The Latest on Dangling Rope...

Status
Not open for further replies.
JFRCalifornia

JFRCalifornia

Keeper of San Juan Secrets
Buried a few paragraphs down in the message from NPS regarding access, which Bart just posted in the announcements section is this, the latest about Dangling Rope:

Dangling Rope: As previously communicated, low water infrastructure is not feasible at the former Dangling Rope location. We are now moving forward with contracting for the planning and design of an on-water Mid-Lake Fueling station that will support boaters seeking to navigate longer distances on Lake Powell. A contract has been secured to initiate the design process with a marine engineering company. As the project advances, we will be seeking public engagement and input in the planning process for this project.

So if I read that right, and they've got a marine engineering firm already under contract, and they are going to seek public engagement, I'm guessing that's going to be through a NEPA process that has yet to be initiated. Assuming it's not an EIS but a more simple EA/FONSI, the NEPA process would likely take 3-4 months from beginning to end. But you can't start the NEPA process until you have a preliminary design and location to study. Conceivably, if all goes smoothly, and if I'm guessing right on process, and with no glitches, you could conceivably have a new Mid-Lake Fueling station (that's apparently the new name) in place for next summer.

This also confirms they are apparently giving up on Dangling Rope, in spite of the water levels that are now high enough to allow it to re-open, because they are not confident that those levels are sustainable. It also appears that if it's just a "fueling station" it might be a much more simple facility than existed at Dangling Rope, which means there might be more option locations. I still think somewhere near DR makes the most sense, since you already have residential infrastructure in place right there... and to me, it's gotta be the first cove on the left upstream from DR, which is big enough, fairly deep, and well-protected. But we'll see what the designers come up with...
 
You know me, just being a wise guy. Specific objectives and target dates would have been good, even with contingencies. Planning under uncertainty is hard, particularly when weather is central to all the plans.
 
JFRCalifornia said:
Buried a few paragraphs down in the message from NPS regarding access, which Bart just posted in the announcements section is this, the latest about Dangling Rope:

Dangling Rope: As previously communicated, low water infrastructure is not feasible at the former Dangling Rope location. We are now moving forward with contracting for the planning and design of an on-water Mid-Lake Fueling station that will support boaters seeking to navigate longer distances on Lake Powell. A contract has been secured to initiate the design process with a marine engineering company. As the project advances, we will be seeking public engagement and input in the planning process for this project.

So if I read that right, and they've got a marine engineering firm already under contract, and they are going to seek public engagement, I'm guessing that's going to be through a NEPA process that has yet to be initiated. Assuming it's not an EIS but a more simple EA/FONSI, the NEPA process would likely take 3-4 months from beginning to end. But you can't start the NEPA process until you have a preliminary design and location to study. Conceivably, if all goes smoothly, and if I'm guessing right on process, and with no glitches, you could conceivably have a new Mid-Lake Fueling station (that's apparently the new name) in place for next summer.

This also confirms they are apparently giving up on Dangling Rope, in spite of the water levels that are now high enough to allow it to re-open, because they are not confident that those levels are sustainable. It also appears that if it's just a "fueling station" it might be a much more simple facility than existed at Dangling Rope, which means there might be more option locations. I still think somewhere near DR makes the most sense, since you already have residential infrastructure in place right there... and to me, it's gotta be the first cove on the left upstream from DR, which is big enough, fairly deep, and well-protected. But we'll see what the designers come up with...
Click to expand...
I agree, if they are considering options they have one in the chamber. I've seen old pictures that surprised me from the 1960's where there was a fuel dock at the mouth of the canyon at the entrance to Rainbow Bridge. I guess it disappeared in the mid 70's in favor or Dangling Rope. Do you think there is any chance they'd revive that spot? It's more mid lake, it must be shallow enough for moorings and it's roomy in there? It's also right off the channel, the extra miles into dangling rope were good for 4x4 access but not for boaters. Your thoughts??
 
