My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Rule 26(A)(2) Disclosure of the CWCB and the State and Division Engineers
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Rule 26(A)(2) Disclosure of the CWCB and the State and Division Engineers
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2010 1:28:03 PM
Creation date
6/10/2010 10:28:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Golden RICD
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
1/26/2001
Author
Ken Salazar, Bo Shelby, Doug Whittaker
Title
Rule 26(A)(2) Disclosure of the CWCB and the State and Division Engineers
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.
/
18
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
Descriptions will include a brief review of important course features for each opportunity, and a <br />general description of how flow levels affect those features. <br />Flow Requirements for Boating Opportunities <br />Flow evaluation curves will be developed for each of the opportunities described above. A table <br />Will summarize acceptable and optimal ranges for each of those opportunities; a summary figure <br />may show how ranges for opportunities may overlap, while certain parts of the flow regime may <br />not provide for any specified opportunity. <br />Comparing Current and Potential Flow Regimes <br />A final section of the supplemental report will compare the number of days for each opportunity, <br />under various flow claims, in illustrative year (to be determined after review of available <br />hydrological information). We will also present figures for an illustrative year that compare: <br />• A fixed time claim as requested by Golden. <br />• A trigger claim with two triggers per opportunity (at representative or best flow and low <br />end of optimal range). <br />• A percentage -based claim using same amount of water as the trigger claim. <br />A table comparing the number of days for each opportunity with Golden's fixed time <br />claim, trigger claim, percentage based claim. <br />IV. Opinions <br />1. The Golden water right claim is not well articulated, fails to systematically organize <br />available information, and uses professional judgments from a single source (the course <br />designer). These judgments appear to lack the precision necessary in this decision <br />environment. <br />2. The Golden water right claim is based on information that was not developed from the <br />generally accepted protocol for assessing flow needs for whitewater recreation. <br />3. The Golden water right claim fails to adequately define "world class" whitewater boating <br />and therefore fails to associate flow needs with a specifically articulated recreation <br />opportunity. <br />4. A more appropriate goal is to provide a diversity of high quality recreation opportunities, <br />each of which is clearly defined and associated with specific flows. <br />5. The Golden water right claim fails. to identify important flow- dependent attributes of <br />recreation opportunities, or show how course features were designed to provide those <br />attributes. <br />6. The Golden water right claim fails to specify recreation opportunities (and attributes.) <br />with associated flow needs. Golden should have specified whitewater boating <br />opportunities with acceptable and optimal flow ranges for each. <br />Clear Creek Whitewater Park flow assessment / January 2001 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.