Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4. CONCLUSIONS. <br /> <br />4.1 The' alternat,ive levee a:r1d floodv.ray mit.igation with levee options <br />appBar to prc)vide thE~ most viable form of flood mitiqation. This conclusion <br />is based SOlE!ly on hyc,raulic concerns and dOI=S not include any evaluation of <br />the environmental irr,pact:s or cotll3truct:ioc COBts for the flood mitigation <br />optj.ons examined. <br /> <br />4.2 Limitations cf the study. ~rhe accuracy of the lOO-year water <br />Burface profile is conti.ngent: 01'1 thE:! aS13umption that all of the lOO-year <br />discharge flows through the railroad and high;,ay bridges. 'rhis probably <br />accounts for the difference in \...ater SUrfaCE! profi.les for the lOO-year <br />behreen this study and the Flood Insuranoe Study currently being finalized <br />for Sterling, Colorado. The loO--year water EIUrfaCE! prof.ile varies greatly <br />from the Flood Insurance Study wilile thl= 1.0--,50-, and SOD-year agree rather <br />well with the same study. Thi.s st:udy aLBo assumed t.hat all lE:tveeEI or berms <br />on the overbanks were fa.iled. 1?hiB a.::HJumpti.on cou.ld cause some E~rrors <br />should the levees or berms remain intcl.ct during a flood event. <br /> <br />8 <br />