NPS Public Comment on North End Ramps

I am not against boat access to Lake Powell. It strikes me as a huge waste of taxpayer dollars to continue to build new ramps, move marinas and endlessly extend existing ramps when the future of Lake Powell water levels is a complete unknown. The Upper and Lower Basin are still arguing about allocations. The BoR is still engineering work arounds for water release from Powell at lower water levels.......the list of uncertainties as they pertain to water levels is long. The new predictions are minimum power pool by July-September unless something drastic happens. In another post I believe I saw Stanton/Halls will be the upper reaches of Powell if we hit Dead Pool. If that happens, the silt problems that are affecting the Hite area will become the problems at the "new" marinas. So much uncertainty that will potentially become clearer over the next few years.
 
I can't say that I read the entire set of documents, but it's interesting to see what they have planned. The locations at Hite and near Bullfrog should allow water access with relatively simple changes down to extremely low water levels (in the case of Bullfrog) and better river access in the Hite area. There is no other convenient road access to the main channel, so the Stanton area looks like the best choice. If the lake were at dead pool for a few years they might have siltation issues somewhat like what has happened with the San Juan River at Clay Hills Crossing.

The other possibilities for access to the main channel might be at Gunsight Bay, Kane Creek, Friendship Cove, or Hole In The Rock. Most of those would involve extensive road construction versus about three miles at Stanton Creek. There aren't too many places with sloping access all of the way down to the original river channel.

I may as well mention the Rincon as another possibility, although the soil there isn't especially stable.
 
All very interesting.... The main body of the EA document isn't long--less than 60 pages--and pretty easy to get through. If I were a casual reader, I'd focus on the Project Description (pages 5-12). I'd also look at Appendix A, which describes alternative approaches that were rejected--this is a good place to get a better understanding why they are doing what they are doing and where they are doing it.

In short, it's a lot of work at Stanton and just downstream of the Highway 95 bridge (south side of the river) to build launch ramps, access roads and parking. Basically a 2-year construction timeframe. At the Stanton site (which they call "Bullfrog"), the launch ramp would work down to 3450. At the "Hite" site (actually closer to the Highway 95 bridge), the ramp would allow access down to 3535, a level that more or less corresponds with the river elevation at that location before Lake Powell. I'm not sure how much sediment they'll have to stabilize when cutting down through to reach the river at that location with the new access ramp.

Here's a couple of key graphics from the EA.

Stanton ramp.jpgHite ramp.jpg

All this is probably necessary to deal with the current (and likely future) conditions...

The launch ramp at Stanton would be 0.5 miles long at a grade of 10.5%... meaning it will drop 277 feet. That means it would still work even if the lake were somehow full again.

At Hite, the ramp would be be 1,025 feet long at 16%, so that's a 164-foot vertical drop. It too would still work if the lake were full.

And yet to me, this is a bit like a cat chasing its tail. You might just keep running in circles forever, or you eventually you catch your tail and realize it doesn't taste all that great.
 
Last edited:
Joe Wilson said:
The part that I found interesting is that they're aligning the roads and parking lot/ramp for a truck hauling a 125' boat...
Click to expand...
I reckon all this new infrastructure would have a much smaller price tag if they weren't designing it to cater to a size of vessel that won't even be able to safely navigate much of the reservoir as water levels go lower and lower
 
nzaugg said:
Just a hint on the reason... The Charles Hall is 150' long.
Click to expand...
It's not lost on me that the proximity to the Halls ferry ramp coupled with the recent work there (as of last September anyway) could indicate the ferry being involved somehow, the width of the ramp and the cove the alignment intends to use doesn't leave a lot of room for the ferry to operate concurrently with normal ramp usage. The EA mentions that all corners and intersections will be sized to accommodate a truck pulling a 125' boat.

To me that shows the intent to prepare for the "super houseboats" of the south end.
 
I’m in favor of lake access and I also believe the levels will rise again someday. In the meantime it takes time to get these projects approved, funded and started. As JFR points out they will still be usable as the lake rises which would leave us in a better position if the reserves fluctuate again.

As far as Super Sized and Super Duper Sized houseboats go I think that they are here to stay. Yes, follow the money on that one and you’ll find Park Service accommodating those folks. (They Lobby) I’m fine with it, I wouldn’t stay on one because the windows don’t even open but that’s just me. I don’t resent those folks for wanting to be on the lake too and so long as their interests help the rest of us get better infrastructure then I think it’s helping. That’s how I see it anyway.

There is still plenty of lake out there. A friend who used to houseboat on Powell hit me up at the grocery store last week. He kinda mocked me for plans to go out on “what was left of the lake.” I told him he was right, that he shouldn’t come at all this year and he should “spread the word.” Then I returned the favor and mocked him and said that now the lake is only 125 miles long, there isn’t much left, stay away! I think he got the irony, truth is there is still a lot of lake left out there and if you can get on it it’s still a lot of fun.
 
Bill Sampson said:
a lot of people will not be on the lake this year.
Click to expand...
So you are saying more room for your...er.....our...puns?

