My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures of The CWCB, Case No. 02CW38
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures of The CWCB, Case No. 02CW38
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2010 9:03:02 AM
Creation date
5/21/2010 2:32:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Gunnison RICD
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
6/24/2003
Author
Ken Salazar, Susan Schneider
Title
C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures of The CWCB, Case No. 02CW38
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
t <br /> The statements above relate to the site and its potential, and not necessarily to the whitewater course as <br /> constructed. As an example, obtaining sufficient drop or fall through the course could result in increases <br /> in the regulatory floodplain elevation. This impact would have needed to be addressed or mitigated in the <br /> design and permitting processes. In review of the prehearing statement, the Applicant states (Page 3, Item <br /> III A. 6.) that it is an undisputed fact that the whitewater course improvements do not impact the 100 -year <br /> floodplain. This "fact" is not supported. There is no analysis or results of an analysis provided to support <br /> this. . <br /> Opinion <br /> 2. The control structures designed for the Gunnison Whitewater Course divert, capture, control and <br /> place to beneficial use water between specific points as required in Senate. Bill 01 -216. <br /> • <br /> Basis of Opinion <br /> Based upon my site visit, the most upstream control, Structure Number 1, was not built so therefore does <br /> not control the flow. It is clear, however, that Structures Numbers 2, 5, and 7, act to hydraulically control <br /> the flow. At these structures, flow goes through a condition called critical depth near the entrance of each <br /> structure. While there are no documents that adequately describe the construction or hydraulic conditions <br /> that will occur over a range of flows, based upon my observations and experience, these structures <br /> effectively (hydraulically) control the flow. One caveat is that there is no information or analysis <br /> provided that allows an opinion regarding the permanence of the structures. Therefore, I cannot ascertain <br /> how long these structures are likely to last. <br /> Opinion • <br /> 3. The minimum flow rate for a reasonable recreation experience for the Gunnison Whitewater Course <br /> should be within a range of 250 to 350 cfs. <br /> Basis of Opinion <br /> a. Lack of Supporting Analysis <br /> e Applicant does not present or justif .t a minimum stream flow for a reasonable recreation <br /> experience as defined in Senate Bill 01 -216. The Applicant has failed to provide any technical <br /> supporting information why each flow amount claimed for each.time period is the minimum amount <br /> necessary to provide a reasonable recreation experience. Rather, the Applicant has selected flows • <br /> ranging from 270 cfs up to 1500 cfs, which are apparently based on an unspecified hydrologic <br /> methodology using historical flow rates. Mr. Slattery's report relates only to available flows and not <br /> to those which result in a reasonable recreational experience. <br /> k <br /> The information describing and supporting the design reports and figures does not provide adequate <br /> hydraulic analysis, design analysis, user surveys, or other supporting documentation that relates the <br /> selected flows to establish the minimum stream flow for a reasonable recreation experience. <br /> b. Lack of Information to Adequately Describe the Whitewater Course as Constructed • <br /> The Applicant does not provide fmal design documents, as -built design documents, or adequate <br /> information to describe or readily evaluate basic hydraulic characteristics of the course or the general <br /> performance of the course. The drawing; "Whitewater Park, Sheet 1 of 1, dated March 3, 1999 and <br /> sketches; Gunnison Whitewater Park, Structure #1, Section View Looking Downstream, and Profile <br /> View, do not provide adequate physical dimensions, and grades, necessary to describe or analyze the <br /> course. Design sections, profiles, and-layout information were not provided. The provided site <br /> survey; Site Survey, of Gunnison Whitewater Park Within Section 3, Township 49 North, Range <br /> • <br /> oAsioMI.......110i Iooeo nu n.iutenki euIni oconor.4..i...n_..0 A.... <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.