Laserfiche WebLink
<br />them. The levee ends are not tied to high ground, but terminate <br />on the riverbanks. <br /> <br />The last two inspection sheets in Appendix B are labeled <br />"Miscellaneous" and refer to segments of narrow land separations <br />between the river and adjacent old gravel pits. These <br />separations were used as dikes to keep river waters from <br />intruding into the gravel mining operations. since these <br />separations appear similar to levees but have not been elevated <br />above original ground elevation, they were not included as part <br />of the levee inventory. Where these dikes have been elevated, <br />they are included as part of the inventory, with separate <br />inspection sheets for each. These separations were noted since <br />most of the pits behind the separations could be converted to <br />floodwater detention basins. The riverfront project bike path <br />corridor might also be considered for these areas of limited use <br />lands. <br /> <br />8. Potential Future Efforts. <br /> <br />Improvement of existing levees for flood control as well as <br />alternative flood control schemes should be considered in the <br />context of future planning along the riverfront and in <br />relationship to cost effectiveness and environmental impacts. <br />The valley-wide riverfront plan and system of trails being <br />evaluated by the Colorado Department of Parks and Recreation <br />offers opportunities for development of flood control measures in <br />conjunction with the execution of the plan. site A in the <br />inventory is an embankment created for the bike path. <br />continuation of the bike path could be accomplished such that <br />areas that warrant flood protection could be accommodated by <br />engineered embankments serving both purposes. <br /> <br />Some of the levees in the inventory traversed areas which <br />would sustain more significant flood damages than others. <br />Typically, residential, and industrial/commercial areas sustain <br />greater damages than agricultural lands. Cost effectiveness <br />should also be judged by the level of protection sought and the <br />costs associated with individual site protection. For example, <br />some areas could require substantial erosion protection for flood <br />control works in addition to the protection works themselves. <br />Lower levels of protection may be worth the risk if higher levels <br />of protection require unacceptably high cost. Consideration for <br />environmental values may suggest avoidance of development in <br />flood-prone areas. <br /> <br />The program tasks outlined by the State of Colorado <br />providing recommendations on future studies to develop a <br />improvement for the levee systems that were inventoried. <br /> <br />included <br />plan of <br />One <br /> <br />13 <br />