# Browns Canyon NM camping management



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Public land managers released the "Preliminary Alternatives and Basis for Analysis" for Browns Canyon National Monument on April 1st, 2019. This document "describes the formulation of preliminary alternatives and the analytical methodologies that will be used to analyze issues."

In other words the BLM and USFS will use public input and reaction to this document to create the final management plan. The report breaks the planning process down to separate topics, the most important of which to this user group will probably be "Wildlife and Fish", "Recreation" and "Travel and Transportation Management". Within each category the alternative options are separated into A - the "no action alternative", B - "focuses on resource protection" and C - "focuses on river and upland recreation".

The group of concerned stakeholders that Friends of Browns Canyon is working with believes the correct approach to managing Browns Canyon will require a combination of all 3 of these alternatives. Currently we are working to put together a "citizen's alternative" to present to the land managers to hopefully be included in the public scoping process. The tentative timeline is sometime in about a month the BLM will file their "Federal Register of Intent", which then gives them exactly one month to complete the scoping process.

Please review the document below and let me know any questions or suggestions you have. Wildlife and Fish begins on page 29 and Travel Management concludes on page 46. This document will not address river travel or river capacities as that is still and will remain the jurisdiction of the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, but the idea of designating campsites and initiating some kind of first-come, first-served self register for overnight trips is being discussed. As well as the topics of trail expansion, signage and interpretive sites, additional trailheads and access points, seasonal closures, climbing, and backpacking.

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front...-BCNM_PlanningCriteriaReport_20190321_508.pdf


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Bump....

I know the report is long and boring and nobody wants to read it, but can I at least get some feedback about campsites?

What are your feelings on overnight trips in Browns? Do you like the way things are currently set up? Would you like to see sites designated and additional sites created? Does the idea of not knowing if you will get a site bother you? Would you like to see a self register so you know how many groups that are ahead of you are camping and where they plan to stop? Also, there is talk about designating sites for river users and sites for backpackers so you don't get one or two people packing in and taking a large group site.....

Thanks


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

A lot of material, agreed...see "Recreation" Section 2.3.9 and 2.3.10 (page 33 and onward) for some specifics that affect river runners and campers.
Designated sites, self registration and other protections are probably inevitable as the population of Colorado increases. The abundance of info and ease of access are alerting folks of this not-so-hidden treasure. Protection of the water and land as well as responsible enjoyment of resources can be realized; similar to river folk self policing on the Colorado back in the late 70's, when the Grand Canyon reached unsustainable numbers of users, and after trip regulations put in place to keep beaches and water
clean.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Yes. The BLM is confident that use will continue to increase and that eventually increased management of the camping scene will become necessary, but my question to you all is if you would prefer to see implementation of these ideas in the immediate future, or would you rather wait until the increased use is realized?


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

Thanks for pinpointing the question. I would like to see implementation in place as soon as possible...been on Ark since the late 80's, have observed increased irresponsible use, overcrowding, land degradation, user conflicts


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

That's interesting. Do you see these issues specifically in Browns Canyon? According to the AHRA's reports river use is down from the peak years of the mid 2000's and more on par with the late 90's currently. Also, CPW's studies indicate that impacts to the river corridor (vegetation destruction, fire pits, human waste and trash being left and erosion) have significantly decreased from the 90's due to education and increased enforcement of regulations....


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

The numbers reflect a good trend toward responsible use. I must say I avoided Brown's Canyon, and established/primitive campsites quite a while back, as it was not a pleasant experience. Off season (is there one anymore?) was great.


----------



## pilom (Dec 28, 2010)

Honestly I think designated spots would be a good thing to minimize impact at least for groups larger than X (i.e. outfitters). And people who run out of spots can always just camp at Hecla. You're never gonna have a pre-registration system that works without being online as there are multiple access points. And if it is online it will cost something. So, given I don't think paying is the way to go, I also don't think we need a permit system (yet). The outfitters might disagree ;-)


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Thanks for pulling all this together Logan!

I like the current system (or lack thereof) for camping in Browns and have never been shut out in years other than not getting my favorite camp. I would like to see some riverside primitive sites established all the way to Canon City to allow multi-day trips without having to resort to commercial campgrounds. 

My hope is that we can avoid permitting for as long as possible.

I'd like to see trailer access restored at Railroad Bridge with a concrete ramp, and also good trailer access at Pinnacle Rock instead of the row of rocks that prevents backing to the river.

