Low water plans from NPS

So I read the following on facebook, anyone know if this is correct and North end of the lake would have NO boat launches? "Spoke with park service at bullfrog/ halls crossing. In less than 2 weeks there will be no boat launches at all with the exception scranton that has no current access and us under construction indefinately. So in less that two weeks no personal boats will be able to be launched. Also we will not be allowed to keep boats tied to houseboats for any significant duration of time. The first halls buoy field has been emptied for bullfrog marinas new location. Absolutely no personal boat access has been considered for halls/bullfrog area!"

Original post in this thread sounds like this is not true, but a lot of "hear say" right now..
 
JFRCalifornia said:
I feel very bad for a lot of people. If your goal was to completely mismanage a difficult situation as badly as possible, providing as little notice as you could, while showing a complete lack of empathy for those loyal paying customers whom your actions would affect most, you couldn’t have done a better job. It’s actually shocking.

This is the exact opposite of how this should have been handled.

If there’s been little outrage displayed yet, it’s because of a combination of shock and disbelief. The outrage will come soon.
Click to expand...
JFR, as our esteemed Lake Powell historian.....at what point...date/elevation....did northern ramps become viable?

As a south ender, I'm naive about this......(and most other things)....:rolleyes:

Are there old ramps in the north, like the old one by the docks in Wahweap....... that could be resurrected/refurbished?

Again, mucho thanks! (y)
 
Makes me wonder if this could be the start to putting nails in the coffin at bullfrog. The north end is by far the most neglected services on the lake to begin with. Now add declining lake levels with no ramp extensions until 2027 and then all the customers they just screwed over. How many are going to return after this?

I certainly wouldnt be doing business with them again if I got an email like that...
 
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist but the lack of transparency with NPS and Aramark sure makes one wonder. Like the fact that the north ramp is usable down below the 3529 that’s posted on NPS sites yet that info doesn’t get corrected even though we are knocking on the door of 3529.

A little pro active communication from them would go a long way.
 
Rainbowbridge said:
JFR, as our esteemed Lake Powell historian.....at what point...date/elevation....did northern ramps become viable?

As a south ender, I'm naive about this......(and most other things)....:rolleyes:

Are there old ramps in the north, like the old one by the docks in Wahweap....... that could be resurrected/refurbished?

Again, mucho thanks! (y)
Click to expand...
If you're asking about the Bullfrog and Halls ramps (not Hite), it's not clear when the ramps became viable. We do know, however, that those marinas (and ramps) didn't fully come online before late 1965 at the earliest (Halls maybe a bit earlier) , and probably not until 1966. We know this in part from a few photos taken of Halls and Bullfrog on 6-6-65 when the lake was still at 3491. The first two photos at Halls include one showing a ramp under construction, but still high and dry:

65-06-06 - Halls 1 - P.T. Reilly.jpeg65-06-06 - Halls 2 - P.T. Reilly.jpeg

And then there's this photo taken the same day over at Bullfrog:

65-06-06 - Bullfrog - P.T. Reilly.jpeg

The lake rose quickly the rest of summer 1965. By late August, it was already up to about 3535 or so, and stayed at least that high or even up to about 3545 or so in 1966. Here's the mystery: in early 1967, the lake dropped to about 3515. Was it possible to launch a boat from Bullfrog or Halls at that point? I don't know. And there's nothing I can find online to tell us exactly what was open and what wasn't during 1967 and in 1968, when the lake was in the 3515-3525 range until the summer of that year.

Maybe someone else out there on this forum was on the lake in 1967-68, because that's who might be able to answer your question...
 
Last edited:
The 1964 brochure for Glen Canyon National Recreation Area indicates that there were boat launch ramps and gasoline available at both Wahweap and Hall's Crossing for the 1964 season but that Bullfrog wasn't going to start being developed until that year and no road to Bullfrog is shown on the map, with funding for the roadway not secured until 1966. Furthermore, there were more ambitious plans for additional development in that brochure, with planned facilities in many places that were never developed, so it is worth a read.

