# Arkansas River Management Plan Revision.



## Marco

*What is the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area (AHRA)?*

What is the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area (AHRA)?

A Colorado State Park which encompasses the length of the Arkansas River from Leadville to Lake Pueblo State Park, east of Canyon City. The AHRA is managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife in cooperation with the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM)- and to a lesser extent the United States Forest Service. There is also a Citizens Task Force (CTF) that advises AHRA management personnel and works to mitigate disputes between user groups. Much of the land alongside the river is federal land (BLM / Forest Service) that the AHRA manages. In addition, the AHRA also manages use of the river corridor. The AHRA provides public access and facilities at many locations along the river. A state parks fee is required for use of these access points and facilities. The AHRA home page can be found at:

Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area


----------



## Marco

*What is the Arkansas Headwaters Management Plan?*

What is the Arkansas Headwaters Management Plan?

Vision Statement

_The Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area shall be managed to emphasize its natural resources, resource sustainability, and the standards for public land health, recognizing and respecting private property, while embracing numerous recreational, educational, and commercial activities. Such management will require balancing the many uses that preserve the existing natural settings and conditions as well as recognizing existing agriculture, rural, and urban conditions throughout the river corridor. Maintaining these expectations and settings for visitors and residents alike will require individualized management through different sections of the river, in recognition of varying natural and manmade influences. Where conflict over goals and objectives occurs, balance and compromise should be found that recognizes the value of authorized recreational activities without diminishing the standards for public land health or the water resources._

So, in plain English, that means:
1)	The plan should respect the environment, private property owners, and the entities (city/county/individual) that own the water rights.
2)	It should embrace recreation, both private and commercial use- fishing, rafting, kayaking, etc.- but not at the expense of 1) (see definition of commercial use at the end of this document- private use is all other use).
3)	Different sections of the river are managed for different purposes- some sections are better for commercial rafting, others for private boaters, others for anglers. In this way AHRA attempts to maintain a balance between all of the competitive uses of the river.
4)	Conflicts between the user groups are addressed by the AHRA via the management plan and a Citizens Task Force that represents the various users.

The full management plan can be found at:

AHRA Publications


----------



## Marco

*What are the sections/uses?*

What are the sections/uses?

The following descriptions are from chapter 1 of the Management plan, and provide a good description of each section and the management focus for that section.

*Section 1: Leadville to Buena Vista* - Ideally suited for technical private boating, this segment offers Class I through Class V rapids and vertical drops ranging from 26 to 66 feet per mile. Commercial boating occurs in the lower portion of this segment, along with many other activities, i.e. camping, fishing, picnicking, wildlife watching, recreational gold placering and hiking. The Granite, Numbers, Number 4 Putin, Railroad Bridge and Buena Vista Boat Ramp access points receive extensive use. River access lease sites have enhanced fishing opportunities along this segment of the river.

*Section 2: Buena Vista to Salida* - The most heavily used portion of the river for commercial rafting trips, this segment offers Class III and IV rapids and a vertical drop of 30 feet per mile. Other activities include fishing, a considerable a mount of historic private kayaking and rafting and some overnight cam ping trips. Recreation sites along this segment that offer boating opportunities are Fisherman’s Bridge, Ruby Mountain, Hecla Junction, Stone Bridge, Big Bend and the Salida Boa t Ramp. Other activities occur at these sites as well, i.e. fishing, camping, hiking, picnicking, wildlife watching and recreational gold placering. River access lease sites have enhanced fishing opportunities along this segment of the river.

*Section 3: Salida to Vallie Bridge* - Fishing is the dominant use in this segment, although private and commercial boating does occur, as well as special events i.e. the annual FIBArk race. This segment lies adjacent to US Highway 50 and offers mostly quiet water. The vertical drop is 24 feet per mile. Many of the recreation sites along this segment offer boating opportunities, i.e. Salida East, Rincon and Vallie Bridge and most of these sites, along with others, i.e. Point Barr, also offer picnicking, fishing, camping, hiking, wildlife watching and recreational gold placering. River access lease sites have enhanced fishing opportunities along this segment of the river.

*Section 4: Vallie Bridge to Parkdale* - A heavily used segment for commercial and private boating, this portion of the river lies adjacent to US Highway 50 and has rapids up to Class IV. The vertical drop is 30 feet per mile. The Canyon Trading Post, Lone Pine, Texas Creek, Pinnacle Rock, Salt Lick, Five Points, Spikebuck and Parkdale recreation sites provide extensive access to the river. These sites, along with various other smaller less developed sites, i.e. Loma Linda, Fernleaf Gulch, Maytag, etc., provide for picnicking, fishing, camping, hiking, wildlife watching and recreational gold placering.

*Section 5: Parkdale to Canon City* - Running through the Royal Gorge, this segment offers very technical whitewater, Class III, IV, and V rapids, with a vertical drop of 50 feet per mile. It is potentially quite hazardous at both low and high water flows. This segment provides commercial boating as well as private boating opportunities. Grape Creek and the Canon City Boat Ramp are the recreation sites in this segment. Other recreation activities available at these sites include picnicking, fishing, hiking, wildlife watching and recreational gold placering.

*Section 6: Canon City to Pueblo Reservoir* - This segment differs from the previous five in that it is characterized as a plains river, dropping only 15 vertical feet per mile and offering Class I rapids. Ideally suited for canoeists and other boaters desiring a tranquil river trip, it offers fishing, wildlife watching and picnicking opportunities. Access to the river in this segment is somewhat limited at this time, occurring principally at the Canon City Boat Ramp, several municipal parks and at the Pueblo Reservoir boat ramp.


----------



## Marco

*How is commercial and private boater use regulated?*

How is commercial and private boater use regulated?

Private and commercial boating use of the Arkansas is regulated by the use of carrying capacities (measured in ‘boats per day’, not people- so 1 kayak = 1 raft even though the raft may have eight passengers). These carrying capacities vary from section to section based upon the management objective for each section. Since Section 1 (Granite/Numbers) is managed primarily for private boaters, the carrying capacity for private boats is high, and commercial boats is low, whereas in Browns Canyon the carrying capacity for commercial boats is much higher, and in Section 3 below Salida both private and commercial boats are limited during the prime fishing season. See the table on page 4 for precise information on the carrying capacities of each section of the river.

Commercial outfitters are bound by a Special Use Agreement with the AHRA, and their daily usage may be rationed to a specific amount on high use days. Private boaters, on the other hand, are not currently restricted by any specific mechanism (ie a permit system). The carrying capacities for private boaters serve as a trigger for possible future restrictions. If there are five days in a season where private boat counts are within 75% of the carrying capacity, then the AHRA and Citizens Task Force will explore ways to voluntarily mitigate usage if the usage is really too high (primarily through boater education), or perhaps modify the carrying capacity numbers for that section if the usage is deemed acceptable. If the private boat counts are over the carrying capacity for five or more days in a given season, then the AHRA will implement ‘use allocation’ for the following season. To this point, ‘use allocation’ has not resulted in a permanent permitting system for private boaters even though there have been a couple of seasons in which certain sections have exceeded private boat carrying capacities. In those instances cooperative agreements between private and commercial boaters via the Citizens Task Force have resulted in adjustments to the carrying capacities of both commercial and private boats. This may not always be the outcome, though, and increased private boater use on certain sections could eventually lead to a private boat permit system (see ‘How does this affect me?’).

