# Salt Snowpack?



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Snowpack for the basin is around 75% of average. Unless things change I would predict a short season with a peak around or less than 2k. One or two big storms could change that at any point though, as could a rain on snow event.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

It is definitely looking a bit meager this year compared to the last few...but as lmyers said, that can change pretty quickly with a few big storms. 

Looks like there is a winter storm advisory on for the next few days...and we'll see what comes after that. I might hit it early season if it comes up...crossing my fingers for some big storms (maybe not as big as last year though...it got a bit floody last year).


----------



## Epicrider (Feb 11, 2013)

Big storm rolling through tonight. expecting up to a foot in the high country in the Salt River Basin!


----------



## jamesthomas (Sep 12, 2010)

Hannigan meadows has gone from 9.1 SWE to 10.6 SWE in the last 3 days. No storms down there that I can see. Local dump? Blowing snow? WTF???


----------



## kayakingphotog (May 25, 2007)

As of today the snowpack at Hannigan meadow looks better than last year which turned out to be a fantastic year. 2/16/2019 SWE was at 7.8. This year it is at 10.4. Watch those late Feb March storms and make plans accordingly. Have a 3/22 permit. Looks perfect!!!!!


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

jamesthomas said:


> Hannigan meadows has gone from 9.1 SWE to 10.6 SWE in the last 3 days. No storms down there that I can see. Local dump? Blowing snow? WTF???


I'm far from an expert...but I think it has something to do with the snow becoming denser as it packs down, melts and recrystalizes.

About this time last year some huge storms started to rolled through and eventually brought the SWE up to into 14" range. No weather forecast indications of major precipitation anytime soon but that can change kinda quickly. Forecasted to be pretty cold for a while...so could be a late start to the season. Really hard to tell...its gonna take some warm temps and/or a big rain storm to kick the season off. 

One of the factors that plays into things is the ground water saturation level. Right now there is snow of the ground but not much of it has soaked in. For water to travel down off the hills, first you have to saturate it enough where it doesn't want to soak in anymore and flows downhill into streams. Last year, the big storms saturated the ground thoroughly so most of the snow melt flushed into the rivers. This year, unless another big storm comes and soaks the area, its gonna be a slow burn at first.

So yeah...its looking good snow pack wise...but there are other factors in play. There will be a season....but when it starts and how big it gets is not super clear.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> One of the factors that plays into things is the ground water saturation level. Right now there is snow of the ground but not much of it has soaked in. For water to travel down off the hills, first you have to saturate it enough where it doesn't want to soak in anymore and flows downhill into streams. Last year, the big storms saturated the ground thoroughly so most of the snow melt flushed into the rivers. This year, unless another big storm comes and soaks the area, its gonna be a slow burn at first.



You could assume as much based on the way runoff in the Rockies occurs, but in the Salt Basin it seems to be a pretty regular event to get rain on frozen ground. That's when you see flows go to 10k overnight like it did 3 times last season, and it blows out the snowpack fairly quickly.


----------



## Critter70 (Nov 22, 2016)

SO I know there’s is no way to know, but from you folks that monitor the SAlt snowpack, hat is everyone’s best guess on decent water second week of April? From what I’m reading a late snow storm or heavy rain event can dramatically change projections, so is this one of those snowpacks that’s just a lets wait and see?


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

I gave a talk the other night with Joel Gratz. He does what is called Opensnow.com and makes a living keeping an eye on snow relative to skiing.

He had a very interesting slide showing that in recent years low elevation SNOTEL sites are trending below average while high elevation SNOTEL sites are doing much better. Something perhaps called Climate Change. If you look at the Salt SNOTEL sites that is true. The higher sites are at or above average SWE such as Hannagan Meadows, Baldy and Maverick Fork and the lower sites are pulling down the basin average.

Salt SNOTEL precip is at average and the river flow has been near average suggesting good soil saturation maybe. The morning flow reports posted here on MB show that this has been true and very steady for the last two weeks.

The NOAA 6-10 day and 8-14 day outlooks look good for cooler temps to preserve snowpack and near average precip and potentially significantly above average chance of precip in the 6-10 day outlook.

Joel had another very informative slide, showing that forecasting beyond the about 10 to 14 day window tends to be as wrong as it is right. 

But I've given up trying to over think the Salt. One flap of a butterfly wing, as they say, in the South Pacific can change it all. I was very surprised last year for example based on mid-snowpack-season conditions and Salt SWE on average doesn't even peak until the first week of March so let us all continue to think positive.


----------



## kayakingphotog (May 25, 2007)

GeoRon said:


> I gave a talk the other night with Joel Gratz. He does what is called Opensnow.com and makes a living keeping an eye on snow relative to skiing.
> 
> He had a very interesting slide showing that in recent years low elevation SNOTEL sites are trending below average while high elevation SNOTEL sites are doing much better. Something perhaps called Climate Change. If you look at the Salt SNOTEL sites that is true. The higher sites are at or above average SWE such as Hannagan Meadows, Baldy and Maverick Fork and the lower sites are pulling down the basin average.
> 
> ...


