My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD09102
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
FLOOD09102
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 10:08:01 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 4:04:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Logan
Community
Sterling
Basin
South Patte
Title
Sterling Flood Control Interceptor Channel Project
Date
4/1/2002
Prepared For
Sterling
Prepared By
URS
Floodplain - Doc Type
Project
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
144
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I I <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />SEmO.THREE Anected Environments and Environmental Consequences <br /> <br />3,2 LAND USE AND PLANNING <br /> <br />Land use varies within the project area. The project area contains land that is undeveloped! <br />uncultivated adjacent to the South Platte River and land used for transportation, including <br />railroad, highway, and county roads. Irrigated cropland is the primary land use within the overall <br />project area. Limited urban development (a cemetery, a city maintenance yard, and a few small <br />businesses) also exists within the vicinity of the project area. <br /> <br />3,2,1 Floodplain Encroachment (E.Q,11988) <br /> <br />The intent of Executive Order (E.O.) 11988 is to require Federal agencies to take actions to <br />minimize occupancy of and modifications to floodplains. Specifically, E.O. 11988 prohibits <br />federal agencies from funding construction in the 100-year floodplain (or 500-year floodplain for <br />a critical facility) unless there are no practicable alternatives. By its very nature, the NEP A <br />compliance process involves the same basic decision process to meet objectives found in the <br />Eight-Step Decision-Making Process (Appendix D). The Eight-Step Decision-Making Process <br />has been applied through implementation of the NEPA process followed as part of this EA. <br /> <br />Logan County and Sterling both participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFlP). By <br />participating in the NFlP, the County and City have implemented controls, zoning, and <br />development regulations, along with effective land use planning to reduce and control <br />development within the 100-year floodplain of both the South Platte River and Pawnee Creek. <br /> <br />3,2,1.1 <br /> <br />Alternative 1 - No Action <br /> <br />The No Action Alternative would not directly affect land use within and adjacent to the project <br />area. This alternative would not contribute to additional structures being located within the <br />100-year floodplains within Sterling or Logan County. <br /> <br />3,2,1.2 <br /> <br />Alternative 2 - Sterling Flood Control Interceptor Channel (Proposed <br />Action) <br /> <br />Most ofthe features of this alternative are located within the mapped 100-year floodplain of <br />Pawnee Creek and!or the South Platte River. The Pawnee Creek floodplain extends <br />approximately 1 mile west from Highway 6, and runs north to the City of Sterling. According to <br />the FIRM, the South Platte River 100-year floodplain extends west from the river to <br />approximately one-third mile east of Highway 6. <br /> <br />Since there is no practical alternative that could be employed to retain flood flows within the <br />banks of Pawnee Creek, the intent of the project is to capture and redirect overland flood flows <br />from Pawnee Creek. Therefore, regardless of the alternative selected, project features would <br />need to be located in the floodplain. The public was informed that the proposed action would <br />involve construction activities in a designated floodplain. When this alternative was evaluated in <br />regard to potential impacts to the designated floodplains, it received a favorable evaluation, as it <br />would not be expected to cause any additional flooding upgradient of the constructed channel <br />and would be expected to reduce flooding downgradient ofthe constructed channel. Based on <br /> <br />3-3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.