# Nail in Dolores coffin - 2016



## Droboat

*Wax Up the Emerald Mile - Watch for Overtopping*

Previous Elevation 6909.43 Ft Present Elevation 6912.08 Ft Full Reservoir Elevation 6924.00 Ft


----------



## CBow

I feel lucky to have run Ponderosa gorge and the Big Gyp to Bedrock sections in 2010 and 2011. We may never again have enough water in McPhee to allow for a boatable discharge. The boating community got left on the sideline when the "rules" were made for this river. Sad, very sad indeed.


----------



## eddy hopper

It might be time to pull the nail out of the coffin and make our Memorial Day weekend plans


----------



## Droboat

*Spring Storms Might Force a Release*

Absolutely no generosity or credit due the Dolores Water Lords. The release will only happen if, and only if, McPhee is full and can hold no more. If storms coincide with a warm-up in the high country - who knows what 2016 may bring (or take out).​
*Monday May 16, 2016*
*McPhee Downstream Release Update*


*Recent heavy precipitation last week and coming this week puts McPhee back on track for a SMALL & SHORT spill.*May mid-month CBRFC Forecast is back up to 245 KAF inflow to McPhee recognizing above average precipitation last week and on-going. Combined with a cool slow start to irrigation season, Mcphee has passed elevation 6912, only 12 more feet until full. Watch the Lake Elevation page for midnight updates. McPhee should hit elevation 6920' next week and we will announce any planned boating releases. A boating release will  *likely * cover the Memorial Day weekend and last 5 - 10 days at 1,000 +/- CFS. Releases could ramp up late next week. Stay tuned for *more updates later this week* as we assess the full storm affect (CBRFC) and other flow and diversion conditions.


----------



## doughboy

Water lords?


----------



## lmyers

Come on rain!


----------



## grumper13

doughboy said:


> Water lords?


Yeah.....that would be the lords who hope for 4 alfalfa cuttings in a season.


----------



## fella

Claiming this from the last Dolores thread...


"Well,

I'd be willing to wager that the present snowpack has been inaccurately gauged, the reservoir will reach full pool, and the Dam crew will have to spill water. 

The spillage, however, will come in the form of a poorly planned slow leak that never reaches "boatable flows".


But I'm going to go ahead and amend to add that the spill will last much longer than they claim, so if you miss Mem day weekend, you can still get some. However there will be no advanced notice that they will continue spilling. Or they will ramp down, but inflow will continue, so they will let the water dribble out, but at a minimal flow, as capacity is exceeded. ....dipshits.


----------



## grumper13

fella said:


> Claiming this from the last Dolores thread...
> 
> 
> "Well,
> 
> I'd be willing to wager that the present snowpack has been inaccurately gauged, the reservoir will reach full pool, and the Dam crew will have to spill water.
> 
> The spillage, however, will come in the form of a poorly planned slow leak that never reaches "boatable flows".
> 
> 
> But I'm going to go ahead and amend to add that the spill will last much longer than they claim, so if you miss Mem day weekend, you can still get some. However there will be no advanced notice that they will continue spilling. Or they will ramp down, but inflow will continue, so they will let the water dribble out, but at a minimal flow, as capacity is exceeded. ....dipshits.


Sounds like you been on this ride before...  Yeah, I expect your prediction to be pretty accurate.


----------



## restrac2000

grumper13 said:


> Sounds like you been on this ride before...  Yeah, I expect your prediction to be pretty accurate.


Grumper,

I am curious. Where have they gone wrong? I have been looking at the site and until the last 4-5 days it was looking slim from the data I could find (NOAA/CRBF, NRCS, etc). It sounds like locals had a good guess a better spill was going to happen. 

Its obvious snotel gauges are limited in the area which would affect predictions though the long term average would still be useful. But if a basin/headwaters area got saturated with snow and was not reflected in their measurements that would have a massive influence on predictions.

Thoughts? Curious to know how to better read the situation in the future.

Phillip


----------



## fella

restrac2000 said:


> Grumper,
> 
> I am curious. Where have they gone wrong? I have been looking at the site and until the last 4-5 days it was looking slim from the data I could find (NOAA/CRBF, NRCS, etc). It sounds like locals had a good guess a better spill was going to happen.
> 
> Its obvious snotel gauges are limited in the area which would affect predictions though the long term average would still be useful. But if a basin/headwaters area got saturated with snow and was not reflected in their measurements that would have a massive influence on predictions.
> 
> Thoughts? Curious to know how to better read the situation in the future.
> 
> Phillip



Sorry for interjecting -- seeing as you were asking someone else's opinion, however, here goes my short version.. 

Snotell aggregation rarely tells an accurate story of a watershed that spans nearly 7,000 vertical feet of elevation range. As an example, spring weather can cause every station below 10,000 feet to melt out - meanwhile snow accumulates copiously at the few high elevation stations -- they should know not to rely on the average of the watershed.

Further, the vast majority of snowpack is stored up high on north faces and gullies. So even if early runoff appears very weak, it could be another month before weather warms adequately to release the bulk of the snowpack. By then the damkeepers are caught off guard and make release decisions which do not benefit boaters.