Thanks again,

-Andy


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

pilom said:


> Honestly I think designated spots would be a good thing to minimize impact at least for groups larger than X (i.e. outfitters). And people who run out of spots can always just camp at Hecla. You're never gonna have a pre-registration system that works without being online as there are multiple access points. And if it is online it will cost something. So, given I don't think paying is the way to go, I also don't think we need a permit system (yet). The outfitters might disagree ;-)


The self-register station would be located at the public land boundary just beyond the foot bridge at Chateau Chaparral in Nathrop. That is downstream of Chalk Creek and there is no additional access downstream of there. Several of the outfitters think this is a good idea, but the first thing that comes to mind for me is Ruby-Horsethief and the conflicts that arose from people not camping in the site they signed up for. A couple outfitters argue that you get a different crowd on Browns than R/HT, and point to the success this kind of program has had on the Gunnison Gorge....

Thanks for the feedback guys, keep it coming!


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Andy H. said:


> I'd like to see trailer access restored at Railroad Bridge with a concrete ramp, and also good trailer access at Pinnacle Rock instead of the row of rocks that prevents backing to the river.



Thank you for the input Andy. Especially your opinion on the camping and permit situation in Browns. The rest of the stuff above though would be addressed by the AHRA's management plan. I can bring up the suggestions and ask why they block trailer access to the ramps at the next CTF meeting.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

lmyers said:


> Thank you for the input Andy. ....I can bring up the suggestions and ask why they block trailer access to the ramps at the next CTF meeting.


Sure thing, Logan. I'm pretty sure it's for erosion control. The Railroad Bridge ramp is pretty steep and there wasn't concrete on it a few years ago when last I lugged a boat down it. Still, it's a lot of fun to row the Fractions and on down through town. 

The Lone Pine (?) ramp down below Cotapaxi could use grading and a nice concrete ramp as well. This would make these areas more easily accessible and take pressure off the Brown's Circus. 

A series of nice Westwater-style ramps would be really sweet! 

-AH


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Logan, agree with you about growth, even straight percentage based on population. Assigning camps has its plusses. You "know" where you are going. The downsides with assigned campsites is 1) what happens when I miss the pull in? Another and more worrying downside that we have seen elsewhere is the larger and nicer camps typically get "assigned" to commercial companies. We have seen that with almost all rivers with assigned camps. At least for the Middle Fork we all get to sit in a room with the agency acting as referee and we can "work it out." Assigning camps must not give preferential treatment to private business leading tours. I hope you have given consideration to how privilege will be avoided. Cordially yours, Tom


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

My vote is for keeping it as is. Like Andy, I have never been shut out in 25 years of overnighting in there. I would be fine with some more camps being established. 

I think we have much to learn from the way the self registration at ruby horsethief went, which is poorly. It was fine until it saw increased use and then ultimately led to a full on assigned camp permit. With the sign up sheet you had people signing up that never camped, people ignoring that someone was signed up, fights, etc. The real options are first come first served, or full on assigned permit. I vote the former. If there is going to be a permit system implemented, I would really stress the desire for it to be weekends only. I figured this was coming once the designation got pushed through.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Thanks guys, this is the kind of stuff I need to hear... and the idea of a permit or self-registration system for campsites is not a foregone conclusion. One of the draft alternatives is the "no action alternative" which would continue all aspects of management exactly as it currently is, and it's important to note that the Browns Canyon NM management plan is for land use only. The Presidential proclamation states that the river will continue to be managed indefinitely by AHRA/CPW, and I just sat in on the 5 year process of rewriting their management plan which only increased private boater capacities.


----------



## southbound (May 20, 2008)

My input on overnight trips in Brown's - I'd go with the 'no action alternative.'

As an out of state visitor I think the AHRA stretch from above RR Bridge to Rincon below Salida is amazing. Even though that's almost 50 miles of river I never thought of it as an overnight destination, pretty awesome the way it is now.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

My feedback.
I have been floating the ARK almost every year (sometimes multiple weeks) from Fractions down to Canon City, since the 80's. All were long distance drives to get there and most were week long stays. Meaning we spread our vacation money around the business owners along the river.

Never once even thought about doing a over night anywhere along the river. Day trips just easier to manage for us.

I am not saying anything against over nights on the ARK, just saying for me and the various crews I have floated the ARK - day trips have been the way to go.

BV and Salida areas or even down in the canyon down river of Salida have so many really neat places to camp, we have always camped off the ARK and enjoyed setting up camp once, access to cafes, bars and especially pizza in Salida --- that camping on the river never came up.

There are a ton of much better multiday river camping rivers than the ARK my opinion only. Leave it like it is or assign sites and avoid as much as possible more bureaucratic rule makers .


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Ok. Just to give a little more perspective on the topic at hand....