See the management plan, section 2.E.2 (starting on page 2-15) for specific visitor management guidelines:

Managment Plan Section 2

Specific Carrying Capacities for Private and Commercial boater use are outlined here:

Carrying Capacities


----------



## Marco

*How does this affect me?*

How does this affect me?

There have been many changes in the types of private and commercial usage on the river since the last Management Plan revision in 2001. These changes include increased overall usage as well as the advent of several new types of usage that were not accounted for in the last revision. Greater use of Inflatable Kayaks (duckies) and a quickly growing Stand Up Paddle board (SUP) user group are both impacting the number of private boaters on the river, particularly in the easier sections of the river. The number of private anglers who fish from a boat has also dramatically increased since 2001, and those users are counted as private boaters and not anglers.

As a result of these changes, Section 3 in particular (Salida to Valle Bridge) has had a few days each year for the past several years when the private boat counts exceeded the carrying capacities between the dates of July 15 – August 15, at which time the carrying capacity is set at 30 private boats per day. This limit has been temporarily raised to 50 private boats per day, and section 3 was also split into two parts- 3a from Salida to Rincon, and 3b (for private boaters) from Rincon to Valle Bridge. Private boat counts in 2011 met or exceeded the 30bpd limit on six days, but only exceeded the 50bpd limit once.

Other sections of the river could be impacted as well; there is the potential for more commercial boating use in Section 1 (Granite/Numbers), and the Landowner and Environmental user groups could also suggest changes that impact the private boating experience.


----------



## Marco

*What input can I provide?*

What input can I provide?

1)	Provide information on user conflicts (or favorable interactions) that you have been involved in with other user groups- commercial outfitters, fishermen, private landowners.
2)	Provide suggestions on how the management plan might be changed to account for new and varied uses of the river. Perhaps changes in the carrying capacities for specific sections, or changes in the definition of who is and is not a private boater.
3)	In particular, comments regarding your experiences in Section 3, and ideas for changes to management of this section.
4)	Any other general suggestions or comments about the current management plan. What you like as well as what needs to change.


----------



## lmyers

Thanks for posting this and getting a conversation on the topic started Mark.

Question: Why is it you are bringing this to our attention instead of our new "private boater rep"? I don't know Mark Robbins, but this is a significant part of the issue I take with the appointments to the CTF that Rob continues to make..... someone else ends up doing the actual leg work of informing and inquiring with the private boating community with a request to reply to the CTF rep with your concerns or questions. The reps themselves need to step up and do this. That is why they were appointed to the position imo.

I find the potential for private boater restrictions unacceptable. I will not be told I can't take a beginner down the Salida to Rincon run. I don't give a damn what the fishermen say. If they ever start permitting private boaters in this stretch then they need to come to the upstream segments and limit fisherman traffic. I say if you can only have so many private boaters in certain stretches, then you should be limited to how many fishermen can use certain stretches too..... however, I am not in favor of limiting river use in any fashion, and don't understand where they created the arbitrary numbers they use for "allowed boater capacities". Were these numbers just estimates of what was considered appropriate when they first created the travel management plan, or was there an actual scientific study done on the boating capacity that can be handled by the river?


----------



## Marco

Thanks for your input. Perhaps I didn't understand your question about the new private boater rep, but that is indeed me, Mark Robbins, along with Leslie Tyson, who has served well for the past 5 years.

None of us want to see permitting or restrictions on Section 3, or any other part of the river.

The carrying capacities were initially determined in the original Arkansas River Recreation Management Plan which was completed in 1989, they were amended in the first Arkansas River Management Plan in 2001, and amended again in 2010. So they are not static numbers, and are modified based upon public input and studies of the river use and user interaction. Section 3 in particular has been the subject of extensive boat count and fishermen surveys the past two years.

Now would be a great time for all of the private boaters to provide as much specific input on your use of Section 3 as possible, and any interactions that you might have had with fishermen or other river users there.

Cheers!
Mark


----------



## lmyers

Marco said:


> Thanks for your input. Perhaps I didn't understand your question about the new private boater rep, but that is indeed me, Mark Robbins, along with Leslie Tyson, who has served well for the past 5 years.
> 
> None of us want to see permitting or restrictions on Section 3, or any other part of the river.
> 
> The carrying capacities were initially determined in the original Arkansas River Recreation Management Plan which was completed in 1989, they were amended in the first Arkansas River Management Plan in 2001, and amended again in 2010. So they are not static numbers, and are modified based upon public input and studies of the river use and user interaction. Section 3 in particular has been the subject of extensive boat count and fishermen surveys the past two years.
> 
> Now would be a great time for all of the private boaters to provide as much specific input on your use of Section 3 as possible, and any interactions that you might have had with fishermen or other river users there.
> 
> Cheers!
> Mark


I see. Thanks Mark. I wasn't clear that you were the new private boater rep. That is excellent. Please post up on here when you are informed of CTF meeting dates. The last one was scheduled so last minute that even being a local I couldn't make it....

I read the fisherman surveys done in the fisheries inventory last year and it seemed like they are all based on opinion and experience rather than hard, factual data.

I have boated Rincon extensively over the years and honestly never had a negative experience with fishermen. At boater friendly flows you see very few anglers out, and at good fishing flows the boating sucks so you hardly see anyone floating. The issue I see is that Rincon is essentially the "town run" for Salida locals. They don't have much to choose from down there for quick afterwork runs, and to limit this further through rationing would be a bad decision.

Thanks again for stepping up to the position of representative Mark. Please do you best to keep locals in the loop on what's going on. If you don't, no one will.

Logan


----------



## lmyers

Any idea when the next CTF meeting is going to be yet?


----------



## lmyers

lmyers said:


> Any idea when the next CTF meeting is going to be yet?


Just found out yesterday that the next Citizen's Task Force meeting will be at 930 am this upcoming Thursday at the new Forest Service/Parks and Wildlife building on highway 50 as you come into Salida from the east.

Thanks for keeping us informed Mark....


----------



## lmyers

I apologize Mark. I spoke with Rose and got added to her email list and she apologized to me for the last couple meetings being scheduled so last minute. It wasn't set until Monday, and I know several people were unable to go. Including myself.

Did you attend? Any update on the Oil Creek Diversion? Is there a date for the Silver Bullet work? How about the expansions at Fish Bridge and Ruby Mountain? Update us man!