In the 1970 brochure it notes that the road to Bullfrog was paved while the road to Hall's Crossing is noted as an "improved road," meaning unpaved dirt road. I don't find evidence of that roadway being paved until 1985, though I don't know when that might have occurred and I would guess it happened earlier. The 1970 brochure also notes there is concessionaire operated lodging at both Bullfrog and Hall's at that time, with boat launch ramps as well. On May 1, 1964, the water elevation was 3397.40. Every subsequent month led to higher water, with the level on October 1, 1964 at 3491.69. It would be nice to see nearly 100 ft of elevation rise over the course of the summer! However, if they were launching boats under those conditions and had fuel available for "power boats," why, in the year of our Lord 2026, can't we have the same?

There is no desire by NPS or Aramark to provide the support to the people they are collecting money from to maintain marinas. The lack of a competitive process for vendors has left us in this state. If there were a contract stipulation stating that it would be a material breach of contract to not have boat launch access and have a financial penalty for one side or the other, this situation would be long resolved.
 
IMG_0199.jpeg

This is the recent bathymetry at the Bullfrog ramp. As far as house boats go there isn’t much to do beyond what was done at the past lowest level. A little more pavement gets you a few feet? Or another week or two at best if the lake is allowed to drop with a 7.48 Maf water year outflow?

There are a number of nice maps available related to the ferry planning. Have fun and ponder solutions yourself here:


To me the real question for this year is does BoR protect the lake level at 3525 as they’ve said is their goal?

As JFR already analyzed in an earlier thread it is actually possible to slow the outflow enough to likely achieve that for the summer using historically reasonable outflows. And the currently documented operational guidelines now allow that because we’ve met the forecasting conditions required for delivery as low as 6 Maf for the water year.

As I understand it, probably incorrectly to some degree, March is when BoR would make that call and change their operating plan for the remainder of the water year.

But it appears NPS/Errormark are behaving as if BoR is not going to protect the lake level at all. Is that because they’ve already coordinated with BoR and know the lake will be allowed to drop lower? Or are they forced to make worst case plans because of bureaucratic restrictions in coordinating such seemingly sensible things?

As others have pointed out repeatedly, the lack of communication and transparency from the recreation area management is maddening. The NPS does a decent job communicating in a number of their other units, but why GCNRA is so bad at it is a mystery.
 
sparkin5280 said:
Just got this email from Aramark yesterday. Really sucky especially since some of our group is driving out there today to do work maintenance and planned on launching next week. We never missed a buoy payment in 40 years. I bet we're not the only group panicking this morning.....

****************************?****
Lake Powell Resorts & Marinas
Moorage, Collections & Compliance Office
P.O. Box 1926
Page, AZ 86040

March 1, 2026

Re: Termination of Moorage for “********”

Dear .......,

Due to anticipated low water levels this year, Lake Powell Resorts & Marinas, in coordination with the National Park Service, will be restructuring the Halls Crossing Marina buoy field effective March 1, 2026.

As part of this effort, we reviewed current moorage agreements and confirmed vessel inventory. Based on this review and the anticipated low water conditions, the Moorage, Dockage and Storage Agreement(s) for slips or buoys where no vessel is physically present will be discontinued and are hereby terminated pursuant to this notification. We have confirmed that “########” is not currently onsite within the Halls Crossing Marina buoy field.

Effective March 1, 2026, your moorage agreement at Halls Crossing Marina will be permanently terminated for the following vessel:

  • Vessel: 55’ Destination Yacht
  • Vessel Name: ....
  • Hull ID #.....
  • Account #:..
  • Assigned Buoy #:.....
This reconfiguration is necessary to ensure safe and efficient use of limited moorage resources during continued low water conditions. We appreciate your many years as a valued customer and thank you for your understanding as we navigate these changes.

