I really appreciate the "boots on the street" report, but for the life of me I can't see how it squares with
@JFRCalifornia recent communication exchange with the superintendent. No mention of this project was made.
Why is it so hard for there to be accurate communication from NPS/Aramark?
For those that aren't aware of what I am speaking of, here is a copy and past from JFR's report.
1. Lake Powell is at 3526.21 on 12-20-22. It is projected to be below 3525 from the end of December through April 2023. What boat launching, if any, will be possible at Bullfrog during this period?
As of January 22, 2023, Lake Powell's elevation is 3524.05. Bullfrog North ramp is still operational for small motorized vessels. The park is working on a longer-term solution for a ramp that reaches elevation 3450’ in the Stanton Creek area in Bullfrog.
2. My understanding from previous correspondence with NPS is that there will be an interim ramp between Bullfrog and Stanton until the permanent ramp at Stanton is built. Where will that be located? When will that be online, and to what minimum lake level will it be usable?
There is not a plan for an interim ramp at Bullfrog. The topography of Bullfrog Bay does not support water elevations necessary to launch vessels. When the lake reaches 3522 the Bullfrog North Ramp will become inoperable.
3. Will camping facilities be moved from Stanton to the Bullfrog area? And will existing lodging and other facilities at Bullfrog remain in place?
Camping at Stanton Creek has always been dispersed, with no facilities. The Stanton Creek Ramp project will route park visitors to other camping locations such as the Bullfrog Campground. During the Bullfrog Stanton Ramp construction project this area will be closed to the public for safety reasons. The existing lodging and other land-based facilities at Bullfrog are planned to remain at Bullfrog.
4. What is the status and timing of the contract to construct the Stanton Creek ramp, and a projected date of completion?
We do not have a design build contract in place yet. We do not have a final schedule for the construction of Stanton Creek ramp. Once we issue the contract, we will have a better idea of the timeframe of this project. This contract is on track to be announced spring of 2023.
5. When is the Halls Crossing ramp extension likely to be completed? And why will it only be usable to 3520? T
he Halls Crossing ramp extension project has only been conceptually designed and approved. The park has requested funding for this project but we have not received funding for this project yet. The ramp would only be usable to 3520’ because of the bathymetry of the lake in this area.
6. Given its limited utility, why is the Halls Crossing ramp extension prioritized over replacing Dangling Rope Marina to have a mid-lake fuel opportunity?
Dangling Rope would seem to have a greater economic effect on the entire GCNRA than Halls Crossing, especially based on declining visitation as it correlates to when Dangling Rope went offline in 2021. The park has not prioritized Halls Crossing over Mid Lake Fuel. We are seeking funding for both projects and both are not funded at this time.
7. When do you see the replacement or relocation of Dangling Rope Marina coming online? In 2023? Until then, will NPS take any steps to improve safe access to the middle part of the lake (i.e., so boats don’t get stranded). What sorts of possible solutions is NPS considering? Any new locations?
The park is actively seeking funds to address a Mid Lake Fuel station. This project is not funded and will not be coming online in 2023.
8. In general, is funding available to make the needed improvements?
The park has received partial funding for the Stanton Creek ramp but has not received funding for the other ramps (Antelope Point, Hite and Halls Crossing). However, the park has requested funding for these ramps as well as Mid Lake Fuel, and other resource concerns lakewide.
9. What is the major constraint to making needed improvements? Funding? Administrative logistics? Lack of staffing? Uncertainty of the lake levels?
The Park is prioritizing resources to try to keep one ramp available Southlake and one ramp available Northlake. The park has been proactive in obtaining an engineering contract to find the best low water ramp locations lakewide. The park has also requested funding for build these conceptual ramps but have not received the funding yet for Antelope Point, Hite and Halls Crossing. Future lake levels are also uncertain. A major constraint is funding and the uncertainty around lake levels.
10. How have declining lake levels and impaired access affected the economics and revenue generated by the GCNRA? Are there any recent economic studies you could point me to about GCNRA that correlate declining lake levels and limited lake access?
The lake levels and recent access issues has had economic impacts, but this is a complicated situation since the recent pandemic has also caused economic effects. There has not been a recent economic study of these impacts.
11. What is the status of Aramark as the concessionaire? What role do they play (if any) in the planning of future lake facilities? Is there any truth to an ongoing rumor that they are seeking to get out of their contract? And if so, what is the plan to replace them if Aramark pulls out as concessionaire?
Aramark is operating under a concession contract with the National Park Service and are a consistent partner of GLCA, continuing to offer visitor services.
.”
I didn't walk up there, but from where I was, it looked like they were working it straight off and in front of the existing ramp. And any improvement in the forward motion on any of these ramps is a good thing. I was looking at the Ex ramp, and they could easily push that rock out with that Dozer if they want to, and put another plate or 2 in. But the way this year is going all ready, we might be launching until it starts back up
