# Gore Canyon Whitewater Park-Need support Letters re Fall use



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Sent a letter. Love the idea of a good surf after running Gore Canyon. Great idea!


----------



## CaroBradford (Feb 27, 2012)

First, Thanks to all of you who are emailing letters of support to me! They are most appreciated.

Second, As part of the project, Grand County is proposing to improve the road and infrastructure just upstream/east of Pump House at the area called Inspiration Point. This includes improving the access road, (currently for high clearance 4WD only) new bathrooms, changing area, parking lot, camping spots, etc on BLM land that will be leased to the County for recreational purposes.

Don't hesitate to contact me with any other questions about the project. Thanks again for the support for Grand County's efforts to protect and promote boating on the Upper C!


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

I realize that it may not be feasible (not enough vertical), but I think if the WW park was created between the Pumphouse boat ramps, the features would get use from Gore boaters as well as the plethora of beginner/intermediate boaters who float the pumphouse section. It would also have way better visibility and appreciation from tourists, who are the ones spending money in the area, and who by and large put-in at pumphouse. Although my Gore days are over, I have kayaked Gore over 30 times, and I now routinely raft the pumphouse section, and I have no idea where inspiration point is.... 

Just curious if the new area would have a boat launch for rafts or would it be basically a Gore canyon take-out, and would there still be the BLM user fee?


----------



## CaroBradford (Feb 27, 2012)

There are two whitewater features planned: One would be just where you are suggesting at Pumphouse (at the little island between launch 1 and 2) for all the reasons you suggested. The second feature would be about 1/4 mile upstream. 

To access the upstream site, you would take the dirt road down to the river off Trough Road just east of Pump House road. There are some informal campsites along that dirt road now. I understand this area is sometimes called Inspiration Point by folks from Grand County--although it is a new name for me as well. This is NOT proposed as another launch for rafts although there will be good viewing for folks who just want to hang out and watch at both sites.

The question of fees hasn't been figured out yet. BLM has a lengthy process to make changes like that, but some think it would be a good idea to have it be the same fee system as Pump so as not to cause confusion. 

Thanks for your support. As someone who has a lot of experience with this area, please stay in touch. We'd love to have your continued input. -Caroline


----------



## CaroBradford (Feb 27, 2012)

Wow! I've received 11 support letters since I posted this just yesterday--that's great! I'm hoping to have 50 Mountain Buzz boaters who will send me an email and post in support of fall boating on the Upper C at the new Gore Canyon Whitewater Park. Can I get 10 letters per day? We'll find out!
Email your short and sweet note today to CarolineBradford (at) wildblue. net. 

To Whom It May Concern:
I am a boater who lives in ____. If and when Grand County builds the proposed Colorado River - Gore Canyon Whitewater Park, I intend to use the features for non-motorized boating activities between Labor Day and October 15th of any given year.
I support this project because ____.
Name (required) Mailing Address (required) Email or phone (required)


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

The road down to that area is STEEP. It is nice removed camping, although I've not used it in years. Is there any chance of a higher access option? There are a bunch of 3-3+ rapids in there that could be a big draw for intermediate boaters.


----------



## treemanji (Jan 23, 2011)

Labor day to Oct. 15 is a short time frame for use. Does this mean the park will be off limits or closed the rest of the year?


----------



## CaroBradford (Feb 27, 2012)

The Gore Canyon Whitewater Park will be open ALL YEAR ROUND, except when it is covered in ice. The narrow time frame in the letter is only because questions have been raised about whether there would be any demand by boaters to use the river in fall, outside of the peak summer time.

And Yes, the current access road is very steep. Grand County has proposed to improve (rebuild) the existing 4X4 road for cars and put in appropriate parking, bathrooms etc. This is the best spot for using the old road and limiting additional impacts.

Just received 4 more letters! Thank you for taking the time to write. Keep them coming!


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I wrote my letter already, but I'd add one comment about "questions about boating use in the fall". While boating does drop off as it gets later in the season, the colorado river is one of the few rivers in colorado that is flowing at boatable flows during the fall from labor day through October. The question about boating use in the fall shows that the people asking the question don't really know much about boating on the colorado in the fall. People drive from new mexico, wyoming, utah, and durango to paddle gore in the fall. A small sampling of letters won't do fall use justice. Maybe historic permit fees (not sure if you have it sorted by month) could help out there.


----------



## Phillips (Feb 19, 2004)

Gore days over? 




jennifer said:


> I realize that it may not be feasible (not enough vertical), but I think if the WW park was created between the Pumphouse boat ramps, the features would get use from Gore boaters as well as the plethora of beginner/intermediate boaters who float the pumphouse section. It would also have way better visibility and appreciation from tourists, who are the ones spending money in the area, and who by and large put-in at pumphouse. Although my Gore days are over, I have kayaked Gore over 30 times, and I now routinely raft the pumphouse section, and I have no idea where inspiration point is....
> 
> Just curious if the new area would have a boat launch for rafts or would it be basically a Gore canyon take-out, and would there still be the BLM user fee?


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

Inspiration Point is the pullover/viewpoint about half way on the Trough Rd from Hwy 9 to Pumphouse turnoff. Good views into Gore Canyon.
Below there, about a mile above Pumphouse turnoff is a dirt road/trail down to some river side camping and fishing.


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

Hey Kent. Yeah, many shoulder dislocations later, and an expensive shoulder surgery with mediocre results, and somehow the adrenaline of Gore just doesn't appeal to me like it used to. I still hit Bailey on rare occasions, but class IV or less is now my preference. I've become more of a rafter. Your shoulders are usually in reasonable positions while rowing, which I am a fan of now. ;-) I hope to run into you again - it has been many years. Let me know if you ever get to WP and I'll meet you on the slopes!


----------



## nathanfey (Jun 7, 2006)

All,
More information on the Gore Whitewater Park, including Project Proposal, maps, and an easy email link to send your support letter to Caroline can be found here: 

American Whitewater - Action Alert - Support Fall Boating on the Upper Colorado River!





deepsouthpaddler said:


> I wrote my letter already, but I'd add one comment about "questions about boating use in the fall". While boating does drop off as it gets later in the season, the colorado river is one of the few rivers in colorado that is flowing at boatable flows during the fall from labor day through October. The question about boating use in the fall shows that the people asking the question don't really know much about boating on the colorado in the fall. People drive from new mexico, wyoming, utah, and durango to paddle gore in the fall. A small sampling of letters won't do fall use justice. Maybe historic permit fees (not sure if you have it sorted by month) could help out there.


