Castle Valley council approves $300,000 cost share for Castle Creek culvert lining

The Castle Valley Town Council voted Feb. 19 to approve a town cost share of up to $300,000 to support a Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP)‑assisted project to rehabilitate the Castle Creek crossing on Castle Valley Drive.

Council members narrowed the scope to lining the existing culvert and adding headwalls and riprap protection rather than a larger drainage program. ‘‘We think that it will actually increase the capacity of that existing culvert by lining it,’’ said Hugh Flannery, an engineer who presented estimates and funding scenarios to the council.

Why it matters: The crossing has been damaged in repeated floods and is critical to local travel. Council members said protecting the crossing now could prevent repeated emergency repairs and long road closures. The town would provide the local match to access NRCS technical assistance and construction funding under the EWP program; the consultant showed multiple scenarios in which NRCS and the town share different portions of design and construction costs.

What the council approved: The motion (moved by Unidentified Speaker S2; seconded by Unidentified Speaker S7) authorized a Castle Valley cost share not to exceed $300,000 and to include the engineering contract as listed in the meeting packet (identified in the packet as the "Jones Denell" engineering contract for the Castle Creek culvert). The motion passed on a voice vote.

Engineering and budget details: Flannery described the preferred approach as lining the existing corrugated metal culvert with a structural HDPE liner, grouting the annular space, and adding concrete headwalls and riprap for scour protection. He said lining can be structural, may extend beyond the existing pipe ends, and can increase hydraulic capacity despite reducing nominal diameter because of a smoother internal surface. His presentation included a construction estimate example of $743,250 and a modeled scenario in which the EWP portion would be roughly $321,288 and the town match would bring the town contribution to about $300,000 in the consultant’s example. Flannery emphasized these are estimates, not contractor bids: "These are based on other projects we've done and conversations with contractors who do this on a regular basis," he said.

Timing and risks: Council members pressed on schedule and storm risk. The NRCS funding requires a project schedule and has deadlines (the packet noted a July 11 project deadline). Flannery said it is common to request extensions if construction would fall in a high‑flow/monsoon period and that most of the construction can be staged to limit full road closures. He said EWP covers armoring and certain construction elements while the town must provide match for some items; EWP technical assistance is paid on a percentage basis tied to construction totals.

Next steps: Staff will proceed with the contract and funding steps consistent with the approved $300,000 cap and work with NRCS and the consultant on the design and bid process. The council did not specify additional appropriation steps beyond the motion.

Ending: The council thanked the consultant and closed discussion after the motion carried.