It seems every year that the dam does fill, the damkeepers are way off in their analysis, predictions, and guidance to boaters.


----------



## grumper13

fella said:


> Sorry for interjecting -- seeing as you were asking someone else's opinion, however, here goes my short version..
> 
> Snotell aggregation rarely tells an accurate story of a watershed that spans nearly 7,000 vertical feet of elevation range. As an example, spring weather can cause every station below 10,000 feet to melt out - meanwhile snow accumulates copiously at the few high elevation stations -- they should know not to rely on the average of the watershed.
> 
> Further, the vast majority of snowpack is stored up high on north faces and gullies. So even if early runoff appears very weak, it could be another month before weather warms adequately to release the bulk of the snowpack. By then the damkeepers are caught off guard and make release decisions which do not benefit boaters.
> 
> It seems every year that the dam does fill, the damkeepers are way off in their analysis, predictions, and guidance to boaters.



Yes, all that. 

And, to be clear, I'm no more an expert on this stuff than anyone else, I just live in the area and try to track things.

Besides being overly cautious by nature (they'd rather surprise than disappoint), they (the dam operators/water managers) have become way too dependent on snotel data, which is incomplete and misleading. They actually need to GET OUT in the field a little, and go look at the snow and take samples, etc. I know a number of local USFS employees and backcountry skiers who've been saying for weeks that there is a lot more snow up there than is suggested by the snotels. One USFS friend told me they are way behind on seasonal road openings because of the snow.

Sooo.....


----------



## restrac2000

Yeah, the field efforts in Idaho are a great example of the benefits of supplementary field work. The snotel info is definitely limited in that area but can be misleading in general. I know my home basin can differ noticeably from year to year and isn't always reflected by the available data.

Thanks for sharing guys. Local expertise is always appreciated.

Phillip


----------



## grumper13

restrac2000 said:


> Yeah, the field efforts in Idaho are a great example of the benefits of supplementary field work. The snotel info is definitely limited in that area but can be misleading in general. I know my home basin can differ noticeably from year to year and isn't always reflected by the available data.
> 
> Thanks for sharing guys. Local expertise is always appreciated.
> 
> Phillip


Yeah and thanks for your part, too. And to address part of your earlier post about what might bring about change (paraphrasing): It's gonna have to be cultural or a legal mandate. The water managers in this area don't really take our concerns (rec, fish, habitat) seriously, they just stay in the conversation out of obligation and a fear that the feds might come in and dictate policy to us all. I could go on and on, but I'll stop there.

LET'S GO BOATIN'!


----------



## eddy hopper

*No Flow*

It seems to happen every year we have a release and it works as a self regulating permit system. Six weeks ago everybody was planning to be on the Dolores which would have made the place a zoo. Now most folks have made other plans and the crowds shouldn't be nearly as bad.... I've seen them wait until the Thursday before Memorial Day to announce a spill. I'd say indicators of a spill this year was/is... No wind, no dust, saturated soil, higher elevation snow... El Diente snotel site is just over 10,000 feet. It looks like we're going to be running the River of Sorrows this year! Unless the dam operators do something stupid.


----------



## restrac2000

I had originally hoped it would happen this coming week. Might have to scramble to put together a crew for the week after Memorial Day. Now just to find a way to explain to my boss why I need to reschedule and the rarity of this river flowing.

Like so many here I have a fondness for this river. It was the first section of whitewater I ever rowed and it still has my favorite camp of any river after 13 years of rafting. 

Sadly, I don't think I can get my wife to go with such short notice. We scored a Yampa permit for the first time for mid-June and we have already planned out her vacations days. Maybe the "flu" will sweep through our household around then :^)

Phillip


----------



## Chief Niwot

*Dolores SlickRock Access*

I called the BLM today to find out the latest details. What a mess. Their weblinks don't work. In addition, I found out that as of 5-16-16, Slickrock access is no longer, see below. I have a voice mail into the BLM guy to find out more.

Subject: Slickrock boat launch

Shannon, the Slick Rock boat access along the Dolores is on private land. In the past, it has been made available to the public for use (at a charge, I believe). I received a call from the landowner this morning, and he is not going to make his land available for use this year. That would be a pretty big deal IF there was a flow (which right now looks like a negative). Nonetheless, he would like us to take Slickrock off our our webpage. I looked at the webpage this morning. Pasted below is what we have on our webpage, along with my notes in RED as to how I think we should make adjustments:
Bradfield Launch to Slick Rock*
*The access point at Slick Rock located on private property. As of 5/16/16, the landowner has made the BLM aware that he will not be opening his property up to public use. Please respect private property rights and do not attempt to access the Dolores River at this location. The nearest BLM provided river access is located at the Gypsum Valley Recreation Site (see Gypsum Valley Boat Launch Map linked here).


