Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 5- <br /> <br />. John Hendricks - maybe tIE water users should chair a convention addressing the issues and <br />reach a conclusion or agreement between the water users at some point <br />. Rick Miner - In the Bear Creek study the biggest problem was complex operations, and all <br />the variations. They were putting a small mesh of demands/supplies together to try and get no <br />fluctuation. The Corps eventually stopped coming to the meetings. Randy Seaholm of the <br />CWCB was working on this when the Corps gave up. This study responds to the growth of <br />the metro area, the need for this storage is greater than before <br />. Marc Waage- The South Metro water study involves Blue River water, component, issue <br />needs to be cleared up negotiate a compromise, John Hendricks and Marc Waage will work <br />together and report back to the CWCB and the group <br />. Brad Piehl - One scenario would help the EIS process so the water users can sit down and <br />work it out <br />. Gary Lein - We are developing a backwater model to the state line using a HEC RAS model <br />for those reaches based on 1973 high water marks. Its also based on data supplied by the <br />UDFCD and the CWCB. We are trying to find out how the discharges affect water surface <br />levels at certain strategic points. <br />. Marc Waage - Requested a more technical session to get into the model, support your process <br />with sOJre local knowledge <br />. Rick Miner - In September the model should be done and that is a good time. <br />. Karen Sitoski - During the 1995 flood we released 4,000 CFS and could maybe release 8,000 <br />CFS in really big events <br />. Marc Waage - Recognized that the model goes down beyond the Henderson gage because of <br />political concerns from those downstream counties. In 1995 flows out of the Poudre River <br />and tributaries were caused most of the flooding. <br />. Larry Lang - In 1995 the Kersey gage was in floodstage for 40 consecutive days. We need to <br />routing to get the space values for Chatfield. We will change its operations, its critical, and so <br />are downstream voices. <br />. Marc Waage - we are spending a lot of money to study 20,600 AF which is blip on a screen <br />as far a flood volume goes <br />. Sand Rayl - explained that we need to recognize the induced damages as part of the process. <br />We know the impacts are low and the benefits are high in the metro area but need to know <br />where the impacts are downstream also <br />. Larry Lang - explained the design flood fur the reservoir as the 1942 flood hydrograph <br />which is the snow hydrograph and combine them on the peak day. We look at array of <br />alternatives <br />. Tom Keith - showed table of major milestones in the recreation study. We need to get <br />available data, understand facilities relative to the high water line, look at resource <br />information available. Task 3 involves much agency involvement with three meetings. But <br />we anticipate 6 meetings to ensure closeness with this group. There should be an early <br />September meeting, look a qualitative elements as well like the peoples perceptions of the <br />park. We need guidance to figure out to look at a worst case from state parks perspective, <br />task 4 defining alternative concepts, operating schemes or do we say here is the given and <br />take the worst case. We will be looking at what facilities are impacted and need a series of <br />meetings to look at the alternatives. We are focusing on the reservoir and the park, not part of <br />the EIS team to look at the state park and what can we do about that. We will need the work <br />already done handed to EDA W so can pick up the ball and carry from there. Need wisdom of <br />the Work Group to sift through that <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />