City funding for a water park

[FarPastGone]

Fish what do you think about the site (Floodway Recreation Greenspace near N Salem Rd and W Mt Comfort Rd) Jeremy is proposing? I haven't been out there, so I don't know what the average base flow is. Seems like that would be the issue, finding a place where you had a reliable flow. Would think an in-stream park that utilizes natural flow would be a lot cheaper then pumping water.

-Matt

[Regud]

Disclaimer: I know nothing about building a whitewater park

The problem I think people might have with developing out at Pump Station is that it floods often. The water level might be difficult to keep within a specific range for use and to prevent damage to the features.

Low Flood


High Flood

[Regud]

Here is the area Jeremy is talking about over by Holcomb Elementary ... I think...

[FarPastGone]

Ryan, if you have one of the whitewater companies that develops these things design it then they take these things into account. A lot of parks in Colorado (Pueblo and Golden) are built with multiple features that come in and out depending on the water level. Now the range for those parks might not be as great as a stream with a base flow of 200cfs that on a regular basis floods to 5,000 cfs, but generally the features just take different shapes (it would be bad on them to build a park that creates a terminal hole in flood). In the case of Rio Vista it gets better the higher it gets .

[hfunkhouser]

Great pics, Regud.
I can't say I've seen it at that "high" flood level. Looks pretty catastrophic to any features. At the level's I've seen it (pretty high) it looked like it would move the stuff under the dam around, but every time that stuff is still there. My original contribution to this thread was to try and get the bed down there cleaned up good and then rearranged so that there would be a close, cheap place to goof off when there was flow. Also it seems like the if the city saw a bunch of paddlers gathering down there every weekday that it rained enough then they would be a lot more inclined to start planning something truly nice. This is to the point where this is definitely over my head. I think we should definitely provide the city with a presentation to keep the idea alive. I am willing to help put that together.

[FarPastGone]

I would be glad to help Howard. Gonna talk to my friend that got the San Marcos, TX park built (this afternoon) to get some ideas on what he went through to get it done.

A good idea might be to find some prospective sites, collect some data (max, min, and mean flows among others), maybe take some pictures of each and then send them over to a company like REP to see what they think. Might cost money, but on the other hand if they have a chance at a prospective park in Fayetteville they may be more then willing to give that info out.

-Matt

[unicorn]

I've floated both clear and skull creeks in flood stage and there's not a whole lot going on naturally in them. Although there are a few nice drops, gas pipes and barbed wire across them prevent much fun. I know that last timew we did this I wrote an article for the fayetteville flyer and mayor Jordan thought it was pretty cool, so you may have an ally there.

Also, this little area near 540 has some natural features that with a water pump would be pretty cool.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8& ... 20e33ca42e" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Fish]

I think I can definitively state that there are no natural flow sources in the NW Ark area that would support a whitewater park during the July - Oct season (and not for many days during the rest of the year either). Fisher's Ford is the only one that comes close and it's augmented by water treatment effluent. Beaver Dam / White R. is not natural flow, but it's regular flow, and a lot of it, but you have to get the Corps to agree to let you build somewhere below the dam. We also have looked into Lake Fort Smith a bit, but there's no hydro there and so regular releases during the summer are very unlikely (however, any big release will make the Frog run so you don't have to build a park at all). Finally, the Gentry/SWEPCO site is very interesting, but you'd have to talk both SWEPCO and Gentry into it. It's got dependable flow and enough gradient though.

If you're looking at streams near Fayetteville providing enough natural flow for more than a handful of days per year, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Even the West Fork or Middle Fork of the White don't have enough flow in the warmer months to make a reasonable park. Over the past decade, we've looked and looked again at every option there is. I reached the conclusion that pumping is expensive, but when you don't have enough flow, it's the only option. At least it seemed an easier option than trying to talk the Corps into anything....

Pumping doesn't have to be super expensive if you design it right. Don't get me wrong: you won't get anything remotely like Charlotte. But that thing is a money pit that I doubt will be repeated anywhere. You can generate one big wave at relatively low cost - tens of thousands of dollars. For an example, look no further than the LL Buscuit video thread on this board.

- Fish

[FarPastGone]

The idea of some in-stream or bank pump design just seems like it could easily have a lot of problems and would require maintenance, it doesn't seem practical to me unless you have some type of dedicated facility to operate it. That is just my opinion though.

-Matt

[Fish]

For a pumped system, you're better to put it somewhere where there's not a river already. You don' t have to negotiate with water resource stakeholders that way, and you don't have to deal with floods.

Pumped systems are not easy to build or maintain, but getting the Corps, cities, local residents, etc. on board may well prove even tougher. And building parks in streambeds isn't terribly cheap either. And there's floods.

Bottom line, building a park in CO is relatively cheap and easy - that's why they have over a dozen of them. Building one in the Midwest is much more difficult. That's why we have only one or two and they are pretty crappy by comparison. I just really thank the folks who have worked to take advantage of spots where releases were already happening, like Dierks and Wister. Good job on those guys.

- Fish

[hfunkhouser]

Well that's an official buzz kill, I think.

I'm still interested in at least providing the info to the city so they can officially reject it....In the meantime I wonder if I need permission to clean up the stream bed down there.

