Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The major differences between these sub-alternatives are the design materials, since the <br />basic design concept and size of the proposed wall is very similar for each. The <br />construction site is a remote location with difficult access, which. greatly impacts the cost <br />of the construction. This access problem was a consideration in selection of design <br />materials for the sub-alternatives. Helicopter transportation will be required for delivery <br />of major construction components and construction workers will have to carry their tools <br />and supplies to the site up a steep drainage. <br /> <br />Selected Alternative <br /> <br />The engineering recommendation being made is to bid two altematives and compare bid <br />prices. The two alternatives to be bid are the rock..filled steel crib wall and the stone and <br />masonry gravity wall. These two alternatives haw very similar estimated construction <br />costs and proved a very similar level of protection. The cost of construction for the <br />concrete wall with tensioned anchors was more than 3 times higher than the other two <br />alternatives and was considered cost prohibitive. Sketches of the proposed construction <br />are attached in the appendix. <br /> <br />Institutional Considerations <br /> <br />A permit from the U.S.Army Corp of Engineers (COE) is required for work within a <br />natural channel. After discussions with Randy Snyder of the COE's Grand Jurlction <br />office, we have preliminarily determined that this work will fall under the Nationwide <br />Permit #3 that allows for maintenance of existing flood protection. A submittal of the <br />intent to do this work along with sketches of proposed work should be submitted to the <br />COE as soon as funding is secured to verify this d,~termination. <br /> <br />As part of the U.S. Army Corp planning process a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) <br />was prepared in March 1999 and is appended to this report. The: Draft EA found the <br />proposed project would have no significant adverse effects and no mitigation was <br />required. The Draft EA also stated that a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) would <br />be appropriate. The status of the Final EA and the issuance of a FONSI could not be <br />determined and the applicant will need to follow-up with the U.S. Army Corp. <br /> <br />Also as part of the U.S. Army Corp planning proc'~ss a Cultural Resource_study was <br />prepared as appended to this report. No mitigation was required for the proposed project. <br /> <br />The Skyrocket Creek Drainage is not mapped on the Federal Emergency Management <br />Maps as having a regulatory I DO-year flood plain. No flood plain permitting will be <br />required. <br /> <br />The diversion structure is located on private property within an I~asement dedic:ated to the <br />City of Ouray. An easement also exists to allow for access and maintenance of this <br />structure. Due to the proximity to the National Forest, notification of the Forest Service <br />is advisable. The Parks Department will need to obtain a permit for construction and <br />staging areas needed for the project from the building department. <br /> <br />8 <br />