# Public Comment Needed For Upper Ark!



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Here is the website where you can comment if you are unable to attend a meeting:

Colorado Parks & Wildlife - AHRA Plan Revision

and there is some background information on what got the process to this point in this thread:

http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f41/arkansas-river-management-plan-revision-47946.html


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Bump.

It's important as private boaters that we speak up in this process. Let the AHRA know what you want to see happen with the state park over the next 20 years. A big point we should all make is to stress how important it is that they maintain the Upper Arkansas as a freely open river to private boaters. No permits! The day that they will have to make a decision regarding this issue on section 3 (Salida East to Rincon) is quickly drawing near. Make your voice heard!


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

As a private boater on the Arkansas, I have to ask at what point does more "management" have a diminishing return?

If we see permits on Browns Canyon or the lower sections, we will just end with more users on the Numbers and Royal Gorge. So families with Class III equipment and skills will be running Class !V.

I would like to see the new put-in above #1 in the Numbers built.
But then the Numbers turns into a shitshow like Browns.

I would like to see the dam below Granite cleaned up, but then we would have much more traffic on Pine Creek.

Would love to see the bridge below #1 raised, but that helps out a handful of boaters, only at extreme high water.

At some point more management means more problems!


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

I'm going to try and make it to the C Springs one.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Rich said:


> As a private boater on the Arkansas, I have to ask at what point does more "management" have a diminishing return?
> 
> If we see permits on Browns Canyon or the lower sections, we will just end with more users on the Numbers and Royal Gorge. So families with Class III equipment and skills will be running Class !V.
> 
> ...


I agree about permits. Initiating a permit program on one section only displaces those users to another section and eventually leads to permitting of the entire river. Although current managers have absolutely no desire to see this happen, they won't be running the state park forever...

The new Numbers launch and campground is slated for the ground breaking this year.

Not sure what ever happened about cleaning up Granite Dam. Last I heard they had received matching funds from the state to clean it up, but this was several years ago...

Haven't heard any talk of raising the old Scott's bridge.

I agree about the negatives of increased regulation and think it's important to maintain things in their current state without new rules or price increases. Please take the time to fill out the comment form on the link provided above. The more private boaters that speak up, the better. You better believe commercial and fishermen will be vocal about what they want to see.


----------



## stinginrivers (Oct 18, 2003)

Thanks for keeping us informed, as you said the other users are going to be vocal so we as private boaters need to be as well.

I have the denver date on my calendar and will be attending.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

*Correction*

The address for the Canon City meeting was wrong. The location is:

Canon City (Jan. 26, 5:45-8 p.m., Harrison Elementary/Middle School, *920 Field St*.)


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Bump


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

The meeting in BV last night went well. Thank you to everyone who attended. 

*Reminder*:

The Canon City meeting is tonight, with Colorado Springs tomorrow and Denver Thursday.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also wanted to provide an update to the inquiry regarding the new launch at Numbers...

Sounds like the AHRA just submitted their proposed plan of action to the Forest Service which means they are now looking at a 2017 ground breaking. Latest from Rob White makes it sound like the site will be a bit smaller than first anticipated with 3 pull through camp sites, 3 tent sites, a new commercial launch about 1/2 mile downstream from the existing site and river access from the "campground". The current Numbers launch will be decommissioned and no longer available for use.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Here are some Topics/Information/Questions for your consideration when making comments, courtesy Christina King (environmental rep to the CTF and representative for Pikes Peak River Runners):

*Mining*:

* Should placer mining be allowed along river corridor? Concerns about sedimentation and lack of “cleanup”, miners dig up riverbed (bad for fishery), dig around banks (erosion and don’t repair the site after done digging).

* If we can’t stop it, how can we minimize damage done?

*Land Acquisition* (site development, enhance existing sites, etc…): Think about the AHRA sites that you use:

* How could they be improved? Should they be improved? Do you want water, electric and sewer hookups, trash service, cell service, wifi? Are you willing to pay more for these amenities? Or at the very minimum pit toilets at each site. Is parking adequate? Is river access good enough? Could sites be improved to provide quicker boat/trailer access?