----------



## grumper13

Chief Niwot said:


> I called the BLM today to find out the latest details. What a mess. Their weblinks don't work. In addition, I found out that as of 5-16-16, Slickrock access is no longer, see below. I have a voice mail into the BLM guy to find out more.
> 
> Subject: Slickrock boat launch
> 
> Shannon, the Slick Rock boat access along the Dolores is on private land. In the past, it has been made available to the public for use (at a charge, I believe). I received a call from the landowner this morning, and he is not going to make his land available for use this year. That would be a pretty big deal IF there was a flow (which right now looks like a negative). Nonetheless, he would like us to take Slickrock off our our webpage. I looked at the webpage this morning. Pasted below is what we have on our webpage, along with my notes in RED as to how I think we should make adjustments:
> Bradfield Launch to Slick Rock*
> *The access point at Slick Rock located on private property. As of 5/16/16, the landowner has made the BLM aware that he will not be opening his property up to public use. Please respect private property rights and do not attempt to access the Dolores River at this location. The nearest BLM provided river access is located at the Gypsum Valley Recreation Site (see Gypsum Valley Boat Launch Map linked here).


Dang. I had called around and gotten the owner's phone number and was planning to call....but now I guess I won't bother. Yeah, it will have an impact on some folks' plans, for sure.


----------



## cayo 2

So you'd have to go 14 miles further or lose that much on Slickrock to Bedrock?

Is camping allowed along the stretch from Dove Crk pump station to below Snaggletooth?It has been a long time since we were there ,how is the road,both descending to the river and beyond Snaggletooth?


----------



## grumper13

cayo 2 said:


> So you'd have to go 14 miles further or lose that much on Slickrock to Bedrock?
> 
> Is camping allowed along the stretch from Dove Crk pump station to below Snaggletooth?It has been a long time since we were there ,how is the road,both descending to the river and beyond Snaggletooth?


The river from Pumphouse to Slickrock is mostly BLM, so no problem camping.
And the road to Pumphouse is a graded county road. The road from Pumphouse to beyond Snaggletooth is rougher, but passable.


----------



## cayo 2

Cool ... thanks


----------



## Chief Niwot

So I spoke with Jeff with the BLM this morning, very nice guy. He confirmed the Slickrock land owner is not going to allow access to the river and parking. He also said there is BLM land 1/2 mile upstream, but no boating facilities. He also mentioned that you can leave a car unattended for 48 hours on BLM land, but he is not sure about enforcement considering it's boating season and with the closure of Slickrock.

The weblinks do work, if you go in via the Tres Rios BLM. The links on the Moab field office site for the Delores do not work. Here is the link: BLM CO TRFO Dolores River Information

Anyone familiar with the BLM land above Slickrock in terms of river access and parking, etc.?


----------



## grumper13

Chief Niwot said:


> So I spoke with Jeff with the BLM this morning, very nice guy. He confirmed the Slickrock land owner is not going to allow access to the river and parking. He also said there is BLM land 1/2 mile upstream, but no boating facilities. He also mentioned that you can leave a car unattended for 48 hours on BLM land, but he is not sure about enforcement considering it's boating season and with the closure of Slickrock.
> 
> The weblinks do work, if you go in via the Tres Rios BLM. The links on the Moab field office site for the Delores do not work. Here is the link: BLM CO TRFO Dolores River Information
> 
> Anyone familiar with the BLM land above Slickrock in terms of river access and parking, etc.?


Hmmm....well, a look on Google Earth shows an apparent old access point about 1/2 mile upriver from the private access point we are talking about, but (according to San Miguel County GIS) it's also on private land (different landowner). 

Jeff is out of the office right now, but as it happens, I will be in a meeting with him tomorrow afternoon about related Dolores River stuff, so by tomorrow evening, I hope to have something useful to post here. Also, if one looks at google earth, there is a BLM road on river left and just west of the Slickrock bridge, that winds it's way up and over and gets close to the river a couple of miles upriver....but it's impossible to tell if it could be an raft access point or what's the condition of the road.


----------



## CBow

So, who controls the short strip of land between the river and the county road that peels off to the north just south of the slick rock bridge? It might not be ideal but perhaps doable. Looking at Google Earth and from memory I know that road parralles the river for quit a while.


----------



## lmyers

The Dolores River Guide lists the minimum flow for a kayak in Ponderosa as 250 cfs.... can anyone verify this? I'm very low water tolerant, we boat the Ark pretty much all year, but it needs to be channelized...


----------



## TapStyx

grumper13 said:


> Dang. I had called around and gotten the owner's phone number and was planning to call....but now I guess I won't bother. Yeah, it will have an impact on some folks' plans, for sure.


If you have the landowner's phone number it'd be worth a shot to talk to him/her. It'd be better to speak to them in person. Hell, you may just be able to convince him/her to open his land up. Just curious as to why the landowner recently had a change of heart when he allowed access in the past. Hmmm.


----------



## grumper13

CBow said:


> So, who controls the short strip of land between the river and the county road that peels off to the north just south of the slick rock bridge? It might not be ideal but perhaps doable. Looking at Google Earth and from memory I know that road parralles the river for quit a while.


It's owned by the James Ranch out of Durango (which I learned on the San Miguel county GIS site) for he first bit, then someone else. I actually talked to them (the James Ranch) today about possible access and in general, they open to the idea, as long as the other access is not available - BUT - not this year. And it's because they are up to their ears in ranch work (calving, etc) and don't want to allow access without someone there (at the old store), and too short notice, etc. So, (anyone reading this) please don't try to trespass on this property, as it would set us back on landowner relations.