----------



## Andy H.

*Rafter Issue - Trailer Access*

Marco,

Thanks for the effort you and Leslie have put into this over the years.

One concern I have is that rafter-specific issues may not be brought to the CTF as hardshell boaters like you and Leslie may not be aware of things that impact the inflatable boating community.

Specifically, I've been disappointed with access available for rafts on trailers. 

Railroad Bridge has a row of posts across the top of the ramp that forces rafters to derig and carry their gear down to the water. Taking an oar rig off the water there would be very difficult. I've been told this is for erosion control, however the steepness, surface, and length seem equivalent to the ramp at BV's ballfields access point.

Pinnacle Rock's boat ramp has been reworked recently with a series of rocks crossing the ramp roughly 15 - 20 feet from the water. There's now a ~1 high step which prevents a trailer from reaching the water unless the flow is very high. This is a significant inconvenience when taking out there.

While these are not impediments to commercial and private paddle rafters, they essentially prevent access for rafters who trailer their boats. If we want to use the resource from these "boat ramps," we must derig, carry, and rerig our boats. This ties up the boat ramp for much longer than if we could simply slide our boats off a trailer, resulting in a lose-lose situation for both the commercial rafters and the private boaters.

I've only accessed the Ark from a few locations in the last few years and hope to hear from other rafters on the conditions at other access points with "boat ramps."

Thanks again for taking the time to make the meetings,

-AH


----------



## Andy H.

*Flow Management - maintain summer flows*

Mark,

There was talk recently about how the water managers move water, with suggestion of a shift to move lots of water during the winter to benefit the fishery, resulting in less water available to augment the release program during summer. This would be consistent with the recent consolidation of Parks and Recreation with DOW, especially considering upper management staffing of the new Division of Parks and Wildlife primarily with former DOW personnel. Please work to keep water in the river during the boating season. Points to consider:

If flows are being minimized in summer to benefit the rainbow trout, a non-native fish, then basically they're robbing one economic use of the resource (boating) for the benefit of another economic use (fishing). I don't know where the highest economic benefit for the Ark Valley is, but I suspect it's from the boating sector simply going on the number of outfitters and retailers catering to each user group.

Additionally, if managers can wait until later in the winter to decide on, and schedule, water movement from upstream to lower reserviors, we could hopefully avoid another boating season disaster like the summer of 2012. If I recall correctly, the water managers moved a lot of water during the winter, despite all indications the winter of 2011-2012 would be a very low snow year.

Thanks again,

-AH


----------



## lmyers

Here is Colorado Wildlife's fishery inventory report listing their biologist's recommendations for flow management (for reference):

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5xewLWD9M_ULWVBYm9QSmIxODA/edit?usp=sharing

and here is a Commercial Rafting economic use report put together by Joe Greiner of WA for the Colorado River Outfitters Association:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5xewLWD9M_UNXFtVmUzOVFqQmM/edit?usp=sharing

It is arguable that much of the downturn in rafting business last year was due to the drought and the fires.... but I would say the biggest contributing factor was the lack of water. Many would say this is attributed to the drought, but before the movement of Winter water in 2012 there was enough reservoir storage to have maintained approximately 500 cfs for the majority of the rafting season.

The financial impact of this loss of tourist revenue was calculated at over $24 million. Granted, this includes every river in that state, not just the Ark; but the Ark does have the biggest rafting industry in the state and user days were down on the river last year by nearly 40,000 visits.

I don't foresee this happening again in the immediate future, but we need to remember this for the next winter where we have significant reservoir storage and remind the BOR and State Parks about not moving the water until a significant portion of the high country's moisture has accumulated.


----------



## GameOn

Please remember that water flows, as important as they are, are technically not part of the AHRA State Park Management Plan. We do understand how important this subject is.

If you have comments about boat ramps, experiences with fishermen, etc., please post here (thanks Andy) and we will have some hard documentation to present to the CTF. We can sit in meetings all day and say we've heard this or heard that...but having a hard email or even a comment directly to AHRA makes a big difference. The link to the AHRA visitor comments is Arkansas Headwaters Visitor Comment Form | Colorado Parks and Wildlife

The next CTF meeting is scheduled for September 26, 2013. If it changes, we'll let you know.

Leslie


----------



## shrediknite

*flow management*

Hi Mark,
The voluntary flow program is great for all paddlers and i would love to see this continued, however I think they should use the guage at the numbers or below Granite instead of Wellsville. Section 1 has become more popular in recent years and if they could maintain atleast 500 cfs upstream that would make for good boating on the whole river instead of just down stream. We are seeing this issue right now, downstream flows have increased due to rain and the upstream flows have been reduced to under 400 cfs. 
thanks


----------



## GameOn

Bumpity, bump, bump, bump.


----------



## lmyers

GameOn said:


> Please remember that water flows, as important as they are, are technically not part of the AHRA State Park Management Plan. We do understand how important this subject is.
> 
> If you have comments about boat ramps, experiences with fishermen, etc., please post here (thanks Andy) and we will have some hard documentation to present to the CTF. We can sit in meetings all day and say we've heard this or heard that...but having a hard email or even a comment directly to AHRA makes a big difference. The link to the AHRA visitor comments is Arkansas Headwaters Visitor Comment Form | Colorado Parks and Wildlife
> 
> The next CTF meeting is scheduled for September 26, 2013. If it changes, we'll let you know.
> 
> Leslie



Thank you for posting Leslie, and thank you for sharing the visitor comment form. 

Did you attend the last meeting? I have been doing some stewardship work with some boaters from Canon City and they have expressed concern to me multiple times regarding the recent work done on the Oil Creek diversion. My understanding is that this topic was going to be discussed at the last meeting. Is there any information on this that you could share? From what I am told the head for the ditch was rebuilt last fall and was supposed to have a boat chute. There is a sign for a chute, but one doesn't exist. It's not a low-head, but it is very difficult for the type of boaters who use the stretch.







shrediknite said:


> Hi Mark,
> The voluntary flow program is great for all paddlers and i would love to see this continued, however I think they should use the guage at the numbers or below Granite instead of Wellsville. Section 1 has become more popular in recent years and if they could maintain atleast 500 cfs upstream that would make for good boating on the whole river instead of just down stream. We are seeing this issue right now, downstream flows have increased due to rain and the upstream flows have been reduced to under 400 cfs.
> thanks


Shredi, the issue isn't the gauge used, it's the amount of water controlled by the VFMP. If there was plenty of water they wouldn't have to institute the program.... there is a certain acre-footage allotted to the program and the Arkansas River Outfitters Association requested they decrease the target flow to 600 to try and prolong the release until August 15th. I wasn't party to the specifics this year, but I imagine it went something like 800 cfs at Wellsville until July 15th, 700 cfs at Wellsville until August 1st, or 600 cfs at Wellsville until August 15th.....


