Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5 <br /> <br />that the flow patterns should not change much with the decrease in angle and <br />\ model changes would not be needed to document this. The construction cost <br />would be less because of the decreased length of the embankment. <br />3. The current configuration would Include heavy riprap protection on the east <br />bank. In addition, thebackwater and pool created by the next downstream <br />crest creates cushioning for the water overtopping the crest, with a maximum <br />hydraulic drop of 3 feet. <br />4. The downstream boatchute should be on the river's west side (left bank), not In <br />the middle. The existing trail Is located on the west side with easy access. <br />Access Is limited on the east side due to the Englewood intake structure and the <br />fencing around their property. The middle would be the least accessible. <br />5. With the boatchute in the middle and a V-shape or horseshoe shape to the crest, <br />the possibility that boaters might miss the boatchute is somewhat greater. <br />Boaters would then need to paddle upstream to get back to the chute entrance. <br /> <br />Cliff Pugh mentioned that the USBR was reaching the limit of Its current budget and <br />would need additional money Ifthe UDFCD modification to the model was Installed. <br />Several attendees met In a conference room to discuss this additional funding. The <br />group Willi joined by Phil Burgi of the USBR. Ben Urbonllll mllde the point thllt we <br />could learn additional information from the model. Cliff Pugh estimated that about <br />$10,000 to $15,000 additional would be needed to make the changes to the model, <br />run the additional tests, and write a final report that Included all the testing <br />suggested. <br />