My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD04418
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
FLOOD04418
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:46:10 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 12:38:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Arapahoe
Stream Name
South Platte
Basin
South Platte
Title
Union Avenue Boat Drop - Project Proposals, Contract Info & Billing Invoices - Part 1
Date
1/1/1983
Prepared For
CWCB
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Contract
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
102
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
<br />.r <br /> <br /> <br />'-, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-3. <br /> <br />This is not a scientifically proven number, but a number based on judgement and <br />experience, and which we understand Englewood has generally agreed to. It may <br />eventually be necessary to require less or more, thus all design alternatives should <br />devise possible modifications/additions that could be made should problems arise. <br />This is not to say that we want to implement two complete designs, but that <br />consideration of alternative detail concepts may result in more flexibility later. <br /> <br />A minor amount of flow (1 to 2 cfs) could be spilled at the entrance of the bypass to <br />flush debris. <br /> <br />b. For flows above 100 cfs, the facility should send no less than 100 cis of flow to the <br />intake channe~ with no more sediment flow to the intake channel than 100 cis would <br />carry under present conditions, Thus the split flow to the whitewater bypass should <br />maximize the sediment flow to the bypass, and minimize the sediment flow to the <br />.intake channe~ and should be no more than that ratio of sediment to water described <br />in the previous sentence. The present design makes no special provisions to manage <br />the flow split and sediment movement. The low invert ofthe channel at and above the <br />intake channe~ if not modified, will cause a diversion of a majority of the river bottom <br />sediments to the intake, and a majority ofthe water (depending on total river flow) to <br />the bypass. This situation can potentially result in sedimentation in the intake channel <br />which could cover the primary intake screen. Again, no hydraulics at the intake are <br />illustrated or documented; thus, it is impossible to provide specific review comments. <br />A special combination of control sills, channel shaping and transitions to the intake <br />channel and the whitewater bypass will be necessary to create the proper flow split. <br />This will also have to work in conjunction with the features to control boater movement <br />and debris control. <br /> <br />c. The design must be coordinated with the radial gate operator and take consideration <br />of the points where the system senses water level. There are two sensing points, one <br />just downstream and the other just upstream of the primary intake screen. I believe <br />the transducers for the radial gate operator are working off the upstream sensing point. <br />(1bis is an adjustable feature.) If, for example, the overflow is moved and raised, then <br />the sensing point may have to be moved to work with this new overflow (e.g., above the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.