GeoRon that was a great post. Thanks for that. That butterfly is flapping its wings towards the mountains NE of Phoenix as I type!


----------



## Critter70 (Nov 22, 2016)

Just received an email from Don Sullivan the river manager down there. I have to say that it’s one of the most informative emails I have ever received from a river agency. I tip my hat to you Don, solid work!!


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

lmyers said:


> You could assume as much based on the way runoff in the Rockies occurs, but in the Salt Basin it seems to be a pretty regular event to get rain on frozen ground. That's when you see flows go to 10k overnight like it did 3 times last season, and it blows out the snowpack fairly quickly.


True enough...but the storms last year caused 100 year floods in the surrounding area...so they were long and persistant and close together. The first storm saturated the area, so subsequent storms water flushed into the streams and rivers. The rain also melts the snow much quicker and pushes it into the rivers more quickly as well.

It looks like a small storm will be going through the area on the 22nd...but otherwise its sunny, dry, but cold through the end of the month. Its hard to predict more then a week out exactly what might happen...but all indications say that the season might start a bit late this year. If I had a permit for the first week of March I might be a bit nervous.



Critter70 said:


> Just received an email from Don Sullivan the river manager down there. I have to say that it’s one of the most informative emails I have ever received from a river agency. I tip my hat to you Don, solid work!!


Haha...I'm just glad he didn't send my email address out to every person on the list this year. He just copied and pasted the entire list of people who applied in to the CC field and blasted it out to everyone. I'm glad he found the blind copy field this year.

I do really appreciate how Don manages stuff though. They are very accommodating with issues and problems and seem to be reasonable about permit issues and getting them figured out. He genuinely seems to want to help people get down the river while still protecting the resource.

I will say my one major disagreement with them is their stance on invasive species, specifically Tamarisk. A ranger stopped at camp last year and started walking around pointing at all the broken and cut tamarisk and said it wasn't ok (we didn't do it...a previous group had) and that it was their stance that the Tamarisk had been "Grandfathered" in and is now protected. He even said they had hired biologists to come up with a plan for when the Tamarisk Beetles eventually make it to the Salt River Wilderness and how to combat them.

While I support resource protection...I can't say I support this particular one. The river bank is literally choked with them in many places, restricting access to camps and stifling the native flora of the area. Kind of off topic...but thought I'd bring it up.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> True enough...but the storms last year caused 100 year floods in the surrounding area...so they were long and persistant and close together. The first storm saturated the area, so subsequent storms water flushed into the streams and rivers. The rain also melts the snow much quicker and pushes it into the rivers more quickly as well.


They were "100 year floods" but in my 15 years of boating I've seen that situation happen at least 5 seasons, so I don't think they can really be called 100 year floods... and I don't remember them being "long and persistent" they were flash floods. The moisture fell in 24 - 36 hours each time causing an overnight spike that then retreated over the next 7 days.... Point being, I don't think those flows had anything to do with soil saturation. When the ground is frozen and the rain falls on snow most of the moisture runs off the surface of the ground instead of soaking in.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

lmyers said:


> They were "100 year floods" but in my 15 years of boating I've seen that situation happen at least 5 seasons, so I don't think they can really be called 100 year floods... and I don't remember them being "long and persistent" they were flash floods. The moisture fell in 24 - 36 hours each time causing an overnight spike that then retreated over the next 7 days.... Point being, I don't think those flows had anything to do with soil saturation. When the ground is frozen and the rain falls on snow most of the moisture runs off the surface of the ground instead of soaking in.


A 24-36 hour storm seems pretty drawn out to me. 

The floods on the Verde and other rivers in the area lasted for days. The Salt spiked and came down, but the main part of the storms that flooded other river basins passed to the north of the Salt and it only got hit by the edge. It was a record setting storm that dumped record amounts of snow on Flagstaff(40" in a day) and caused floods, downed power lines all over the state and the Governor issued a state of emergency... so it was certainly more then just a typical storm.

Every year there has been major early season runoff has coincided with one or several large rainstorms. I can see the ice theory working up high, but below 6000-7000 feet there just isn't that much snow.

I still hold that I think its gonna be a slow burn unless we get a big rain storm. Forecast is showing a small storm coming through on the 22nd but otherwise nothing. Like I said...I'd be a bit worried if I got a permit for the first week of March right now. NOAA forecast for the Chrysotile gauge (which was VERY flaky and inaccurate but is the best we have) is saying it might hit 2k cfs during the storm coming through but dropping back down to the 400-600cfs range soon after the storm passes.

I was watching this like a hawk last year and almost pulled the trigger to go run it this time last year but the conditions were so flaky I didn't. Kinda regret it because some friends had a blast doing day trips just before it spiked hard up to 10k. The NOAA projections for last year had it at 20-30k cfs or more as I recall.

