Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />OBJECTIVES <br /> <br />1-3 <br /> <br />Desired Optimum Flows <br />Assuming the same channel parameters as mentioned above, optimum flows for <br />design would preferably be 200 to 300 cfs. These flows would represent the <br />range required for larger inflatable rafts and similar crafts. These flows <br />would provide an enjoyable experience for the novice to intermediate boater <br />without creating any currents that feel too 'pushy", and rock dodging and <br />maneuvering will be easier. <br /> <br />High Flows <br />The maximum high-flow design for the channel should be in the order of 600 <br />to 800 cfs. Flows any higher than this could create very powerful <br />Hydraulic wave forms and turbulence, making it very intimidating to the <br />novice. If flow rates higher than 800 cfs are contemplated, a larger <br />channel section should be used. <br /> <br />As mentioned earlier, all structures should have a gradually curving nature <br />in order to avoid dangerous wave forms at high flows. The channel banks <br />should slope gently upward to accommodate high flows without creating <br />dangerous reflection waves. However, the hydrology of the South Platte <br />River is a given constraint for design. As a result, a design flow <br />criterion of 100 cfs will be selected as a goal for suitable boat chute <br />operation. <br /> <br />COST OF CONSTRUCTION <br />Design of the facility must be consistent with the budget to avoid <br />overruns. The budget will be established concurrently with the selection <br />of the alternative by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). <br /> <br /> <br />COST EFFECTIVENESS <br />The cost effectiveness of the various alternate boating by-pass options <br />will be analyzed. The cost effectiveness will be based upon the cost of <br />