[Awclist] Rio Chama

Thu Feb 23 13:11:27 MST 2012

I second that - Celia Southwick

  _____  

From: awclist-bounces at swcp.com [mailto:awclist-bounces at swcp.com] On Behalf
Of Wes Moore
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 8:40 AM
To: Tim Scofield
Cc: Frank Walsh; awclist at swcp.com
Subject: Re: [Awclist] Rio Chama

3 weekends at 800.  

Sent from my iPad 

Wes Moore
VP/Partner/Sr. Loan Officer
Superior Mortgage Services, LLC 
NMLS #205189
(505) 249-4506 cell
www.moore4yourmoney.com 

On Feb 21, 2012, at 10:16 PM, "Tim Scofield" <timscofi5 at gmail.com> wrote:

I never received a response to the email below about flows. 

Given that the Bureau will try to have a flushing flow (hopefully 5k in a
good water year) in the spring, and a limited amount of water, what release
flows would you like to see later in the season when there is minimal water
in the Rio Grande? Would you rather boat one weekend at 2400cfs or three
weekends at 800cfs or 4 weekends at 600cfs? (Or some other flow level)

Tim

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Tim Scofield <timscofi5 at gmail.com> wrote:

The rafters that said that the trip went too fast above 1000 cfs were
private boaters from Colorado.

I personally just spend more time exploring when the water's high. 

The way I see it, It's really a question of at what point would you not
bother going kayaking/rafting/canoeing assuming that the RIo has already
peaked and is down to a couple hundred. At what point would you not bother
to even go up to the Chama. 

There will be a weekend or two that get a peaking flow in the spring to try
to maintain a healthy ecosystem, but this section of the Chama is below El
Vado, and they're going to try to store as much water as they can as high up
as they can. So we're not going to see really big flows like we've
ocassionaly seen on the Rio Grande. They doe have some storage in Abiqu
lake, but it is somewhat limited for various reasons.

The question is would you rather boat one weekend at 2400cfs or three
weekends at 800cfs or 4 weekends at 600cfs. Assuming that there's enough
water for any releases at all. 

It's also problem if they don't keep at least 150 cfs in the river at all
times, which they sometimes don't, because the whole ecosystem up there
starts to suffer.

Tim

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:32 PM, monica a. martin <orangely at yahoo.com>
wrote:

I think it's time to point out the commercial boater perspective: many have
had to boat this river with customers and their gear in 14-15 foot rafts in
the 200's.  This certainly isn't ideal.  Many comfortably boat it at 500cfs.
If you get to do it at 1000cfs, you've got it posh.  Anything above 600cfs
works pretty nicely and many of us find it enjoyable in work or play at this
level.  Isn't maneuvering around rocks part of what makes it interesting?

Monica & Josh

_______________________________________________
Awclist mailing list
Awclist at swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/awclist
To unsubscribe go to the above link and at the bottom there is an
unsubscribe option.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /archives/awclist/attachments/20120223/c8e47f18/attachment.htm 