# Dam in BV to be removed for safer passage. Public input tonight



## bvwp1 (Oct 27, 2003)

Please come tonight to show your support in converting a dangerous dam into a a safer passage. Rob White wanted me to inform you that tomorrow, Wednesday, June 26, from 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. there will be a public meeting at the Aspen Room of the Buena Vista Community Center to discuss plans to reconstruct the Helena Diversion Boat Chute. As you are aware, this is a problematic structure and safety concern in its current state, and AHRA has plans to rebuild this in the fall of 2013 in cooperation with Helena Ditch owners. 

Public input is encouraged, and the public is invited to attend this discussion. If you have any questions, contact AHRA at 719-539-7289.


----------



## David L (Feb 13, 2004)

Is this the chute about a mile or so below the put-in at the foot bridge over the river, near the softball field?


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

Good to see this is finally happening. The money was approved 2 years ago but flow and other issues pushed it back a couple of years. 

I cant make it tonight but Earl is there any chance that we can get a play feature included? It seems with the amount of money involved that it would be a possibility.


----------



## Mike Harvey (Oct 10, 2003)

RDNEK said:


> Good to see this is finally happening. The money was approved 2 years ago but flow and other issues pushed it back a couple of years.
> 
> I cant make it tonight but Earl is there any chance that we can get a play feature included? It seems with the amount of money involved that it would be a possibility.


Hey NEK...give me a call.


----------



## tango (Feb 1, 2006)

horseshit. that's a great rapid.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

tango said:


> horseshit. that's a great rapid.


but it is a major hazard for swimmers....particularly the left side. I have done some work for the ditch owner and we stood on the headgate looking into the rapid and talking at base flow in the fall a few years ago. The entire left side drop is made of angular chunks of broken concrete and there is a significant amount of rebar protruding from it. I know a raft guide who flipped there on a training run and got his pfd hooked on a piece of rebar underwater....had to cut himself free...


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

thanks for the info Logan. That's what I thought I remembered about the debris over there on the left. Glad to hear this work's being done.

On a side note, years ago I heard from folks in the know that there is also a scouting easement there but that it's never been publicized by the powers that be (I remember the placque at the ballfields access incorrectly stating "private property, no scouting" there a couple years ago).

-AH


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Andy H. said:


> On a side note, years ago I heard from folks in the know that there is also a scouting easement there but that it's never been publicized by the powers that be (I remember the placque at the ballfields access incorrectly stating "private property, no scouting" there a couple years ago).
> 
> -AH


The AHRA acquired an easement from property owners 2 seasons ago. There is now a nice landing with a scout/portage trail on river right. There is appropriate signage indicating the presence of the drop, and the property lines surrounding the trail. Not sure if the river description sign at the Buena Vista boat ramp has been updated to reflect this or not...


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Logan,

My understanding is that the scouting easement is over a decade old and likely much older than that. The former (very cantankerous) landowner didn't recognize the scouting easement and continued to harass and threaten anyone scouting despite the easement. 

It was a several years ago (before AHRA "acquired" the easement) that I saw the plaque at the ballfields put in and was surprised that AHRA warned of the dam and stated there was private property / no trespassing while denying existence of the easement. 

-AH


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Interesting. It was my understanding that they had to purchase that small riverside parcel from the landowner in question to establish the trail..... regardless, there is a nice eddy there now with big boulders and a wide gravel trail big enough to portage a raft if necessary.


----------



## tango (Feb 1, 2006)

so there's adequate signage, a sneak line on river right, and a trail for those that want to portage. 

why change a fun rapid? to keep the people who *want* to run the left side of the boat chute safer?

angular concrete you say? sounds just like the blasted rock found on most of Colorado's finest rivers and creeks. and a _raft guide_ told a story... about getting entrapped there? well shoot, we should probably change every rapid that a raft guide has bad story about.