----------



## GameOn

Hey Logan,

It always seems like the ditch company does as they wish for that diversion...and it never seems to be permanent. I know AHRA was concerned with tubers getting caught in that thing. Nothing much got discussed...just how do we make people aware that it is there. From that photo, doesn't look like any chute is there...at all. I'll check my notes and share what I had.

Also, with the rains and flows into the reservoir, there was an email from Rob White, AHRA as follows:


On Tuesday (07.30.13) at 12:00 PM the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) released 20 cfs of of VFMP water.
This change is being made because of declining native flows. As previously noted, the 700 cfs VFMP target flow rate will be maintained until further notice. 
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]


----------



## formerflatlander

*chute at canon*

I tube and run the section when not on Bighorn. There is a chute. However, it is tight and rocky at levels around 600 cfs. Don't know how the rafts are taking it at current 700 levels. It is far river left and tight to the bank. The rest is a rockjam unless really high.


----------



## lmyers

GameOn said:


> Hey Logan,
> 
> It always seems like the ditch company does as they wish for that diversion...and it never seems to be permanent. I know AHRA was concerned with tubers getting caught in that thing. Nothing much got discussed...just how do we make people aware that it is there. From that photo, doesn't look like any chute is there...at all. I'll check my notes and share what I had.
> 
> Also, with the rains and flows into the reservoir, there was an email from Rob White, AHRA as follows:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday (07.30.13) at 12:00 PM the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) released 20 cfs of of VFMP water.
> This change is being made because of declining native flows. As previously noted, the 700 cfs VFMP target flow rate will be maintained until further notice.
> [FONT=arial, sans-serif]
> [/FONT]


Thanks for the reply Leslie. I don't get downstream that far very often, so I don't really know how passable the diversion is, just that it is a pretty big issue for beginner paddlers...

Yeah, flow situation has definitely changed in the last week or so as rain continues to fall. Better native flows and less releases than expected for sure. Hopefully they still have a little project water left, it would be nice to see whatever's left (if there is anything) released up until Labor Day. It would also be nice if this wet trend continued on into Autumn and Winter...


----------



## GameOn

Just to give this a little bump and to post the latest information from AHRA regarding the next CTF meeting and plans for the Management Plan. If you are interested, please review the beginning of this string for information... This from AHRA:

It has been determined that our next CTF meeting will be held on *Thursday, October 24th.* This is different from previous dates proposed (9/26 and 10/17), but this date seems to work best for most everyone.


Once again, please be prepared with comments on Chapter 1 of the Management Plan. Also, Chapter 2 is basically the "meat" of the Plan, and we will also begin review of Chapter 2 as time permits at our October meeting, most likely starting with one River Section at a time (i.e. 1A thru 6).


----------



## GameOn

*Update/reminder about Task force meeting...*

We are having a regular Citizen Task Force meeting this Thursday, October 24th, beginning at 9:30 a.m. until noon. The main topic will be discussing revisions to Chapter 1 of the AHRA Management Plan. The meeting will be held at the Bank of the West meeting room. Call 719-539-7289 for more info.


----------



## lmyers

Thanks for the reminder, see you there Leslie....

also, you might pass on to anyone you know that's interested that we are doing a group "ELF" run on Numbers/Fractions November 2nd.

http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f12/bv-day-of-the-dead-elf-run-11-2-a-50708.html


----------



## Andy H.

Leslie (GameOn),

Thanks for the information and also for Colorado Whitewater's involvement in this process representing the private boating community. I'm not sure exactly what Chapter 1 is exactly, it seemed like an overview chapter. 

I saw the usage statistics which were mainly for the 1990s ending in about 2000, these obviously need to be updated through the most recent year for which data are available. I've heard it stated the fishing usage statistics are significantly overestimated and would like to know the basis of what's used and methods to estimate them.

As a way of helping boaters develop useful input, please let us know more specifically what kinds of things we should comment on that will be relevant to Chapter 1, and possibly what we should save until later. 

Thanks,

-Andy Horn


----------



## lmyers

Andy H. said:


> I saw the usage statistics which were mainly for the 1990s ending in about 2000, these obviously need to be updated through the most recent year for which data are available. I've heard it stated the fishing usage statistics are significantly overestimated and would like to know the basis of what's used and methods to estimate them.


I have been interested in this process for awhile as well. Do you know how the AHRA compiles their numbers Leslie? I know most of it comes from the bean counters you see at the takeouts during peak season, but generally I only see them at Hecla and Rincon. I'm curious how this can make for accurate counting of river use, especially when a large number of both float/bank fishermen and private boaters launch after 5 pm...


----------



## thumper

I second the issue with the boat ramps. As a family floater and a float fisherman, my boat is always trailered and I never have a crew of more than two to move it. I've been very frustrated with the blocked ramps at RR Bridge. Why not install some water bars or other erosion-control and allow the ramps to be accessed? 
I've found the BV town ramp to work great, as does Ruby. River Runners is also a great option and no more expensive than the day-pass.
Thanks for your work with the ARHA!!


----------



## lmyers

Andy H. said:


> Leslie (GameOn),
> 
> Thanks for the information and also for Colorado Whitewater's involvement in this process representing the private boating community. I'm not sure exactly what Chapter 1 is exactly, it seemed like an overview chapter.
> 
> I saw the usage statistics which were mainly for the 1990s ending in about 2000, these obviously need to be updated through the most recent year for which data are available. I've heard it stated the fishing usage statistics are significantly overestimated and would like to know the basis of what's used and methods to estimate them.
> 
> As a way of helping boaters develop useful input, please let us know more specifically what kinds of things we should comment on that will be relevant to Chapter 1, and possibly what we should save until later.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Andy Horn


Chapter 1 is an overview chapter Andy, and the CTF is still not through it.... Every sentence is being reviewed, one by one. With many comments and suggestions being made....

The usage statics shown in the TMP are old, but the updated usage numbers are available on separate documents also available on the AHRA's page.

I inquired today about the way the numbers are compiled, and the answer provided by Rob White was that in 1995 and 1996 they physically had people at all AHRA access sites inquiring with visitors as to what their recreational pursuits will consist of during their visit to the State Park. These numbers were computed into a formula and applied to the total visitor numbers for all subsequent years.

I can't speak for Leslie or Mark, but my opinion would be that anyone and everyone should share all opinions and thoughts regarding potential changes to policy on the Arkansas. It is all being reviewed, and while the input from the CTF meetings is only a recommendation to be considered by the AHRA managers, the more varied the input that is received from the private boating community, the better. So bring it.

The 3 recommendations that I passed on today were:

1) That all private boaters would like to see legal public access at Pine Creek and the Stealth. No one WANTS to trespass, but those sites simply access the best whitewater on the entire river and will be continue to be highly used regardless.

2) Access at 5 1/2 & at the Grassy Knoll need staircases. They are used heavily and will continue to be. This heavy access has resulted in bank erosion. The best way I see to deal with this is to put in a railroad tie (or something similar) staircase.