Last edited:
Marina Bum said:
I agree, if they are considering options they have one in the chamber. I've seen old pictures that surprised me from the 1960's where there was a fuel dock at the mouth of the canyon at the entrance to Rainbow Bridge. I guess it disappeared in the mid 70's in favor or Dangling Rope. Do you think there is any chance they'd revive that spot? It's more mid lake, it must be shallow enough for moorings and it's roomy in there? It's also right off the channel, the extra miles into dangling rope were good for 4x4 access but not for boaters. Your thoughts??
Click to expand...
There have been old threads about the old marina at Rainbow Bridge, and here's a photo from 1966 of that old facility, which was in place until about 1983.

Dangling Rope [not] permanently closing

Has Wayne engaged on this yet? He’d probably know the right person to ask for verification. I can’t imagine they’d shut it down. If there was a serious injury, mayday, health issue, illegal activity, drug running… DR is a critical infrastructure base for the authorities. Without it, the middle...
wayneswords.net wayneswords.net

In fact, that whole thread is worth reading, which conveys good ideas from many people... and here's a post from earlier in the same thread, which talks about the location I would support for relocating Dangling Rope...

Dangling Rope [not] permanently closing

Has Wayne engaged on this yet? He’d probably know the right person to ask for verification. I can’t imagine they’d shut it down. If there was a serious injury, mayday, health issue, illegal activity, drug running… DR is a critical infrastructure base for the authorities. Without it, the middle...
wayneswords.net wayneswords.net
 
Last edited:
SeaLegs said:
Why not put the new fuel dock in Dangling Rope?
Click to expand...
Great question! I assume it has to do with feasibility with regard lower water levels (ipso facto). Perhaps they will find a spot, even on/within the main channel, and build it to withstand horrendous storms? If hubris allows, that may be the case albeit a naturally-sheltered location would be much wiser. Not a lot of good locations with natural protection. So, maybe they will consider building something that can withstand Grabthar's hammer. Will be interesting to see what the engineers come up with. Again, just so there's ice cream available as well.
 
To be clear, and at the risk of stating the obvious, independent of bathymetry the most ideal spot is on the generally-lee side of a land mass (i.e., south or southwest shore) or natural harbor with adequate multi-vessel maneuvering room and "depth-flexibility". I reckon Forbidding Canyon became a problem mainly due to congestion (e.g., lot of through-traffic) back in the 1970's??? Don't recall if there were environmental concerns. I think that spot should be looked at again and wakeless enforced to the n'th degree. Notwithstanding, less-than-ideal spots can be constructed with sufficient breakwater placement. Wouldn't be surprised if the concept of using a boatload (pun intended) of those tire-constructed breakwaters were utilized on an heretofore unprecedented scale are on the minds of the NPS. There's extra tires, high-and-dry, at Echo Bay right now looking for a wet home, for instance...lol.
 
Last edited:
JFRCalifornia said:
There have been old threads about the old marina at Rainbow Bridge, and here's a photo from 1966 of that old facility, which was in place until about 1983.

Dangling Rope [not] permanently closing

Has Wayne engaged on this yet? He’d probably know the right person to ask for verification. I can’t imagine they’d shut it down. If there was a serious injury, mayday, health issue, illegal activity, drug running… DR is a critical infrastructure base for the authorities. Without it, the middle...
wayneswords.net wayneswords.net

In fact, that whole thread is worth reading, which conveys good ideas from many people... and here's a post from earlier in the same thread, which talks about the location I would support for relocating Dangling Rope...

Dangling Rope [not] permanently closing

Has Wayne engaged on this yet? He’d probably know the right person to ask for verification. I can’t imagine they’d shut it down. If there was a serious injury, mayday, health issue, illegal activity, drug running… DR is a critical infrastructure base for the authorities. Without it, the middle...
wayneswords.net wayneswords.net
Click to expand...
I read through those past posts, they were good. I didn't realize we have so much infrastructure already at Dangling Rope. The next cove over makes a lot of sense if it's big enough. I can't help but think that back between the early 60's to the early 80's the average houseboat was 35 to 50 feet long and 10 to 14 feet wide.

