WSP12666

• File Number: 8230.400.30.F
• Description: Durango RICD - Other Reports
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 7
• Date: 3/1/2006
• Author: Gary Lacy
• Title: Report on the Design, Functionality, and Physical Characteristics of the Durango Boating Park as it Relates to the RICD Application
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

I

I

I

constraint and will not work within 200 feet of the intake. Additionally, the design team has
agreed to keep the Bureau of Reclamation up-to-date on any improvements in order to avoid
any design conflicts as the project progresses.

I

I

The SWCD, though curious with regard to the design process, did not express any specific
design constraints. The design team has also agreed to keep this stakeholder abreast of
design developments as the design process progresses.

I

I

Associated Design Criteria:
· The site must not affect ALP. Specifically this includes avoiding any
improvements within 200 feet of the project's intakes.

I
I

In summary, the expected users associated with the park are varied and have varying
priorities, needs, and wishes. The design process has included input from many, if not all, of
these groups through a process that has included numerous meetings of the Animas River
Task Force, as well as meetings with the City, with the general public, and with associated
stakeholders in the project The proposed design was compared to alternate designs during
this process and was selected, augmented and refined through input from the public, the
City, the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Division of Wildlife.

I
I

I

I
I

Proposed Improvements

Process

I

Improvements were considered at four sites. After review of the advantages and
disadvantages the preliminary decision was made to create conceptual designs for
improvements at both Schneider Park and at the Smelter Boating Park. These designs were
subject to preliminary review by the City and the Animas River Task Force, where it was
concluded that improvements at these two sites were the most viable and attractive options
to meet the City's intended purposes. This decision was made at a meeting in Durango (5)
and is supported by the Decision Support Problem that is shown in Appendix 1. This DSP

I

I
I

I

(j~II': \i. Lac! 1':.
-ix,"\'Cira!H'C: .\\C Bu,j!dC:f, C() X()J02
}.-~I..:..' '-l'alillll~;j. 1.." glllC,_';-1I1:!'1I l'UI11C<.L'"tLlli:l \\ \\ \\'. \\\\ par (S.L'tlll1 ; ~()31 ~..j.) <:;;X~ ~

18