3) A turning lane on south bound 285 at Fisherman's Bridge, or at the very least a solid center stripe in the highway. This is a site of many near accidents during the rafting season.




thumper said:


> I second the issue with the boat ramps. As a family floater and a float fisherman, my boat is always trailered and I never have a crew of more than two to move it. I've been very frustrated with the blocked ramps at RR Bridge. Why not install some water bars or other erosion-control and allow the ramps to be accessed?
> I've found the BV town ramp to work great, as does Ruby. River Runners is also a great option and no more expensive than the day-pass.
> Thanks for your work with the ARHA!!



Thank you for your input on this Thumper. Hopefully the reps make note of it. If by chance it get's missed I will be sure to pass your thoughts on personally at the next meeting.

Please continue to provide input people. EVERYTHING is being reviewed, so please provide some honest thoughts on what YOU think can be improved for private boaters on the Upper Arkansas River.

Thank you.


----------



## Osseous

GREAT point on the fisherman's bridge turning lane- I've had a close call there on my dirt bike while running shuttle. People are cruisin' as they come north- it would help!


----------



## GameOn

For the record, even though I don't post much, I do check here once in a while and do note concerns and questions to share with the AHRA. They check here too.

There is also a comment form on AHRA's website where official comments, good and bad, may be made. If you don't feel comfortable with that, please feel free to post here or send an email to me or Mark.

I know the turn lane at Fisherman's Bridge is a topic to work on with CDOT. 

Sometimes, improving "stealth" launches often turns them into fee sites. Scouting areas are always good to add to the list. Doesn't mean that work shouldn't happen. 

I know there has been discussion with trying to get access at Pine Creek. That is a difficult topic with the rail company. I know that's been around for a while. 

Good news is that work has started on the removal of dam south of Buena Vista...often called Silver Bullet. That drop will be safer when work is completed.

Next meeting with AHRA is next week. We continue to work on Chapter 1. CTF members are currently nominated by Colorado Whitewater (CW) and private boaters. Over the years, several other clubs have been established. My question is if other private boating clubs are interested in being added to this list as nominating clubs for the private boating representative? So far I'm thinking High Country River Runners (Denver), Pikes Peak Whitewater Club (Colorado Springs), Pikes Peak River Rafters (Colorado Springs), Private Boaters Coalition (Colorado Springs?). Is there a local valley club that should be included here?

Hopefully, we will get through Chapter 1 and move on to Chapter 2. Chapter 2 addresses segment uses and capacities. One big debate item is always how to count use....boats vs. people (we currently count boats...boats with 8 people counts the same as a boat with one occupant). How do we count tubers that float below Salida play park? How does that all relate to the "experience" on the river? 

Thanks,

Leslie, CTF Private Boater Rep (AHRA)


----------



## riverscum2012

If american whitewater keeps its paws off any plan...it may work...if aw gets involved..then for sure any plan is screwed...
AW did all it could to shut down commercial rafting on the Ark in the 80s..I have not fogot it for sure....maybe everybody wants ithe Ark private for kayaking,,aint happnin
American whitewater is bogus at best
Trout Unlimited also shuts down river access when they can...unless you are fishing...they really suck bad..!


----------



## GameOn

LOL....thanks for trolling...and at least bumping this to the top of the panel... 

Next meeting is next week. *Thursday, January 23rd...**The meeting venue has changed to the Chaffee County Fairgrounds in Poncha Springs, and will start at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 3-4 p.m.* 

Going to be a long one. If you want to put anything constructive on here to help out, please do. 

Thanks,

Leslie


----------



## lmyers

Bump. Thanks again for all the work you and Mark are putting into this. I am currently working on my email concerning recommendations for chapter 2. There are lots of policies determined by the regulations set forth in this portion of the management plan. 

It never ceases to amaze me how quick people are to complain about regulations, but when they have an opportunity to help form and revise the policies that create the regulations they are silent...


----------



## Canada

*capacity*

I also sat in those meetings in the 80's. Some people with noble intentions did not think about their actions. 

For those of you who are their, please reprort back on any numbers provided on commercials and privates. My fear is a quota system with commercials recieving priority and privates being left out or having to be their with a permit or at 6AM.

In my mind, the current system is working well and only tweaks are necessary


----------



## Jahve

Mark and Leslie,

I would like to see the Reps bring the message to the CTF that it is time to eliminate private boater capacity/rationing for this 10 year cycle. If private boater numbers become a problem it can be revisited in 10 years. The AHRA has explored the option of having the "Christo" project essentially finance the formation and application of a private boater rationing system for his project. This system will then be transferred to the entire river as days go over the set capacities outlined in the link below.

http://www.parks.state.co.us/SiteCollectionImages/parks/Parks/AHRA/AHRAChapter2.pdf 

Private boaters came real close to having rationed days in Browns Canyon and are only avoiding rationing in the Salida area due to a "experiment" where the AHRA added boats as the private boater numbers were over capacity.. 

I dont think that any big group is opposed to totally eliminating private boater capacity/rationing - well other than the CPW/fishermen and they seem to be against everything.... I am of the opinion that any private boater should be able to run any section at any time. I just do not see private boaters as a crowding issue in any section of the Arkansas River at all.

Something to think about is once a private boater system is in place we will never get rid of it.. 

Thanks for everything you do and please update us after the meeting as to the likely hood that there will be or if private boaters should expect a rationing system for private boaters in the next 10 year cycle.


----------



## Mike Harvey

RDNEK said:


> Mark and Leslie,
> 
> I would like to see the Reps bring the message to the CTF that it is time to eliminate private boater capacity/rationing for this 10 year cycle. If private boater numbers become a problem it can be revisited in 10 years. The AHRA has explored the option of having the "Christo" project essentially finance the formation and application of a private boater rationing system for his project. This system will then be transferred to the entire river as days go over the set capacities outlined in the link below.
> 
> http://www.parks.state.co.us/SiteCollectionImages/parks/Parks/AHRA/AHRAChapter2.pdf
> 
> Private boaters came real close to having rationed days in Browns Canyon and are only avoiding rationing in the Salida area due to a "experiment" where the AHRA added boats as the private boater numbers were over capacity..
> 
> I dont think that any big group is opposed to totally eliminating private boater capacity/rationing - well other than the CPW/fishermen and they seem to be against everything.... I am of the opinion that any private boater should be able to run any section at any time. I just do not see private boaters as a crowding issue in any section of the Arkansas River at all.
> 
> Something to think about is once a private boater system is in place we will never get rid of it..
> 
> Thanks for everything you do and please update us after the meeting as to the likely hood that there will be or if private boaters should expect a rationing system for private boaters in the next 10 year cycle.


This is a really good idea. The idea of permitting the Arkansas for day runs is really dubious. Those capacity numbers are totally arbitrary. The justification offered by AHRA that they are protecting the "experience" does not hold up in my mind. Its a self regulating experience. If I want solitude I am not running Browns on a weekend in July. If I am already planning to go on a Saturday in July then I don't care about the crowds. The 46th private boat or the 151st or whatever is not a tipping point for my "experience".