----------



## nathanfey (Jun 7, 2006)

treemanji said:


> Labor day to Oct. 15 is a short time frame for use. Does this mean the park will be off limits or closed the rest of the year?


Nope, its proposed as being open all year, but features will be flow-dependant. The usefulness of flows in the park after labor day is being questioned by opposers to the project...


----------



## Cphilli (Jun 10, 2010)

October 15th? I know a couple locals that paddled Gore all the way to Thanksgiving last season. Hopefully the river doesn't freeze over and we can paddle right through winter at this spot, nothing like a good pow day/play session to warm the blood!


----------



## yak1 (Jan 28, 2006)

You guys don't get it. Why would you drive hours to go play in a man made park. The concept of a white water park is to enhance the opportunity to get in your boat after work or on a lunch break. Not to drive hours spewing exhaust smoke and spending $$$ on gas (soon to be $5/gal.) to get to what was formerly a secluded spot in the mountains that ends up jammed up with over crowed parking lots, trash, and a myriad of ancillary problems caused by cutting a road down a steep gully. If you want to work for something work for getting increased flows through Gore Canyon. With the money they will have to spend on road work, on going maintenance, and staffing you could buy up some significant water rights. Get a grip!!!


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

yak1, you apparently don't get how to offer constructive criticism. Where's the instruction manual on how to properly use a white water park? People can and do use it whenever and however they want. 

Yes, one of the ironies of loving the outdoors is it frequently requires a lot of driving to get there, whether it be hiking, skiing, bicycling, or boating. Yet, it's often the appreciation for recreating in these areas that allows us to understand them and want to preserve them, so it's a careful balance. History has shown us that governments value recreation as a reason to protect an area, so greater inclusion of people recreating in this section could actually indirectly help preserve access and water rights for the canyon.

It's hard for me to see how adding a couple of play features near Pumphouse is going to create a dramatic deleterious effect on the area though. The area through Trough Road is already heavily used by fishermen, home/property owners, rafters, kayakers, travelers, etc. There's a railroad and frequent trains that run the entirety of the canyon and many homes developed in the area. If I understand correctly, the upper drop would be near the area that already has a 4WD road going down to the river and frequently used campgrounds. It won't be touching the heart of the canyons. This isn't a project paving over wilderness area.

It would be a great addition for the whitewater community. People who already travel there will have more options and groups can be more inclusive. Maybe a group running Gore Canyon will find their beginner/intermediate or playboater or even non kayaking friends will be excited to come up for the weekend with them in order to play in the river features. Playboaters will have another spot to travel to late season and closer to home, which may ultimately save on driving.

Overall the upside is much greater than any possible minor negative environmental effects.


----------



## CaroBradford (Feb 27, 2012)

You're right, they don't really understand boating or boaters, but Grand County knows how important it is to protect recreational use of the Colorado River. That's why they're doing this. Permit fees or numbers don't capture private boater enthusiasm, so the letters really help share that aspect. The notes in "I support this project because..." are great!

I now have 38 letters in hand, with special thanks to American Whitewater for their email blast to members! Can I double that by the end of the week?


----------



## nathanfey (Jun 7, 2006)

yak1 said:


> You guys don't get it. Why would you drive hours to go play in a man made park. The concept of a white water park is to enhance the opportunity to get in your boat after work or on a lunch break. Not to drive hours spewing exhaust smoke and spending $$$ on gas (soon to be $5/gal.) to get to what was formerly a secluded spot in the mountains that ends up jammed up with over crowed parking lots, trash, and a myriad of ancillary problems caused by cutting a road down a steep gully. If you want to work for something work for getting increased flows through Gore Canyon. With the money they will have to spend on road work, on going maintenance, and staffing you could buy up some significant water rights. Get a grip!!!


 yak1, I do get it, thank you very much. 
The Whitewater Park is a mechanism by which we can protect streamflows in the Colorado River - using a Recreational In-channel Diversion. This is, as a matter of fact, one of the main reasons for building a whitewater park - to protect flows. In Colorado, we have little legal authority to protect, or purchase, water rights for recreation. The State can hold an Instream Flow Water Right, but the limitations on ISF set by the legislature and CWCB, result in flow protection that is far far less than what is needed for boating. A WWP provides the county with the legal requirements to ensure that Gore Canyon and Pumphouse flow at boatable levels in the future.

Do you have $10,000 to purchase an acre-foot of water from upstream reservoirs on the Colorado? That only gives you .5 cfs for 24 hours. Even if it was financially possible to purchase 1100 cfs for the whole summer (you do the math), how would you prevent that unappropriated water from being taken out just downstream? The purpose of in-channel features (structures) in no different than a ditch headgate - you need a point of measurement for your water right.

The take home here is that the BLM, and Grand County recognize that the river is a huge economic driver for the region, and as stakeholders we are all making good efforts to protect and enhance those opportunities. What we get from Gore Canyon WWPark is more recreational access and options, and protection of streamflows thru Gore and Pumphouse for our enjoyment. Given what the future holds for flows in Colorado's Rivers, I see the efforts here as thoughtful and proactive. I also know how much time and dedication from project supporters it has taken to get it this far - countless meetings and negotiations, fundraising, etc. I would suggest that you look a little deeper into the goals and strategies of flow protection in the Colorado River, before slandering people and efforts like this.


