Rule 26(A)(2) Disclosure of the CWCB and the State and Division Engineers

Home Browse Search

• The Lacy report focuses on identification of a single flow (1,000 cfs) during the prime boating season, although there is tangential discussion of how there may be a range of optimal flows (500 to 1,200 cfs). The Hagenstad et al. report, by contrast, implicitly recognizes use of a far broader range of flows (from 0 to 1,000+ cfs) by associated use levels with different flow ranges. The Lacy report fails to explicitly distinguish different opportunities, or quality differences within any single opportunity, that may be provided with different flow ranges. • The Lacy report uses a single person's professional judgment in support of the 1,000 cfs "optimum" flow; even if he is the course designer, there is no outside corroboration from other users about the evaluations of flows. • There is no discussion in the Lacy report of the designer's expertise in making judgments about optimum flow needs for different types of boating; without questioning his extensive experience or his ability to understand many of these issues in designing these types of courses, judgments from a- single source have limitations. • The information on use levels for different ranges of flows in the Hagenstad et al. report implies a correlation between use and quality (historical use method). This method has significant flaws. • The Lacy report implicitly recognizes that lower flows may have utility for other opportunities, but there is no explicit discussion of this concept. • The Lacy report is offered in support of a "fixed time claim" of 1,000 cfs from May through July, and lower flow claims in other months based on median flow availability. The Lacy report and the water right application both fail to recognize potential waste and inefficiencies in this basic fixed time claim (see Whittaker and Shelby, 2000).. • The Lacy report and the water right application fail to recognize alternative claims that might be able to provide for a range of high quality boating opportunities on the course while also providing water for other uses (thus meeting the waste /efficiency requirement of the decision environment). III. Planned Work to Assess Flow Needs for Clear- Creek Whitewater Park This section outlines additional work that is being conducted to assess flow needs for high quality recreation on the Golden course. Sections describe planned methods, the format of results, and a summary of likely findings and discussion points. The supplemental expert report for Dr. Shelby will provide additional information about this work upon its completion, along with results and discussion. Methods Information will be based on several sources: 1) existing literature about the river (reports and other documents, including hydrology information); 2) structured phone interviews with people who know about recreation and flows on the river; 3) on -site reconnaissance of the whitewater park; and 4) office -based flow need assessment formulae. Additional information about each is given below, along with a discussion of how this information is likely to be integrated and used to for opinions about flow needs for the Golden course. Clear Creek Whitewater Park flow assessment / January 2001 4