Laserfiche WebLink
s <br />l l.' <br />Recreation Engineering & Manning <br />oft `ft oo <br />- 485 Aropaho¢. Avenue <br />Doti (der, Colorado 8 0 3 0 2 <br />X o3) 545 -5883 Phone /Fax <br />February 22, 2001 <br />Via Fax: 303 - 443 -6864 <br />Steven Y. Bushong, Esq. <br />PORZAK BROWNING & BUSHONG <br />929 Pearl Street, Suite 300 <br />Boulder, CO 80302 <br />Dear Mr. Bushong:. <br />This is a follow -up letter to my earlier reports regarding the wmter rights application filed <br />by the City of Golden for the Whitewater Course on Clear Creek. I am responding to information <br />contained in the flow Assessment Report prepared by Bo Shelby and Doug Whittaker of <br />Confluence Research and Consulting, dated Feb.5,2001. <br />Questions <br />Olt is hard to give an "optimum flow" for the entire Golden Whitewater course, since different <br />features within the course react differently at different flows. The interview questions did not <br />take this into account. There are more use options at higher flows since more intermediate areas <br />are available as well as more advanced areas form at different parts of the course. <br />2) The interview questions did not ask people the flow that they thought would be the best for <br />world class events or similar high level competitions. In such competitions, the desired flows are <br />higher because of the increased challenge as well as the whitewater features that are necessary. <br />Of note is the statement by a number of boaters that said that the high flows are the best and some <br />said there is no such thing as flows that are too high. (from appendix C) <br />