* Do you want more river access sites (or less)? To create shorter runs? Why and where?
At a minimum, what should each river access site have? Trailer access, parking, toilets???? What else?

* Where would you put more river access sites to provide “easy” runs with no rapids to relieve the pressure at Section 3? Or to just have more short run options for families with children or easier learning areas for newbie private boaters (kayakers, rowers, float fishing, duckiers, SUP, etc…)

* Ruby Mountain site: Make the site off-limits 100% of the time to commercial operations? Or develop another site for commercial needs above Ruby. Improve (widen) put-in/takeout at existing Ruby Mountain ramp. Improve blind curve into Ruby Mountain site!

* Royal Gorge takeout options: How would you improve the takeouts? Widen existing private boater trailer ramp on river right at Canon City park and/or allow use on river left (formerly private but now commercial only)?

* Rails to Trails: Should agencies work hard to turn abandoned railroad line in Brown’s Canyon into a trail system? If so, would bikes be allowed?


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

*Visitor Experience* (capacities, conflict, satisfaction, etc…):

* Are commercial and private boater capacities in the different sections set appropriately?

* Conduct Visitor Experience survey’s continuously (i.e. online)

* Campers: Are the sites quiet at night? Campsites too close to each other or just about right? What do you expect? 

* Hikers: Do you want more trails or less? Want better trail maps?

* Anglers: Describe your perfect day angling? What bothers you the most? How do you pick where you want to fish?

* Should the plan remove all mention of private boater capacities and the corresponding direct control through private boater permitting? See Direct Controls Section 2-17 in existing plan. FYI: Commercial outfitters support the idea or removing Private Boater Direct Controls (i.e. capacity limits and private boater permitting system). Why? Because we are such a small percentage of overall use- we just don’t bother them. Private boater numbers have remained relatively flat over the years, except for increased use in Section 3. See chart on next page for overall use statistics. CTF has in effect been delaying a private boater permitting system by increasing private boater capacities slightly so we won’t reach trigger points.

* Or if managers insist on private boater permitting systems be left in plan, make the criteria to implement much more difficult. i.e. develop/change to appropriate capacities for popular stretches, require 5 consecutive years of “over capacities” before implementing permitting, require user experience survey’s to verify that this is an issue for all users, require open zones with no capacity limits within town limits, require that private boater capacity on entire river corridor not exceed capacity (not just one river segment), count people not boats, waive over capacity use during drought or high water scenarios, exchange use with commercial outfitters only if private boaters go over (but do not give excess private boater capacity to outfitters), count boat rentals as commercial users, etc….

* What user category do you put yourself in? Kayaker, duckier, rafter, SUP, float fishing angler, walk/wade angler, does it matter? Tell them if you do different activities and why. What works well in regards to other users and what “bugs” you?

* Anglers: educate anglers (walk-and-wade and float fishing) that there are many great places to fish, not just Section 3. Make a special brochure just for them highlighting access points, skill levels required (i.e. minimal to no rapids), walking ease, etc….along entire river corridor. Spread them out.

* Does the river corridor need more or less river rangers? What do you think about river rangers? Helpful? Just about right? Need more enforcement, of what?

* Have you experienced user conflict? What bothered you?


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

*Natural Resources* (wildlife, fishery, birds, environment, sedimentation, etc…):

* Do you enjoy seeing wildlife? Fishing? Birdwatching? Do you go to special areas to see this or do you enjoy it IF you see it? 

* Do you want river otters actively introduced back into Ark River corridor?

* Do you want Bighorn sheep actively introduced into Brown’s Canyon river corridor? Typically we don’t see them OFTEN in Brown’s Canyon.

* Are you a birder? What are your concerns? 

* Improve (reduce) sedimentation issues from Chalk Creek and Hecla Junction drainages into Arkansas River.

* Continue Leave No Trace education efforts along river corridor (ie. Multiple Trailing, urination in bushes (please urinate in river), etc…. Still a problem.

