Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Dry Ceda r Creek <br /> <br />Plan 1 - Flood flows in Dry Cedar Creek are contained in the channel <br /> <br /> <br />nearly everywhere along the entire length through the study area. <br /> <br /> <br />Only a small area near the confluence with the Uncompahgre River <br /> <br />is inundated. A sound policy of noodpla'in management would be <br /> <br />adopted to prevent an increase in flooding prOblems in the future. <br /> <br />Any existing structures in the floodplain could be protected by <br /> <br />flood-proofing, or could be acquired. <br /> <br />Plan Selection <br /> <br />The previously described alternatives were presented to the Technical <br /> <br />Committee, consisting of representatives of the City of Montrose, and the <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board, at a meetin~J held in Montrose on <br /> <br />August 11, 1980. The details of the various alternatives, along with the <br /> <br />advantages and di sadvantages, were di scussed. Tfle Techni ca 1 Committee <br /> <br />referred the matter to the Montrose City Council, who decided which plan <br /> <br />best suited the needs of the city. PI an 3 Vias chosen for Montrose Arroyo <br /> <br /> <br />and Cedar Creek, while Plan 1 was decided upon for Dry Cedar Creek. These <br /> <br />plans woul del i mi nate damage to structures caused by f1 oods up to the <br />\.VIII \o.R.~\Do'1t'" <br />lOCi-year event. There~, "residual damages" .wtt+e'R-'-SftetH-G...{H;Wl'- after <br />it <br /> <br />the plans are implemented. Clean-up and debris removal is assumed to be <br /> <br />part of the normal maintenance program. <br /> <br />Preliminary Design <br />Pre1 iminary design and cost estimati Ilg were comp'IE~ted by Gingery <br /> <br />Associates for the selected flood control alternatives. <br /> <br />For Montrose Arroyo, Plan 3 was chosen which proposes improvements <br /> <br />to crossing structures to increase the channel capacity to the 100-year <br />-..-.....-. <br /> <br />- 29 - <br />