And this: Another DRBAer is in conversation with the owners of the traditional Slickrock access point and the status is that they are concerned about liability, but he is going to explain to them tomorrow that CO state law provides that as long as they don't charge $$, then CO state law covers them for liability. So, it's possible (but not guaranteed) that they may change their mind after he talks to them tomorrow.

These questions should be answered by tomorrow or friday at the latest, right here.

And if there ends up being NO Slickrock access this year, it just means you'll be floating to or putting in at Big Gypsum, which is 14 miles downriver. 
Not the end of the world.


----------



## grumper13

TapStyx said:


> If you have the landowner's phone number it'd be worth a shot to talk to him/her. It'd be better to speak to them in person. Hell, you may just be able to convince him/her to open his land up. Just curious as to why the landowner recently had a change of heart when he allowed access in the past. Hmmm.


The other DRBAer (referenced in my other post) is talking to them and it may work out the way you (and I) are hoping.


----------



## CBow

Thanks for the info. Keeping fingers crossed.


----------



## soggy_tortillas

lmyers said:


> The Dolores River Guide lists the minimum flow for a kayak in Ponderosa as 250 cfs.... can anyone verify this? I'm very low water tolerant, we boat the Ark pretty much all year, but it needs to be channelized...


I'd like to know the same. We're not above low flows.


----------



## jamesthomas

If the slick rock take out is actually closed and you have to go to gypsum its my recollection that there is not a whole lot of room there. We put in there on my first raft trip years ago. If thats the case the first few rigs in there could make a huge difference by being smart as to rig placement. Think about it.


----------



## grumper13

jamesthomas said:


> If the slick rock take out is actually closed and you have to go to gypsum its my recollection that there is not a whole lot of room there. We put in there on my first raft trip years ago. If thats the case the first few rigs in there could make a huge difference by being smart as to rig placement. Think about it.


I hear ya. 
I just came from a meeting with the local BLM office and here's what's new (spoiler alert: not much).

The thing is, the Slickrock access point is not public land, it is private. And the owners of that private land, after many years of allowing boater access, have now become concerned about liability, damage, etc. Not sure where that change came from - we just heard about it a few days ago - from the BLM office and from a post right here. One of our guys has talked to the wife, but won't get a chance to talk to the husband until the weekend, so hopefully we will get some word by monday. There is some BLM river frontage in the area and given these recent developments, there is talk of trying to develop an access point in the near future, but there is no time to get it done for this boating season, as it involves CDOT, a bulldozer, etc. 

Sidenote:
The property that includes the current river access point (78 acres) is going to be for sale soon, if anyone wants to buy it.....be pretty sweet to have a spot on the river....


----------



## TakemetotheRiver

Any word on the Slickrock takeout?


----------



## Bandit

So your best local advise will the Dolores run for rafts the first weekend of June. Also I'm looking to do a family trip from gypsum to bedrock any local beta would be very much appreciated
thanks
bandito


----------



## eddy hopper

*McPhee*

As long as the outlet remains what it is now, my guess is McPhee will fill by the first of June. Just a guess.


----------



## grumper13

TakemetotheRiver said:


> Any word on the Slickrock takeout?


No details yet (any day now, though), but the landowner who is downstream, on river left (where the old store is), is working with the BLM to make an access. For reference, the old access (which is closed) is just upstream of the bridge, on river right. When it's official, you'll see it posted here, on the BLM Dolores website, and the DRBA FB page.


----------



## grumper13

Bandit said:


> So your best local advise will the Dolores run for rafts the first weekend of June. Also I'm looking to do a family trip from gypsum to bedrock any local beta would be very much appreciated
> thanks
> bandito


Check your other post.


----------



## grumper13

Here's the status of the Slickrock access point on the lower Dolores River:



DOLORES RIVER: SLICK ROCK PUT-IN AND TAKE OUT UPDATE
You will be able to launch a raft from Slick Rock on the Dolores River in 2016. The location is NOT the one listed in the river guides. The 2016 launch location will be at river mile 47 ¼, on the west side of the river downstream from the bridge that crosses the river on river left.
There is ample parking at the site and two access points. Parking a vehicle (with or without a trailer) will be $7.00 a day. 
This will be the only put-in or take-out at Slick Rock. All of the land upriver and downriver is private with no access. The public access upstream of mile 46 marked on some maps is not viable (rutted and steep with river access blocked by a fence.)
THE OLD LAUNCH that is marked in the river guides WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE. 
In one guide this 2016 launch location is listed as, “Chuck Wagon Cafe. Pay Phone and H2O available.” It is also known as the Slickrock Store.
With the help of The Dolores Water Conservation District, The Dolores River Boating Advocates worked with the local landowners to open this site for 2016. 
Be Kind and Respect the Property.
Thanks,
Dolores River Boating Advocates


----------



## mcmarcia

For the kayakers wanting to run the ponderosa canyon at 250,I think you would be ok, might want to camp or get early start. I did overnight IK trip there 12 years ago and I think it was around 300cfs, which was plenty for us. BUt maybe get another opinion. From memory the boney part is near the end with some ledgy type stuff. Looks like we are going to get more, 1000cfs minimum is what they are saying, but it will depend on how much water is coming in when they release.


