Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />that the flow patterns should not change much with the decrease in angle and <br /> <br />, model changes would not be needed to document this. The construction cost <br /> <br />would be less because of the decreased length of the embankment. <br /> <br />3. The current configuration would include heavy riprap protection on the east <br /> <br />bank. In addition, the backwater and pool createdOy the next downstream <br /> <br />crest creates cushionino for the water overtoppino the crest, with a maximum <br /> <br />hydraulic drop of 3 feet. <br /> <br />4. The downstream boatchute should be on the river's west side (left bank), not In <br /> <br />the middle. The exlstino trail is located on the west side with easy access. <br /> <br />Access is limited on the east side due to the Englewood Intake structure and the <br /> <br />fencing around their property. The middle would be the least sccesslble. <br /> <br />5. With the boatchute In the middle and a V-Shape or horseshoe shape to the crest, <br /> <br />the possibility that boaters might miss the boatchute is somewhat greater. <br /> <br />Boaters would then need to paddle upstream to get back to the chute entrance. <br /> <br />Cliff Pugh mentloned.that the USBR was reachlno the limit of Its current budget and <br />would need additional money if the UDFCD 1I)0dlfication to the model was installed. <br />,,- - <br /> <br />Several attendees met in a conference room to discuss this sddltional funding. The <br /> <br />group waa joined by Phil Burgi of the USBR. Ben Urbonas made the point that we <br /> <br />could learn additional information from the model. C1Ift Pugh estimated that sbout <br />$10,000 to $15,000 additional would be needed to make the chanoes to the model, <br />run the additional tests, and write a final report that Included sl1 the testing <br /> <br />suggested. <br />