Seriously.....wordlings.....this could be a GREAT year to be on our lake.....just bring enough gas, beer, and 'Bill' puns....... 😜

What's the olde saying? When you only have lemons.........make lemonade!!

As Mcpltret says: Just go with the (reduced) flow......(as we still have a wonderful lake)......

:cool:
 
At the end of the day, the ramps only need to provide boat access for another 15 feet of drop to save this year - next year is another fight.


Lots of moving parts right now with boat ramp dust, dock shuffles, and breakwater towing.


There are some casual key observations.


Aramark wasted no time preserving the rental fleet at Bullfrog - it is probably not a coincidence that the rental fleet was the first asset protected. Of everything in play, they focused on the part with the largest revenue loss potential. And you cannot blame them; this is common sense for a for profit company.


And this sneaky move also supports the chatter about the rental fleet at Wahweap co-mingling with the private marina by the end of the summer just as AP does. Think about it: private slips generate on average less than $10k a year, while a rental houseboat generates $10k in under 2 weeks during the summer. This is known as easy math. This may also help explain why Wahweap suddenly stopped leasing new slips - to make room for the rental fleet. If this is the case non renewals and evictions will probably appear by the end of August.


Another thing that is silently approaching is called maneuvering space - as the lake drops there will be more and more obstacles between the deeper pockets of water - it does not matter how deep a water pockets are if access between them is too narrow or shallow… Getting from the current rental dock to the dam to turn left is going to be a mine field of rocks and buoys by the end of the summer…


I think everyone will try very hard to make it to Sept 1, and then I think all hell will break loose. If evictions are not in play later this fall, they will definitely be the norm by next March unless there is a massive snowpack to save the day. By next March, we will be almost 40 feet lower than now and that is going to make access to the river at the dam from Wahweap as we know it today, very tight and curvy, or impossible if you have a longer hull.


If there is not a massive runoff next year, you've got problems ALOT bigger than launching your boat. You are going to see localized economic failure starting with beef and agriculture and maybe even some homes in already drought areas no longer having running water. A big unplanned surprise will sweep across the West.


Right now there is definitely a low cost diversion in play. It only costs the price of gas to move the heavy equipment around and make lots of dust. The digger labor is a fixed expense and is getting paid to watch TikTok or to drive a digger. The big clouds of dust, even if just going in circles will calm down the masses and buy time until funding challenges and then common sense can be blamed with ramp extensions shut downs. The goal for the diggers this year is simple: just find a way to launch until August or September - that’s it.


tell me this - why would the powers spend millions on boat ramps to chase the water down another 60 feet for next year. Chasing it down 15 feet to allow access this summer will probably happen. No runoff next year probably means no boat ramp at all and probably no wahweap slips either, so why worry about a boat ramp to dead pool right now? And as the challenges stack the organic abandonment will increase and this will take the limit of profit to zero and then other common sense things kick in.


Logistically, Stanton does not make sense, and Halls will have the same challenges as AP soon (deep water with cliffs) except handcuffs and red tape blocking the money. In a crazy twist, a set of shiny handcuffs at an AP poker run auction will easily pull in $10k from a kinky rich guy, especially with a roll of soft red tape included as a bonus.


At the end of the day the lake is dropping about 3 feet per month. Right now we are at 3527, with the historic lowest day of the year occurring within the next 5 days. This means runoff for this year has less than 5 days to kick in for those of you holding out. NPS has listed the Aux ramp as unusable down to 3515, which is 12 feet away or less than 3 months. By the end of August, we will be below 3515, and unless we get at least 25 feet of runoff, the Aux ramp will remain under 3515 all next year. It will take 25 feet of runoff just to open the aux ramp for one day next year, probably July 3rd. We will need 40 feet of runoff to enter 2026 where we are today.


Let's end where we started: at the end of the day, the ramps only need to provide boat access for another 15 feet of drop to save this year - next year is another fight.
 
I was bumming around Stanton last month after my boat didn't start. I have wondered why for a long time why they didn't attempt a ramp there in the first place. I get putting the marina in the bay with associated ramps in the marina complex, but there are several small protected coves over there that would be fantastic for those wanting to get on the water and get off without spending too much time at either marina. It's also easy to question why the dollars should be spent. Yes, the lake is low now, but history has shown that the system can be inundated by an intense winter in any given season, and the upper basin is going to keep whatever extra at all costs. There needs to be a takeout mid lake for safety... I'd bet they are considering that as well. Kind of like having a regional outpost airport in some of the small towns across the southwest.
 
@ Bubba I agree with a lot of the points you made about the unknowns with Wahweap and so much of it is still up in the air with lots of moving parts. The Auxiliary Ramp can be extended to an elevation as low as 3450 but navigating from there to the channel would be a whole new experience, I can only imagine it.