Whether its flowing off of ice or if its saturating the ground and then flowing... if we don't get a pretty resonably large storm to start it off its gonna be a slow start to the season.


----------



## kayakingphotog (May 25, 2007)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> A 24-36 hour storm seems pretty drawn out to me.
> 
> 
> Hey EM,
> ...


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

kayakingphotog said:


> Hey EM,
> 
> I just sent u a private message. Disregard it. Just realized you never had the respect to answer back to any of them. Have a great day and good luck on your next float.....


What? We've talked several times since that trip...not sure what you mean. Sorry if I offended you...that certainly wasn't my intention. If I failed to respond, it was never on purpose.

I show us having a conversation about the Salt this time last year... 

I copied this verbatim... all on February 12th of last year...

You sent this PM...



> _Hey Josh,
> 
> I wanted to add you to this email however I did not have your address.
> 
> ...


I responded with this...



> _Yeah...I remember you...mostly for the digger you took on the rafts . Hope you healed well after the whole retina thing. I've gone boating with Brett as well as Larry and Ken and have bumped into Peter a few times too.
> 
> I'd normally be very interested...but I am 90% sure that I have an invite on a Grand Canyon trip on the 6th so I'd have to dash down the Salt if I joined you guys. If for some reason the Grand Canyon doesn't come through, I'd be interested for sure.
> 
> ...


I left my contact info at the bottom but don't wanna post it publicly here...so at some point you had both my email and phone number.

... you responded with..



> _Thanks for the reply. Hopefully the grand trip materializes. Duwain Whitis just invited me to join them on a grand trip in late May and Errol Badd of Jacks Plastic just invited me on a Dolores trip in late April. Need to go check that Power Ball ticket. Its the only way I could go haha.
> 
> Yes we are waiting on other lottery picks hoping we have other choices however the Salt is such a gem we gotta go do it. Percentiles are looking favorable. If the grand falls through let me know.
> 
> And yes I healed up fine. Have a nice scar and a huge dr bill to repair the torn rupture in my eye from the fall. Another day on the river......_


If you sent any other correspondence via PM's or email...I apologize for not seeing them and responding. 

I've actually included you in multiple emails for invites on trips as well now that I look at my emails. You even responded to one about a Lodore trip in 2016.

Again...sorry if I've offended.


----------



## kayakingphotog (May 25, 2007)

Hey EM,

I am a smuck. Had major surgery a couple of days ago and the meds fuddled my mind. I apologize for any wrong doing and or assumptions on my end. I love how you called me out. You are a super organized guy that is always prepared. 

Just talked to Brent and he is stoked for your grand trip. Should be fun. I am not the permit holder however we have a 3/22 Salt permit. Looking for rafters. If I can heal up in time I will go but probably kayak and have someone row my raft. If your interested PM me and I will throw your name into the hopper. BTW Brett has never ran the Salt. Convince him to go. The Salt is what I calla sporty class IV. Great way to start the season. 

SYOTR


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

kayakingphotog said:


> Hey EM,
> 
> I am a smuck. Had major surgery a couple of days ago and the meds fuddled my mind. I apologize for any wrong doing and or assumptions on my end. I love how you called me out. You are a super organized guy that is always prepared.
> 
> ...


No worries dude... figured there was something funky going on.

I'd love to go on your Salt trip... but it would have to be a short one since I need to be home on the evening of the 24th since I work 25th-28th. I'd try to get out of it, but that is the only gig I have in March and I can't really get out of it.

I agree that Brett needs to get on the Salt...its a blast. I think he is using up most of his vacation time for the Grand...but sometimes he can be persuaded. He bought a 13' Hyside setup last year...so he's pretty well setup for stuff like the Salt not having to take the big 18' cat.

Sporty class IV sounds about right... and it gets more "sporty" the higher it gets. I certainly agree that its a great way to start. My first time down was right before a February Grand Canyon trip in 2017 and it was a great way to wash the cobwebs off before hitting the Grand. Its in my top 5 runs to do and is my favorite 3-5 day trip.

Anyways... we got off topic and all these fine people on mountainbuzz probably don't care... so I'll leave it at that. I sent you a PM last night that has my contact info so feel free to reach out that way.


----------



## MountainmanPete (Jun 7, 2014)

kayakingphotog said:


> As of today the snowpack at Hannigan meadow looks better than last year which turned out to be a fantastic year. 2/16/2019 SWE was at 7.8. This year it is at 10.4. Watch those late Feb March storms and make plans accordingly. Have a 3/22 permit. Looks perfect!!!!!


We are on a 3/21 permit. keep an eye out for 3 rafts and a kayak. I'll toss you a beer.


----------



## blueotter (Nov 30, 2018)

*...it was their stance that the Tamarisk had been "Grandfathered" in and is now protected. He even said they had hired biologists to come up with a plan for when the Tamarisk Beetles eventually make it to the Salt River Wilderness and how to combat them.*

This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard...


