Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />I <br />~I <br /> <br />SECTlONFOUR <br /> <br />Summary <br /> <br />Three alternatives were evaluated in this EA. They include: No Action, Improving Routing of <br />Pawnee Creek Flood Flows, and Pawnee Creek Overflow Cutoff. Potential environmental <br />impacts for each of the three alternatives are summarized in Table 1. <br /> <br />The No Action Alternative would have no direct impacts on the environment. Flooding and the <br />associated impacts on Sterling. Atwood, and rural areas of Logan County would continue as in <br />the past. <br /> <br />Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) involves the construction of flood control/flood management <br />structures near the Riverside Cemetery in Sterling, near the Highway 6IUPRR bridges over <br />Pawnee Creek, and near Atwood. Combined, the constructed facilities at the three locations <br />would disturb approximately 45 acres of land. Of these 45 acres, 33 acres are classified as prime <br />farmland of which 28 of the acres would be restored to irrigated cropland. All project activities <br />are consistent with zoning in Sterling and Logan County. Hydrologic modeling indicated that <br />Sterling would not be flooded by the 100-year flood event. Flood elevations upstream of the <br />Highway 6 bridges would be reduced 4 to 6 feet; and flood elevations upstream of the UPRR <br />embankment at Atwood would be reduced 3 to 6 feet. No populations within the community <br />would be adversely affected, including minority and low-income populations. If the proposed <br />flood control structures had been in place during the 1997 flood event, flood damages would <br />have been reduced from $19 million to less than $8 million. Less than 0.1 acre of artificial <br />wetland would be disturbed by the construction of Alternative 2, and similar or greater quantities <br />would be created with the low-flow channel that would be constructed downstream from the <br />UPRR bridge. Traffic (both vehicular and rail), air quality, and noise would cause minor, short- <br />term adverse impacts during construction. Although no cultural resources are known to exist <br />within the project area, cultural resource surveys would be required on all areas to be disturbed <br />prior to any construction. <br /> <br />Alternative 3 involves the construction of flood controllflood management structures near the <br />Riverside Cemetery. The constructed facilities at this location would disturb approximately <br />41 acres ofland, of which 32 acres are classified as prime farmland of which 28 of the acres <br />would be restored to irrigated cropland. All project activities are consistent with zoning in <br />Sterling and Logan County. Hydrologic modeling indicated that Sterling would not be flooded <br />with up to the 100-year flood event. No populations within the community would be adversely <br />affected, including minority and low-income populations. If the proposed flood control <br />structures had been in place during the 1997 flood event, flood damages would have been <br />reduced from $19 million to less than $9 million. No wetland areas would be disturbed by the <br />construction of Alternative 3. Traffic (both vehicular and rail), air quality, and noise would <br />cause minor, short-term adverse impacts during construction. Although no cultural resources are <br />known to exist within the project area, cultural resource surveys would be required on all areas to <br />be disturbed prior to any construction. <br /> <br />4-1 <br />