My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC12705
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
WSPC12705
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:19:16 PM
Creation date
3/21/2008 5:06:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.400.30.F
Description
Durango RICD - Other Reports
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
7
Date
9/7/2007
Author
McLaughlin Rincon, Ltd.
Title
Review of Submitted Information Related to the Durango RICD - with staff comments
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />, . <br /> <br />Durango RICD <br /> <br />SB 216: <br /> <br />Section 2, 37-92-103,(10.3), Recreational In-channel Diversion <br />Means... <br />Minimum Flow Rate <br /> <br />Supreme Court Decision: <br /> <br />Opinion #6. f~~ ~~ \i--tv~J2 <br /> <br />Based upon th information provid , e s ructures have not been designed in <br />accordance th the standard.s of "'e industry. Therefore, the issues of appropriateness <br />of the reach capture and control,(durability, hydraulic performance, impacts to the <br />adjacent. reaches of the river, and' to the floodplain are in question. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Basis of Opinion <br /> <br />~ <br />Federal and State laws prohibit construction of structures in the regulato flood which <br />increase regulatory floodplain elevations. Based upon the information prOVl ed, it is likely that <br />these structures will impact the conveyance of the river and elevate the floodplain. Conventional <br />analysis to determine this type of impact includes one-dimensional HEC RAS computer <br />modeling. This analysis was conducted but was not reasonably applied. Sediment transport <br />modeling is appropriate to determine eventual increases in the regulatory floodplain due to <br />elevation of the river bed due, in turn, to deposition. Existence or documentation of sediment <br />analysis or modeling was not provided. <br /> <br />Legal Basis <br />SB 216: <br />SB 216: <br />SB 216: <br /> <br />..,: . <br /> <br />Appropriate Reach of the Stream Required for the Intended Use. <br />(10.3) Capture and Control <br />Section 2, 37-92-103,(10.3), Recreational In-channel Diversion <br />Means... <br />Minimum Flow Rate <br /> <br />Supreme Court Decision: <br /> <br />Opinion #7. <br />---There are a number of erroneous assumptions in the report that may have led the <br />authors to incorrect conclusions and design decisions regarding the ability of the <br />structures to'provide the intended recreational experience for the minimum stream flow <br />and1frovide control. <br /> <br />Basis of Opinion <br /> <br />Legal Basis <br />SB 216: <br />SB 216: <br />SB 216: <br />SB 216: <br />SB 216: <br /> <br />Opinion #8. <br /> <br />Appropriate Reach of the Stream Required for the Intended Use. <br />(10.3) Capture and Control <br />Access for Recreational In-Channel Use. <br />Section 2, 37-92-103, (4) Beneficial Use <br />Section 2, 37-92-103,(10.3), Recreational In-channel Diversion <br />Means... <br />Minimum Flow Rate , <br /> <br />:\.N~ <br />\) <br /> <br />Supreme Court Decision: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.