----------



## Id725 (Nov 22, 2003)

Yak1's approach was all wrong, but let's see if we can express concerns politely...
While I love the notion of protecting flows for recreation and I appreciate AW's efforts in that area, in Colorado and everywhere else, I do have mixed feelings about this project.
Will this effort mean the dispersed camping around Inspiration Point will become a thing of the past?
That would be a loss.
While the area around Gore is not wilderness, it sure is nice to have open space there, that is not paved and is not accessible for everybody, where you can throw a tent down in the grass and sleep under the stars without having to pay a fee, and not be surrounded by 1,000 people.
Also, what are the odds that this results in an increase in fees at Pumphouse?
That also would be unfortunate.
We do have a lot of whitewater parks in Colorado, but Gore is kind of a special spot and I don't know that I love the idea of there being more pavement and more people there. It may not be pristine, but it's not exactly downtown Denver, either, and keeping it grassy and (relatively) quiet would be nice.
If the aim is economic boon for the County, that does not excite me.
If this really will increase protection of flows through Gore Canyon, then that is a worthy goal and again I appreciate the efforts of AW in that endeavor, here and everywhere else around the country.
If there is a real threat of substantial decrease in flows through Gore in the next 10-15 years, and this park really will provide significant protection for those flows, then I support this effort.
Thanks for listening; I wanted to be a more reasonable voice of concern than Yak, but I do have concerns and don't think the debate should be totally one-sided, because I don't think the issue is clearly black and white.
Happy paddling, everybody. See ya on the rivers.
-Mike


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

I, for one, would stoked to have a playpark at the Pumphouse put in, I didn't run pumphouse last year because my signifigant other isn't up to running Gore yet and hates flat water floats. If he had incentive such as a playpark I'd get to enjoy floating Pumphouse a lot more and without having to solo the trip - which sucks in a raft when you don't have a trailer.


----------



## CGM (Jun 18, 2004)

Id725 said:


> Yak1's approach was all wrong, but let's see if we can express concerns politely...
> While I love the notion of protecting flows for recreation and I appreciate AW's efforts in that area, in Colorado and everywhere else, I do have mixed feelings about this project.
> Will this effort mean the dispersed camping around Inspiration Point will become a thing of the past?
> That would be a loss.
> ...


 
+1.
I would also question the cost benefit of spending the money to construct these features at Pumphouse. I don't see this being any kind of economic boon to Grand County...is there supposed to be a payback? If the only intention is maintaining streamflows, is there not a better way to do that than make a playpark in a relatively remote area...I hardly imagine this thing being a huge draw. Maybe it'll be "fun" for those already paddling Gore or Pumphouse. What about teaming with Trout Unlimited or other groups and see what kind of support their networks can drum up for maintaining streamflows?


----------



## Ryanrugger (Jun 7, 2005)

Email sent!


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

Like Jen said it would have value as a 'tweener' run for those who Gore is a little too much for ,but Pummphouse /Statebridge is too easy/boring. Not only would you have the new playspots but would be closer ,more able to carry upstream to get the 3-3+ stuff Dave mentioned or even to the top of Kirschbaums [ the last rapid of Gore proper] ,that would appeal to a tweener like me,especially at that time of year.

ID, i appreciate your argument but,the camp spot is hardly unknown. I've only been to Gore once and P-hse./St. Bridge maybe half a dozen times and i know about it. There was someone there already every time. Pumphouse is the biggest clusterbleep going outside of Hecla already. This spreads it out but also makes it worse .So it is a toss up i guess. It is hardly quiet with a train going through there a couple times a night. The fees are pretty modest ,raising them slightly to pay for eventual expansion of the campground[ more sites another porta potty,etc.] seems reasonable,especially if the boating opportunitiess are improved. If you think that area is one of the more secluded or beautiful parts of Colorado ,you need to get out more.Not to be antagonistic just that there are many more gorgeous places you can have to yourself.

Thanks Nathan and Caro ! I will write an E-MAIL and be rejoining AW soon.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

Yes there is a threat to flows in the future. There is constant talk of expanding Front Range reservoirs like Gross and Chatfield.


----------



## seanlee (Apr 17, 2004)

gore is a play run with some of the best surf and holes in the state.... we don't need to spend money on that. lets blow up a dam instead


----------



## CGM (Jun 18, 2004)

cayo 2 said:


> Like Jen said it would have value as a 'tweener' run for those who Gore is a little too much for ,but Pummphouse /Statebridge is too easy/boring. Not only would you have the new playspots but would be closer ,more able to carry upstream to get the 3-3+ stuff Dave mentioned or even to the top of Kirschbaums [ the last rapid of Gore proper] ,that would appeal to a tweener like me,especially at that time of year.


Do you really think that a play feature will be "between" Gore and Pumphouse? Do you really want a flippin sidewalk so that you can walk up to the bottom of Kirschbaums? Hike it by the means available or go run Brown's again. (Not that a sidewalk to Kirsch would be part of the plan) While there may be a railroad on the other side of the river, the current footprint of and use of Pumphouse is nothing like Hecla. I personally think that pumphouse, gore canyon, and the surrounding area are some of the coolest in the state...how many Elk do you see at Hecla. And yes, I've been around. 

Frankly, I don't care if Grand County wants to build a playpark there, and I don't really think that a playpark will significantly impact the usage or footprint of the area around pumphouse. I just think that spending a bunch of money to pour concrete in the river is a poor use of money, and will just stick it to Grand County tax payers so that 34 kayakers get a cartwheel spot.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

CGM, if you don't care if Grand County builds a park why are you posting?

I think anything kayaking or boating specific added to any river in Colorado is a step in the right direction. We already have access issues and unclear laws on water access so anything that does not remove access is a plus in my book.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

I believe the whitewater park aspect of this project is a great idea to improve the area. I'm not in support of more roads really, but agree that there are worse places for a new road. As far as a location for a wwp, it makes way more sense to put one on a river that actually has water for an extended season than half of the stupid places that we build these things. Especially if it achieves the goal of keeping more water in the Colorado and less in a reservoir on the front range. If you are against this project, please maintain that stance after it's built and don't surf there. I hate waiting in line. 

Chris and Sean, don't hate just because you suck at playboating. Besides, isn't Grand County the one paying for this instead of you and I?

Sean, if the Gross Res expansion gets approved, will you please blow that bitch up? I'm sick of not being able to link USB and LSB.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

Ah, exactly CGM. Stick it to Grand County so that I can surf for free. Just stay out of my eddy!


----------



## Id725 (Nov 22, 2003)

Jensjustduckie said:


> CGM, if you don't care if Grand County builds a park why are you posting?
> 
> I think anything kayaking or boating specific added to any river in Colorado is a step in the right direction. We already have access issues and unclear laws on water access so anything that does not remove access is a plus in my book.