----------



## Droboat

*Surpise - DWCD Didn't Announce Release Began June 1*

To steal a title from a famous senator: 
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

Detail Graph


----------



## mcmarcia

Droboat said:


> To steal a title from a famous senator:
> Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
> 
> Detail Graph


At least they are predictably consistent in that they have always provided the boating community w bad information regarding the releases.


----------



## restrac2000

I wish the agency had both better modeling and release updates myself. I think we all agree there is a lot of room for improvement with Dolores river managers. But I am not sure how their information is "bad" this time (can't speak to the past):



> Tuesday May 31, 2016
> McPhee Downstream Release Update
> McPhee Downstream Release Update
> 
> State DWR Real Time Gage data for releases below McPhee at Detail Graph
> 
> DRBA has detailed river info at Dolores River Boating Advocates
> 
> Note that Rig to Flip, not DRBA, identified & photographed the new boulder upstream of the Dove Creek pumps and notified DRBA to post on their website.
> 
> Rafting releases are set for next weekend June 3-5, Friday - Sunday. The releases from McPhee will be a minimum of 800 CFS by early (1:00 AM) Friday morning. Remember it takes a few hours to reach Bradfield & longer to other downstream boat ramps.


It seems like they are going with the slow ramp up approach and should be on target for their "recreational release" of 800 cfs by early tomorrow morning. They are even trying to remind people about the lag to reach other launches. 

They are not nearly as good as management communication on the San Juan or below Flaming Gorge. That said, I don't believe for a second DroBoat actually is too concerned about quality communication. If he was it would be hard to explain his comments that have the affect of harassment against Susan Novak, who sets the standard for communicating release information to recreational communities.


----------



## mcmarcia

*No harassment....*



restrac2000 said:


> I wish the agency had both better modeling and release updates myself. I think we all agree there is a lot of room for improvement with Dolores river managers. But I am not sure how their information is "bad" this time (can't speak to the past):
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like they are going with the slow ramp up approach and should be on target for their "recreational release" of 800 cfs by early tomorrow morning. They are even trying to remind people about the lag to reach other launches.
> 
> They are not nearly as good as management communication on the San Juan or below Flaming Gorge. That said, I don't believe for a second DroBoat actually is too concerned about quality communication. If he was it would be hard to explain his comments that have the affect of harassment against Susan Novak, who sets the standard for communicating release information to recreational communities.


No harassment intended by anyone. The problem w the release information from the DWCD is that is has and still is consistently wrong. That is why I see it is bad information as it does not do any of any good to have the wrong information. When they consistently tell us one thing and then do another, it is very hard to be able to plan a recreational trip on the river. They could have honored the Memorial release and let out some water. There is still huge snowpack waiting to come down from the high elevation drainage as we have had unseasonable cool weather that has slowed down the runoff. Many of their irrigation users did not use the water they normally do because of the cool wet weather, so they will have more water than normal to fill the lake. 

The previous releases have been so wrong as to strand boaters on a dry stream bed and that is pretty bad. They now realize they cannot make that mistake, so they are ramping flows.

I think they should just remove the recreation logo from their main logo and also remove the information on their home page about providing a "quality catch and release fishing" below the dam as 50 CFS is not enough to support any of this. They touted this in order to get approval for the dam and to "market" the dam to fishmen and boaters. But their actions have shown us their mission has nothing to do with recreation or they would be releasing more than 50 cfs. 

They have installed a dam onto what was an incredible wild and unique river ecosystem and then they diverted all the water to a mere trickle and only left the riverbed w a few warm puddles which has destroyed any chance of the ecosystem to survive. Someone has to speak up for the Dolores watershed, as it is an endangered ecosystem, directly as a result of a small communities wish to use all the water, 100%, for their agricultural and land development purposes and the river ecosystem and the other downstream water users of the Colorado watershed are suffering as a result. It is really time for this to be challenged in court as I cannot believe in this day and age this can continue to exist. Sorry to be outspoken, but I feel pretty strong about this, not as a boater, but as someone concerned about how humans feel they have the right to destroy natural ecosystems for resources they want to harvest. There has to be a balance or we will destroy ourselves eventually when there are no more healthy ecosystems left. No man is an island and we need, rivers, forest, oceans, rainforests, deserts, etc on planet earth.


----------



## restrac2000

Like I said, I can't speak to the past as I was just launching and floating without any regard to its management until 2008. The mention the harassing nature of DroBoat's past comments was only about him, nothing you have said.

First, I am in support of constructive criticism leveled against any person or organization. I was heading into a career in wildlife biology before I was sidetracked with illness in 2008. I care deeply about most ecosystems but especially about the riparian environments of the desert southwest. I get to float the Yampa next week and I think it will be enlightening to see an undamned stretch that feeds the Green and Colorado system. I can't imagine how much healthier places like Deso would be with better flooding and woody debris influx. 

