My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Letter to CWCB Members May 10 2005 Re RICD For Buena Vista and Salida, Caffee County, Arkansas River
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
7001-8000
>
Letter to CWCB Members May 10 2005 Re RICD For Buena Vista and Salida, Caffee County, Arkansas River
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2014 4:55:04 PM
Creation date
5/1/2014 3:15:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Recreational In-channel Diversion
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
5/10/2005
Author
Taggart, Willaim, ASCG Inc
Title
Letter to CWCB Members May 10 2005 Re RICD For Buena Vista and Salida, Caffee County, Arkansas River
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Correspondence
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
Colorado Water Conservation Board Members <br />Mr. Thomas Browning, P.E., CWCB <br />Review of Lacy Report for Chaffee County Whitewater RICD <br />May 10, 2005 <br />Page 3 of 9 <br />illustration of locations and elevations of existing structures and facilities, flow patterns and special <br />hazards such as split flows and levees. Approvals of the analysis by the City, County, CWCB and <br />FEMA should be obtained, including related submittals. <br />4. Specific identification of boating problems and constraints. Hydraulic and whitewater performance <br />needs to be analyzed and documented, for both pre - project and proposed conditions. <br />No site is perfect, there are always problems. What are they for each site and how can they <br />mitigated or accepted? For example, isn't the Salida project in a flat water reach that has been <br />modified to artificially achieve competitive whitewater by creating drops that raise the common <br />flow regime and flood levels? With quantification of the flood characteristics of the candidate <br />reach of the river, what are the types of mitigation that can be considered (e.g. over bank <br />excavation, modifying the design to reduce adverse flood affects, acquisition of flood easements, <br />property acquisition, flood proofing)? <br />Specific Design Omissions and Problems include: <br />1. Lack of establishment of specific design goals, objectives, and criteria. With regard to each type <br />of boating activity and skill level, what are the design goals and objectives, and the specific design <br />criteria to satisfy each? For example, what are the dominating and other type of boating activities <br />which have and will take place, and the approximate percentage of total usage, and its assurance <br />(e.g. commercial rafting, 60 %, private rafting 20 %, closed deck whitewater 10 %, open deck <br />whitewater 5 %, competitive regional events 4 %, international competition 1 %). For each, what are <br />the specific design criteria, for example minimum depths and profiles at riffles and drops, <br />maximum and minimum velocity and drops, pools depths, numbers and types of features, flow <br />patterns and whitewater characteristics and mix of features desired? What is the criterion for <br />layout of a whitewater slalom course for these projects? What level of competition will be <br />satisfied? What proof is there that ruling bodies will approve the competition layout, features, and <br />course. When there is high water that satisfies the proposed water right, why won't the boaters go <br />to the more challenging or enjoyable reaches, thus minimizing usage of this reach? <br />q, <br />12596 WEST BAYAUD AVENUE, SUITE 200, LAKEWOOD, CO 80228 <br />303.458.5550 FAX 303.480.9766 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.