WSPC55 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ",j ',-', ;r) r , :' I .,' '"' ;:J vO,.l....OJ Park was constructed. The FEMA survey is the government's record of streambed elevations and dimensions and is incorporated into Mr. Browning's figures in his Attachments E, F, G and H. It is also interesting to note that, by Mr. McLaughlin's logic, the site above the Charlie's Hole structure should have decreased flow rates above the structures, is therefore an inappropriate site for modifications. However, this site meets all of the requirements with regard to slope and the "power index" cited in Mr. McLaughlin's own guidelines, and the CWCB policies for whitewater parks. This site provides ample slope, ample flow and represents, according to Mr. McLaughlin's own misguided power index, ample power. In conclusion, both Mr. Browning and Mr. McLaughlin's flood impact analysis are inaccurate. Based on my analysis of their work and the data they collected, it is my opinion that there is no negative flood impact from the structures. Because I have only recently received the uncalibrated Browning HEC-RAS model, I reserve the right to continue to work with that model and present further conclusions on this point to the CWCB at the hearing in this matter. IV. Assertion: The claimedflow rates are too high, and more than what is neededfor a reasonable recreation experience in and on the water. (McLaughlin at Topic #9.) Rebuttal: The flow rates claimed for the RlCD structures are the minimum necessary to meet the reasonable recreation experience sought by the City of Steamboat Springs. Mr. McLaughlin states "it has not been demonstrated that the features efficiently meet the objective of providing a reasonable recreational experience at a minimum stream flow." (McLaughlin at Topic #'s 9, 10.) Mr. McLaughlin then makes statements with regardto the apparent performance of the park for different activities and argues that the table of "minimum flows" that appears in "Table 2" prepared by Steamboat City Staff are the appropriate minimum flows for most of the listed activities. Using that "Table 2," he suggests among other things that 600 cfs is not unreasonable for small rafts. That and 16