# Sen. Mark Udall on Brown's Canyon National Monument



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Thanks for posting Andy. 

There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there currently about this bill. I have heard quite a bit of negative feedback from people lately who seem to think this will lead to increased regulations, increased user fees, and eventually a private boater permit system.

I am in the process of writing a letter to the editor of the Chaffee County Times and Mountain Mail explaining some of the details of the current management structure and plans for future management and how they will be affected by Udall's proposal.

I do believe in the long run this might lead to a discussion about permits on the Arkansas, but I don't see it happening in the next decade. The topic will be discussed in length at the upcoming Citizen's Task Force meeting along with potential rationing/permitting of both private boaters and private fishermen in section 3 (Salida to Vallie Bridge).


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

Thanks Logan. Permits was the first thing I thought of, but don't see it mentioned anywhere.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

The proposal itself only says that management will remain in the hands of the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area State Parks.

The Management Plan has included the possibility of private permitting for well over a decade, but the preferred method of dealing with increased use up to this point has been to arbitrarily increase carrying capacities when necessary.... but the wording leaves the possibility available to managers:

"Whenever use on any one river stretch exceeds 75 percent of capacities established for the commercial or private sector 5 times in any one season, BLM and CDPOR will begin to determine how allowable use will be assigned within that sector. This determination will be made: 

> According to standards for Public Land Health and the Recreation Management Guidelines,
> As an addendum (not amendment) to this plan,
> With opportunity for public and Citizen's Task Force review and comment provided,
> Include assignment of launch times and group/party size specifications as appropriate.

* 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 numbers of boats per group and on launches in each segment to reduce crowding and congestion, promote visitor safety and enhance resource appreciation." 

"c. Direct Controls 
* Develop appropriate stops for overnight use for both commercial 2-37
and private boaters and limit all camping to designated sites.
* From Ruby Mountain to Stone Bridge, limit all river lunch stops
to designated sites."

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

These topics really don't have anything to do with the Wilderness/Monument proposal, other than possible long-term outcomes of increased traffic in an already popular area. I do feel current managers have no desire to implement these actions, but still they are there in the Management Plan.

If you have an opinion on how this document should be changed for the future email your private boater CTF reps:

Leslie - [email protected] 

Mark - [email protected]


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks Logan


----------



## 2kanzam (Aug 1, 2012)

lmyers said:


> Thanks for posting Andy.
> 
> There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there currently about this bill. I have heard quite a bit of negative feedback from people lately who seem to think this will lead to increased regulations, increased user fees, and eventually a private boater permit system.


 
We're seeing the same kind of pushback here in WV with the Birthplace of Rivers National Monument.

Birthplace of Rivers National Monument

I'm all for it but you'd think that the place was getting caged in by the way alot of people talk about it.


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

Thanks lmyers...
It is true that with or without the monument, there is nothing guarenteeing that a permit requirement for private boaters won't be in the near future for Brown's. It is all based on user days.

My take on the issue...
The push for monument status has got the backing by almost all of the major rafting companies in the area. Good people who obviously have an interest in attracting visitors to our area. I understand where they're coming from and I'd be solidly behind it if I were in their shoes.

The current biggest envirnomental threat to Brown's Canyon is human recreation. By far the largest user group is the rafters (often a non-stop train of rubber going by in the summer). Of the rafters, the large majority of boats are commercial. 

Commercial and private folks generally get along well and most of the impact is in the immediate river corridor. Currently AHRA does a great job of providing numerous very well maintained put-ins and take outs with bathrooms, camping, etc. 

AHRA, BLM, and the Wilderness Study Area currently protect the area. With the designation change, none of the existing access will change for any of the user groups (including the Union Pacific Railroad). However, by achieving monument status, the marketability of the area increases significantly. The following link is from Senator Udall's website basically saying the same thing:
Putting a Star on the Map for Browns Canyon | Mark Udall | U.S. Senator for Colorado

It seems to come down to supporting the monument with the hopes of bolstering our local economy, or hoping that Brown's is protected a little longer by attracting people to the numerous other rivers in the state without a "star on the map". 

I know we're not doomed either way and it'll be fun to see if this bait and switch really plays out...


----------



## Phil U. (Feb 7, 2009)

caseybailey said:


> I know we're not doomed either way and it'll be fun to see if this bait and switch really plays out...


What's the bait and switch?


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

Bait 'em with the hope of protection, switch it to an increase in the number of users. Everyone is happy.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

The problem is boats.....not people. The way they see it.... 8 kayakers have the same inpact as an 8 pod of 8 people from Noah's Ark. We were lucky that the drought hit when it did and broke everyones patterns of vacationing in the valley If not.... there would already be a permit system in place for Browns. If the hopes are to increase tourism......permits won't be that far off in the future.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

caverdan said:


> The problem is boats.....not people. The way they see it.... 8 kayakers have the same inpact as an 8 pod of 8 people from Noah's Ark. We were lucky that the drought hit when it did and broke everyones patterns of vacationing in the valley If not.... there would already be a permit system in place for Browns. If the hopes are to increase tourism......permits won't be that far off in the future.