I don't think anyone dreamed we'd have 22 to 24 foot wide 125 foot long 4 story monster boats that need to maneuver in and out to get fuel. When I was up lake at Rock Creek for a week earlier this month it seemed that fully half the boats I could see from the channel or in the coves were of the huge to super boat variety. I think they represent a small minority of craft on the lake so far but a lot of them are out every time I go up lake, they are in heavy use. (Super boats having a full walkable deck at the water line, 2 decks above that and a helipad) The new docks will need room for two or three of those suckers to maneuver in and out around each other. They seem to be getting more and more common out on the lake and I don't see that changing any time soon.
 
Last edited:
Marina Bum said:
I read through those past posts, they were good. I didn't realize we have so much infrastructure already at Dangling Rope. The next cove over makes a lot of sense if it's big enough. I can't help but think that back between the early 60's to the early 89's the average houseboat was 35 to 50 feet long and 12 to 14 feet wide.
I don't think anyone dreamed we'd have 22 /24 foot wide 125 foot long 4 story monster boats that need to maneuver in and out to get fuel. When I was up lake at Rock Creek for a week earlier this month it seemed that fully have the boats I could see from the channel or in the cove were of the huge to super boat variety. I think they represent a small minority of craft on the lake so far but a lot of them are out every time I go up lake, they are in heavy use. (Super boats having a full walkable deck at the water line, 2 decks above that and a helipad) The new docks will need room for two or three of those suckers to maneuver in and out around each other. They seem to be getting more and more common out on the lake and I don't see that chang a time soon.
Click to expand...
Like you, read through the other posts. Wayne posted some comments from Schott circa 2021...pretty much laid it out plain-and-simple. Logistics. It may come to pass any prospective spot will NOT be able to accommodate vessels larger/longer than "x" (e.g., 75' LOA) and restrictions put in place thereof. There's no reason that shouldn't be seriously considered. Folks with huge boats would simply have to plan accordingly or ferry fuel. 1,000+ gallons of diesel onboard already gives them a lot of flexibilty and options. Exciting to see what comes about, aye?
 
I was on Lake Powell on the way into Rainbow Bridge in 1979 and 1980. The congestion was off the charts. There was a dockmaster with a bullhorn keeping track of the boats and houseboats waiting for fuel, etc. Driving through the canyon to get there was hazardous, and there was a lot less boat traffic then. Based on the type of drivers and number of boats today, I think it would be a disaster.
 
The Oracle said:
Like you, read through the other posts. Wayne posted some comments from Schott circa 2021...pretty much laid it out plain-and-simple. Logistics. It may come to pass any prospective spot will NOT be able to accommodate vessels larger/longer than "x" (e.g., 75' LOA) and restrictions put in place thereof. There's no reason that shouldn't be seriously considered. Folks with huge boats would simply have to plan accordingly or ferry fuel. 1,000+ gallons of diesel onboard already gives them a lot of flexibilty and options. Exciting to see what comes about, aye?
Click to expand...
I missed that one, maybe they'll have to start towing fuel tender boats along or have one pop out of a garage at the transom; a small tanker. Those boats and their features seem to be limited only by their owners imaginations and not by their budgets.
 
Last edited:
Marina Bum said:
I agree, if they are considering options they have one in the chamber. I've seen old pictures that surprised me from the 1960's where there was a fuel dock at the mouth of the canyon at the entrance to Rainbow Bridge. I guess it disappeared in the mid 70's in favor or Dangling Rope. Do you think there is any chance they'd revive that spot? It's more mid lake, it must be shallow enough for moorings and it's roomy in there? It's also right off the channel, the extra miles into dangling rope were good for 4x4 access but not for boaters. Your thoughts??
Click to expand...
The biggest flaw for a Rainbow/Forbidding marina was no land access next to the cliff wall, They could not allow boats at the pumps and docks anytime the marina tanks were being fueled by the old fuel boat, which was a two hour process. The concern was that ther was no escape rout should there be a fire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top