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

blueotter said:


> *...it was their stance that the Tamarisk had been "Grandfathered" in and is now protected. He even said they had hired biologists to come up with a plan for when the Tamarisk Beetles eventually make it to the Salt River Wilderness and how to combat them.*
> 
> This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard...


You aren't wrong...


----------



## cake (Jun 21, 2011)

CBRFC shows it spiking to almost 9K in the next day or so. Probably that storm that's supposed to hit the San Juans this weekend, but a good sign, eh? 

We've got a launch date for March 12th. Will be my first time after trying to get on it for the past few years, so I'm pretty stoked. Hoping for 2K+ flows to help push my fat 14' outlaw down the drink...


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

Heres to hoping that this storm gets things going this weekend and then the warm temps that are supposed to come next week keep it that way.


----------



## pwolfehagen (Sep 18, 2018)

Oh Nelly is this storm warm. It has been solid heavy rain here in Phoenix for the last three hours and it is slow moving. With a low temp last night of 57. This afternoon and tomorrow will go big.


----------



## SherpaDave (Dec 28, 2017)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> I will say my one major disagreement with them is their stance on invasive species, specifically Tamarisk. A ranger stopped at camp last year and started walking around pointing at all the broken and cut tamarisk and said it wasn't ok (we didn't do it...a previous group had) and that it was their stance that the Tamarisk had been "Grandfathered" in and is now protected. He even said they had hired biologists to come up with a plan for when the Tamarisk Beetles eventually make it to the Salt River Wilderness and how to combat them.
> 
> While I support resource protection...I can't say I support this particular one. The river bank is literally choked with them in many places, restricting access to camps and stifling the native flora of the area. Kind of off topic...but thought I'd bring it up.



Huh - I got the opposite impression in a very brief conversation last year. It was along the lines that in a few years the beetle is expected to arrive and it will make a big impact within a few years of arriving. Your conversation seems much more detailed than mine.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

SherpaDave said:


> Huh - I got the opposite impression in a very brief conversation last year. It was along the lines that in a few years the beetle is expected to arrive and it will make a big impact within a few years of arriving. Your conversation seems much more detailed than mine.


Well...the beginning of the conversation, after he chastised us for there being a couple of tiny broken branches of a Tamarisk near the trail up to camp, was very similar to what you are saying. However, he went on to say that they were operating as if the Tamarisk was grandfathered into the wilderness and that messing with it was not ok. He definitely mentioned that they believed the beetles would make it to the area eventually and that they had seen them migrating that way and they believed that it would indeed make a big impact... but he made it clear that they did not welcome that impact like most of the other river districts have. Instead, he said they had hired environmental biologists to do an impact study and make recommendations for how to mitigate the "problems" the beetles will cause in the area.

So yeah...not super happy with how they manage that area. The recent decisions to be ticket happy with pre-permit trips, messing up the date for cancellations being released, and now the news that after he had a meeting with the Tribal rangers... the camps near the put in will be off limits under threat of having ALL gear confiscated by a tribe that owns the left side for the first mile, the Apaches are being very restrictive and have even gone as far as saying they are planning to periodically bring drug sniffing dogs into peoples camps and a bunch of other stuff that makes it harder for river runners unnecessarily... its kind of a bummer its going that way and that all the rangers involved seem to have that mentality.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Well...the beginning of the conversation, after he chastised us for there being a couple of tiny broken branches of a Tamarisk near the trail up to camp, was very similar to what you are saying. However, he went on to say that they were operating as if the Tamarisk was grandfathered into the wilderness and that messing with it was not ok. He definitely mentioned that they believed the beetles would make it to the area eventually and that they had seen them migrating that way and they believed that it would indeed make a big impact... but he made it clear that they did not welcome that impact like most of the other river districts have. Instead, he said they had hired environmental biologists to do an impact study and make recommendations for how to mitigate the "problems" the beetles will cause in the area.
> 
> So yeah...not super happy with how they manage that area. The recent decisions to be ticket happy with pre-permit trips, messing up the date for cancellations being released, and now the news that after he had a meeting with the Tribal rangers... the camps near the put in will be off limits under threat of having ALL gear confiscated by a tribe that owns the left side for the first mile, the Apaches are being very restrictive and have even gone as far as saying they are planning to periodically bring drug sniffing dogs into peoples camps and a bunch of other stuff that makes it harder for river runners unnecessarily... its kind of a bummer its going that way and that all the rangers involved seem to have that mentality.



What river do you run that it says in the rules to go ahead and cut all the tamis you want? Even places where they have introduced the beetle, its still "dead and down collection only". I agree that we should cut the shit of of tamis at will, especially when they make accessing an established camp impossible, but nowhere I can think of says its ok to do so.