Second, we will have to disagree about "bad" information. I have been following their reports for months on the DWCD site. Since March they have been skeptical of any release. When they finally mentioned the potential for a Memorial Day spill it was hedged as only "likely" (you don't see that language since then AND it was in bold) as the information and weather did not provide the confidence to guarantee the opportunity. They have been transparent since March that a spill was contingent on the reservoir reaching an elevation of 6920 minimum and upwards of 6922 feet. They kept their word and start releasing at an elevation of 6920.84 feet on May 31st.

I disagree with their priorities and most dams in general. They forever altered a river and corridor most of here treasure. But we cannot expect them to change their protocol and operating procedures mid-season. To do so would be tantamount to negligence professionally and I would imagine legally. They have commitments to stakeholders and make no mistake their principle ones have been agriculture and municipalities since the Dolores Project was formalized. 

And it cannot be ignored, the Dolores's reputation was earned because of its big snow years pre-dam. But the river was often de-watered completely by other agencies since the beginning of the 20th century (makes me wonder what native fish populations were like then, didn't see data before 1980s in literature). The mythology of boating the Dolores has always been sexy but glosses over much of its complex history.

Much of this topic is complex. If you haven't read them I would recommend you take the time to so with these documents:

A Way Forward

Native Fish of the Lower Dolores


I find it hopeful that groups outlined in A Way Forward are modeling options that align well with many stakeholders. That said, it is still be contingent on climate and adequate water in the reservior. We will still have no spill years for recreation even under the best scientific management, especially if the last decade of drought is any indicator. 

Phillip


----------



## Droboat

*Harsh Criticism of Wrecked Water Management, not sjnovak3*

Mcmarcia nailed it. 

No need to address another of Restrac2000's obsequious diversions into ad hominem and condensing attacks on those who dare speak truth to Wrecked power.

Simple Definition of obsequious: too eager to help or obey someone important.


----------



## GroatBoat

*How fast will pulse be moving?*

Anybody know when flows are expected to reach Slick Rock? I'm guessing it'll travel somewhere around 4 miles an hour over 60ish miles, so maybe by Friday afternoon?


----------



## restrac2000

The Slickrock gauge is already showing a small rise from best I can tell. If so it took about 24 hours to reach there considering they started ramping sometime around 8 am yesterday. Hard to know for sure as the river was already fluctuating in that area but it never climbed above 81 yesterday (sitting at 9o-ish now). Its not rising fast. When it hits closer to 110-120 cfs we should confidently know its related to the dam release.


----------



## GroatBoat

Thanks, didn't realize they already started ramping up.


----------



## restrac2000

Info here:

Release below McPhee

Slickrock Gauge

They have updated the DWCD site the last couple days but not until mid day it seems.

Phillip


----------



## mattman

I can't help but believe the inaccurate forecasts for releases are not miststakes or just being lousy at forecasting run off, Etc.
I think these issues are intentional, if you think about it, boaters on the Dolores are not in the best interest of maintaining there current system of diverting and using nearly the entire river, the more boaters that get on the Dolores, the more the outcry to leave some water in the river, will be. The more they can keep boaters away with lack of predictability, risk of being stranded, and pure frustration, the more hope they have of being left to there own status quo, less chance of being pushed to release some water.
Bad for job security, in there minds.

They are trying to wear down boaters and enviromentalists, Insurance company's, and many other large corporations, use similar principals ALL the time.


----------



## Issip

*Ignore the release information*

Look at the snowpack, McPhee Reservoir level, weather, precipitation and diversion capacity data and try to predict when the lake will overflow on your own.

That is when they will release water, when there is absolutely no way they can keep it to divert for irrigation without overtoping the dam. Ignore everything they say and just try to predict when the lake will overflow.

We can predict that much better than they can anyway, so stop asking for them to communicate, we know they give us bad info, but we also know their motives and MO. They should beg/pay us to tell them when we're thinking of launching and they'd have some clue as to when the lake might fill...

I hope if you're reading this it's days from now because you just got back from a great river trip!

Great boating! 

Issip


----------



## mattman

[email protected] Bradfield right now, 88 down at dove creek still.


----------



## mattman

THIS. 

V
V
V
V
V


----------



## restrac2000

What is the Dove Creek reading? I thought the one down there was a canal diversion reading.

Slickrock just sky-rocketed out of nowhere to 369 cfs. Was there a storm today or does it surge like that after a ramping increase from McPhee?

Phillip


----------



## mattman

restrac2000 said:


> What is the Dove Creek reading? I thought the one down there was a canal diversion reading.
> 
> Slickrock just sky-rocketed out of nowhere to 369 cfs. Was there a storm today or does it surge like that after a ramping increase from McPhee?
> 
> Phillip


Should have been more specific, Bradfield to Dove creek comes up as 853, I'm not sure where the next gauge is, It's been so fucking long since I've been there!


----------



## restrac2000

Sadly the next is Slickrock. I believe the one you are referencing is right at the dam, correct?

Found the error in the Slickrock data. The graph is only updated every hour but it has data to every 15 minutes that can seen in a tab;e. The release has definitely made it slickrock as of 6:15 tonight. Must be a beautiful sight.


