Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Consultin~ Team <br />Montgomery Watson <br />FLO Engineering <br />Lidstone and Anderson <br />Woodward Oyde <br /> <br />Local Government and Organizations <br />Wasatch County <br />Wasatch Soil Conservation District <br />Provo River Water Users Association <br />40 Private Landowners <br />The Press <br /> <br />OwnerlSnonsor . <br />Central Utah Water Conservancy District <br />Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation <br />Commission <br /> <br />Federal Government <br />Bureau of Reclamation <br />Anny Corps of Engineers <br />Environmental Protection Agency <br /> <br />Environmental Grouns <br />Utah Outdoor Interests Coordinating Council <br />High Country Fly Fishers <br />Stonefly Society <br />Fish and Wildlife Service Audubon Society <br />Sierra Club <br />Salt Lake County Fish and Game Association <br />Utah Wildlife Leadership Coalition <br /> <br />State Government <br />Division of Wildlife Resources <br />State Engineer <br />Division of Parks and Recreation <br /> <br />Peer Review Committee <br />Dave Rosgen <br />Bill Platts <br /> <br />With each group having its own interests, biases and vision for the project, finding common ground and room for <br />consensus was a primary responsibility of the consultant and owner/sponsor project managers. At least as much <br />effort and resources were invested in this aspect of the project as in the actual technical design work. <br /> <br />Initial efforts at coordination included formation of a Provo/Wasatch Planning Coordination Committee to provide <br />input to the PRRP as well as other regional water resources-related planning issues. 1ms committee had over 40 <br />members and tended to be unwieldy for information dissemination and decision-making. As a result, a Technical <br />Advisory Committee was formed comprised of 31 members representing all of the key agencies and special interests. <br />This, too, was a cumbersome group to deal with on a frequent basis. Finally. to facilitate decision-making near the <br />end of the project, an Executive Technical Advisory Committee consisting of six key individuals was formed. 1ms <br />committee finalized decisions on important project elements. and assisted the project team in communicating these <br />decisions to the remainder of the stakeholders. <br /> <br />PRRP ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS AND OTHER FEATURES <br /> <br />Figures 3 and 4 depict portions of channel alignments for the ECMA (Alternative 2) and the RHRA (Alternative 3). <br />The figures show Reaches 4, 5 and 6, and are representative of the fundamental differences between the two <br />restoration approaches. <br /> <br />All alternatives would include acquisition (either easement or fee title) of a public access corridor along the river to <br />provide angler access to the resource. The access corridor would be fenced to prevent intrusion by cattle from <br />surrounding pastures. and to prevent encroachment onto private property from recreational users. A temporary <br />construction easement would be purchased to allow for construction of facilities to be located outside the public <br />access corridor. In addition, the RHRA would include purchase of a permanent flood easement for any areas inside <br />the (now unleveed) lOO-year floodplain and the proposed public access corridor. <br /> <br />Estimated alternative project costs are shown below. <br /> <br /> Estimated Estimated <br /> Estimated Right-of- W ay Annual O&M <br />Alternative Capital Cost Cost Cost <br />Instream Structures $1,014,000 $2,241,000 $20,400 <br />Existina Channel Modification $14.596,000 $2,308,000 $8,900 <br />Riverine Habitat Restoration $15.802,000 $3,656.000 $6.400 <br /> <br />5 <br />