For questions related to lake conditions or overall lake management decisions, please contact the National Park Service directly. For account‑specific questions, our Moorage Office is available to assist.

Respectfully,

Brittney Tichinel
Moorage, Collections & Compliance Supervisor
cc: Lake Powell Senior Leadership
cc: National Park Service


Brittney Tichinel | Aramark Destinations
Moorage, Collections & Compliance Supervisor - Lake Powell Resorts & Marinas

P 928.645.1017 M 928.640.1745
Click to expand...
I got the same email, let me know if a group in the same boat pardon the pun wants to find legal action let me know
 
Ryan said:
Pretty sure that funds from the tiered boat passes were supposed to be for low water access as well.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting Ryan, this is helpful. Sadly though none of the money from tiered boat passes was to go to dealing with lower water levels. The director said, when pressed in a meeting I sat in on almost two years ago that she was hoping to update the “Police Docks” with some of the revenue. (I opposed the fees, wrote a letter in during the comment phase, attended a meeting and wrote a long post about it at the time)

Their initial rational/justification for the increased fees at the time was that larger houseboats create more “erosion of the shoreline than smaller ones.” Also that they needed to make improvements to fuel docks and pump out stations to better accommodate the new super houseboats. Things like diesel fuel astride the fuel docks and reconfiguring or building larger berths at the pump out docks hence the “need” to charge them 10x more. The tiered money grab is looking like exactly what I expected, a tiered fee money grab. Apparently they think we have short memories and maybe they are right, we all seem to, new crisis, new day. In the end boating got more expensive for everyone and 75%of it is going to Washington DC where they know how to spend it best. (Sarcasm)

As per her pet project the “Police Docks” now located near Wahweap Ramp are in horrible condition and were built from left overs from the marina going back to at least the early 80’s. They should be replaced but we haven’t seen it yet. I hoped they would have used some of the money for that and that it would stay here and that they would shout about their achievement’s, about how they used some if it right here at Powell. (only a portion of the cash grab stays here, the rest goes into the PS General Fund, she said so in the meeting)

As far as erosion goes there is plenty to go around and I don’t see them doing much about that nor do I see any improvements to the potty or fuel docks. (Crap, I’d settle just to have every pump and hose reel even working, no trip hazards, cleats, the basics) 🤞

In the same meeting the director said that they’d been given a $160,000,000 grant to deal with the effects of lowering water levels. She also said that they were looking into spending 1/2 of that to realign and improve the ramp at Antelope.
OK then, wow? Isn’t there already a ramp 30 minutes away on the south end? One that has the capability of taking access down to 3450? Yes (State Line Auxiliary Ramp)

Question: So why then is it a priority to spend around $80,000,000 (the initial estimate) or 1/2 of the grant to chisel through solid rock on the South end when there is already a nearby option? (In Powell time, the lake is vast, everyone travels far to get here to begin with, 30 minutes is near by) It does not make a lot of sense especially when the North End is about to have nothing, no access. (I think I know why and maybe I’ll write about that later.)

In the meeting the director said they saw this happening, that her outlook was “ a return to a riparian environment within 5 years, actual dead pool, what comes in goes out.” I thought, well it’s her job to plan for the worst and I’m still hoping for the best, But why has it taken so long to act to keep access at both ends? And why for the love of Pete blow half the grant on a ramp that won’t end up very deep when there is another deeper one near by and why is it taking so long to get anything done? I think those are fair question.
 
Last edited:
@Marina Bum the boondoggle of $80,000,000.00 (glad you also wrote it out, it’s important to realize how big that is) blows my mind for the exact reasons you state. Already a viable ramp in the area (isn’t it on a small sliver of NPS land that will more benefit the tribe?) and with the north end in such disrepair. Someone should follow the money here.

I want to be clear that my critique is of the true decision makers and not the local “boots on the ground “. I feel those guys will take the brunt of the frustration with very little ability to facilitate change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top