* Canal owners along river corridor: Seem to get away with completing major “maintenance” projects that ruin miles of river banks. Should they have more monitoring and plan approval and follow up after the work is completed?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks all! Again, comments can be submitted here:


https://www.research.net/r/AHRAMP


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Thanks for posting that lmyers. I'm hoping for a good turn out in C Springs.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Thay said last night there would be one more meeting tonight at the REI store in Denver.


----------



## CoBoater (Jan 27, 2007)

bump


----------



## eljim (Sep 19, 2007)

lmyers said:


> Here are some Topics/Information/Questions for your consideration when making comments, courtesy Christina King (environmental rep to the CTF and representative for Pikes Peak River Runners):
> 
> *Mining*:
> 
> ...



Train Station river left in Cañon City was never a private boater take out. It's city owned and cost commercial outfitters 50 cents a costumer. Lots of "that guy" boaters have taken out there but it's illegal and in the way. I take out there on night trips when the wave is good but commercial traffic is lite at 2 am.


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

eljim said:


> Train Station river left in Cañon City was never a private boater take out. It's city owned and cost commercial outfitters 50 cents a costumer. Lots of "that guy" boaters have taken out there but it's illegal and in the way. I take out there on night trips when the wave is good but commercial traffic is lite at 2 am.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


Interesting. I've taken out at the train station a least a dozen times, quite often while commercials are there and no one has ever mentioned "commercial only". It is a city park and is not posted "commercial only".

Seems strange they would add the play features just upstream of the bridge and make the access illegal for privates.


----------



## bledoux (May 11, 2004)

eljim said:


> Train Station river left in Cañon City was never a private boater take out. It's city owned and cost commercial outfitters 50 cents a costumer. Lots of "that guy" boaters have taken out there but it's illegal and in the way. I take out there on night trips when the wave is good but commercial traffic is lite at 2 am.


The Train Station (River Front Park) river left in Cañon City is available as a private boater take-out - and always has been. It is City owned and they at one time did charge commercial outfitters to use the site - but that was to cover administrative costs. Several years ago the City entered into an agreement with AHRA such that AHRA would manage the commercial outfitters thus removing the administrative efforts (and fee collection) required by the City. Following the approval of that agreement AHRA incorrectly signed the ramp as "commercial boaters only - permit required". After a few emails this issue was resolved and to this day you will see the subsequent sign that was posted noting that the ramp is available for private boater put-in or take-out. Parking at the ramp is restricted to commercial vehicles, but privates can use the paved lot to the west (<1 minute walk). 

Now, as I see it you only have a few days left to comment to AHRA on other issues that have an impact on your use of the river such as:
> running significant amounts of water in the dead of winter
> the unfortunate bollard in the middle of the Railroad Bridge boat ramp
> the fact that the Texas Creek boat ramp is still closed
> the pending issue of Pink House (lease and purchase are in question)
> what the new campground and boat ramp will look like at Numbers (bollard in the middle of the ramp rendering it useless to trailers???)
> Minnequa dam preventing navigability in the lower valley
> the mess that is the Oil Creek Ditch diversion (fyi - new metal in the river right slot)


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

Is the Minnequa Dam between Canon City and Florence?
I have also heard it called the CF&I Dam.

And how about cleaning up the dam between Granite and Pine Creek?

Is one of the purposes of the bollard on the Railroad Bridge ramp to limit access to too big/heavy of boats? House Rock and numerous spots on the Numbers at low water could be problem spots for big boats.

And should the ARHA decide what size boats are appropriate on what sections? It is both a safety and traffic control concern.

I mentioned earlier that every time they make access easier, traffic goes way up. I remember when it was rare to see rafts on Numbers or Pine Creek.

And thank you for clearing up the issue with the Train Statin takeout.
I always prefer the takeout that is closest to a brewpub!

And what are the issues at Pink House? I thought that was a done deal.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Rich said:


> Is one of the purposes of the bollard on the Railroad Bridge ramp to limit access to too big/heavy of boats? House Rock and numerous spots on the Numbers at low water could be problem spots for big boats.


