Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />BC <br />~ <br /> <br />Brown and Caldwell <br />Consultants <br /> <br />7535 East Hampden Avenue <br />Suite 403 <br />Denver <br />Colorado 80231.4838 <br />(303) 750.3983 <br />FAX (303) 750.1912 <br /> <br />r,Wrp <br /> <br />Sip 2 4 1991 <br /> <br />September 23, 1991 <br /> <br />Mr. Frank M. Akers, Chief <br />Project Planning & Construction Section <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />721 State Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> <br />Corps of Engineers <br />Review CommenJs on <br />Union Avenue Dam Modijications <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Akers: <br /> <br />Brown and Caldwell has reviewed the Corps of Engineers comments on the Union Avenue <br />Dam Boating Modifications, final design submittal. We have responded below to all their <br />issues and included supporting documentation and calculations where requested. <br /> <br />Review comments of John Monzingo, Chief, Geotechnical Branch concerned the care of <br />water during construction. Requirements are not stated on the plans, however they are <br />covered in the various technical specifications. Of particular note is Section 02200 <br />"Earthwork" in part B of the project manual. <br /> <br />The embankments will be constructed in the dry. The contractor is required to divert the <br />flow away from the construction area. Foundations for the embankments are to be <br />dewatered prior to material placement and compaction. One-half of the embankment will <br />be constructed at a time. Water will be diverted from side to side of the river as necessary. <br /> <br />With normal winter low flows less than 50 cfs below the Englewood intake diversion, we <br />anticipate minimal construction problems relating to water control. <br /> <br />The following are responses to the review comments of Jack Rose, Chief, Hydrologic <br />Engineering Branch. <br /> <br />The comment that "the submitted design water surface profile for the 1()()..year (Q=16,4OO <br />cfs) differs considerably from that shown on the October 1989 submittal" is correct. The <br />water surface profile shown on the final construction plans is the correct profile. Final <br />design calculations for the water surface profiles at discharges of 3,000 cfs and 16,400 cfs, <br />dated June 1991, are attached as Appendix A The two profiles (1989 and 1991) differ for <br />the following reasons: <br /> <br />21-5993{js <br />