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

tango said:


> so there's adequate signage, a sneak line on river right, and a trail for those that want to portage.
> 
> why change a fun rapid? to keep the people who *want* to run the left side of the boat chute safer?
> 
> angular concrete you say? sounds just like the blasted rock found on most of Colorado's finest rivers and creeks. and a _raft guide_ told a story... about getting entrapped there? well shoot, we should probably change every rapid that a raft guide has bad story about.


I'm with tango. Maybe you could make the drop even more fun by stocking the eddy with sharks.


----------



## Mike Harvey (Oct 10, 2003)

Couple of details. AHRA owns the lot around the diversion structure, fee title. So there is no easement. There is a portage trail we built in 2011 and is public property and usable today and will remain following the planned improvements.

The purpose of the project is to improve the function of the diversion structure and headgate for the ditch owners. We helped AHRA fund the project through the CWCB and as a secondary benefit we proposed a boat chute to mitigate navigability concerns. 

It can be a fun rapid for experienced boaters, but it is an unquestioned hazard where there have been numerous accidents including a fatality. The various ditch owners over about 100 years have thrown all manner of foreign material in the river at the site to try and hold up the dam (including a mule team in 1935 that rolled into the river at the site and were never seen again). AHRA and others have been cutting re-bar out of the drop for years.

The structure is in a state of disrepair and the ditch owners were going to have to do maintenance at some point soon. AHRA deserves credit for being forward thinking on this problem and making sure the solution includes a passable structure for boaters. 

I'll try to keep the Buzz abreast of progress, but the plan is to be under construction in October. Thanks.


----------



## Swank (Jun 20, 2009)

That you for doing the right thing based on being well informed and balanced.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

*Historic Public Easement at Dam*

Mike - thanks for the info and for the work y'all are doing on one of my favorite rivers. It's great to hear that this structure is going to be rebuilt and, as a sissy who flinches at the thought of going over a drop like that into concrete rubble and rebar, I'm really looking forward to running that stretch more regularly after they do the work. 

My point was that there's been an easement for scouting/portage for well over a decade and that AHRA appears to have been unaware of it. 

Here's the pertinent part of an email chain I once had with Jason Robertson when he was still Access Director at AW. Jason brought some long-time Ark River boating community players into the discussion to help answer questions I had. Jay Kenney weighed in with some very helpful info about easements and access on the Ark including this nugget:



> ...As for the case a few years ago, Pat Tooley and I represented a boater who got out to scout the dam below the BV ballfields. They were ticketed for trespass, but our research discovered there's a public easement for recreation along the dam's edge. Case dismissed. That means it is OK to scout that dam from river right (river left is private).


This exchange is from 2003 so the easement was there for a long time before AHRA purchased the property. If Kenney and Tooley indeed determined that there was an easement sometime around 2000 or earlier, it makes me wonder why the easement was never recognized or publicized by the managing agency, especially with the dam's history as a hazard.

-AH


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

2nd river modification project in 3 years to make the Ark safer. Great precedent you're setting. I look forward to more rapids turned into disney rides and other sections closed altogether if they can't be fixed.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

glenn said:


> 2nd river modification project in 3 years to make the Ark safer. Great precedent you're setting. I look forward to more rapids turned into disney rides and other sections closed altogether if they can't be fixed.


That's not a natural feature. It's a man made alteration to the rio.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Phil U. said:


> That's not a natural feature. It's a man made alteration to the rio.


Sorry for the abrasive tone the summer heat was testing my nerves today. 

The first fix I referenced wasn't a man made feature. It's recent enough for me to remember and now the same argument is being used another feature not 10 miles away. Regularly modifying rivers numbs people to the impact whether those rivers are natural or not. Not to mention there is a lot of good whitewater from blast rock all over the west. There is quite a bit to lose as a whitewater user group by giving automatic authority to change rapids just because they isn't natural. 

I know this is basically a CL II stretch and the big line on the feature isn't really in character however this are a lot of ways to manage the risk. There is a big pool above it, a boat chute and a portage trail. To boot there are other beginner runs in the immediate vicinity. I feel sorry for whomever died in there, but talk about being in way over your head.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Hah! "Glenn", I find it funny that "Every dam is temporary" is on all your posts.  These guys want to clean up a dam... I hate metal in rivers. Personally, I hardly ever paddle the Royal Gorge because its so full of rebar and industrial/metal waste. 