Ticket happy? If they wanted to jam people up he wouldn't have mentioned the law in the first place. I saw it as a friendly reminder, so they don't have to write tickets. Those have been the rules, they just haven't been enforced because they haven't been having problems. Hard to have problems or need to enforce laws when there is no water or crowds and no one is being negatively affected by said infringement. I would be absolutely pissed if I had a March 1 permit and couldn't find a camp in the first x amount of miles because several of the 10 groups that launched on Feb 28/29 were layed over/slow out of camp. Last year was a great early season water year and there were issues with that. Its typical "people can't police themselves so we have to" I agree it sucks that it has come to that but the crowd that launched on the 28th last year did this to us. We launched last year on the 25th mainly to get ahead of that crowd. Don caught up to us on the 28th and said there were 10 groups at the put in when he launched on the 27. River running has become WAY to popular for such a finite resource. We are only going to see increased restrictions because the crowds keep coming. Those of us that have been rafting for 20+ years, or even 10 have seen the last of the good ol days. Its a new game. Getting a permit is impossible which puts more strain on unpermitted stretches/ seasons which increases impact, causes more issues which leads to more permits that we can't get. Pretty soon you'll be relegated to a lottery for a browns run and getting a rec.gov permit to float the south platte from union chutes to commerce city.

As much as it sucks, the Apaches can do what they want with their land. They see the increased use, and the money they are losing out on. The world we live in. I see the rangers working with the Apaches as a good thing. The Apaches could absolutely close the put in down or charge us $500 a head if they wanted.


----------



## jamesthomas (Sep 12, 2010)

So no one is allowed to use the camps in the first three miles??? That seems like it will lead to major ramp cluster F. For instance, I would leave from sw Colorado early and get to the put in at three or four and head down to one of those camps rather than camp at the put in. If you can’t use those camps everyone will be forced to camp at the put in and launch the next morning creating a CF because of the limited space for both camping and launching.


----------



## Livenswell (Sep 19, 2016)

*Sharing the Resource*

Yeah, what Zbaird said^^

The Apaches have just as much right to keep people off of their land as those rich white folks living along the Main Salmon have every right to deny you pulling up and camping, building a bonfire on their "lawn" along the river; I think of it that way, no different. The White Mountain and San Carlos Apaches were/are among some of the most mistreated native people in N. American history. 

And hey I'm no fan of the tammies either; however, there is one Attenborough-esk thought to remember regarding torturing the tammies: 

As tamarisk has replaced the native willows and other native vegetation as the dominate vegetation/habitat along rivers throughout the west, some species of birds i.e. Southwest Willow Flycatcher, who once thrived in the willow thickets that are now diminished/gone along most watersheds, these birds have become listed as threatened and endangered (T&E) by the federal govt. 

Now such species call these tamarisk thickets home and have adapted to living/nesting in tamarisk over the last several decades, further compounding their T&E status as we try various ways (poisons, fire, mechanical extraction, introducing beetles etc.) of eliminating invasive species such as the tamarisk. Now that the beetle has/is arriving and is quickly killing off thousands of acres of tamarisk stands, the already T&E species are again also losing their habitat as the beetle is decimating these trees faster than they can be replaced with native non-invasive species. 

So, I believe that some of the government's concern with taking out the tammies involves a greater concern with protection of threatened and endangered animals. I dont think this is the case of some over-zealous govt. regulator trying to be a prick, its probably just someone doing their job and trying to share and make the resource available to all, including humans and T&E species. This cant be easy - especially in an already unique and ecologically sensitive place such as the Salt River Canyon where in a good water year you have thousands of people travelling the corridor continuously for 2-3 months during spring nesting season, everyone torturing the tammmies. 

And you know how it goes, one group does it, then the next, and the next takes out a few more and so on - then there is nothing left - good or bad vegetation (or shade). Using a pair of trimming shears or loppers to neatly prune and open up a trail into an overgrown, pre-existing campsite is one thing but destroying these trees just because they are tammies is a different action. There have been more than a few times I've been happy to shade up under a tammie, its all there is left in some places.

It seems as if any river ranger pulling into camp and checking things out would recognize the difference of well placed "camp/trail maintenance" and wanton destruction of the "resource" 

.02


----------



## pwolfehagen (Sep 18, 2018)

jamesthomas said:


> So no one is allowed to use the camps in the first three miles??? That seems like it will lead to major ramp cluster F. For instance, I would leave from sw Colorado early and get to the put in at three or four and head down to one of those camps rather than camp at the put in. If you can’t use those camps everyone will be forced to camp at the put in and launch the next morning creating a CF because of the limited space for both camping and launching.



The "no camping" applies to the first few miles of river left. No one typically camps there anyway. That is San Carlos reservation. You are still able to camp on river right, the White Mountain side, assuming you pay the $15 permit fee to camp.


I was up there today and did the day run. The Apache Ranger we encountered was super friendly and excited for the season to start.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

zbaird said:


> What river do you run that it says in the rules to go ahead and cut all the tamis you want? Even places where they have introduced the beetle, its still "dead and down collection only". I agree that we should cut the shit of of tamis at will, especially when they make accessing an established camp impossible, but nowhere I can think of says its ok to do so.


