On the Rivers Page the Wenatchee Leavenworthless to Cashmere pulls it's level from the Wenatchee @ Peshastin , the Tumwater section pulls it's level from the Wenatchee @ Plain.

I think that changing the Icicle is a good idea, but something to consider is that historically people use the virtual gauge to determine levels, so changing it could result in some confusion. Additionally We can't make a DOE gauge display on the front page or the rivers page because of the way the site is set up.

I will put a link to the DOE gauge on all the associated Icicle pages to peoples reference.

Oops! I totally missed this topic because I didn't look over here for it.
Yeah, I do agree that the "Broken" value listed on the rivers page is messed up. We should probably pull it down.

For now I think the DOE link and perhaps an explanation of the virtual formula (Peshastin minus Plain, multipled by .75) on the rivers pages for Icicle is a decent solution.

As far as the Peshastin guage, it cracks me up that all the playboaters use it. Isn't it located upstream of Peshastin creek? Acvording to Gary Planigan, Bavarian Raft Company Tycoon, the Monitor guage is really where its at if you want to really know how much is pumping through Rodeo Hole. I agree. No, Mission Creek shouldn't throw that off.

Speaking of Peshastin Creek, how is one to get an idea what its doing if the Peshastin guage is upstream?

Then you got peeps going off of Peshastin for Tumwater flows, and that just doesn't make Plain sense.

Ok, enough ragging on the Peshastin guage. Poor 'lil guy at least gives us a consistent number. And, it DOES have the forcast graph. So for that it is emensely helpful when trying to read the tea leaves regarding one's whitewater destiny. Peope talk smack about the forecast graphs, but if one understands it is a dynamic graph, and they follow other weather forecasts regionally, it is actually pretty informative. But that's a whole other topic...