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
c. Lack o In ormation Demonstratin: that the Course w Efficientl De <br /> Physical dimensions and results from an analysis or hydra • • • e are not presented. Therefore, it <br /> can only be assumed that such analysis and modeling were not used in determining the configuration <br /> of this course. To efficiently design a whitewater course or any complex hydraulic structure, an <br /> analysis and hydraulic model are required. Because equations that govern fluid flow are not linear, <br /> this modeling and analysis involves an iterative process. An in- channel whitewater course must <br /> perform over a wide range of flows, sediment loadings, tailwater conditions, and streambed <br /> compositions. These factors can greatly impact the design of an efficiently operating whitewater <br /> course. While qualitative and artistic judgment are critical in interpreting and guiding analysis and <br /> modeling, adequate analysis is required to design an efficient and optimized whitewater course. Due <br /> to the lack of detailed analysis or modeling, efficient design and optimization of the whitewater <br /> course, with respect of flow and performance, cannot have been conducted. Therefore, a <br /> determination of the minimum flow required for a reasonable recreational experience cannot be <br /> substantiated. <br /> d. Estimation of an Appropriate Flow Range to Provide a Reasonable Recreation Experience <br /> Due to the lack of supporting analysis, I cannot estimate one specific flow rate at this particular site <br /> without extensive analysis and design. Therefore, I have estimated a flow range of 250 cfs to 350 cfs <br /> based upon my professional judgment, and review of various documents and designs. Following is a <br /> summary of relevant discussion. <br /> OgoittIrsto Finty Rates. Based upon the analysis provided, the available stream flow supports a <br /> whitewater course designed at and above this 250 -350 range. <br /> • Statenents made by the Applicants Course Designer. The Applicant's expert states in his expert <br /> report that at 250 cfs, this course will attract many experienced boaters. This seems to indicate <br /> that he . • • - - . - - - • sonable recreational experience will be created at this flow rate. <br /> • urve Performed b Bo Shel in the Golden Case. The survey performed by Bo Shelby in the <br /> . : : �• - - . • : • _:: - * - ive review of the flow rates at which recreational boating is <br /> acceptable. Section 37- 92- 103(10.3) doesn't authorize applicants to apply for water rights that <br /> will provide an excellent recreation experiencether the statute allows applicants to obtain <br /> decrees for minimum stream flown hat will provide a reasonable recreation experience. <br /> Translating this language used in the survey conducted by Bo Shelby, in my opinion, flows <br /> between the low end of the acceptable range for less skilled slalom boaters or play boaters and the <br /> low end of the acceptable range for advanced slalom boaters or play boaters meet the minimal <br /> flow- for a reasonable recreation experience criteria. Based on this survey and the medians of this <br /> survey, this would put a minimum flow for a reasonable recreation experience at somewhere <br /> between 250 cfs and 350 s. (See table 9 on page 12 and on page 14). <br /> • Comparis�tiT'o ow rates in artificial courses used by paying customers. In order to determine a <br /> minimum stream flow to provide a reasonable recreation experience, it is helpful to examine <br /> other courses in the United States and in the world. <br /> The table below provides the basic dimensions and flow range for some of the better -known <br /> whitewater courses in the US and throughout the world. Typically these courses were built to <br /> host internationally sanctioned whitewater slalom events while providing a reasonable facsimile <br /> of a river experience for rafting and private boaters. The length is driven by the necessity of <br /> providing a regulation - length course for slalom, presently 240 to 400 meters (790 to 1310 feet). <br /> Tim Clr-op must be adequate to provide continuous action for the entire length without long <br /> slow stretches. <br /> • <br /> P:\NR \NrcouII UPPER GUNNISON FINAL REPORTricksGu3.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.