There are urban communities all across this country that face dam removal and somehow are able to accommodate whitewater kayakers and fisherman. Neither present environmental problems for streams if improvements are designed and built correctly, and neither group alone will make much of an economic contribution.
]]>The dam operator indicated to me that the controls at Barton are similar.
Thanks
Thanks again for the article.
]]>I’ve added a link in the article to an extract from a schematic provided by MichCon depicting possible locations for the whitewater amenities, and included it here as well: [link]. I believe that since those schematics were drawn, the locations have been moved upstream a bit to reduce potential for Cascades versus Whitewater user conflicts. So take the drawing as illustrating the concept as opposed to the construction drawings or what was included in the permit application.
As for the bouncing around, it’s my understanding that the dam gates don’t have an infinite number of positions to which they can be opened, but instead ratchet between settings that correspond, for example, to 0, 25, 50, 100 and greater cfs. So the coarseness in available control of the gates is reflected in the flow variation.
]]>