I would love to back a trailer down there to run the Fractions and down and have asked AHRA staff about this one. The reason for the bollards is to prevent erosion from vehicle traffic.

-AH


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

Andy H. said:


> I would love to back a trailer down there to run the Fractions and down and have asked AHRA staff about this one. The reason for the bollards is to prevent erosion from vehicle traffic.
> 
> -AH


I understand about erosion control and also it would be a traffic nightmare with a steep gravel ramp only one vehicle wide. Typical private rafters spend 15 to 30 minutes on a ramp.

My question was, is it another purpose of the bollards to control the size of boats on certain sections? Between House Rock and low water, big boats could be a problem In Numbers and Fractions. Have you had your boat thru Fractions at low water? Or thru House Rock? Where would you take out for Fractions?

I am personally ok with the bollards, but my cat without oars is about 80 lbs. If I get stuck in low water, I stand up and carry. A friend got his 16' raft stuck in Sunshine at 500 cfs on a weekend and effectively closed the river down. I could not count the number of rafts waiting in the slow water above Sunshine by the time we got it out.


----------



## bledoux (May 11, 2004)

Rich said:


> Is the Minnequa Dam between Canon City and Florence?
> I have also heard it called the CF&I Dam.


Yes, the Minnequa dam is between Cañon City and Florence. It is owned by CF&I. (interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Fuel_and_Iron)



Rich said:


> Is one of the purposes of the bollard on the Railroad Bridge ramp to limit access to too big/heavy of boats? House Rock and numerous spots on the Numbers at low water could be problem spots for big boats.
> 
> And should the ARHA decide what size boats are appropriate on what sections? It is both a safety and traffic control concern.


I'd assume the bollard is not to limit access to a particular size of boat. AHRA should certainly not be deciding what size of boats are appropriate, even if you could argue a valid safety or traffic control concern.



Rich said:


> I mentioned earlier that every time they make access easier, traffic goes way up. I remember when it was rare to see rafts on Numbers or Pine Creek.


I'd say that is less the ease of access and more of the fact that the general public now desires options for more difficult water. Add in an increased population and things like self bailing floors, and the good old days are just that.




Rich said:


> And what are the issues at Pink House? I thought that was a done deal.


Rumor is that the property owner is having 2nd thoughts on the sale. The money was appropriated at the same time as the placer (Numbers) deal, so I don't know what the story is, other than the deal has not been closed yet.




Andy H. said:


> I would love to back a trailer down there to run the Fractions and down and have asked AHRA staff about this one. The reason for the bollards is to prevent erosion from vehicle traffic.
> 
> -AH


I'm not sure I buy that reasoning. The Railroad Bridge ramp is less steep than several other ramps in the system. And what amount of erosion are they expecting - surely less than the gold diggers produce and nothing a load of road base every few years could not fix. If that were the only reason, why not pave it similar to Rincon or Parkdale? I'd prefer that it not be paved, but I'd also prefer to use it to its full capacity. I spend 10X more time lugging gear up and down that ramp than I would if I could back down.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Good conversation topics folks. PLEASE be sure and address these issues in your comments to the AHRA. Let them know how you feel about these questions and concerns. The comment period ends Friday.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

*CPW, BLM, USFS seek comment on draft revisions of AHRA recreational management plan*

SALIDA, Colo. – Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service are seeking public input on draft alternatives for the management plan revision for recreation use along the Arkansas River. The public comment period begins tomorrow and closes on June 22, 2016.

The AHRA partnership is looking at three main alternatives when considering changes to the management plan: Alternative 1 would generally increase development/visitation to a small degree, Alternative 2 would increase development/visitation to a much larger degree, and Alternative 3 would keep things the same (no action). These alternatives were developed based on comments received during the scoping period as well as through input from agency staff. The partnership is seeking additional public feedback on these alternatives in order to develop an environmental assessment, which will include a preferred alternative. The preferred alternative could include elements of any of the alternatives. It is anticipated that the draft environmental assessment will be available in Fall 2016.

The Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area Management Plan provides a framework for managing numerous and often conflicting recreation activities along the 152-mile river corridor. The AHRA partnership manages river-based recreation through Browns Canyon National Monument. The BLM and USFS manage 21,589-acre Browns Canyon National Monument, which was designated in 2015. The Arkansas River is the most commercially rafted river in the United States, drawing nearly 240,000 (1) commercial boaters and resulting in an economic impact of more than $60 million (2). The Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area is also popular for camping, wildlife watching, gold panning and numerous other river-related recreation activities, including its Gold Medal Trout Fishery. 

The current AHRA Management Plan can be found here: Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Publications

For more information please contact AHRA at 719-539-7289 or to submit a comment visit the AHRA website at: Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment -- including your personal identifying information -- may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold from public review your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

---

The Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area is recognized as one of the nation's most popular locations for whitewater rafting and kayaking on the Arkansas River - the most commercially rafted river in the United States - and is noted for its world class trout fishery. The area is collaboratively managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. AHRA consists of 45 recreation sites including 6 camping areas, 26 boat ramps and 18 developed facilities. The 152-mile long corridor sees roughly 800,000 visitors annually.

1 – Colorado Parks and Wildlife – Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area 2014 Annual Report: http://cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/p...rsRecreationArea/Documents/2014EOY5_21_15.pdf

2 – Colorado River Outfitters Association – Commercial River Use in the State of Colorado 2014 Year End Report: http://www.croa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2014-Commercial-Rafting-Use-Report.pdf
###

CPW is an enterprise agency, relying primarily on license sales, state parks fees and registration fees to support its operations, including: 42 state parks and more than 350 wildlife areas covering approximately 900,000 acres, management of fishing and hunting, wildlife watching, camping, motorized and non-motorized trails, boating and outdoor education. CPW's work contributes approximately $6 billion in total economic impact annually throughout Colorado.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


I haven't personally had the opportunity to review these proposals yet, but it's my understanding that at least one of the alternatives includes reducing private boater capacity in the Numbers. Leslie Tyson (Colorado Whitewater) is currently putting together some bullet points and important topics to consider with each of the alternatives. I will share that here (if she doesn't).


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Thanks Logan for getting this out here. Looking forward to seeing what Leslie comes up with and also if the group has any preference on the alternative to share with us.

-AH


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Sorry the last minute update folks, but AHRA's public comment period ends tomorrow....so please, make your voice heard today.

From Colorado Whitewater:

Alternative descriptions in brief (see section Section 2.3.1 for more detail): 

*No Change (aka Alternative 3)*: “The No Action alternative continues current recreation and multiple use goals and management practices described in the 2001 Plan ... Although no new initiatives would be implemented under a No Action alternative, minor adjustments would be made periodically to respond to changing needs or emerging challenges consistent with the current adaptive management program.” 

*Alternative 1*: “This alternative would continue current management practices with the goal of maintaining current recreation setting characteristics while moderately changing site development and boating capacities to respond to identified issues and new needs.” 

*Alternative 2*: “Alternative 2 is the most ambitious of the three alternatives evaluated, and would expand recreation opportunities and beneficial outcomes to a greater number of participants at additional locations. As with the other alternatives, current management practices that remain relevant and effective would remain in place supplemented by new initiatives to address emerging issues and challenges.” 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of the specific actions to be taken under each alternative are listed briefly in summary here:

Colorado Whitewater - Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area Management Plan Update Synopsis

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My personal preference is probably for Alternative 2, because I am in favor of additional infrastructure expansion. However, this Alternative does reduce private boater capacities in several sections north of Buena Vista. These reductions should not have any impact on private boaters because they were over-allocated to begin with....but I hate to see any reduction in private boater numbers....

The other choice in my opinion is Alternative 3. Which would essentially mean no change.

Thanks for taking the time to contribute. You can comment here:

https://www.research.net/r/AHRA_alternatives


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

Done.

Come on folks, if you dont have a real opinion, feel like it is managed fine, or really dont care, it only takes 3 minutes. Click on the link, type no change in the boxes and go about your day. Hell, type it in the first box and copy paste it in the rest.

