later Wednesday if possible... or by Thursday at the latest.


----------



## Melrose (Nov 2, 2005)

*dropping*

GENERAL

There will be a Comprehensive Review conducted at Twin Lakes Reservoir on Wednesday, 16 April 2014. The outflow will be reduced to 0 cfs during the review.

Twin Lakes


Monday, 14 April 2014


At 1200 hours, decrease the project release from Twin Lakes to Lake Creek from 210 cfs to 160 cfs.
At 1300 hours, decrease the project release from Twin Lakes to Lake Creek from 160 cfs to 100 cfs.

Tuesday, 15 April 2014


At 1500 hours, decrease the project release from Twin Lakes to Lake Creek from 100 cfs to 50 cfs.
At 1600 hours, decrease the project release from Twin Lakes to Lake Creek from 50 cfs to 00 cfs.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Yep. Working on the dam. It will be back up in a couple days.


----------



## MikeThulin1972 (Mar 23, 2012)

Thanks Myers for info ...
Going Saturday for a run down numbers if you want to join. ?


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

I appreciate the invitation, but I have to clean a daycare facility Saturday. Hoping to be done in time to get a late afternoon run in....

Word is they hope to have the water back up by Wednesday, or Thursday at the latest.


----------



## bvwp1 (Oct 27, 2003)

This just in too

Additionally, at Twin Lakes dam, we are curtailing releases to Lake Creek and the Arkansas River today and tomorrow. Today, we scaled back to about 100 cfs. Tomorrow, we will continue scaling back to 0 cfs while a regular review of the dam is conducted. Once the review is complete, we will bring releases back up.

As always, please let me know if you have any related questions.

Best,
Kara

Kara Lamb
Public Information Officer
Bureau of Reclamation
Eastern Colorado Area Office
(970) 962-4326
Reclamation: GP Area Offices


----------



## MikeThulin1972 (Mar 23, 2012)

Thanks...


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## klamb (Oct 14, 2003)

*Catching up*

Hi all,
Thanks for posting that, bvwp1. 

Sounds like we'll actually get to 0 cfs from the dam tomorrow, April 16. It's an inspection we do about every three years. We anticipate getting down to 0 cfs by 10:30 a.m. They'll keep it at 0 for the inspection and then start heading back up again, is what I understand.

Best,
Kara


----------



## rivervibe (Apr 24, 2007)

Not complaining, more water for later I suppose. Any idea how long this inspection should take? Days? Weeks?

Thanks for the updates!


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

*Admin Note: Ark Flows Threads Merged*

There were three "Ark Flows" threads going so now they're all merged into this one. Thanks to our ever helpful friend Earl (bvwp1) down at CKS for starting this discussion and chiming in with good beta.

This current thread is in addition to the Arkansas River Management Plan Revision thread that should be of interest to anyone looking for the big picture on what's happening on the Ark, with lots of great posts by very knowledgeable long time Ark local Buzzards like lmyers, Jahve, Mike Harvey, and others weighing in. Now's your chance to provide input to Leslie Tyson (GameOn) of CW, one of the private boater representatives at the table, on how the Arkansas River is managed.

Looking forward to a kicking season down on the Ark!

-AH


----------



## klamb (Oct 14, 2003)

Rivervibe,
They have to be at 0 cfs for the inspection today. Normally these things take a day or two. There is a slight chance they could conclude today and start increasing releases this afternoon. We'll see.

The gist of the plan once the inspection concludes is that we will go up in 100 cfs increments over the next couple of days. The goal is to be back around 300 cfs from Twin Lakes to Lake Creek and the Arkansas by the weekend.

I'll let you all know if there are any changes to that plan.

Best,
Kara


----------



## RockyMt.Razorback (Apr 19, 2012)

klamb said:


> The gist of the plan once the inspection concludes is that we will go up in 100 cfs increments over the next couple of days. The goal is to be back around 300 cfs from Twin Lakes to Lake Creek and the Arkansas by the weekend.
> 
> I'll let you all know if there are any changes to that plan.
> 
> ...



I see that lake creek is currently reading 57 CFS. I was wondering if it is still the plan to be back around 300 CFS before tomorrow ?


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

Gotta look at Lake below Twin Lakes, it's at 219 and rising 75-100 cfs each day.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Hi Kara, I am curious why the BOR hasn't been updating the CPW water flow announcements page? Not everyone is in the email "loop", and the announcements page is accessible to everyone. Even though there have been significant changes to releases it has not been updated since February 11....thanks.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Just a heads up if you are in the BV area.

As the flows go up above 700 again if you are in BV and if like to play boat - might want to check out silver bullet or boat chute ...


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Has the Ark peaked? I figured we would see a big spike last night since yesterday was the warmest day of the year up here, but the river coming down from Leadville, Lake Creek and Chalk Creek all appear to have leveled off.... Clear Creek Ark is still rising though. 

What do you think, have we peaked, and if not, how much higher do you think it will go? I was thinking we were going to see it go up another 500-1000 cfs.....maybe not.


----------



## Randaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

If Lake Creek above Twin Lakes slows down and they lower the release level then maybe.... If it has, maybe we'll see prolonged fun levels!


----------



## klamb (Oct 14, 2003)

Hi Logan,
I'm not sure what's up with the CPW water flow announcement page. We don't update it. Someone at State Parks and Wildlife, I think (not really sure), used to post our e-mail announcements on there. Guess I better ask around.

Meanwhile, we're releasing about 1400 cfs out of Twin to Lake Creek and the Arkansas. We've only got about 152 cfs coming down Lake Fork Creek out of Turquoise.

As for peaks, I would wager (if I were a bettin' kind of gal and not on a federal computer) that we have not seen the peak yet on Lake Fork Creek and maybe not on Lake Creek. But I wouldn't be putting a lot of money down because I'm just not sure. 

Best,
Kara


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Thanks for the clarification and information Kara. As always your responses and posts are greatly appreciated.


----------



## cadster (May 1, 2005)

The May 1st Upper Ark snowpack was 112% of median compared to last year’s of 91%. We are three weeks past peak flow. The Wellsville gage has been following the 50 year historic average of nearly 2000 CFS for the past two weeks. The CPW is reporting almost 15000 AF of VFMP water remaining.

When will the flow drop below 1000 CFS? If the historic trend continues that won’t be until 8/1.

Why did CPW’s attempt to shorten the rafting season fail?

The CPW's AHRA water page appears to have been revised and is being updated: Colorado Parks & Wildlife - AHRA Water Flow


----------