There are plenty of river districts with a very aggresive policy on getting rid of Tamarisk, especially in camps. This ranger made it very clear that they have the opposite opinion. I'm not saying to decimate the Tamarisk down the entire river corridor...but I don't think actively protecting it is the right way to go either. Many of the camps on the Salt have been completely overrun but Tamarisk and its only going to get worse.



zbaird said:


> Ticket happy? If they wanted to jam people up he wouldn't have mentioned the law in the first place. I saw it as a friendly reminder, so they don't have to write tickets. Those have been the rules, they just haven't been enforced because they haven't been having problems. Hard to have problems or need to enforce laws when there is no water or crowds and no one is being negatively affected by said infringement. I would be absolutely pissed if I had a March 1 permit and couldn't find a camp in the first x amount of miles because several of the 10 groups that launched on Feb 28/29 were layed over/slow out of camp. Last year was a great early season water year and there were issues with that. Its typical "people can't police themselves so we have to" I agree it sucks that it has come to that but the crowd that launched on the 28th last year did this to us. We launched last year on the 25th mainly to get ahead of that crowd. Don caught up to us on the 28th and said there were 10 groups at the put in when he launched on the 27. River running has become WAY to popular for such a finite resource. We are only going to see increased restrictions because the crowds keep coming. Those of us that have been rafting for 20+ years, or even 10 have seen the last of the good ol days. Its a new game. Getting a permit is impossible which puts more strain on unpermitted stretches/ seasons which increases impact, causes more issues which leads to more permits that we can't get. Pretty soon you'll be relegated to a lottery for a browns run and getting a rec.gov permit to float the south platte from union chutes to commerce city.


Frankly, I think Don pulled that number out of his ass. The only way that could have been the case is if it was 10 groups of 2 people. I've talked to many people who take advantage of the early season and you are the first that can note an actual problem with it. I said it in a post on FB about this... crowded camps are a thing that happens when some people want to do a long trip and others a short trip. Based on my own experience and others I've talked to... Don is completely overplaying the problem. I guarantee that the number of people going down the river spikes the first week of Permit season and only goes up as the weather gets nice and for as long as the water holds out. I know I've had way more issues finding camps during permit season then pre-season for sure. I for one, think that extending permits into February will only increase the number of people going down the river.

The whole "popularity of running rivers" thing is just something those of us who have been doing it a while are just gonna have to live with.

If crowded camps are really a thing... have a Ranger at the put in that assigns camps to the groups as they go down. If improper or insufficient equipment is a thing.. have a ranger check them in. In other words...have the rangers do their job. You don't have to have a pre arranged permit system to do that.



> As much as it sucks, the Apaches can do what they want with their land. They see the increased use, and the money they are losing out on. The world we live in. I see the rangers working with the Apaches as a good thing. The Apaches could absolutely close the put in down or charge us $500 a head if they wanted.


Sure... I don't disagree. My issue is that the Forest Service is doing the outreach to boaters on their behalf and that none of this seemed to be a thing before Don breached the subject with them. Maybe they were gonna do it anyways...but maybe having that meeting gave them an opportunity to air their grievances. 



Livenswell said:


> Yeah, what Zbaird said^^
> 
> The Apaches have just as much right to keep people off of their land as those rich white folks living along the Main Salmon have every right to deny you pulling up and camping, building a bonfire on their "lawn" along the river; I think of it that way, no different. The White Mountain and San Carlos Apaches were/are among some of the most mistreated native people in N. American history.


Again...I don't disagree... but I also haven't seen anyone behave in any way but respectfully towards the Apache rangers or the tribal land. If anything, its the day trip takeout area...but that seems reasonable too. Threatening to bring drug dogs into camp and all that just seems extra aggressive and unwarranted.



> And hey I'm no fan of the tammies either; however, there is one Attenborough-esk thought to remember regarding torturing the tammies:
> 
> As tamarisk has replaced the native willows and other native vegetation as the dominate vegetation/habitat along rivers throughout the west, some species of birds i.e. Southwest Willow Flycatcher, who once thrived in the willow thickets that are now diminished/gone along most watersheds, these birds have become listed as threatened and endangered (T&E) by the federal govt.
> 
> ...


I never said I want Wanton destruction or "torturing" of the Tamarisk (well..I kinda do..but not really). If I could snap a finger and make it disappear then I would and let native species return. I think the birds would be happier in their traditional home. Thats not a reality though.

At least this particular ranger DOES NOT see a difference between camp/trail maintenance and "wanton destruction". There were a few twigs that were poking out into a trailer that someone had cut off so they didn't gouge someones eye out and that was what he pointed out as being unacceptable. There were also some camps upstream that he said people had cut branches of Tamrisk off to provide access to the camp behind them and said that was illegal as well.