----------



## Andy H.

One thing I find distasteful is that there's no way for private boaters to know when we launch whether the capacity threshold is nearing exceedence or not. If I were about to launch and a sign or ranger indicated the run was nearing capacity for the day, I'd be glad to go run something different. If they're going to take the effort to count us, couldn't they at least tell us when we're about to go over capacity?

I'd like to suggest reopening how the capacities were determined in the first place, and also question whether walk-in fishermen in the sections nearing private boater capacity are being informed that other places are much less crowded.

RDNEK and Mike are spot on.

-AH


----------



## lmyers

A big issue with this goes back to how they actually determine boater counts. From what I was told they currently only determine private numbers from occasional bean counters, overall traffic numbers and a 10+ year old formula.... I absolutely agree with Jahv and Mike concerning private boater capacities, especially with the pending Browns Canyon legislation.


----------



## DoStep

What would happen if I show up at Ruby with a shuttle already done, and I'm told the stretch has exceeded private boater capacity? Then as I'm told I can't go because of capacity, I watch 10 or 20 commercial boats go by?

That is not a scenario the AHRA rangers want to encounter, and they should not be put in that position.

As Mike states, I don't go to Brown's expecting solitude. But I know when to go if that's what I want, and I can choose accordingly. I'm just not seeing a condition where preventing private boaters access at any time would be realistic. The real congestion comes from commercial trips, but primarily during specific time slots, and I do not begrudge them one bit for that. 

The entire stretch of the Ark within the AHRA is busy, some more and some less than others. One should not really ever expect solitude whether boating, fishing, mining, swimming, camping, or whatever else they do along the corridor. As I mentioned, regular users and locals know when and where to go to avoid the crowds. 

That said, I find the management system to work well as it is right now, although I'm not sure I personally see the returns from increased entrance fees (daily or season), but they do keep upgrading and adding access. 


Please don't restrict private boater access.


----------



## GameOn

So we have private boat capacities that are monitored as a reference for implementing a permit system. Do we want to say that we want to avoid the permit system by proposing to AHRA that they eliminate that trigger from the future Management Plan?

My only concern is that while we protect our rights to float the river when we want without the threat of a permit structure, how do we protect the resource? Will people abuse the resource? 

For the record, I'm against a permit system...but how do we protect the river for future generations? If the river system gets stressed, what safety mechanism do we need to have in place to help it recover?

Thanks, Leslie


----------



## lmyers

GameOn said:


> So we have private boat capacities that are monitored as a reference for implementing a permit system. Do we want to say that we want to avoid the permit system by proposing to AHRA that they eliminate that trigger from the future Management Plan?
> 
> My only concern is that while we protect our rights to float the river when we want without the threat of a permit structure, how do we protect the resource? Will people abuse the resource?
> 
> For the record, I'm against a permit system...but how do we protect the river for future generations? If the river system gets stressed, what safety mechanism do we need to have in place to help it recover?
> 
> Thanks, Leslie


Who's opinion would determine if the river was "stressed"? Boating around 100 days a season on the Ark I can say that I have seen the natural environment being abused by vehicles, commercial overcrowding, mining and resource extraction operations and by transportation projects by both Cdot and the railroad, but private boaters generally have 0 impact on the river corridor other than leaving footprints at their lunch stop. 

In my opinion it is unfair to subject private boaters to the same rationing and capacity procedures as commercials when no other private user group is counted. I do not want to see a permit system for anyone, but if there is an intention to limit private boater numbers then the same regulations should apply to both float and wade fishermen as well as gold panning/placer miners.


----------



## lmyers

Plus, something has to be changed with the system or I foresee the Browns Canyon National Monument leading directly into a permit lottery.

Also, yes, I absolutely think other boating groups should be able to nominate private boater reps besides just CW. Unfortunately there isn't really an official paddler group here in the valley, I would like to at the very least see Pikes Peak WW Club and Friends of the Arkansas recognized, and honestly I think CKS should be able to nominate private boater reps as well.


----------



## Mike Harvey

GameOn said:


> So we have private boat capacities that are monitored as a reference for implementing a permit system. Do we want to say that we want to avoid the permit system by proposing to AHRA that they eliminate that trigger from the future Management Plan?
> 
> My only concern is that while we protect our rights to float the river when we want without the threat of a permit structure, how do we protect the resource? Will people abuse the resource?
> 
> For the record, I'm against a permit system...but how do we protect the river for future generations? If the river system gets stressed, what safety mechanism do we need to have in place to help it recover?
> 
> Thanks, Leslie


Leslie what data or concrete research has AHRA (or anyone else) performed on what those impacts to the resource by private boaters are and how they relate to the number of people on the river on any given day? 

All the capacity numbers are based on taking estimates of the number of boats on the busiest days and assigning arbitrary limits. It's not like a multi-day trip where you can estimate the number of people vs. the number of campsites or some kind of logical carrying capacity of a stretch of river. It's totally arbitrary and based on protecting an "experience". I don't need AHRA worrying about my experience on the Ark. 

If the primary concern was protecting the resource then start by eliminating all recreational gold panning from the park. Those guys leave real and measurable impacts on the bed and banks of the river.

Thanks.


----------



## Jahve

Mike Harvey said:


> Leslie what data or concrete research has AHRA (or anyone else) performed on what those impacts to the resource by private boaters are and how they relate to the number of people on the river on any given day?
> 
> All the capacity numbers are based on taking estimates of the number of boats on the busiest days and assigning arbitrary limits. It's not like a multi-day trip where you can estimate the number of people vs. the number of campsites or some kind of logical carrying capacity of a stretch of river. It's totally arbitrary and based on protecting an "experience". I don't need AHRA worrying about my experience on the Ark.
> 
> If the primary concern was protecting the resource then start by eliminating all recreational gold panning from the park. Those guys leave real and measurable impacts on the bed and banks of the river.
> 
> Thanks.


All,

So my opinion is not confused I believe that private boater capacity should be totally eliminated on all sections. This would make the plan simpler and not more complicated. 

The main problem/opposition to total elimination of private capacity - will be the fishermen and section 3 as the fishermen have stated - as a direct quote "that the damn Sup's, Duckies, tubers, and Kayakers do ruin their experience." Section 3 (or the water around the town of Salida) is the only section on the river where the AHRA hears that private boaters are effecting the experience and it seems only a few very well connected/vocal/opinionated fisherfolks let the CTF hear that opinion loud n clear. Most of us who have fished the the Ark for 30+ years see the fishing for what it is - or is the best it has been since well when the CPW killed all the fish in the river. 

