Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />A:lterO'ative,s to be studied could include feature and design alternatives: <br /> <br />Size, de"'rh, and eoILfigurationo\f o:8\bow <br />,.. .J;', "" "", <br />Rii.ve.!'instr~anrh~'bitatstructuJ;es <br />Iilesi:Fedpoud dep:th.s and slqpe cPllfigllFa:tions <br />Wetland designs <br />"Gu10h"excavatien for groundwater,fed nparian stands <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />There wecettain constraints: <br /> <br />. The Right Blink Terrace is required to remain at its eurrenteIevationlhorder toprotebtrhepoFI61s ofthe <br />RiverbendPonds NatUral Mea. ,. , <br /> <br />. The flood levee constructed adjacenttothe Iio!1t}rwestp!Dj;(chspartofth:e Timberline Roadnee~:sto <br />remain in plaGe to insure flood protection for TiIliberHIieRead. <br /> <br />. The western one,quarter of the site canbe1oweredbutnotraised. <br /> <br />. The remainder of the sitelan'deanbe raised or lowered';however,ifany work is done in the F'l\!ladWay it <br />will need to be analyzed using hy<lraliliomodels and will have tobeapprovedflirclUghFEMA. <br /> <br />. Lowering the southwest pond might be allowable, c{jIitr~to ewJierundei;Standin~s, bU.t itm~i1otbe <br />needed; . , <br /> <br />Views 0fTheScllonsor. The sponsor would be the City of Fort Collins. The City has a historyofland " <br />conservation and wetland restoration, and has integrated its stol'mAvatermana,gement\and wateIWay <br />conservation plans. City governi:11ent includes. a Nat\iral ResomoesDepartm:emwith a Natu:ral,he'as 'Program, <br />wmch is the'pointofconta-ct for this proj:ect. The City hasalfead:y seeUreaaconeei'>lp1lin: T6flliisrestbl!iitiQl.l <br />and itS.!'elated recreational use. In its lefterdated 12 Maroh 200'1, the City indicated its willingness an1lfability <br />to sponsor the project. The sponsor is ,not expecting a cash reimbursement asa result ofhighLERR'Vvalues, <br />and will work with us to avoid any substantial reimbursement. The City is wiJlingtoconsiderusin:g;easemeIits <br />or ,other acceptable methods to reduce LERRD credit values, as neede,dcto eIiiible Corps involvement. ' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Views Of Federal, State And Regional Agencies. The USFWS has been sent a first coordination lett,er, h.as <br />provided a lis.t ofT&E species, and requested $23,000 (unbudg\ltedpreviously)fornext FY. The S'~trei:IDi"ision <br />of Wildlife (DOW) does not support connecting the ponds to the river; it feels the ponds provide,the'l911stIocal <br />potential for game fish, and that that potential would be destroyed by connecting to the river withitscarp <br />p0pulation. The City's objectives, however, do not ino1ttde garne:l!ish.IrttIlat light, the State is wilJ,in;gtoassist <br />our planning and design for City objectives, is providing input ihtoin,strearn nnprovements, has provided <br />fishery data, and will be coordinated with further. <br /> <br />Status Of Ell vir on mental' Compliance. An environm.entll1 asseSSlhent wottldbe incorporated iI\te tIle <br />feasibility study, and would likely result in a FONS!. <br /> <br />Implementation Costs And Benefits: Estimated costs are surnmarized,below. These reflect the latest <br />quantities and unit costs derived ihthis study, rather than sponsor concept plan costs used earlier. 'The . <br />construction cost has roughly tripled. Study and design costs may also newly double, as data were needed that <br />exceeded earlier assumptions, and earlier estimates were also simply too low. The net result is that sponsor <br /> <br />-7- <br />L:ISection FolderslSECAIBoard Meetings\September 2002\Agenda item 19-Corps report altachement.doc <br />01:22 <br /> <br />09/03/2002 PM <br />