Laserfiche WebLink
<br />II <br />III <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />II <br />I <br />, I <br />I II <br /> <br />o Define the flood problems lIIId identify the needs at Pipestone; <br /> <br />o Identify at least one feasible solution for the Corps' implementation UDder <br />current policy; <br /> <br />o Determine whether or not the study should proceed to the feasJ'bility phase <br />(this includes identifying the Federal and BOD-Federal interest through usessing the level <br />of support and willingness of a local sponsor to share the cost of the feasibility phase); <br />and <br /> <br />o Produce a study cost-sharing agreement with the sponsar to share <br />feasibility-phase costs, including a scope of study and the study cost ..pm"te. <br /> <br />For purposes of this reconnaissance study, the Corps determined that the <br />alternative that would show the greatest potential for warranting a Federal interest in <br />proceeding to follow-on feasibility phase studies would be bridge upgrades and/or a levee <br />and channel improvement alternative. Based on this determination, prior to initialing this <br />study, the Corps decided that the most feasible flood damage reduction alternatives would <br />include improvements to bridge conveyance and/or channel modi1k-llhnnc with levee <br />protection. The levee and channel modificalion alternative would incoIporate cluInlV!l <br />improvement design from Hiawatha Avenue to U.S. Highway 75, wbiJc levees would be <br />designed to extend along both sides of the improved channel between Ninth Street and <br />U.S. highway 75. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />-"- <br />