Laserfiche WebLink
<br />lOO-YE~ar elevation with no freeboa~d, :0 minimize cha~ges to <br />exist:.ng driveways and landscaping and to reduce costs. <br /> <br />Alternative A <br /> <br />Construct a new levee to meet federal cr~teria <br /> <br />with the westerly 300 feet having an iJVerage <br />height of 9 feet an~ the easterly 700 feet having <br />an average height of 4 feet (See cros~;-section <br /> <br />A-A) . <br /> <br />Jl.lternative B <br /> <br />.~ <br />1~ <br /> <br />Minimal raising of existing driveway and connecting <br />to high ground. The existing driveway, even thougt <br />is reasonably far f~om the river, would serve <br /> <br />'~ <br />10 <br /> <br />minimally as a levee. 500 ~eet o~ new levee connecting <br />the driveway to high ground will be constr~cte~. ~he <br />levee system will provide 100-year protection; however, <br />it will not be in comp~iance with federal levee <br />criteria. The purchase of flood insurance for <br />structures will remain a federal reguirment. (See <br />cross-section A-A.) <br /> <br />4.3. pro4ect Costs <br />. <br /> <br />~he costs of the primary a:te~na~ives (~hose fo~ t~e <br /> <br />n()r~h side of the river) were eS~lma~e6. In <br />CClst of each of the ~wo alterna~ives for the <br /> <br />adc::":io:-:., -:he <br /> <br />SOU':'!) s:'Q~ <br /> <br />,-,~ <br />~- <br /> <br />tt:e river was estimated. <br /> <br />Furthe~ aiscussion o~ the <br /> <br />feasibility o~ a structu~al prc~ect and oth~r Op~:.8~S fo~ <br /> <br />sc,~th side ~~ ?rov~6e~ ~~ Se=ti~n 5, ?ec~~me~sa~:O~5. <br /> <br />Costs fo~ the various alternatives were deveJ,ope6 by <br />using unit costs as listed i~ Table 2. Fi:l and C:_2}" <br />materials and riprap a:::-e assume:5 .~() b~ ava:lable i,1'1 :.:-:e <br />Dolores area. The unit cos~s We~e basea on the ex?erience <br />0= the u.s. Army Corps of En';:~~eers throughou': :cJo:::-260 B:1C <br />on the recent experience of the URE. Bureau o~ R€c:arnation <br /> <br />- ~ 4-. <br />