My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC55
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPC55
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:15:38 PM
Creation date
4/22/2007 10:13:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.400.21
Description
Colorado River Litigation - State, Division 4 Water Court Cases - Steamboat RICD
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
5/18/2004
Author
Unknown
Title
Report to Glenn Porzak regarding Steamboat Springs Boating Park - Response to comments by Richard E McLaughlin and Tom Browning
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. '\ ,.:~) (1 1 <br />'oj --''- ~ ,J '_ <br /> <br />Mr. McLaughlin then goes onto opine that the rates claimed are unreasonable because <br />they are in excess of the 350 cfs cap in the CWCB's Technical Criteria Manual. <br />(McLaughlin at Topic 10.) Based on references to the work by Bo Shelby on Clear <br />Creek in the Golden matter, Mr. McLaughlin appears to have made a decision regarding <br />appropriate flow rates for the Boating Park on the Yampa River, even though Mr. <br />Shelby's report was directed toward a whitewater park on Clear Creek, a much smaller <br />river. It is also of note that, in spite of Mr. Shelby's report, an RICD was awarded in <br />Colorado Water Court for 1000 cfs for Clear Creek. <br /> <br />There is no particular reason for Mr. McLaughlin to adopt Mr. Shelby's conclusions <br />about what should be defined as "a reasonable recreation experience." Moreover, flow <br />rates of 250 cfs to 350 cfs operate differently in the Yampa River than they do in Clear <br />Creek. During the summer boating season, 350 cfs of water in the Boating Park would <br />not provide the sort of attraction that would motivate boaters to travel any significant <br />distance whatsoever, and would provide a recreation experience only for beginners. It is <br />my opinion, based on over 40 years as a kayaker and as a former member of the u.S. <br />Whitewater Team that this Boating Park is not a real attraction to all levels of boaters <br />until it reaches the higher end of the design parameters. But those boating flows for <br />whitewater rafting, kayaking and canoeing, need to be distinguished from the lower nows <br />claimed later in the season to enhance tubing. The character of the requested flows is <br />representative of the expected user groups throughout the season. As noted, on higher <br />flow rates during peak season, the requested flows are conducive to expert level boating <br />and competition. At the lower flow rates, before and after peak flows, the flows are <br />conducive to other forms of river traffic, including inner-tubing. <br /> <br />Inner-tubers are one of the primary lower flow user groups. These include both local and <br />out-of-town users who typically lack whitewater experience and expertise. The design of <br />the Boating Park is ideal for these users because it provides for accelerated flow <br />conditions and a bouncy ride followed by a deep pool conducive to recovery. It has been <br /> <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.