Wow, so just develop everything, pave anything, alter and f*** with stuff, let's build highways and ramps and railings and, hell, may as well charge admission, put in turnstyles, and we probably should have lifeguards... See where I'm going with this?
Is there any thought for just LEAVING THINGS ALONE?
Hecla is an abomination. It's an amusement park. Let the tourists have it.
I don't want to pay higher fees so a texas touron can have a DEE-LUXE bathroom and a nicely-laid sidewalk and staircase with railing... We have enough of that.
As I said - if the main thrust of this, from the AW standpoint, is flow protection, then hell yes - IF the impacts and development will be kept to a minimum.
And I would really like some answers from Nathan and Caroline, to my questions... What will happen to the open space and free camping around Insp. Pt., and what fee impacts will there be at Pumphouse? If you ask for our support, I would appreciate your willingness to answer reasonable questions, posed politely as I did earlier.
The argument that "It would be neat to have a new surf wave there" is not adequate justification for F***ing with the river, in my humble opinion.
Thank you.


----------



## treemanji (Jan 23, 2011)

I for one would absolutely be in favor of the play park if flows on the Upper C were not reduced due to its construction. Lets get real here, water managers are not going to make flow decisions based on a play park. A playpark will not even be a factor in their decision process. Think about it, when and if (I hope they never do and I would fight against it) start taking water from this area do you really think they are going to say, oh we can't take water from that section, there is a playpark up there. They don't care why would they.

While this area is not "pristine wilderness" it is very nice and fairly remote. I have been going up there for over twenty years and I do hunt this area each year. There is an abundance of deer, elk, turkeys, bear etc... in the area that will be negatively impacted by a road and more facilities up there. As well as some recently released Big Horn Sheep. We do not need a road going through there! 

The economic impact will be very small for Grand County unless they raise user fees in there. The nearest towns with commercial interests are Kremmling, Silverthorne, and Wolcott. All of which are over half hour away and the only one in Grand County is Kremmling. I know for a fact Kremmling caters to a lot more hunters than boaters. The construction of a road in there will hurt hunting in the area and have a negative impact on the fall economy of Grand County.

Lastly I find it odd that support for this must be a pm to CaroBradford, just post who comments need to go to and forget the middleman thing. I will look into who comments go to so all views on this project can be shared with Grand County.


----------



## jmack (Jun 3, 2004)

This proposal would: 

(1) Protect existing flows in Gore Canyon (Not because some water manager is going to voluntarily release for a playpark, but because Grand County can get a RICD- which I think they have already applied for.).
(2) Possibly create a good surf wave at the Gore Canyon takeout.
(3) Cost you nothing.

How can you possibly be against this as a paddler?


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

As long as they build it out of rocks not concrete and use existing roads I'm down. If its anywhere in the paddle out I'm not really down with that. Gore was my first river run back in the day ran it top to bottom in a t3. Before that I had only been play boating. I don't think a play wave or hole will bring more people to the area people go cause it runs late season. That's the only good thing about it is play boaters won't need to drive to mwave. But hard to make a park good at 500 when you need it good at 6000 usually it's one or the other. Im talking legit surfs loops and blunts. Otherwise id rather go spin in some the sweet play spots in gore

Mack as paddlers we are stewards of our environment yeah play park in a city is one thing most rivers are eyesores through towns with litter. But to litter an environment with enough impact already doesn't really make sense for what I stand for. Find a wave, as paddlers how can we let instant gratification rule us. Yes it would be nice as a paddler. But as someone who also cares about the land the rivers I would choose a different location.. Just cause gore is lost in terms of being natural doesn't mean we should make it worse..

I also disagree that a play park will have anything to do with future flows for the region. I have yet to find a park that makes Dam and tunnel operators run more or less water for the purpose of quality of a whitewater park. Denver is the decider of that

Doesn't sound like glenwood is a far drive


----------



## CGM (Jun 18, 2004)

I care about this insomuch as I think its a bad idea. But I'm not going to go further than complaining on the intrawebs. 
I just don't see the interests of a small group of kayakers justifying the costs. I agree with Cutch that alot of parks have been built where there's no water...but at least these have for the most part been in urban areas where the addition of some TLC and river access has been beneficial to the surrounding communities and I would guess generally paid for themselves. As I mentioned, I don't think that pouring a bunch of concrete in the river at Pumphouse so that 30 kayakers can have another cartwheel spot in the "relative" middle of nowhere is worth the cost Grand County taxpayers (if that is, as I assume. who will be paying for it). 
If the true design is to try and ensure flows in the upper Colorado river, wouldn't there be some better, more visible places to build a park along the Colorado or Blue where it will have more impact and get used more? Hell isn't there a better idea than building a playpark? Glenwood's already got a phenomenal feature...can't that be used as a catalyst for ensuring flows? 
The more I think about it, the less I understand the connection between a playpark and conserving flows? 
Perhaps one of the AW folks can elaborate on this and the funding for the project.


----------



## nathanfey (Jun 7, 2006)

Chris,
At this point it might be best to look over some of the Project updates from AW on the Upper Colorado. You're asking good questions, and I think most can be answered here:

Upper Colorado Stakeholder Efforts:
American Whitewater - Project - Upper Colorado River (CO)

Gore Canyon Whitewater Park:
American Whitewater - Upper Colorado River-Gore Canyon Whitewater Park, Proposed by Grand County, CO

Also, maybe be you can help me figure out how best to get this kind of information out to a broader audience - beyond AWs membership?
I'd appreciate your input: [email protected]



CGM said:


> +1.
> I would also question the cost benefit of spending the money to construct these features at Pumphouse. I don't see this being any kind of economic boon to Grand County...is there supposed to be a payback? If the only intention is maintaining streamflows, is there not a better way to do that than make a playpark in a relatively remote area...I hardly imagine this thing being a huge draw. Maybe it'll be "fun" for those already paddling Gore or Pumphouse. What about teaming with Trout Unlimited or other groups and see what kind of support their networks can drum up for maintaining streamflows?