With dropping levels the shoreline will shrink and surface area will diminish too so where will there be room left for the two marinas? Last time in 22 the plan was to break off the public marina about half way down the main gangway and relocate it somewhere near the Wahweap ramp. Looking at that area and over the marina yesterday as I drove in it’s getting quite tight and I don’t see too much room in front of the main launch ramp either. So when I was corrected the other day by an Aramark guy that the plan was to relocate some of the slips over near rentals not in front if the ramp it makes more sense. He said it was so they could share some of the infrastructure from the rental docks to save money.

Either way that move would cost millions of dollars and if levels kept dropping to a point of closure they could never recoup those costs. Then there is the question of who should pay for the move Aramark or the government. Aramark owns the docks, they pay the costs of building and maintaining them. The next vendor has to buy them from Aramark so would they be willing if the prospect of future profits were so unknown? I can’t see a sensible corporation doing that. I also hadn’t thought of a gradual drawdown if it ever comes to that, makes sense. That is going to get messy if it goes that way evicting folks from slips when it’s not equal. I’ve only thought about Park Service possibly blowing the whistle and saying everyone out if the pool. In other words a shut down all at once but it makes sense that it could go in waves.

The ramp extension at Antelope is said to be heading much lower than previously thought which makes sense if it’s true. It would be a bigger deeper version of the private ramp and since it’s on the channel it would be easier to access the lake from there; it wouldn’t have the challenges Wahweap bay could pose.

Another unknown is the BOR’s plan due out in December. If it forces huge reductions in water deliveries and the Government backs that with some kind of emergency designation so the States have to take it then that would change things too. As I read the tea leaves that is what I think is going to happen and it won’t have much to do with weather or not we get to play on the lake, we are not the first consideration. It will be about maintaining power pool at both Powell and Mead and a resource that has been over allotted for years being rethought. About changing the situation to comport with the reality that the government simply can’t deliver more than they get. It’s about to get real.

The truth is that the interior tunnels could not deliver enough water annually to keep up with the allotments for the lower basin states and Mexico. In 2022 BOR wrote guidelines for how to use those tunnels safely as the only means of passing water through the dam. Wide open 24/7 is not an option in the guidelines but if they were operated that way they could deliver enough water to meet the commitments. But the tunnels need to be closed at times to be inspected, maintained and monitored while being used that way. While under the safe operation guidelines it will be hard to get more than about 4 to 5 million acer feet maximum through the internal tunnels in a year. So I think given the choice of less water delivered through the turbines or less water delivered through the bypass I think BOR will choose the former; The same amount of water delivered through the turbines as they could squeeze through the bypass tunnels. A version of having their cake and eating it too.

We also need power more than ever before and the dam generates $120,000,000 from its power contracts every year. I think BOR will do everything they can to maintain that power production. It just so happens that the lake level for our boating infrastructure coincides with power pool level. So I see hope for needed change in the situation beyond Powell and that may benefit boaters as a byproduct.
 
Last edited:
We also need power more than ever before and the dam generates $120,000,000 from its power contracts every year. I think BOR will do everything they can to maintain that power production. It’s just so happens that the lake level for our boating infrastructure coincides with power pool level.
Click to expand...

The big fly in this ointment is the Bor' has not stated.Flatly , we will not let the lake drop below power production level. This simple statement would give some certainty as to what the needs for launch Ramps will be. I know making this declaration will make lots of lawyers , lots of money and it will take Years before it is settled in court. My opinion , which is worth exactly what you paid for it is that the amount of water between minimum power production and the lowest outlet is not worth shutting down power production. Reality needs to strike some people.And the river needs to be allocated from an actual flow annually instead of a dreamed up number that is nowhere near reality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mobilerat said:
The big fly in this ointment is the Bor' has not stated.Flatly , we will not let the lake drop below power production level. This simple statement would give some certainty as to what the needs for launch Ramps will be. I know making this declaration will make lots of lawyers , lots of money and it will take Years before it is settled in court. My opinion , which is worth exactly what you paid for it is that the amount of water between minimum power production and the lowest outlet is not worth shutting down power production. Reality needs to strike some people.And the river needs to be allocated from an actual flow annually instead of a dreamed up number that is nowhere near reality.
Click to expand...

Yes on a statement and I think that will be inside of their plan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would be interesting to see a study that would measure the economic impact of 1) creating a bridge that would connect Bullfrog and Halls Crossing (think Hite Bridge), 2) bringing electrical transmission lines in from the closest location to supply Bullfrog and Halls with electrical power not made by generators 3) allowing more development in the area - creating a bigger recreation economy with hotels, restaurants, year-round recreation possibilities - perhaps even a place people would want to retire - Page North/St George 2.0. It would also be interesting to see how a bridge in this area might alter trucking routes and offer a connection to the rest of the southwest to I-70, Salt Lake City, Farmington, Durango, Albuquerque. The bridge would be enormously costly so there would have to be significant tangent economic benefits to make it viable. Have to think about this as creating a location for a great new town, not a new handy place to launch your boat - but that benefit too. Then consolidate the marina to one location in the deepest water. In the 1940's we were capable of doing big things. Are we still capable of doing big things in 2026?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top