Leslie/Mark/Harv,

It is to be noted that they (AHRA) has done and is currently doing a multi-year study on the impacts of boaters in the Browns Canyon area at least. The findings of their own study is saying that there is less impact in the canyon by all boaters than there was just a few years ago... Less human waste, less human impact, less new fire rings, fewer "new" trails, and more vegetation in both lunch/camp sites as well as other stopping points on the river. So their own study shows that there are less impacts by all boaters that there was even 7-10 years ago. From the study I take the fact that the private boater do not have a negative impact on the resource. Logan is right that with the national monument coming - unless we act proactively Browns Canyon could well turn into a permit or lottery system on the busy days... 

Leave in a provision to revisit the idea in 10 years (at the next plan review) that allow for - if there is measurable impact that changes from the current level to necessitate/determine a private boater capacity section by section as needed due to real impact on the resource. 

So there is no confusion the current capacity #'s were literally just pulled out of the air in the 80's and since then there has not been any other reason presented for rationing private boaters on the Ark other than #1. "protecting" the "experience" of a few very vocal and well connected fisher folks on one small section of river. #2 dealing with the Christo fiasco where supposedly masses of boaters that will want to float under the Art. #3 The commercials are rationed so the private boaters have to be. I dont see any of these as a viable reason that private boaters should be put in a position where you have to get a permit to float the Ark after work..


----------



## raftus

1. On multi-day river trips there is a real capacity limit due to the number of campsites available and their size. This limit relates to a number of users - not boats. On day use rivers this limit doesn't exist. 
2. The impact of boaters on the river is negligible. Anglers and gold paners have higher impacts - they spend their time on the banks where they impact vegetation and the river banks themselves. Yes some boaters scout - but usually this activity is limited to a few specific areas for a short period of time. Fish may be slightly disturbed by a passing boat - but this stress is orders of magnitude less than being caught and maybe being killed or released in a compromised state. 
3. Counting a kayaker or a tuber the same as a eight person raft is unbalanced. A pod of kayakers, Paddle boarders or tubers is about equal to a 8 person raft. 
4. Restricting day use runs substantially degrades the quality of life for locals.
5. Prioritizing commercial use over private use on public lands misses the entire point of public lands. Private use should always come first on public lands.


----------



## Jahve

Leslie and Mark,

Another issue that I would think private boaters should be aware of and since the AHRA at the request of the fishing interests have in the past and are currently considering - totally closing certain sections of the Arkansas River for any type of boating and only allowing walk in fishing in these sections. Or the fisher interests have asked that the water above Twin Lakes be off limits to any type of boating and these sections were headed this way until a few of us spoke up. 

I think that closing 1 foot of the Arkansas River for boating is a terrible idea and would be a huge setback for anyone who likes to float on any river in Colorado - as it sets a ridiculous precedent. If anyone has not floated it from Leadville to Twin Lakes well it is one of the best sections to learn or teach kayaking and some of us have boated this water for 20+ years. I would hate to see it closed to private boaters due to the whim of a few vocal fisherfolk. IMO boating above Twin Lakes should be encouraged and not discouraged. 

Thanks again for all you do and anyone who attends the meeting please update us to how the meeting went.


----------



## lmyers

RDNEK said:


> Leslie and Mark,
> 
> Another issue that I would think private boaters should be aware of and since the AHRA at the request of the fishing interests have in the past and are currently considering - totally closing certain sections of the Arkansas River for any type of boating and only allowing walk in fishing in these sections. Or the fisher interests have asked that the water above Twin Lakes be off limits to any type of boating and these sections were headed this way until a few of us spoke up.
> 
> I think that closing 1 foot of the Arkansas River for boating is a terrible idea and would be a huge setback for anyone who likes to float on any river in Colorado - as it sets a ridiculous precedent. If anyone has not floated it from Leadville to Twin Lakes well it is one of the best sections to learn or teach kayaking and some of us have boated this water for 20+ years. I would hate to see it closed to private boaters due to the whim of a few vocal fisherfolk. IMO boating above Twin Lakes should be encouraged and not discouraged.
> 
> Thanks again for all you do and anyone who attends the meeting please update us to how the meeting went.


Absolutely Jahv. I kinda went off on Fred when he brought this up a couple meetings ago... I brought it up to Earl and he pointed out that CKS sends beginners up to run Kobe to Granite at high water. Hopefully he got his email out to Leslie and Mark... Every inch of the Ark should be open to any legal form of private recreation desired.


----------



## Jahve

Any update to how the meeting went?

Also can you please post the link to the last meeting min?

Thanks!


----------



## lmyers

I have sent 4 emails to our private boater reps since January asking how the January meeting went and when they scheduled the next one for....but have not got a response. This is the issue I have with the way the CTF works. Every meeting is supposed to be open to the public with a public comment period, but all possible attempts are made to limit public knowledge of the meetings and what is discussed at the meetings.

I would like to know the stance our reps have on the current situation of water releases, as well as know how we were represented during the chapter 2 review and revisions to the Management Plan. I should not have to attend every meeting to obtain this information.


----------



## DoStep

lmyers said:


> Absolutely Jahv. I kinda went off on Fred when he brought this up a couple meetings ago... I brought it up to Earl and he pointed out that CKS sends beginners up to run Kobe to Granite at high water. Hopefully he got his email out to Leslie and Mark... Every inch of the Ark should be open to any legal form of private recreation desired.


I have put on at the reservoir upstream of Kobe as well, that is an awesome early spring run to Granite. I agree 100% that it should remain open for that use. The boatable season up there is short, and its high water anyway, there are not droves of fly fishermen there during that time frame.


----------



## kingfisher

i'm thinking that if you're entertaining this idea that we can prevent boating permits or a lottery on the Arkansas. you're delusional. 
it's all about money!
browns canyon wilderness = mo' money
permits for boaters = mo' money
gold medal fishery = mo' money
Christo draperies = mo' money
what good is this river to anyone if we can't make money off it? and in order for the river to meet it's maximum potential it must be "improved" upon with more boat ramps, more facilities, and more groomed campgrounds, more designations, like wilderness and gold medal. so that your average citiot will know exactly where they need to take their wallets to pay to experience those types of things.
if you build it they will come and they will pay to have the experience and we will all be happier for it. especially those of us who are lucky enough to have a river like this in our backyard, because we will all have more money in our pockets. everyone knows this equation. money = happiness
so let's form a committee to put together a task force, to report our findings to the BLAH BLAH BLAH.
and that's all I have to say about that. and if I haven't personally offended you with my rant....I apologize


----------



## gretch6364

Is this stupid Christo thing actually going to happen? Like for real? I can't believe anyone would think this is ok.


----------



## GameOn

*Latest and Greatest....*

A quick, update. I'm trying to keep things brief...if you want more information, please send me an email.

When you see these comments in the meeting notes, please remember you are seeing discussion on a topic. It doesn't mean it will be policy. Each member of the CTF gets to add their thoughts to the discussion and a redlined copy of the current Management Plan. If it is supported by other members of the CTF, their names get added. If not, that rep gets to stand alone. After we finish this, AHRA will review these comments and take our recommendations under consideration when they write the new Management Plan. Then, there will be a period for public comment.