----------



## TELEYAKCO (May 17, 2007)

Is it just me, or is this conversation gettin' a little outta control?Treemanji,there is already an established road there that gets significant use in the summer.On any given day or weekend its tough to find one of the already developed campspots down there.Now people are just throwing fire rings anywhere and trampling the vegetation.Id725,handrails?really?There has not been one mention of anything but a playwave,road upgrade,and maybe another port-a-john.Being a raft guide,and kayaker on the Upper C,I'm there most days in the summer,and to tell you the truth,this place is NOT secret by any means.All we are trying to do is add a little more variety for the area,while also helping the river.We would'nt be gettin' into this mess if you Front Rangers would quit watering your "unnatural to the area" Kentucky Bluegrass.;}


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

building a play park is not going to counteract the needs of Denver water sorry bro never going to happen. It's not like a scheduled release with aw; Denver is only going to grow. So that means the water will come from somewhere. That's less water in the future not more.....


----------



## nathanfey (Jun 7, 2006)

One more thing - 
American Whitewater reviews each Whitewater Park Proposal individually before taking any action to support or oppose the project. Clearly we are supporting this project, but adhere to our internal WWP guidance. We have published a set of resources that present the considerations we believe should be part of any whitewater park design and construction process, in our River Stewardship Toolkit:
American Whitewater - stewardship:whitewater_parks

Happy reading


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Glenwood is below another dam and has additional tributaries. Assuming Glenwood playpark even has established water rights they wouldn't necessarily apply. A play at the base of gore would secure recreational flows for gore before the front range has an opportunity to pull that water over divide. The park has established the water rights but if it never gets built I think those water rights would disappear. If you like floating gore in the fall then this is your chance to preserve that opportunity. As mentioned. Grand/Summit county will benefit by providing raft customers with a few more splashes on a relatively mild upper C float trip, and if the feature is good some additional business at the bars/restaurants in silverthorne and kremmling. 

I don't particularly like the idea of just dumping play parks everywhere but, the Upper C flows are not healthy and they only stand to get worse. If putting a road and a few cement features in the river secure flows for the long run it's the lesser of two evils, plus it has some bonus niceties.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

caspermike said:


> building a play park is not going to counteract the needs of Denver water sorry bro never going to happen. It's not like a scheduled release with aw; Denver is only going to grow. So that means the water will come from somewhere. That's less water in the future not more.....


Water rights in Colorado are dictated by seniority. Denver has established water rights on the Upper C but they need to purchase additional water rights for expansion. By securing water rights now for the park, it limits the damage that further front range grown can do.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Some more facts and thoughts to help understand this better.

Denver water did a future water supply study using their water modeling tools. One of the data points was that the colorado river through gore canyon could see a peak flow of as low as 500-600 cfs in the next 20-30 years. Make no mistake... the Colorado River could be dewatered well below the point of quality boatable flows. Current flow protections for fish typically involved very small flows that won't float kayaks and rafts (ala Big Thompson).

Many have suggested alternative ways to protect flows, none of which have been successful or proven in Colorado. What has been proven is the granting of Recreational In Channel Diversions (RICD's) for whitewater parks. Numerous whitewater parks in CO were built and applied successfully for RICD's as a junior water right which essentially prevents the further dewatering of the river by any future junior water rights. The RICD for playparks is currently the only proven and feasible way in Colorado water law to protect instream flows for future boating that i am aware of.

Chris, I see where you are coming from, but I think your analysis misses the point. If the only benefit to the whitewater park was so that 30 kayakers could cartwheel, then yes, the cost benefit ratio is not there. The more appropriate way to look at this is that if the RICD and playpark protect flows through gore from being dewatered below quality boating flows... it could protect the entire boating economy. The benefit is the future continuation of all rafting, kayaking, and fish float trips etc on the Colorado river in gore and pumphouse. That benefit is large. I believe that 500 cfs peak flows in the colorado would wipe out 90% percent of the boating on those stretches. I run gore as low as 400, but I know I am in the minority of folks who will float the river below 500. The takeaway here is that Grand County probably understands the big economic impact that the entirety of commercial and private boating has, and that they want to do a project that protects the primary resource, water flows, that is the key ingredient to keeping those flows going.

From the AW standpoint, AW advocates this with the full knowledge that this is one of the few tools in the current toolkit to keep water in the river. AW knows that the Colorado can be dewatered below quality boating flows, and this presents one piece of the future solution to help protect long term flows.

Also, the fact that the county has the money and motivation to support something that the boating community could not muster alone is key. From my reading of the laws, municipalities can apply for RICD's but private boaters or groups can not (I would have already applied for multiple RICD's if I could have).

Folks debating whether a dirt road should be a paved road, or whether the free camping will still be there are completely missing the point. The point is keeping the water there. You won't really care about the road or the camp spot if the water is all gone, and you don't run the river any more.

I also think many of the dissenters are suffering from a lack of vision. I look at the play feature as an incredible opportunity. If the project can build a high quality feature, that could open up many options. Gore has one of the longest seasons in CO... its running before and long after just about everything else in the state. What about gore race with a big freestyle event afterwards? A good freestyle feature on its own will generate more interest, which I think is good. A high quality feature sandwiched between a classic V- run and great beginner float is a huge bonus.

Personally, I'd love a good surf wave at the end of gore. Gore is great, but bringing the playboat for an after gore surf session on a quality feature with an extended takeout party sounds AWESOME! It would make a great thing even better. 

I also completely agree with several folks that a good play feature will cater to folks that pumphouse is boring for and gore is too much for.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

caspermike said:


> building a play park is not going to counteract the needs of Denver water sorry bro never going to happen. It's not like a scheduled release with aw; Denver is only going to grow. So that means the water will come from somewhere. That's less water in the future not more.....


Mike, you are wrong and right, but your point actually supports the RICD. Denver will grow, and new water rights will certainly be applied for. A RICD that is established now will be senior to any future water rights. If gore gets a water right to keep the water flowing through the fall, that means that some new suburb built 10 years from now will have to wait in line for the water, and can't dewater the colorado. 

Denver water will still need water, and they will still pull on existing water rights, but future water rights would be junior to the whitewater park. Its all about getting in line early to avoid the shortest straw.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Why do we have to build a play park when people already recreate on gore? Shouldn't that qualify? Glad I don't live in Colorado . We don't get recreation water rights unless you build a park? Awesome I see a bunch of manmade rivers in the future. I'm out Colorado is backwards as that's why the water flows backwards there

It's def good for now if thats what needs done but I don't see politicians not taking money one day to be on favor of expansion over the water rights linked to a whitewater park seems like there needs to be a better blm in Colorado. Its all good Colorado is far gone and lost


----------



## CGM (Jun 18, 2004)

Nathan - emailed you, but the message got bounced back as an invalid address. 