If you do have an opinion on a particular section, comment on that section and type no change in the rest. 

Time to bitch is now! If you dont go in, spend three minutes and type no change it could be changed for the worse!


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Most of the items regarding improvements and expansions of facilities and infrastructure can go either way depending on your opinion, BUT the one item we should all speak up about is the proposed reduction of private boater capacity in section 1A to ZERO!

1A is a subpar stretch of river with a very short window of opportunity to float, from the confluence with Lake Fork down to the highway 24 bridge, well north of Granite.... but I know several folks from Twin Lakes and Leadville who use the stretch as a beginner training ground.

The reduction of capacities to 0 in this stretch would allow the AHRA to ticket private boaters who float it, and set an unacceptable precedent for the State Park.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

An across the board no change ruling would keep access to 1A open correct?


----------



## pearen (Apr 28, 2007)

Really! Aren't the quotas just to right-size the infrastructure!?! They aren't actually talking about banning floating a particular section of public river!?! That's just cray! Doesn't it just mean they are not going to install infrastructure to support the boating community (which is probably fine on this particular stretch)? 

Does the quota mean I am going to have to go through permit BS to run Royal Gorge, Numbers or Browns? What happens if the number of users is exceeded?


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

lmyers said:


> Most of the items regarding improvements and expansions of facilities and infrastructure can go either way depending on your opinion, BUT the one item we should all speak up about is the proposed reduction of private boater capacity in section 1A to ZERO!
> 
> 1A is a subpar stretch of river with a very short window of opportunity to float, from the confluence with Lake Fork down to the highway 24 bridge, well north of Granite.... but I know several folks from Twin Lakes and Leadville who use the stretch as a beginner training ground.
> 
> The reduction of capacities to 0 in this stretch would allow the AHRA to ticket private boaters who float it, and set an unacceptable precedent for the State Park.


 Pesky fishermen wanting their own stretch of the river


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

Wondering same as Pearan. How are they enforcing the boaters per day??? Who is counting this? If I show up at 5 pm on a Sat. at the numbers am I going to be chased off because they already met the quota? Permits? I don't understand and was not even aware that there was a bpd enforcement currently


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

It is my understanding at this point the quota is established, data is collected by volunteers/officials at put ins/takeouts, and if the quota is exceeded x amount of days a year then the idea of a permit system will be discussed and implemented in a future planning, such as this one. That is why I usually comment along the lines of no change needed and say why. I say things like I dont feel crowded on the river, I dont feel like I have seen it degrade over the years, etc. This is mostly true because I try and avoid peak weekends and peak use times. It is also why I try and avoid and encourage other boaters to avoid the busy weekends, on browns especially. If you just have to boat browns on memorial day weekend I encourage you to launch super early or late. I am sure (and hope) Logan will correct me if I am wrong. I only kind of pay attention to all this though I hope to get more involved in the future. I really hope we can keep the ark from formal permitting. As boaters we need to manage the resource if we don't want someone else to.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Thanks for reminding us Logan! Especially about the risk of loosing section 1A!
Survey filled out.
Also good point by Zach about browns, I feel we can do a lot to manage the resource, and avoid more rules and loss of freedom. More government regulation only as a last resort, if the resource is truly threatened by over use.
There is no reason us privates can't put on later in the day and avoid the commercial trips all together, it's an awesome time of day to run that canyon anyway!


----------



## climbdenali (Apr 2, 2006)

As marginal a section as 1A may be for boating, it's the idea that they can just go ahead and shut down a section to all boats that burns me. What's next? Rincon to Vallie Bridge? It's great fishing there- why not?

It's right up there with the fish people applying for, and winning permits on the Middle Fork during the season when they don't re-issue cancellations, just to keep boaters off the river. 

I commented on the form that in all my years as a commercial guide on the Ark that I've never seen any section that I've been on too crowded (private or commercial) to float reasonably.