----------



## mania

well I ended up running 97 miles from bradfield to bedrock. I will say the river is spectacular - I had forgotten. that's what they want. us to forget. the camps were marginal due to years of no release to clear them up but there are still some good camps to be found. I believe the only way to guarantee releases is for some rich people to buy back the water rights that were stolen from us and the downstream users.


----------



## mkashzg

We did 5 days and 4 nights from Bradfield to slick rock and enjoyed it all but as mania said it was over grown and also lots of poison ivy. Let's buy some h2o!


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

My group ran from Slick Rock to Bedrock but I joined them at Gypsum Valley boat ramp to Bedrock and it was pretty tight through a lot of it. I did manage to get a 16' raft down it though, so not tiny. Definitely crowded and camps were mostly mediocre at best from what I could see. Ours was all right, but certainly wasn't the best camp I'd ever stayed at.

I still had a good time, but I don't think I'd take a raft next time. It was more rock dodging then running the river and would have been a lot more fun in a kayak. I also think my temperament and skill level is more suited to the harder sections like Bradfield to Slickrock. We almost did that, but were wary of the 800 cfs minimum and recommendations to stay away from Snaggletooth below 1000cfs.

It is pretty apparent that a lack of major flow down there is negatively effecting the river. Lots of salt deposits, lots of overgrowth from invasive species and a general feeling of it not being natural. I can't imagine the local fish population is doing so great either.

I honestly don't see anyone being able to purchase water rights any time soon, or at least not enough to make a difference. Its sad to say, but I just don't see it happening due mostly to the agriculture parties having a unified front and not letting recreational and environmental parties anywhere near any water rights that might be up for grabs. 

I think a more likely path to success is convincing a government agency of some sort that the river and local species are being negatively impacted and some sort of legislation needs to be drawn up to guarantee higher and more frequent flows.


----------



## grumper13

Electric-Mayhem said:


> My group ran from Slick Rock to Bedrock but I joined them at Gypsum Valley boat ramp to Bedrock and it was pretty tight through a lot of it. I did manage to get a 16' raft down it though, so not tiny. Definitely crowded and camps were mostly mediocre at best from what I could see. Ours was all right, but certainly wasn't the best camp I'd ever stayed at.
> 
> I still had a good time, but I don't think I'd take a raft next time. It was more rock dodging then running the river and would have been a lot more fun in a kayak. I also think my temperament and skill level is more suited to the harder sections like Bradfield to Slickrock. We almost did that, but were wary of the 800 cfs minimum and recommendations to stay away from Snaggletooth below 1000cfs.
> 
> It is pretty apparent that a lack of major flow down there is negatively effecting the river. Lots of salt deposits, lots of overgrowth from invasive species and a general feeling of it not being natural. I can't imagine the local fish population is doing so great either.
> 
> I honestly don't see anyone being able to purchase water rights any time soon, or at least not enough to make a difference. Its sad to say, but I just don't see it happening due mostly to the agriculture parties having a unified front and not letting recreational and environmental parties anywhere near any water rights that might be up for grabs.
> 
> I think a more likely path to success is convincing a government agency of some sort that the river and local species are being negatively impacted and some sort of legislation needs to be drawn up to guarantee higher and more frequent flows.


Lots of good points and ideas. 
> The idea of buying the water is definitely an active part of discussions. Very expensive, though. A very rough calculation (based on what the most junior water users in the DWCD pay) suggests that the water we floated on would've cost about $250,000 per day. That number is rough, probably misses some factors, but is in the ballpark.
> The idea of protecting the river environment (and it's critters) by establishing a different river level baseline, through legal or legislative action (and assuming it also benefits boaters), is also an active part of discussions.

In moments like this, it feels like a "Sanders-esque" longshot (a verrrry narrow path). I think the best and only thing to do, is stay engaged (go to public forums), keep talking, support those orgs and candidates doing the work.

Yesterday evening, as we were pulling into the Pumphouse launch site, to drop someone off at his vehicle, there were two folks from SLC sitting there, ready to float to Slickrock, but holding (camping at the put-in), hoping to hear word that the release may continue. So, they packed up their boating stuff, took off work, blasted across Utah, and may just get to turn around and go right back home. Anyway, this hope of theirs is based on doing rough math on the inflow and outflow, the rising nighttime temps and all the snow still in the mountains. Most of us who've done that calculation think they will have to let more water go in the coming days or weeks, and if this happens, it will probably not be boatable. It's maddening and insulting.

Thanks to all who came to float (if that's the right word), in spite of the cryptic and changeable words and actions of the DWCD/BOR. Very challenging (read B.S.).

As another poster said: "They want us to forget". The Dolores and many other places are way too special to forget. Keep talking folks. And floating and remembering. Do what you can do, but don't do nothing.


----------



## mcmarcia

It was awesome to get back on the Dolores and enjoy the beauty of Slickrock Canyon one more time. I certainly hope it will not be the last time, but I sure wonder if there will ever be another opportunity the way things seem to be going. I sure hope the EPA will recognize the value of river ecosystems and be able to mandate realistic minimum stream flows in the West as we continue to overpopulate and over-utilize the dwindling water resources we have to share. I took a ton of pictures of the canyon in hopes that I might be able to share them somehow to help the cause. Thanks to everyone here for this discussion.


----------



## marusak

Boatable flows this weekend:

Dolores Water Conservancy District

Detail Graph

Grab your boat and make the trip if you didn't make it last weekend! Don't forget!


----------



## Droboat

*An Emerald Mile Forecast*

NOAA forecast for Dolores Headwaters:
4 Miles S Dunton CO
37.72°N 108.08°W (Elev. 11824 ft)
*This Afternoon*
Isolated showers and thunderstorms after 4pm. Partly sunny, with a high near 68. West wind around 5 mph. Chance of precipitation is 10%.

*Tonight*
Isolated showers and thunderstorms before 10pm. Partly cloudy, with a low around 46. Northwest wind 5 to 15 mph becoming southeast in the evening. Chance of precipitation is 20%.

*Saturday*
Showers and thunderstorms likely, mainly after 1pm. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 57. South wind 10 to 15 mph becoming west southwest in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation is 70%.

*Saturday Night*
Showers and thunderstorms likely, mainly before 9pm. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 40. West southwest wind 5 to 15 mph becoming east after midnight. Chance of precipitation is 60%.

*Sunday*
A 50 percent chance of showers and thunderstorms, mainly after noon. Partly sunny, with a high near 56. Northeast wind 5 to 15 mph becoming southwest in the afternoon. 

*Sunday Night*
A 30 percent chance of showers and thunderstorms before midnight. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 41.

*Monday*
Rain and snow showers likely, mainly after noon. Some thunder is also possible. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 53. Chance of precipitation is 60%.

*Monday Night*
A chance of rain and snow showers. Some thunder is also possible. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 36.

*Tuesday*
A chance of rain and snow showers before noon, then a chance of rain showers. Some thunder is also possible. Partly sunny, with a high near 54.

*Tuesday Night*
A slight chance of showers and thunderstorms before midnight. Partly cloudy, with a low around 40.


----------



## fella

Hate to be a sourpuss, but I am so unbelievably, disgustingly unimpressed by those kooks. 

Is it even possible to be farther off the mark on predictions, analysis, and flow plans?

Retarded.


----------



## jamesthomas

Im with droboat. Could spike to epic levels if it rains hard up high.


----------



## jamesthomas

I'm with droboat. Could spike to epic levels if it rains hard up high.:-D


----------



## restrac2000

If locals are right about snowfall then Dolres Water will have definitely screwed the pooch on this year. That could be some great ammunition to use against them in the future.

On the other hand, if NOAA is correct (as highlighted below) then the river likely peaked 3-4 days ago. Guess it is all hinging on whether reliance on the snotel data is enough to predict the Dolores fluctuations.

Either way its obvious now that they had enough water to extend the boatable flows by at least 2-3 days.

Sincerely, 

*Obsequious*


----------



## mattman

So great to get out there for a couple days, (gypsum to bedrock) even more awesome then I remember from 8 years ago. Tons of people out there, and was glad to see it! The more folks running the Dolores right now, the greater the case for allowing some water to be in the river, and more help to fight for some justice! 
Get out there and run it if it keeps going, the D.W.C.D. does NOT want us there!! Do the opposite of what the rotten bastards want, but be respectful to the locals, get them on our side, support the organizations sticking up for the Dolores, pitch a fit to the politicians making the laws, and stick it to the Man on this one!!!


----------



## Droboat

*1200 cfs - Rain Dances are Working*

I wish folks would knock off the Fox Newsesque nonsense about buying *public water* from a water hoarding taxpayer-funded water district that 'manages' *our water* by hoarding it in a federal dam built with federal tax money. The very discussion of paying a ransom is counterproductive, offensive, and gross.

There are numerous real possibilities. One (among many) is to let the public water flow - in fact - back though the river banks and the public trust from which the River of Our Lady of Sorrows can never be removed for long. 

Don't forget the Dolores River has been navigated - in fact - for decades (and perhaps centuries to access the granaries in the canyons). Just ask Shutzie - he was there. Maybe take some Joe Sax for background reading and help revive and resume our community's tradition of navigating and camping along the Dolores River.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Sax


----------



## mcmarcia

I agree w Droboat, the river needs to have water to support the ecosystem. A small community and land developers should not be able to hoard this water from the ecosystem and the rest of the west who rely on this water. We need realistic minimum streamflows based on science and related to the carrying capacity of what is needed to keep native and endangered species healthy. The food web that is needed to keep the ecosystem healthy needs water. Insect populations need spring floods and these insects are crucial for the food web. There are many problems associated w dams, but there are ways to help mitigate their problems. The DWCD cannot continue to destroy the Dolores ecosystem by taking all the water. Laws that allow this practice should be challenged in courts and changed to reflect the value that river ecosystems have to not only the plant and animal communities, but to human life on this planet. We cannot continue to alter natural ecosystem like we have, we need natural ecosystems to be able to ultimately survive on this planet. In homeland security language, which our government and courts generally respond to, this is an issue involving our "national security' that we act now to preserve and protect natural ecosystems, because if we protect them now, they will be able to support us in the future as well.


----------