Anyway, I don't have any specific people in mind, just think that you might get more traction by teaming with TU and other Sportsmen groups like Rocky Mountian elk Foundation. There was recently a rally sponsored by TU to preserve upper C flows. 

I understand now that "features" of some kind need to be built to provide beneficial use in order to protect the water rights secured by Grand County. Looking at it from that perspective, I can see that it would be beneficial economically and environmentally for Grand County to secure the rights by developing some part of the Upper C.


----------



## nathanfey (Jun 7, 2006)

caspermike said:


> Colorado is backwards as that's why the water flows backwards there


 Agreed. but do you accept that, or do something to fix it?


----------



## nathanfey (Jun 7, 2006)

deepsouthpaddler said:


> Folks debating whether a dirt road should be a paved road, or whether the free camping will still be there are completely missing the point. The point is keeping the water there. You won't really care about the road or the camp spot if the water is all gone, and you don't run the river any more.



There is a public comment period under NEPA for any and all actions that are taken on public lands, including road building, trails, campgrounds and in-channel construction. We will all have a chance to provide our thoughts and comments in the permitting phase. 

Id like to steer us back to the task here:
Right now, we need your help in showing support for use of boatable streamflows (and healthier environmental flows), beyond Labor day. Opposition to the RICD filing and the Whitewater park (assume front range water providers) are making a case that paddlers dont care if the season extends into the fall, and that streamflows can drop back down to base-flow levels. 
- If you have comments on the overall project - save 'em. 
- IF you want to help protect streamflows in Gore and the Upper Colorado, send an email to Caroline.

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## nathanfey (Jun 7, 2006)

CGM said:


> Nathan - emailed you, but the message got bounced back as an invalid address.


Seems I cant spell...
[email protected]


----------



## nathanfey (Jun 7, 2006)

admins, can we link these threads?

http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/...ts-for-gore-canyon-whitewater-park-34238.html


----------



## ~Bank (Jul 31, 2010)

Economics are everything...Money is the driving force for Grand County...Grand County wants to protect It's wildlife, recreation, and natural beauty. Most of us here in Grand County could not survive with out tourism. Our recreation district knows how to build skate parks, bike parks, and anything else that will insure tourism is here to stay. Building the park will make the water more valuable so Denver will have to pay more for the water when they want it. If all of us in grand county watered our yards 24/7 all year would the flows increase? Don't worry we are good at seeding spring clouds. I support anything and everything that makes economic sense. I am supportive of clustering the turists as close together as possible and charging them to do so...I hope we don't have to build a Manhattan in the village when they all show up to enjoy beautiful Grand County...


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

CaroBradford said:


> ...This is NOT proposed as another launch for rafts although there will be good viewing for folks who just want to hang out and watch at both sites...


As a rafter, then what's in it for me? It's not like I am going to park at the boat ramp and walk up there to use the new toilets!


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

*For the rafters that think this isn't their fight*



BoilermakerU said:


> As a rafter, then what's in it for me? It's not like I am going to park at the boat ramp and walk up there to use the new toilets!


Boilermaker,

As deepsouthpaddler said:



> Denver will grow, and new water rights will certainly be applied for. A RICD that is established now will be senior to any future water rights. If gore gets a water right to keep the water flowing through the fall, that means that some new suburb built 10 years from now will have to wait in line for the water, and can't dewater the colorado.


So the "Recreational in-channel Diversion," or RICD, effectively gives the recreational boating community standing in water court to oppose an junior upstream diversion that may infringe on the RICD's flows. With a RICD, recreational boaters have a seat at the table. Without the RICD, we're on the outside looking in through soundproof glass.

I doubt I'll ever raft the playpark but I just realized I may go up some beautiful late September day while I'm waiting for shuttle to get back and take a boogie board out there to play. Or just sip a cool one and enjoy watching a yakker buddy get some good surfing in before we float down to camp. The point is, we're all whitewater boaters and this benefits us all.

'Scuse me while I go send Caroline that email.

-AH


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

No one said anything about handrails or a sidewalk to Kirschbaums. You are right, there is nothing stopping you now ,but you would be closer so more likely to do it. A lot more than 34 people would do it . I've seen elk on Foxton and bears on Lefthand,according to Sean those suck too. Yes there are people who don't run hair !! I have class 5 bushwhacked to get around stuff that would scare even you Sean,CGM, and Mike,no sidewalk necessary. I would hope it is more rocks than concrete like Mike said. Name a run other than Brown's that sees as many boaters as Pumphouse and Gore is pretty popular too. Not ugly but not some secret picturesque spot either.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

Fair enough Andy, I get the point on water rights. But while they are at it, why not add another boat ramp for us rafters too? The ramps at Pumphouse can get pretty busy, so another for us rafters would be nice since they are going to improve the road, add parking, etc anyway. Why does it have to just serve the kayakers? If we're all in the same whitewater community, seems like it shoud benefit us all.

Besides, another boat ramp up there would allow us rafters TWO opportunities to run over the kayakers in the play waves.... LOL


----------



## seanlee (Apr 17, 2004)

further developing wilderness areas and controlling river flows is not what is best for our future or the future of our children. i feel like the comments and motives for this project are selfish and driven by money. 

i like the idea that the project helps retain water in the colorado but its unfortunate that you have to alter the river bed and lure more people to the area to do that (although a chair lift for obj would be pretty sweet). think about it.... thats were all this is headed

i agree with mike, this all just makes me envision the face of our rivers in the future completely altered by humans. its a shame....

cayo, your comment about lefthand is elementary and lame. you can't find 5 people on this forum that agree lefthand is a good run. im happy you got to see a bear and went bushwacking though


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

BoilermakerU said:


> If we're all in the same whitewater community, seems like it shoud benefit us all.


OK, I'm not sure how to explain this any more simply.

If the whitewater community has a water right and standing in water court to oppose further diversions it DOES benefit us all. 

Kayakers and rafters both have a common interest that will be served by an RICD.

Also, this project is being done by Grand County, the BLM operates the Pumphouse boatramp (and I think the BLM may planning on putting in another boatramp downstream of the dirt ramp).