Browns Canyon is a popular overnight trip, particularly on weekends. The main issue, and probably the main reason I have heard private boaters support the idea of a free self-register is that Browns Creek (campsite immediately upstream, river right of Zoom Flume) is the most popular and desirable campsite, but it's also the last "good" campsite. So, everyone holds out hoping it's open and then when it's occupied groups are kicking themselves for not stopping earlier. Definitely not the end of the world, but that is the kinda the idea behind it. 

I think a couple of commercial outfitters are in favor of it as well, but that's not a driving factor for me.

and again, this is ONLY pertaining to Browns Canyon National Monument. Not the Ark in it's entirety or the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area State Park in general.

Thanks again guys. I appreciate all the comments and opinions.


----------



## thumper (Dec 9, 2004)

It sounds like we're not to the place of needing reserved camp spots yet, but would echo the frustrations with "mouth of the canyon" type sign-ins. It seems like at that point you might as well make the spots first come-first served. IF a reservation system is warranted, I think that having an on-line process makes the most sense. 
Creating some additional, responsibly sited campsites could also help prolong the current lack of reservation system. That feels like a good option to me.
Also, I echo the sentiment for back-in access at RR Bridge.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

thumper said:


> It sounds like we're not to the place of needing reserved camp spots yet, but would echo the frustrations with "mouth of the canyon" type sign-ins. It seems like at that point you might as well make the spots first come-first served. IF a reservation system is warranted, I think that having an on-line process makes the most sense.
> Creating some additional, responsibly sited campsites could also help prolong the current lack of reservation system. That feels like a good option to me.
> Also, I echo the sentiment for back-in access at RR Bridge.


A reservation based system is not even an option right now. The sites would still be "first come, first served" with a free self-registration system, you would just know how many groups are ahead of you camping.... We are talking about the equivalent of a trailhead register. Just a book in a wood or metal case and possibly a small kiosk with some information.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Ok, I am going to bump this one more time.

Seems that there are a few individuals that want to continue to push for the option of a free, first - come, first - served camping register at the National Monument boundary within Browns Canyon.

If successful they will have only included it in the scoping process as one of the options for the public to vote on. If I could get a little more feedback, should I put pressure against including this option? I am currently the only "private" boater involved in talks. Most of the individuals are either commercial raft company owners, or previously owned a company. It will open to public input very soon, but I want to stay on top of it now. If this is an option the private boating community does or doesn't want to see, I need to know so I can pass that on.

I have been in touch with CW and PPWC, and plan to reach out to AW asap.


----------



## GeoRon (Jun 24, 2015)

There are no excellent and totally enjoyable places to boat camp along the Arkansas especially within the NM for privates to enjoy. Stay away 

Humm, maybe that is not the right thing to say. I hate to think that I'll never camp at those special places again because they are "owned" by the commercials.

How might the community BEST feed into what is required. I admit I've not had time to follow this thread. Frankly, I did not see it until just now. Please summarize line item your best approach to what is required.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

At this point all that I'm asking for is your opinion. Do you think a free, self-serve campsite register serves to benefit private boaters in any fashion? Those who are suggesting the idea want something comparable to the register at the Chukar Trail for the Gunny Gorge.

Discussions are still occurring behind closed doors, but I will make sure to inform the users of this forum when public scoping does open (most likely within the next couple weeks).


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

lmyers,

Thank you for spending your time working on this issue and reporting it here.

While I have never camped on the actual ARK during a multi day float, since ark day trips work best for me. I camp at the Forest Service or commercial camps up and down the ARK.

I am sure there are other Buzz folks who do.

From personal experience I know working on committees like this one, takes a lot of personal time.

Much appreciated as the ARK area is one of my most liked rivers and BV and Salida are boater friendly towns for sure. Plus your posts let us general public boaters give our input to the decision makers when that is appropriate.


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

lmyers said:


> At this point all that I'm asking for is your opinion. Do you think a free, self-serve campsite register serves to benefit private boaters in any fashion? Those who are suggesting the idea want something comparable to the register at the Chukar Trail for the Gunny Gorge.
> 
> Discussions are still occurring behind closed doors, but I will make sure to inform the users of this forum when public scoping does open (most likely within the next couple weeks).



Hello and thanks for being the voice of the private boaters in this process! In all the years and runs through this area I have never been shut out on finding a camping spot through Browns or surrounding sections of river, even mid summer when all the Ruby and Hecla spots are full. Camp river right above Zoom has always been open as a matter of fact I've rarely seen anyone else overnight camp on the river. 






I would like to see the current arrangement of first come first serve continue.


----------



## DoStep (Jun 26, 2012)

Ditto previous post.

I'll add that the commercial groups are generally larger than mine on overnighters, thus there are a lot more options available. 

