My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD09522
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
FLOOD09522
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/11/2023 4:58:17 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 4:26:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Logan
Community
Sterling, Atwood
Basin
South Platte
Title
Pawnee Creek Flood Mitigation, City of Sterling, Town of Atwood and Logan County
Date
7/1/1999
Prepared For
Logan County
Prepared By
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde
Floodplain - Doc Type
Flood Mitigation/Flood Warning/Watershed Restoration
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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 <br />t <br />I, <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />a <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />'t <br />I <br />I <br />il <br /> <br />SECTIONTWO <br /> <br />alternatives Considered <br /> <br />The President's CEQ has developed regulations for the preparation of environmental impact <br />documents in compliance with NEPA. The CEQ requires an investigation and evaluation of <br />practicable alternatives as part of the environmental assessment process. <br /> <br />Sterling and Logan COUllty, in conjunction \\ith the Colorado Water Conservation Board, held a <br />series of public meetings to solicit input from the local commUllity regarding the type of flood <br />control project that would be acceptable to the community. The meetings were held in December <br />1997 and January 1998. The meetings in December were designed to obtain input from farmers, <br />urban residents, and business owners. During the January meeting, the refined alternatives were <br />presented to the commUllity for comments. There was general agreement in the meetings that for <br />a proposed alternative to be supported by the overall community, it would need to provide <br />benefits to Sterling, Atwood, and to agricultural lands flooded by Pawnee Creek. Input from the <br />commUllity at these meetings helped to determine which alternatives would be dismissed and <br />which alternatives would be retained for further evaluation. <br /> <br />2.1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED AND DISMISSED <br /> <br />2.1.1 Flood Control Levees <br /> <br />This alternative, identified as Alternative 2 in the applicant's Flood Hazard Mitigation Feasibility <br />Study, would restrict the 100-year flood flows from overflowing into the overbank floodplain <br />near where Pawnee Creek crosses Highway 6, would provide protection to agricultural lands, and <br />would provide protection to Sterling (rCON 1998). This alternative included the construction of <br />a system of flood control levees that would follow the north bank of Pawnee Creek, beginning <br />upstream of COUllty Road (CR) 29 and continuing east to Highway 6. The conveyance capacity <br />of the bridge for the southboUlld lanes of Highway 6 would be increased by adding four 20-foot <br />by 8- foot concrete box culverts west of the existing bridge. The existing timber bridge for the <br />northbound lanes of Highway 6 would be replaced by the Colorado Department of Transporta- <br />tion (COOT) and the span of the new bridge would have the capacity to pass the 100-year flood <br />flows. Fill material presently beneath the UPRR bridge would be removed to open the entire <br />span. A second system of levees and a floodwall would be constructed to convey storm water <br />from the UPRR bridge downstream to the 100-year floodplain of the South Platte River. When <br />compared to other alternatives, this alternative required the construction of more levees on agri- <br />cultural land. Additionally, if a flood of greater than the 100-year design flood occurred, levees <br />constructed upstream of the Highway 6 bridges with the required 3-foot freeboard could increase <br />the level of flooding in Atwood (ICON 1998). Due to negative impacts associated with the large <br />amoUllt of agricultural lands that would be required for the flood control facilities and the <br />potential for greater flood damage in Atwood, this alternative was eliminated from consideration. <br /> <br />2.1.2 Upstream Flood Control Reservoirs <br /> <br />This alternative, identified as Alternative 3 in the applicant's Flood Hazard Mitigation Feasibility <br />Study, is a series of upstream flood control detention dams. With this alternative, seven <br />detention structures would be constructed in the upper watershed to temporarily store <br /> <br />2-1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.