So...that is what I have a problem with. He is saying basic mitigation and camp maintenance, like every other river district promotes and actively participates in, is not OK. 

I don't think its too much to ask for reasonable respect from the Rangers whether Tribal or Forest Service. I guess they get to run it how they want, but the policy decision making for the Salt and how they manage it seems like it could use some major work. Seems like they are just making it up as they go.


----------



## stinginrivers (Oct 18, 2003)

I don't have a permit this year, so I am not seeing these emails that you all but a couple things I do know from living and working down there in the late 90's.

River left of the day section is owned by the San Carlos Apache tribe and river right is White Mountain Apache, you pay the White Mountain tribe to access and use the put in and river right section until the wilderness starts up.

The San Carlos tribe has similar requirements for day use permits on their land, but nobody has ever paid them to access their land on the river and to my knowledge they have never required it either, but as the river gets more popular you either don't touch their land or buy a permit from them as well, makes sense to me.

Regarding drug sniffing dogs, that has been something the White Mountain tribe as said for many years, I have personally never seen it but I do know people that have been busted smoking weed on their raft while floating on the river because a ranger spotted them.

I also know that the rangers have dealt with a couple of serious issues with people on their land breaking the laws, not boaters, but other users. Because of those cases they have become stricter mostly for their own safety.

This is a finite resource that has seen a massive spike of use starting with that asshole who blew up quartzite, prior to that hardly anybody ever heard of the salt let alone boated it.

Respect the rangers, respect the land, and have fun in a very special and cool place, and be grateful that we are allowed to even boat there.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

Just for FYI... here is the email he sent that is causing me at least a bit of consternation...



Don Sullivan said:


> _Hi everybody:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I forgot that they said that a bunch of types of small craft weren't allowed to go down the river too. Maybe its nothing and just scare tactics...but its not great to hear either.

He sent one a week ago stating their intention to enforce the "you need a permit to be on ANYWHERE on the river starting the 1st with the following wording...



Don Sullivan said:


> _For the increasingly numerous groups of people who have been doing trips in late February when you don’t need a permit from the Forest Service, please note that this year we will be enforcing the previously unenforced rule that requires a permit to be boating in the Wilderness starting march first; which is to say that if you are doing a late February trip you are required to be out of the Wilderness before March 1st. Also, if we continue to see the large amounts of people launching in late February and the related resource damage that causes the Forest will likely start requiring permits in February as well. It has been colder than usual this year so it seems to me that there may not be as much water in February as we have seen lately, but I am wrong a lot._


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

You need the apache permit to launch. You need the forest service permit to be in the wilderness. You can launch with the Apache permit and do the day run till your hearts content. No idea where the wilderness ends. As long as you are past that you would be good. Nice thing about a march 1 permit is that you could launch early if you wanted and then you would have your permit to be in the wilderness on the first.

I am on a March 1 permit as well so I imagine I'll see you down there. Light grey NRS 12' with square tops. Buy you a beer.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

zbaird said:


> You need the apache permit to launch. You need the forest service permit to be in the wilderness. You can launch with the Apache permit and do the day run till your hearts content. No idea where the wilderness ends. As long as you are past that you would be good. Nice thing about a march 1 permit is that you could launch early if you wanted and then you would have your permit to be in the wilderness on the first.
> 
> I am on a March 1 permit as well so I imagine I'll see you down there. Light grey NRS 12' with square tops. Buy you a beer.


I'll definitely be down there...we are gonna launch late afternoon on the 1st and do 3 nights. We might be there a few days before too. I have an invite on the 5th and plan to use it, so I'll be getting a few laps in.

Mine is a white Hyside Cat with blue frame and Squaretops and I'll have at least one other Aire Ocelot Cataraft with me.

Looks like rainy snow on the 2nd into 3rd...so might have another bump of water around that time.

I guess I'll leave the Sawzall at home for this trip


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

You'll pass us then. Plan is rig the 29 and launch early the 1st. 12' nrs light grey, 14' hyside blue, 14' nrs blue and probably a 14' DRE green, probably a little sotar fabreezy set up as a cat, couple other boats Im not sure what they're bringing.


----------



## blueotter (Nov 30, 2018)

*...This no longer covers camping at the put-in the night before the trip, so if you want to do that you need to also purchase a $15 permit to camp there.
Right now their system for purchasing the permits online is not working, so you can buy them at the store near Carrizo where Highway 73 meets Highway 60 (at the turn-off to go to Whiteriver). They are also sold at the Sportsman’s Warehouse in Mesa and Tucson. If I hear that the online system is back up I will let you know.*

Man, I've been going nuts trying to get a camping permit for the night before our launch. Website not working. Now at least I know that it wasn't just me.
Thanks for posting that.


----------



## blueotter (Nov 30, 2018)

My google map shows 2 stores in that vicinity. The Sinclair Apache Mini Mart and the Carrizo service Station. Does anybody know which one sells the camping permits?