The other spot you reference was altered during a body recovery but anyone that wants to run the old potentially terminal line can still run it.

I do appreciate you raising concerns about altering rivers for any reason. It always needs to be a baseline concern for us as a community.


----------



## Star kitty (Aug 11, 2012)

Mike Harvey said:


> Couple of details. AHRA owns the lot around the diversion structure, fee title. So there is no easement. There is a portage trail we built in 2011 and is public property and usable today and will remain following the planned improvements.
> 
> The purpose of the project is to improve the function of the diversion structure and headgate for the ditch owners. We helped AHRA fund the project through the CWCB and as a secondary benefit we proposed a boat chute to mitigate navigability concerns.
> 
> ...


Hi Mike. 

Alex and I ran that section yesterday on our inflatables and that dam area was sketch.

We did the portage but had a hell of a time getting back into the safer line on river left.

We loved the run except for that area...which on a SUP was really challenging. Glad to hear this might get some love in the near future.


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

You guys are missing a couple of things. 

The ditch head has to be repaired soon so they can keep a constant water flow or get the water that they own down the ditch - this is priority #1.. The 2 high water years (2010 and 2011) degraded the structure to the point where a fix is necessary to get the water they need. The AHRA got a grant 2 years ago to fix the boat chute portion of it so that boats can pass after the fix and have been talking about it since then. This will be the 4th "fix" or clean up of the structure that I can remember.. 

The easement Andy H mentioned - is/was due to who used to own the ditch - they happen to be one of the most friendly local ranch/business families in the valley so they allowed the easement to happen and eventually a sold the small piece of the property on the river right to the AHRA... 

All in all it needed a rebuild to first keep the head of the ditch intact and 2nd in the same rebuild change the boat chute for passage by boaters. It is very positive that the AHRA saw this coming and was pro active to include boating in the restructure. The rebuild by the ditch company is going to happen anyway and it is super cool to see them include boaters in the rebuild... No doubt Harv and crew will do a great job!

Harv I have been busy but will give you a call.. All I want to see in the fix is a nice 6' or so wave that resembles the M Wave with big auto return eddies  ..


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Phil U. said:


> Hah! "Glenn", I find it funny that "Every dam is temporary" is on all your posts.  These guys want to clean up a dam... I hate metal in rivers. Personally, I hardly ever paddle the Royal Gorge because its so full of rebar and industrial/metal waste.
> 
> The other spot you reference was altered during a body recovery but anyone that wants to run the old potentially terminal line can still run it.
> 
> I do appreciate you raising concerns about altering rivers for any reason. It always needs to be a baseline concern for us as a community.


... not sure why my name is in quotes. It is my name. 

My signature has to do with the short lived nature of our dams in reference to the lifespan of a river and the earth. This incident whole process is about a failing dam and the need to replace it. It's a perfect example of what I my signature is talking about although in this case the dam is being rebuilt. The arguments here mostly talk about making the feature safer not about the need to keep a diversion structure in the river. I'm not naive enough to believe this isn't going through automatically because of a number of factors. Not the least of which someone wants to continue to take water out of the river.

I don't want to dig up the last case again too much but that whole reworking of the river was very dubious and while I haven't been back to see the results it was done in a pretty shitty way. I'm glad to see this process is asking for comments and I'm providing mine. 

I'm not a fan of natural things in the river either Phil, but the reasons we use to get things done and the way we go about doing them sets precedents.


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

I've done some research and I recommend the Northern river shark. They can grow to a healthy 8.2 feet in length and are known for a poor temper. Read more http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_shark

These sharks, along with the streamed improvements would make the drop safer, while maintaining the danger factor for swimmers.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Hey Glenn. I always put people's handles in quotes unless I know them cuz I never know if its someone's real name or not. No big deal...