-AH


----------



## cuzin (Oct 4, 2007)

seanlee said:


> further developing wilderness areas and controlling river flows is not what is best for our future or the future of our children.


Wilderness areas? Pumphouse is not a wilderness area. 

Also, controlling river flows is inevitable. Either it flows to the front range, or it stays in the river channel. Right now, you actually have the ability to influence what happens. 



seanlee said:


> i feel like the comments and motives for this project are selfish and driven by money. i agree with mike, this all just makes me envision the face of our rivers in the future completely altered by humans. its a shame....


Wait a minute. Decisions in this world are driven by selfishness and money??? It's good to be idealistic, but just because reality is unpalatable sometimes doesn't mean that it should be ignored. Missing an opportunity today to protect our rivers for tomorrow would be the real shame.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Sean is basically saying its a shame to have to change the river and make a play wave to secure water rights. Why can't they secure water rights for gore canyon Frasier canyon and the rest. That's all.. I need 1000 Cfs to run tunnel which they created that should qualify....
It's a shame money is the driving point to keep water in a river not just for the sake of protection of our environment. Making something so simple into a commercialized money war.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

caspermike said:


> Sean is basically saying its a shame to have to change the river and make a play wave to secure water rights. Why can't they secure water rights for gore canyon Frasier canyon and the rest. That's all.. I need 1000 Cfs to run tunnel which they created that should qualify....
> It's a shame money is the driving point to keep water in a river not just for the sake of protection of our environment. Making something so simple into a commercialized money war.


I agree is it's incredibly sad this is what is necessary. Unfortunately it is. The front range water providers have significantly more money and more political buy in as you mentioned. When it comes to getting approval for water rights they always get them. There are hearings where the users of these streams are heard out. They voices are numerous and well spoken. Unfortunately money talks more than recreational users of free and open public lands. The enviromental impact studies always minimize the potential risks involved with additional de-watering and never take into account cumulative impact of other de-watering projects. 

It's really quite clever that anyone was able to drum together a tool to secure water rights IN the stream bed at all. I would agree there are plenty of places that shouldn't have play parks but should have flows. It's shitty compromise but what else is there to do? Sit back and be smug about not putting playparks in place as the rivers stop running?

This kind of a bullshit was a big reason I left the state. I almost forgot about it until this thread.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

Andy, I get that protecting flows benefits us all. I just don't get why the project in general can't have more equal benefit to us all. It's kayaker centric without providing another boat ramp upstream where the additional improvements (toilets, parking, etc) are being made, since those are the only boaters that will really use that. If that's the case, then leave the lowr play wave out so the kayakers stay away from the rafters boat ramps (I see the potential for congestion right at the put in as floatillas of rafts launch right into a bunch of kayakers in the play wave).

Generally speaking, I am supportive of the project, but if I were king for a day, I'd just do it a bit different to maximize benfit equally for all. I just see it as being a bit lop-sided, that's all.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

BoilermakerU said:


> Andy, I get that protecting flows benefits us all. I just don't get why the project in general can't have more equal benefit to us all. It's kayaker centric without providing another boat ramp upstream where the additional improvements (toilets, parking, etc) are being made, since those are the only boaters that will really use that. If that's the case, then leave the lowr play wave out so the kayakers stay away from the rafters boat ramps (I see the potential for congestion right at the put in as floatillas of rafts launch right into a bunch of kayakers in the play wave).
> 
> Generally speaking, I am supportive of the project, but if I were king for a day, I'd just do it a bit different to maximize benfit equally for all. I just see it as being a bit lop-sided, that's all.


Instead of whining..."it's all about me"....why don't you man up and run Gore? This is not about kayaker vs rafter. 
Andy has explained this as simple as possible..this is about protecting flow, WHICH BENEFITS ALL OF US!!!


----------



## ~Bank (Jul 31, 2010)

It is sad that the Colorado headwaters are being stolen by Easterners. The money would be better spent on a pipeline from lake Superior following the interstates; Distributing fresh water to all the lawns across the desert. Then we could blow up all the dams and nature could go back to nature. Pumphouse would flood every year...Caspermike has a good idea...We should spend the money for the play park on dynamite and create more recreational features like Pyrite and Tunnel...The money for inspirational point improvements should instead be spent on a Putin at the mouth of the canyon.


----------



## ~Bank (Jul 31, 2010)

Grand County's money would be better spent on a bullet train from Boulder and Denver through the already existing Moffet tunnel . Winter Park would only be 10 minutes away. The ski area could expand, acessing every cirque and mountain along hyw 40...more people, more money, no traffic, and best of all no liftlines with all the new high-speed gondolas.


----------



## paulk (Apr 24, 2006)

I am going to go out on a limb and say that every rapid in gore is the result of man made interference. I think this playwave will be the advent of a whole new set of tricks that involve mooning amtrak while throwing a brown claw.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

Rich said:


> Instead of whining..."it's all about me"....why don't you man up and run Gore? This is not about kayaker vs rafter.
> Andy has explained this as simple as possible..this is about protecting flow, WHICH BENEFITS ALL OF US!!!


Let me make it simple for you. Adding a road, parking lot and toilets does not protect flows, and protecting flows is your basis for saying this benefits us all....

Yes, the river features benefit us all by protecting flows. I am in favor of the river features that favor us all by preserving water rights for the future.

Since that's what favors us all, then leave it at that. Build the features and let the kayakers hike their asses up to the upper feature, and use the money that is planned for toilets, road, parking lot, etc for a better use, since that piece of the project only benefits kayakers.

My point is that they should be able to add a damn boat ramp for all of us to benefit from at that upper end of the project. It would help relieve the congestion at the current boat ramps. While it's not the zoo Fisherman Bridge and Hecla are on Brown's, it's a close third. Another boat ramp would go a long way to improving the entire area in that repsect.

BTW, email sent Caroline.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Boiler... you sure do make a fuss about kayakers vs. rafters. The "whats in it for me" attitude is weak and shows a lack of appreciation for the whole.

First off... the wave isn't just for kayakers. Good waves serve kayakers, stand up paddlers (SUP), boogie boarders, inflatable kayaks, and they are also really fun for the rafts that come through as well. All crafts benefit.