[Ben Rodda]

Funk,

It would be an even worse buzzkill to get all the work done and find out that it did not work at all. The Lawson hole on the front range is the only feature that I know of that is dynamic at low flows such as 425 CFS. Anything lower than that there is just not enough force to do anything more than 360s and perhaps low angle cartwheels. If there is a stream in NWA that would support that flow or higher and consistently then lets give it a shot.

Flooding is not that huge of an issue. Glenwood springs park was designed to work at around 2,000 CFS all the way upto 18,000 CFS. I believe it stayed in place at high water pretty well.

Having a river front park is another story. The city of Boulder cleaned up their stream bed and added features. It ended up being an excellent place for tubing. While that does not benefit the whitewater community directly it could lay a foundation for other projects. Golden is similar at high flows Golden is fun. In August when the flows trail off to 200 CFS the tubers start showing up.

The ideas floating around for Gentry or perhaps Beaver dam seem to me to have the most promise. If I am correct wister is some how tied into the corps and it seems there is a good relationship there. Beaver dam and others are part of the same district that manages wister so maybe this particular Corps district could be open to ideas in other areas?

[FarPastGone]

Rio Vista is optimal around 220-350, you can't loop it because of a design flaw, but you can do damn near everything else in it. I agree though Ben, Lawson Hole is still awesome at low flows.

Fish good way to rationalize it. Wonder if there is any place worth trying to get a pump setup even?

-Matt

[Fish]

I've looked at this problem for a lot of years, talked to folks in government, in real estate, in construction, etc. I've also talked with makers of other whitewater parks, pumped and otherwise. It's not an easy venture to get support or funding for, but a lot of folks seemed interested. Unfortunately, interest doesn't equal dollars.

I'm not trying to sound pessimistic, just realistic. If I was a pessimist, I never would have tried so hard to do this when I did. After pushing hard to try to build a park back 8 years ago or so, I ran out of steam. But I've got a lot of info and plans for my efforts, and would like to see someone get it done.

I think a pumped system is workable given the right parameters. I ended up with a concept that can be built for under $75K, pumps 350+ cfs with about 4 to 6 feet of usable gradient - enough to make a full-featured playwave. It runs on a diesel engine, uses a big homemade propeller pump to move the water, and fuel costs about $15-$25 per hour to run it. It also only needs two small pools (or one slightly larger pond) - it'll fit on about an acre quite easily.

You can do some math and figure out that pretty much no one is going to build it for return on investment. But unlike the multi-million dollar parks, it's cheap enough that a one or more folks who just wanted it to paddle could fund it. Get a loan, charge a per hour fee to others who want to use it. You're not going to make money, but given enough years, you could come close enough to breaking even to be worth it so that you have a year-round place to surf in your back yard. A retailer or outfitter could fund it easily enough and recoup their bucks partly in fees and partly in increased exposure and sales. A city could fund it to have something very original that would attract spectators... however you might want to spend a good deal more than $75K to make it look pretty. :)

And people have built things that look kinda like this. so making it is not just pie in the sky. The LL biscuit video shows something that works, but with less flow (I'm guessing no more than 100cfs for their toy). I think you can have a surf spot at 100 cfs and a few feet of drop. To get a serious playwave for cartwheels, loops and such, I'd bet you'd need more like 200 cfs minimum.

That's just what I think. Find someone who wants this on their acre of land. Find enough paddlers willing to get a loan to build a thing that hasn't ever been built - make sure they know they might lose a good portion of their money if the thing fails to work right. And then we can build it. If it works, we can build the next one a whole hell of a lot easier.

That's what I think,
Fish

[Heath]

justt my 2 cents, and most will not apply to fayetville. low volume features can be made to have fun( 200)cfs minimal for play. the gentry site that I keep seeing pics of looks to have the most promise of anything I have seen so far. looks to be clean water, and a steady supply. Gradient seems to be there as well. the next concern would be what materials do you have already available( we got lucky at Dierks because there was plenty of rocks already there). I am with Fish on the lack of a natural stream with enough flow(year round). Features can be built to with stand most floods, also be playable at high and low flows.

Now my Rant, if some of you really want to try and get something going, then try and help back ideas that are already in the works. (rockport) comes to mind first. only becasuse of the garunted flow during the summer, and probly 40% of the rest of the year. If you can find a river or lake with a pwoer station near fayetville then pursue it there.
Also in my opinion and thats all it is, Lower Mountain Fork/ beavers bend has more potentiol than any other place I have seen. there is always a minimum flow of around 175 cfs with an average max of 6800 with 2 generators running, yearly average flow of around 2500. there is one low head dam at beavers bend park, around 6ft of gradient right there. then if you include the rereg dam there is another 25 +
there is a great class III creek run that with very little work could be a solid III+IV run with a total drp of over 100ft in a little over a mile.( did I mention that there is a conduit gate that can pump up to 1000cfs through it) and flood gates that could put only who knows how much in there.

On to another subject, pumping water and man made courses, does the word schlitterbohn come to mind, I would love to take a boat in that place,)(mainly the white water tube shoot nice 4ftr into a 90degree turn to the right into a 20ft slide) you could paddle almos t all of there tube shoots, and have a ball. Seriously though I would think this type of setup would be more favorable for a park. pump the water straight up, build a channle that zig zags down the hill side from pool to pool. if it was done right you could have a nice play run ( down the main channel) with some nice waterfall drops(slab boofs) going straight from one pool to the other instead of the main channel. think about drop 30ft over .75 miles or 30ft over les than .25 miles Teacup style.

I need to win the lotto.
later Heath