Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4. CONCLUSIONS. <br /> <br />4.1 The' alternative levee and floodway mitigation with leve,e options <br />appear to provide the most viable form of flood mitigation. This conclusion <br />is based solely on hydraulic concerns and does not include any eV2l1uation of <br />the environmental impacts or construction costs for the flood mitigation <br />options examined. <br /> <br />4.2 Limitations of the Study. Th,s accuracy of the lOa-year water <br />surface profile is contingent on the assumption that. all of the! lOO-year <br />discharge flows through the railroad and highway bri.dges. This, probably <br />accounts for the difference in water surface profiles for the. lOa-year <br />between this study and the Flood Insurance, Study currently being finalized <br />for Sterling, Colorado. The lOa-year wat;er surface profile varies greatly <br />from the Flood Insurance Study while the lO-,50-,and 500-year agree rather <br />well with the same study. This study alsc, assumed that all levees or berms <br />on the overbanks were failed. This assumption could cause some errors <br />should the levees or berms remain intact during a flood event. <br /> <br />8 <br />