C.R.C.P. 26(a)(2) Disclosures of The CWCB, Case No. 02CW38

Home Browse Search

1 West, N.M.P.M., Gunnison County, Colorado also does not include information that physically describes the course configuration. Based upon my site visit and the site survey, the course was not constructed according the drawing and figures presented. The Structure #1 was not constructed, Structures # 3 and #4 are shown in different locations, and are much smaller than indicated. (Note that the site survey provides some indication of the present location of the structures, but it is not an as -built design drawing.) In short, the provided design information is at a conceptual design level and does not reflect what was actually built. This lack of design information precludes any basic or advanced hydraulic analysis, evaluation, or review. b. Insufficient Analysis to Access the Hydraulic Performance of the Course • The Applicant does not provide information or an indication that analysis or adequate design calculations were conducted. Results of any hydraulic analysis are not presented. This information would include hydraulic profiles showing depths, hydraulic gradients, velocity patterns, and information regarding the hydraulic jumps (waves or holes) that are created by some of the features. The basic weir equation was applied at one cross section for two flows, however this calculation does not provide sufficient or accurate information for adequate et/him -lion related to the performance or impacts of the course. Furthermore, application of the basic weir equation was applied and interpreted incorrectly. Specific issues related to the application of the weir equation are: • The weir calculations are shown only at Structure Number 1. This structure was not constructed. • The weir configuration or cross - section is shown as a single arc, but the dimensions dictate that it is not a single arc. In other words, the shape of the weir is not determinable from this figure. • The weir calculation at Structure Number 1 (had it been built) would only provide information immediately upstream of the course and only partial and limited information related to the hydraulic conditions created only by Structure Number 1. • Weir calculations only provide limited information at certain cross - sections of the river and cannot be used to predict the vast majority of hydraulic conditions in a whitewater course. • The weir equation 'calculation shown does not predict the minimum depth in the course. • The weir equation calculation does not predict the depth in any part of structure as shown on the section view. • The water surface shown in the profile view cannot be determined with the weir equation. • The weir equation used, applies to a control section with a wide flat crest or bottom, and not the curved invert shown. In summary, the analysis shown is not highly informative, and is inadequate for design purposes. Standard of practice for hydraulic structures that are much simpler include one, or two dimensional computer modeling, sediment transport, and seepage or piping analysis. Efficient design of a whitewater course, which involves very complex hydraulics, includes physical modeling or three- dimensional computer analyses. • • PAKIR \Nrenulli\I IPPPR (,l IIUIJL rThJ FlMAI OFD/IGT.inLQfl..2 d.... _