----------



## formerflatlander (Aug 8, 2013)

Thanks for the heads up logan. Did and done.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

*!"*



climbdenali said:


> As marginal a section as 1A may be for boating, it's the idea that they can just go ahead and shut down a section to all boats that burns me. What's next? Rincon to Vallie Bridge? It's great fishing there- why not?
> 
> It's right up there with the fish people applying for, and winning permits on the Middle Fork during the season when they don't re-issue cancellations, just to keep boaters off the river.
> 
> I commented on the form that in all my years as a commercial guide on the Ark that I've never seen any section that I've been on too crowded (private or commercial) to float reasonably.


Ya, I've been sharing the river with fishermen for years, I do everything I can to be polite, respectful, and not disturb there experience. It's total bullshit to close a section of waterway down to one group, just so another group can have it all to themselves.
Kinda like the slogan management agency's have been encouraging of "share the trail".


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

jennifer said:


> Wondering same as Pearan. How are they enforcing the boaters per day??? Who is counting this? If I show up at 5 pm on a Sat. at the numbers am I going to be chased off because they already met the quota? Permits? I don't understand and was not even aware that there was a bpd enforcement currently


The process of counting boats is inefficient at best. Right now if a stretch of river surpasses the boat per day capacity it triggers a process of use allocation:

* Exceeding prescribed carrying capacities more than 5 times in a season will trigger use allocation the following year for the affected stretch of river. Use allocation will be applied only to the user group that exceeded capacities.

* At the time use allocations are implemented on each segment, place limits on maximum number of boats per group and on launches in each segment to reduce crowding and congestion, promote visitor safety and enhance resource appreciation.

Up to this point the AHRA has consistently chosen to amend or transfer capacity numbers from one user group to another to avoid triggering use allocation, but it is there in black and white in the current Management Plan.

If the carrying capacity for 1A is reduced to zero there is no need to physically count boats per day, any boat on the water is exceeding capacity and would (I assume) be subject to a fine for participating in a prohibited recreational activity....


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Oh, and to answer the rest of your questions...

Both volunteers and staff count boaters. They don't do it everyday, but days they know from the past that tend to be busy they will count heads on the stretches that will push capacity levels. They counted heads on Numbers at Paddlefest and we exceeded capacity for what I think is the first time in history. They will count at Hecla several times a season, as well as down at Salida East and Rincon.

There is language regarding permits in the Management Plan, but the only talk of permits going on right now is the possibility of a campsite register for Browns Canyon. My suggestion and preference on this was to increase the number of campsites before initiating a registration system. That is the first step in the wrong direction in my opinion, and I would prefer to have it continue to remain first come, first served.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

*Action Alert*

Rob White (AHRA park manager) is looking for input from anyone who ran Numbers during Paddlefest this year. Apparently he has been given some information that it was crowded to the point of diminishing the experience and as part of the management plan revision they are considering lowering the private boater capacity from 350 per day to 150 per day.

Please send him an email at [email protected] and let him know what your experience was like and that you hopefully are opposed to lowering private boater capacities.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

That's interesting, Logan. I have some questions:

1) was there a boat count that day to determine what the actual number of boaters was (perhaps it was 500?)

2) if the experience was diminished, what is the basis of setting a new limit at less than half (43%) of the current limit?

3) If this was an exceedence that happened during one particular weekend, is there a possibility that an allowance can be made for Paddlefest weekend in the future. Or could AHRA personnel or the boating community can be educated or other provisions be made to either mitigate crowding or to make people aware of the conditions so they can plan for it and adjust their expectations accordingly?

4) Will commercial operators be impacted by any reduction in capacity?

Thanks for the effort you're putting into this,

-AH


----------



## ColoradoBoater (May 13, 2016)

Andy H. said:


> That's interesting, Logan. I have some questions:
> 
> 1) was there a boat count that day to determine what the actual number of boaters was (perhaps it was 500?)
> 
> ...


From what I understand there were 150 private boaters the day of the numbers race. I'm not sure how they counted or if they estimated. 