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

blueotter said:


> My google map shows 2 stores in that vicinity. The Sinclair Apache Mini Mart and the Carrizo service Station. Does anybody know which one sells the camping permits?


I think those are the same place. Google maps shows the Gas fill up area as the Service Station and the Mini Mart as the store next to it.

Gonna be spending a few bucks with them next week...two maybe three trips down there.


----------



## blueotter (Nov 30, 2018)

Thanks Mayhem.
That makes sense.


----------



## tetoncounty (May 19, 2016)

I'm following this thread with interest. Last year, after years of very little water, I was able to run the Salt at 3500.
We just picked up a permit for a 3/28 launch. Anybody have any advice on how low you would run a light 14' raft? 1000? We're prepared to run it in IK's if necessary.


----------



## Arize (Dec 6, 2016)

tetoncounty said:


> I'm following this thread with interest. Last year, after years of very little water, I was able to run the Salt at 3500.
> We just picked up a permit for a 3/28 launch. Anybody have any advice on how low you would run a light 14' raft? 1000? We're prepared to run it in IK's if necessary.


I did it at 1200 last year in a 14 without much trouble other than scraping oar blades. I'd go at 1000, but much less would get pretty draggy sometimes I'd bet.


----------



## blueotter (Nov 30, 2018)

The nice lady at White Mountain Apache Tribe office told me that the camping permits are still $9 per vehicle and besides the Carrizo Mini mart, you can also get the camping permits at the Sportsmans Warehouse in Showlow.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

Good info.


----------



## kayakingphotog (May 25, 2007)

Trying to find the Carrizo Mini Mart on google maps. Is this the mini mart you referenced? 

Sinclair-Apache Mini Mart

https://www.google.com/maps/place/S...6e4c23e3affe4!8m2!3d34.0038265!4d-110.2548838

Thanks


----------



## blueotter (Nov 30, 2018)

Yes, that's it.


----------



## deadlizard (Mar 10, 2008)

*Did it in 2013 at just under 500*



tetoncounty said:


> I'm following this thread with interest. Last year, after years of very little water, I was able to run the Salt at 3500.
> We just picked up a permit for a 3/28 launch. Anybody have any advice on how low you would run a light 14' raft? 1000? We're prepared to run it in IK's if necessary.


We had two 14 footers, albeit small 14 footers, and did just fine. Ran into Ranger Bryan and his wife in their fully loaded forest service 14 foot raft. Have a photo of him running Black Rock and many other shots of other rapids/stretches at 480 CFS from my trip report:

https://www.paddleon.net/paddleonhome.aspx?WHATPAGE=SALT2013_HOME.HTM

It was a very good trip although at this time of the year, winds could make or break it just as much as flow.


----------



## MountainmanPete (Jun 7, 2014)

Back to the snowpack question. One person in my groups March 21 launch has a 15' AIRE. What cutoff flow would you recommend taking this down?

Don't want to pinball down the whole thing. He's slow enough already!


----------



## MountainmanPete (Jun 7, 2014)

Back to the snowpack question. One person in my groups March 21 launch has a 15' AIRE. What cutoff flow would you recommend taking this down?

Don't want to pinball down the whole thing. He's slow enough already!


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

1000. If he has real good technical skills and is used to reading low water maybe 850. We just launched at 1200 and took off at 9. Ran the meat of it at either side of a grand and I really don't need it lower. I had a 12 and could absolutely do it lower than 1000 but don't really want to. Another guy on the trip had a wide 16' cat and he has had that down to 650, though said it was a sufferfest. Literal drag.

I think you are going to see the flows come up for your trip tho Pete. That 15 could be just the right size. Nine days can make a big difference on that river and it looks like there could be some rain in there followed by sun.


----------



## Matthew73 (Jun 26, 2011)

We ran it last weekend. Launched on 3/6. Looking at the USGS sites it looks like we were about 750ish when we launched and it rose to about 1050 by takeout on 3/8. I ran a 15' NRS otter. Not super heavy, but heavy enough with a firepan, groover, ice chest, dry box, other gear, and dry bags. In our group we also had a 16' gear boat, a 14' paddle raft, a 13' raft, and a couple of sabretooths (saberteeth?). And a bunch of IKs. We had a lot of river experience, but none of us had ever been on the Salt before. Had we known which lines to take, it might have been different. But honestly, the first 10 miles we were all repeatedly hung up on rocks. It took a lot of heaving and pulling and pushing to get through. In a way it was fun, but it was a ton of work and I would not take a 15' boat again at that level. There are a lot of really fun rapids at that level, and it's still big enough to flip anything (I flipped at Quartzite). There's lots of knowledge here on the Salt, and I've only been on it once, but based on my experience I'd want it to be at least 1000 CFS before taking a 15 footer down. Having said all that, we made it through launching at 750' and honestly had a great trip. Just know that unless you're with someone who REALLY knows their lines down there, you'll be doing a lot of pushing.


----------