There is a list of other groups around the state that should have input into the CTF nomination process. I would suggest those groups that are interested speak up so we know you are interested. Send an email to me (or Mark) or AHRA so we can say, "Yep, I've gotten input from them." 

Some clarification on Section 1. It was requested by the fishermen that boating be eliminated above Kobe. We are looking at flows to determine a boating season (when fishermen wouldn't be there anyhow) and look into it more. Note: The request can be made but AHRA gets the final call. Doesn't mean it will be policy...see above.

Nothing changed in Numbers all the way to Section 3. No increase or decrease in bpd (boats per day) on Numbers or Browns. The counts for the last few years have been lower than the threshold. There was a comment from the environmental rep about lowering the counts on the higher runs where privates have 350 bpd. We aren't anywhere near that number but I'm not supporting anything that cuts back on our bpd on any part of the river unless other private boaters tell me otherwise.

Section 3. Many options came up....one thing was to encourage river use within the towns that have play parks, etc. Section 3 could be divided into 3 parts (3a to Salida East, 3b to Rincon, 3c to V Bridge). Section 3a could then be attached to the play park (open access zone) and that, for the most part, would eliminate the whole permitting debacle. Each segment would have the same bpd. That season could possibly extend to August 15. (Each of these is a piece that could or could not happen.) Private boaters have made this request without the official support of the other reps...but all were very favorable. 

When we get to the section on permitting, I'm sure we will be making the request to eliminate that process.

ACTION: My question to you....what do you think about increasing commercial bpd in the Royal Gorge? Any input...I'll try to check here, but please send me an email...or use the AHRA comment form. 

Regarding the Voluntary Flow Program, if you have questions or comments about the flows, please let AHRA know via their Comment Form. People post here but unless they let AHRA know directly, it isn't on record. Currently, AHRA and AROA feel they represent the private boating interest in those discussions. If you feel that isn't the case, they need to hear from you directly.

Cristo...haven't heard anything lately about that one...

If you want minutes/summaries from the CTF meetings when the come out via email, let me know. I have exactly ONE person (yes, that's you Logan) on my list. Otherwise, I'll do my best to post here when I can (Mark, too, I'm sure)

Thanks,

Leslie, CTF Private Boater Rep AHRA, [email protected]


----------



## Landis

Thanks for the update leslie. Some important issues to weigh in on. Absolutrly No to forbidding boating on any section of the river. If it is too low flow then its too low. Dont need a prohibition on that.

I would not increase numbers in the Gorge nor try to direct use to oher sections. Absolutely no to permits. Perhaps wilderness camp reservations could work but if you want to blast Browns in the afternoon in a river runner you should be able to with no questions asked.

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## lmyers

FYI-CTF meeting tomorrow in Poncha. Here is the info from the AHRA:


"Attached is the Agenda for our Next CTF Meeting this Wednesday, which will be held at the Chaffee County Fairgrounds in Poncha Springs. This will be a special meeting with 3 presentations from experts in their field: Erica Pilcher, National Park Service; Don Bruns, Bureau of Land Management; and Francisco Valenzuela, US Forest Service. I have attached a map to the Fairgrounds if you aren't sure where it is located.

See you Wednesday


Rose Bayless
Program Assistant
Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area"


----------



## sammyphsyco

I just read all 6 pages and the suspense is killing me¡ so what happened?


----------



## lmyers

Nothing. The CTF is still completing the review process, but they are damn near done. A consultant will then be brought in to review their recommendations and help the managers develop several versions an updated draft plan.Then the public will get to review these options and weigh in with their opinions. These things generally take 3-5 years...


----------



## GameOn

To add to Logan's response, there will be some scoping meetings in various cities around the state so stay tuned and attend one in your local area. We have been reviewing the old Management Plan for content and updating. The consultant needs to type the Management Plan into its new format before we can review the final document and present it for public comment. There are still topics under discussion. If you have any input now, please post here or let one of the reps know. Thanks. Leslie


----------



## lmyers

The Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area State Park has released the draft alternatives for the new management plan. It has been years in the making and they have given the public _22 days to provide feedback_.

There are several things in it that I am personally not happy with. Including the language surrounding the policies that could one day initiate a private boater permit system, a reduction in private boater capacities on the Numbers and prohibiting private boaters from floating the Arkansas River above Hayden Meadows.

The document and the online public comment form can be found here: Colorado Parks & Wildlife - AHRA Plan Revision

There will be _3 open houses next week_ if you would prefer to speak with someone face to face about it: 

*5:30-7:30 p.m., Monday Oct. 23 
CPW Southeast Regional Office
4255 Sinton Road, Colorado Springs, 80907

5:30-7:30 p.m., Tuesday Oct. 24 
BLM Royal Gorge Field Office 
3028 E. Main St., Cañon City, 81212

5:30-7:30 p.m., Wednesday Oct. 25
Buena Vista Community Center 
715 E. Main St., Buena Vista, 81211*

This is only the second time since 1989 this document has been updated, and you can be assured the language contained within will be the guiding policies for future park managers (Rob White is getting close to retirement and John Nahomenuk retired this year and hasn't been replaced yet).

The Citizen's Task Force is meeting with AHRA officials today to review the draft plans together.

Please speak up and make sure your opinion is heard.


----------



## lmyers

Here is the language surrounding the possibility of a private boater permit system:


*Although the current plan establishes capacities for private boaters, a permit system or other tools to actively manage private use levels have not been developed or implemented to date. Given population growth estimates over the life of this plan, it is possible and perhaps even likely that a fee based registration and/or private boat permit system may need to be implemented.
Under all of the action alternatives, when use in any segment exceeds 75 percent of prescribed private boat capacities more than two days per season, the AHRA would initiate a user education effort to redistribute use from higher use sections and times in hopes of postponing direct use limitations as long as possible.
However, if use on any one section exceeds 75 percent of prescribed private boat capacities more than five days in any one season, AHRA will develop a web-based registration system designed to help redistribute use prior to developing a full permit system that would directly limit private use. A web-based registration system would require all private boaters to register their trips online before getting on the river (identifying the number of boats and which sections they plan to run). This will allow agencies to track use more accurately and provide the public with a real-time tally of use (that should eventually allow boaters to recognize and become calibrated to how daily numbers of boats equate with conditions such as encounters, time in sight of others, or waiting times at launches and rapids). The information will help boaters sensitive to crowding to voluntarily avoid crowded time periods and sections; if this redistributes use, such a registration system may eliminate the need for a direct permit system (which would change the registration system to a reservation-based permit system). However, if use on any one section exceeds prescribed carrying capacities more than five days in a season, CPW will implement a direct use limitation through a reservation-based permit system.*


----------



## protechie

Right, because “boaters sensitive to crowding” really need a website to tell them what the crowded sections and days/time periods are...


----------