We're mostly on the same page here and I totally agree that these conversations need to happen, with clarity about motives and process being a worthwhile goal and outcome. 

And I continue to advocate for making any rapid safer if it involves removing rebar etc.

Sharks? I'll bet that would get the fisherfolk up in arms.  

Carry on...


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

glenn said:


> but that whole reworking of the river was very dubious and while I haven't been back to see the results it was done in a pretty shitty way.


I find it interesting how many people share this opinion that "haven't been back to see the results". The rapid is actually tougher at high water, it's just more difficult for a swimmer to end up in the cave/sieve at low flow. I applaud the AHRA for both taking a pro-active approach to the Silver Bullet issue as well as the work they did with Frog Rock.

If you don't like the fact that the headgate for the ditch has to be reworked, that's too bad. Colorado water law is old, and unlikely to change any time soon.


----------



## JHimick (May 12, 2006)

Claiming that it sets a bad precident or is "Disneyfication" to remove man made hazards from a river is simply idiotic.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

JHimick said:


> Claiming that it sets a bad precident or is "Disneyfication" to remove man made hazards from a river is simply idiotic.


Thanks for oversimplifying my comments. Now to do the same to you and at the same time getting at the subtly of my argument, please justify the removal of Jacob's Ladder on the NF Payette.


----------



## JHimick (May 12, 2006)

I think it comes down to how "hazard" is defined. I'm not familiar with the N Fork of the Payette but it appears it may contain a large amount of blast rock from being roadside. I suppose some slimy attorney could claim blast rock is a hazard. I suspect you and I do not consider it a hazard and therein lies the crux of the problem. I simply don't agree that removing rebar, broken concrete, and other man-made objects in this case will lead to a precedent that is applied to removing any sort of hazard on rivers in this area or throughout the country. I (and I suspect the majority of boaters) don't consider any rapid made out of garbage dumped in the river "good" and outside the bounds of alteration for safety. There is nothing to support the claim that this type of work will lead to any/all rapids affected by the hands of man being open to alteration for safety. These folks are volunteering a lot of their time to cleanup this POS and I think it's poor form to demean their efforts.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

No one is volunteering their time that I am aware of. Paid contractors will be remodeling a dam. You're claim that no one likes it is false as at least one person in this thread enjoys running it. Good is subjective.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

I actually do enjoy running the right side boat chute. It's a fun rapid, but as mentioned there are man-made hazards associated with the feature. If it is going to be worked on anyway, I can see room to improve it. That is just my opinion and I can respect the fact that some boaters enjoy the hair line on the left and would rather not see the rapid changed. I am hopeful that the rapid can be cleaned up, while maintaining 2 different difficulty level drops.

For reference here are a few pictures for those of you who may not be familiar with the drop. Actually ran it yesterday with a group primarily of locals, half of which had never seen the Silver Bullet before....



looking downstream from the scout/portage trail:


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

Thanks for the photos!

Been enjoying the ARK for decades but could not remember this rapid.


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)




----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

Any info on the dam below Granite but above Clear Creek putin?
Seems it was scheduled for some rebar cleaning a few years ago.
Running it in a cat at these levels looked like boat damage.
Coming down for some Pine Creek / Numbers action and like to add in Granite.

Thanks


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Rich said:


> Any info on the dam below Granite but above Clear Creek putin?
> Seems it was scheduled for some rebar cleaning a few years ago.
> Running it in a cat at these levels looked like boat damage.
> Coming down for some Pine Creek / Numbers action and like to add in Granite.
> ...


Basically just that it's the same.

My understanding is that when the AHRA got funding to do improvements to the Silver Bullet they also received funding to do work on the Granite Dam and the low-head with the boat chute just above Canon City. Haven't heard anymore on those 2, but I would guess they will be working on them one of these days....

Granite Dam has always been a portage for me, but I know of a few commercial companies that run it at appropriate flow.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

Logan, thanks for the info. As I remember, at low water (less than 1,000) it is ugly. Luckily I have a very light cat!


----------