Can we vote to get rid of the AHRA instead? If any traffic needs to be limited it's commercial traffic. They're responsible for 90% of river fatalities, and the customers don't have any connection to the river like private boaters do therefore they don't care about it. This obviously won't happen because of $$$. 

What exactly does the AHRA do besides clear river hazards (which private boaters do a fine job of everywhere else) and impose restrictions?


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

How would they limit private boaters without a permit system? The 350-150 numbers seem arbitrary without physically restricting people at the various put-ins. Data collected from the whitewaterphotography website? I don't like the smell of this...


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

What exactly does the AHRA do besides clear river hazards (which private boaters do a fine job of everywhere else) and impose restrictions?[/QUOTE]

The only officials Ive encountered on the river waved us over to their catarafts in the section above Royal Gorge. They wanted to let us know that they lost track of not 1, not 2, but 3 throw ropes that were stuck on logs and such and and out in the current. Awesome, thanks for that...


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Andy H. said:


> That's interesting, Logan. I have some questions:
> 
> 1) was there a boat count that day to determine what the actual number of boaters was (perhaps it was 500?)
> 
> ...


1) There was boat count I think every day of Memorial Day (Paddlefest) weekend. They actually have bean counters with a piece of paper physically compiling a list of who they see. Generally at the commercial put-in or take-out. 150 is the number I heard as well. It's the highest single day boat count ever in Numbers.

2) My belief is that if Rob thinks the experience is diminishing for the majority of the users that the AHRA needs to lower the acceptable boat count so that down the road they can somehow implement restrictions so that use doesn't continue to grow. They are in the process of revising the capacities for every stretch, and I assume he doesn't think it's that big of a deal since the capacity is currently so much higher than use.

3) Yes. They do this for Fibark, but I don't think they do it for any stretch of the Ark at Paddlefest except the BV park. Mitigating use by recommending alternate stretches and access points is what they usually do to reduce congestion.

4) This proposed change will only affect private boaters, it will in no way affect the number of commercial rafts allowed to float in any given day. There has been some talk of reducing commercial congestion through attrition and retiring of permits....but I'm not sure they have initiated that.

I personally ran safety for the Numbers race and sat in an eddy for like 3+ hours. I saw a lot of traffic come by, more than I have ever seen on that stretch, but everyone was happy and smiling. I definitely think that reducing private capacities is counter productive to what I believe the purpose of the State Park is. It should be managed to allow maximum access for private boaters, and if some commercial companies can turn a profit at the same time... that's great.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

It makes sense to keep the number of boaters on some rivers low, it is awesome to be on a wilderness run, and see no one, or almost no one, for day's. 
We have wilderness rivers that are permitted to keep numbers down. The Arkansas is far from a wilderness run, we have a set of railroad tracks following almost the entire way, several highways do almost the same thing. There are multiple pieces of history along it's banks from more recent times, like old cabins, and sharp rail road track ends. Plenty of towns.

I say let people run some white water, and have a place to go when they can't pull a permit. It is not that hard to avoid crowds on the river, if you are not a moron. I used to be able to walk from raft to raft on big horn, but I could still have the place nearly to myself after guiding for the day, just put on later, evenings are really nice floating.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Oh, by the way, all those boats were fellow commercial trips.
I think if commercial and private boater competition really got to bad on the Ark, a more reasonable solution could be to limit the number of private launches during busy day time hours, but not limit numbers for week day and evenings.
To me this would be an extreme measure, I think we can work things out on our own without more government intervention.


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks for that info, Logan, and thanks for all you do that makes it possible for you to have that info. 

I'd like to contribute a couple things re: AHRA. I don't think they are perfect, in part because some people I respect have complaints and concerns but my experience is we are darn lucky to have them. The Ark is an amazing river. It sees a lot of use. It will continue to see a lot of use. We need an organization to manage our use, plan for the future and protect the river. From where I sit, which is the seat of a kayak a hundred days a year, these are the good guys. Referring to them as, "the man", may feel good but misses the point that "they" are us. I know a lot of people in the organization from the front office to quite a few rangers and my experience is that they too love this rio and are conscientious in their efforts. 

Carry on.


----------

