Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br /> <br />-4- <br /> <br />As a result, ratings of each of the alternatives resulted in the rejection <br />of Alternative Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Alternative Nos, 4 and 5 were considered <br />satisfactory for further hydraulic analysis. The alternative rating <br />results are presented below. <br /> <br /> ALTERNATIVE RATINGS <br /> Alternative <br />Evaluation Factor No.1 No. 2 No.3 No.4 No. 5 <br />Water Availability and <br />Sediment Transport 2 2 1 4 4 <br />Cost 5 4 5 1 2 <br />Safety and Liability 4 4 5 2 1 <br />Site Compatibility 4 5 5 2 1 <br />Limitation of Use 5 4 4 2 1 <br />Total 20 19 20 11 9 <br />HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN <br /> <br />Utilizing standard hydraulic engineering methodologies and engineering <br />layouts by recreation boating experts, coupled with the techniques and <br />special features incorporated into similar projects as previously <br />described, conceptual-level engineering design of Alternative Nos. 4 and 5 <br />were performed. <br /> <br />Plan and profile engineering drawings have been prepared and are presented <br />herein for both alternates under consideration. <br /> <br />Both Alternate Nos. 4 and 5 are similar in cost and in meeting the basic <br />objectives for function of the boat chute. <br /> <br />Alternative No. 4 represents a boat chute which will satisfactorily operate <br />with a flow range of from 50 to 800 cfs, adequately providing passage for <br />kayaks and rafts around the Union Avenue dam. <br />