You are right about the way they count boats, and should send an email to Leslie and Mark about it. The issue will be brought up, and potentially changed in the new Management Plan based on input provided to Rob and John by Leslie and Mark.... so the more comments they get, the better.

I don't think the drought was the deciding factor on Brown's permits. Rob and John don't want to initiate a permit system, it's a last resort, and for several years the commercials have transferred user days to the private sector so that prescribed carrying capacities are not exceeded. The first stretch of the Arkansas that is going to experience increased regulation is section 3, Salida to Vallie Bridge, and that is because Trout Unlimited is making a big deal out of the decreased user experience caused by what they consider to be overcrowding. When the management decides use has increased to the point that it is time to consider a permit system there will be a process of public input as well as meetings to gather recommendations on the issue from the CTF.... so even when they decide it's necessary it will take some time to implement.

A big issue with the numbers they are using is that they are old. In 1995 and 1996 they physically had people at all AHRA access sites inquiring with visitors as to what their recreational pursuits will consist of during their visit to the State Park. These numbers were computed into a formula and applied to the total visitor numbers for all subsequent years. So the way I see it, user days are not figured accurately at this time.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

What is the principle benefit of the National Monument designation? Udall seems to be advertising the economic components, which are well established across the west (designation of almost any sort increases economic values from jobs to housing prices). That said, isn't the Arkansas river basin already one of the most popular and successful recreational corridors in the western United States? Is it a region that needs increased growth? How does that affect the user experience and value of the landscape?

What federal agency(-ies) will be responsible for the monument? Most of the agencies are already hamstrung financially and I do not see how adding another monument is going to be helpful in our current political climate. They definitely provide some staffing to help with mandates but the winds aren't blowing in the favor of major _active_ protection right now. Thats an expensive proposition.

What component of the antiquities act are they claiming to principally be using for designation status? Scientific value or cultural sites? Those are the two that have been responsible for the limited success of designation in the recent decades. Both require infrastructure and human resources funding. Anybody know what academic community is interested in this? GSENM in UT/AZ has become a paleontology epicenter of the region and hosts students and researchers from around the world. Is there talk about that for the Arkansas?

National Monument designation is an interesting idea for the economy but historically has other goals that take priority. No mention of them in Udall's speech. They were summarized vaguely in the link lmeyers provided (thanks!) but not with the same level of detail as recreational goals. (Part of my curiosity lies in the fact that I have seen first hand how many positions in the realms of science (physical, biological and cultural) have been cut out of federal budgets in the last decade). 

Anybody know where to find this info?

Phillip


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Those are very good questions Phillip.

From everything I have gathered, the principal benefits of the legislation are economic to commercial outfitters and local businesses, as well as protection of the area from oil/gas/mineral development, and yes, Browns Canyon is currently the most commercially rafted stretch of river in North America.

The same agencies will be in charge of management as now. The jurisdictions are separated into Forest Service in the higher elevation regions, BLM down lower, and the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area along the river corridor. I do not believe there are plans to add any additional personal for this purpose.

I can't speak for which part of the Antiquities Act they are principally relying on for the designation status, and I don't think there are really any major academic organizations involved in the proposal. The biggest player from a conservation standpoint locally is probably Garna (Greater Arkansas River Nature Association), and nationally the Sierra Club. I have done pretty extensive exploring in the region and I am not aware of any cultural sites. It's not unheard of to find an arrowhead, but I have not seen or heard anything of ancient dwellings, potsherds, or prehistoric art.

Doesn't really seem like there is any one good spot to gather information on this proposal.

Here is a link to the bill itself:

Sen. Mark Udall's Bill to Create the Browns Canyon National Monument

and here is a link to all of the AHRA's publications, including the complete Management Plan as it stands now:

Arkansas Headwaters Publications | Colorado Parks and Wildlife


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

I don't see how having more tourists swarming that area is any benefit at all to the average kayaker/rafter/hiker/biker. For example: I still remember when Moab was a quaint town that didn't have a single chain restaurant or motel. Now look at it. 

Just save the area as a wilderness and recreation zone and say no to Industrial Tourism. Browns Canyon is alreay ridiculously crowded. I can think of a zillion other areas (that are about to be trashed) that deserve monument status better than this. A president can only get away with designating so many National Monuments so we should make it count.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

FrankC said:


> Browns Canyon is alreay ridiculously crowded. I can think of a zillion other areas (that are about to be trashed) that deserve monument status better than this. A president can only get away with designating so many National Monuments so we should make it count.


Frank,

This bill seems to be a congressional vote and not a presidential designation, at least according to Udall's site. That type of buy in from a broader swath of folks should reduce the political capital Obama spends on this particular one=plenty of opportunity to still designate other places.

Phillip


----------



## doughboy (Mar 23, 2009)

If you like your river, you can keep your river. How can anyone trust what the goverments intentions are?


----------