Also, if a road to the upper location with a wave is put in, this will distribute traffic between launch spots, and lower the amount of folks going to the existing launches (ie more parking downstream etc). By default, putting infrastructure upstream gives less congestion downstream, which means less congestion at the put in / takeout ramps.

With that said, I think its amazing someone would whine for another boat ramp for rafts when there are already TWO of them. 

Some people can never be satisfied I guess.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

I'm not complaining about the waves. Can you not read?  I enjoy and benefit from the waves that were created in BV and Glenwood. Then again, I can get to them without running one of the top 3 class V runs in the country.  I've already said I support the addition of the waves, and I may never even use the first one!

Most of the rafts that would benefit from the play waves won't be "coming through". The area in question (Pumphouse) serves primarilly the novice boater (from a volume of boaters at the Pumphouse perspective), I doubt they are going to run Gore so they can benefit from that last play wave or two.  Throw in a boat ramp at the far end of the project, and now those novice boaters have the chance to catch both waves without running Gore. And really, it's more about the congestion anyway (regardless of craft), as you allude to.

Your argument for distribution of congestion is a bit flawed. You are adding a play wave at the existing launch (so people will park and play there that probably wouldn't otherwise) as well as a new one upstream (where folks may park at either spot and go back and forth between them), so there will undoubtedly be an increased volume to "re-distribute". If the additional space is so narrowly defined, there won't be any re-distribution of the _existing_ traffic already at the _existing_ ramps, and there will be _additional_ traffic at the _existing_ ramps with the attraction of additional users to the sites for the play waves.

I guess if you assume only rafters will use the existing area and ramps, and that only kayakers and others (SUP's, etc) will use only the new area, then yeah, your argument may hold true. But I doubt it will be so cut and dry.

You can call it bitching if you want, I call it trying to take the idea and improve upon it. If the plan was designed such that all they were doing was adding a boat ramp and toilets, no play waves, all of the kayakers (and SUPers, etc) would be "bitching" that they weren't adding a wave or two. They'd be saying "why can't they throw in a nice play wave while they are at it". It would be a giant waste of money without having "anything in it for them". It would benefit all of us boaters by relieving congestion, but it would be seen as one-sided by that community.

I love the double-standards at the Buzz.....


----------



## CaroBradford (Feb 27, 2012)

Thanks to everyone for all the letters of support (86 and counting!) as well as the great ideas and constructive feedback. In response to a couple questions I've received: The letters are going from Grand County to the Colorado Water Conservation Board in a packet this week. That's what this particular deadline is all about. There are many, many decisions still to be made and any actual construction is a long way off. Grand County is listening to the Buzz. Stay tuned...like any large project, this will take years to come to fruition. 

Thanks again to Nathan at AW, and everyone else, for weighing in about how the park protects the flows...for everyone.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

In thinking about my earlier responses, I came to realize that maybe I am being to literal in my "request" (not that I actually even get to make a request). Let me clarify. In asking for a boat ramp, I am not really even set on a true ramp like is currently in place at Pumphouse. What I am really trying to get at is providing access to the river for all who use it, regardless of craft. If you can get it to the river, you can put it on the river . I don't care if it's a kayak, a raft, a canoe, a duckie, a SUP, a boogie board, a pool toy or any other non-motorized water craft, even by the loosest of definitions. Hell, if you can get a bathtub to float, Knock yourself out

Anything that would allow everyone to access the river at this new parking lot with toilets would meet the need. I am not looking for something you can back you mini-van down to the water and slide your boat into the river necessarilly, just a place where you can get a variety of watercraft into the river so the new space can be utilized by many, as can the waves. Fisherman Bridge and the Numbers don't have a ramp, but anyone willing and able can launch in those places, access has been provided. Railroad bridge also comes to mind. There are spots at Pumphose that are not ramps, but you can launch from the banks of the river anyway, if you are willing and able to cary your watercraft of choise to the spot and lift it into the water there.

With that in mind, would this no plan prevent anyarticular craft from accessing the river at the new upper parking area? Or would it just not be all that conducive to doing so, but you could if you were willing and able?

Regardless of the answer to that, to all the nay-sayers and those saying I am just bitching, what's wrong with providing access there? What am I missing that makes this such a horrible request? If there's a 30 foot cliff all along the banks of the river there, then OK, I get it. Bad idea. I don't run Gore and I've never bothered to walk up to this proposed site, so maybe there is a really good reason why accessing the river there is challenging for anything you can bring to the river. I am open to that possibility, but nobody's provided any good, strong argument as to why this is such a bad thing. The money to do it is all I can see that would get in the way, based on the limited information I have.


----------



## ~Bank (Jul 31, 2010)

We kayaked Gore today. It was lots of fun. There are three major ice dams/bridges blocking our recreational route. Could you please release a couple hundred cfs down the canyon so we could recreate without damaging the shoreline.


----------



## Mut (Dec 2, 2004)

*All for it*

I'm all for it if you are required to paddle Gore before playing in the new feature. Otherwise I'd rather see fisherman there instead of a bunch of park and play hipsters.


BoilermakerU: I agree with your minimal necessary suggestion. But I can't help myself to think, who is this tool who has written 8 posts about "what's in it for me"? I believe there are 3 boat ramps there now. Do we really need another?


On a serious note, what about a feature farther downstream? Why not make it at Yarmony or somewhere farther down? State bridge?


----------



## Cphilli (Jun 10, 2010)

As a kayaker, I would personally love these features to be designed for "kayakers," but also understand that the SUP community is big and getting bigger. I think it would be a wise decision for one of these features to be designed in a way that appeals to the SUP community. I don't do it for one, but I think there would be a significant backing from these people.


----------



## ~Bank (Jul 31, 2010)

This play feature would be better with more water. Tunnel Falls in Gore canyon 3/5/2012. It was about 45F and sunny.


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

Brian, you are crazy. Actually, I wish I had just a tiny fraction of your motivation. And BTW, there appears to be plenty of water at tunnel - most of it happens to be frozen.


----------



## ntibbs (Oct 23, 2003)

*Excited*

Just talked to Caroline at length on the phone today. I'm in support of this project and would like to add to it someday. I live in Hot Sulphur and would love to see a play park in town, as well as more acces to rivers througout the county...ie. the fraser. That being said, I'll play in the park on the upper any day


----------