With the pressure for overnight permits growing throughout the west, we will see a continued increase in overnight use in BCNM. It could be inevitable that a permit system becomes necessary in the future, but my opinion is no action is needed for now.

It would be a travesty if the commercial interests are the only voices expressed during these talks, so thanks for your participation. Hit me up if I can be of help now or in the future.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Logan, thank you for continuing to keep this issue on the front burner! 

There are so many options, from no camping for any river runners to assigned camping for all river runners. 

The paddling community does not want to see more regulations for regulations sake. But, the paddling community is sensitive to resource protection and river congestion. 

It seems the first step is to get data. How many camps are there, and how often are they used? Are there existing conflicts? If not, end of story, and no-change might work a little longer. 

Assigned camps have pro's and cons, with the best assigned camps often going to the river-tour-companies. 

Given the seasonal nature of the river-tour-companies, seasonal variation may be an option. Meaning in all but June-July-Aug, it's first come first served. In the three months of highest campsite use, there is some sort of sign up. 

But, if there is a sign-up, it has to be protected from folks signing up ahead of time to snag a camp for their river-tour business. 

There is much good in first-come-first-serve, but folks can send a paddle boat down to snag a campsite. 

It is a big issue, and I am glad to see you are keeping it front and canter. 

Cordially yours, Tom Martin


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Logan,

Thanks for all the effort you're putting into this. As one who regularly camps on Browns during the summer, I agree with Mr. C (never thought I'd say that!) and others who favor first-come, first served system currently in place. 

Tom - Even though you're writing (have finished?) a guidebook on the Ark, I suspect you've never camped on Brown's and probably don't know as much as locals about the rest of the river. Here's what happens on Brown's: The commercial outfitters typically send down a gear boat in the morning and snag one of several large campsites, such as Hippo Rock, Brown's Creek, or the large, flat camp about a half mile below the footbridge. Their swampers set up camp and the group comes down in the afternoon and camps there. You can get outraged about this usurpation of public lands by the commercials, but as one who regularly camps there, I know the drill and I'm fine with it. There are plenty of other campsites on the river corridor.

I've never been shut out of a campsite as I know plenty of spots and don't plan on camping where I know the outfitters will be. When camping I also don't continue past where the RR crosses over the river since camping below there is pretty limited.

I oppose a sign-up system because:

1) There's no need for it,
2) I think sign-ups will be hit-or-miss and result in confusion we and conflicts without going to a full permit system (which I hope we can avoid),

I agree with the regulations for firepans and waste removal, and would like to see AHRA patrol early on weekend mornings to check campsites and enforce these rules and issue citations.

Thanks again,

-AH


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Andy, I see we disagree. To my way of thinking, sending a commercial boat ahead to snag a camp is bogus. I thank you for stating you think that is just dandy. When do-it-yourself boaters get bumped out of campsites all the way to Hecla, I hope they remember you post here. 



Thank you for asking about the Ark RiverMap Guide. Yes, it is out on a river near you and feedback is very positive. I will never know as much about the Ark as you, and quickly admit it. But I do know that simple river guidebooks can help when it comes to leveling the river playing field... 



Cordially yours, Tom


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Tom Martin said:


> It seems the first step is to get data. How many camps are there, and how often are they used? Are there existing conflicts? If not, end of story, and no-change might work a little longer.



Thank you guys for the responses. This is the exact type of feedback I need.

In response to your question/statement above Tom, the issue is time. The AHRA has statistics on the numbers of commercials that camp overnight in Browns, but there are currently no baseline numbers for overnight private trips. My personal experience leads me to believe they are on the increase....

but more importantly, the executive order from President Trump eliminating BLM's planning 2.0 process, and the secretarial order from former Department of the Interior director Zinke to streamline the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has left us with a 30 day scoping period in which the BLM and Forest Service will accept public comment. That includes the stakeholder group I am working with, but we have been studying and discussing the management plan alternatives for a couple months now. However, it has just recently come to light that commercials prefer the registration option and want it to be a "recommendation" from our stakeholder group. By getting this type of feedback I can come back to them and say "this many private boaters from around the state and region have expressed they either support it or oppose it for xxxxx reasons."


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Logan, Holly COW! Thank you for outlining what is going on. I don't think very many DIY river runners have a clue this is happening. The commercial folks are also trying to run through legislation in DC giving more river access to private business. Please let us know when the 30 day comment period is so we can all weigh in. While working on the History section for the Ark guide, it became clear how the river management plan addressed the private-tour-operators needs, while the do-it-yourself public river runners were left out in the cold. We need to get organized here or we will continue to lose more river access, including access to places to camp... Cordially yours, Tom


----------

