DOCSLIB.ORG

Cumulative Impacts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cumulative Impacts SECTION 4 Cumulative Impacts Environmental regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) As a basis for analyzing cumulative effects require federal agencies to consider direct, in this EA and for other transportation indirect, and cumulative effects of a proposed projects, CDOT prepared a report entitled, federal action. Direct and indirect effects are Sustaining Nature and Community in the discussed earlier in Section 3 of this I-25 Pikes Peak Region (A Sourcebook for Environmental Assessment. Cumulative effects Analyzing Regional Cumulative Effects). are discussed below. Cumulative effects, or impacts, result from the incremental impact of an action when added to Sourcebook for Analyzing Regional Cumulative other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Effects). This document examines big-picture future actions regardless of what agency (Federal environmental trends in the region, based on the or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other assumed implementation of current land use and actions. Cumulative impacts can result from transportation plans, including the projects listed individually minor but collectively significant above. The document is included in the Technical actions taking place over time. Appendices to this EA. If an individual project has no direct or indirect The goals of the regional cumulative effects effects upon a resource, then it also has no analysis were to provide a regional framework for cumulative effects upon that resource. According evaluating the cumulative effects of the four to federal guidance, cumulative effects analysis transportation projects, and to develop should focus on resources that are important and comprehensive strategies to reduce, mitigate, or relevant (“Count what counts”). reverse negative environmental trends and support sustainability and quality of life in the Pikes Peak region. Regional Cumulative Two expert panels focused on community Effects Analysis resources and natural resources, respectively, and identified as their overall goals the sustainability This Environmental Assessment for Interstate 25 of quality of life (people’s overall well-being) and capacity improvements was begun by the biodiversity (variety of life in all of its forms, Colorado Department of Transportation at a time including ecosystem diversity). The study uses the when Environmental Assessments for several concept of sustainability as an approach for other transportation projects in the region were addressing cumulative effects in the region, and also imminent. Environmental Assessments for identifies the following topics, or “indicators,” to capacity improvements on Powers Boulevard and frame sustainability issues: Woodmen Road are indeed well underway, while a South Metro Accessibility Study will evaluate A. Landscape Patterns east-west corridor solutions in the general vicinity B. Water Quality and Quantity of Drennan Road. C. Air Quality D. Transportation Patterns Recognizing the potential for multiple E. Noise Levels environmental processes to be looking separately F. Visual Character at cumulative effects, CDOT with the cooperation of various community groups, resource experts, The elements listed above relate in various ways to and citizens has prepared a cumulative effects the resources analyzed in this EA. For example, resource document entitled, Sustaining Nature and the Landscape Patterns topic addresses several of Community in the Pikes Peak Region (A the resources, including Land Use, Parks and Trails, Historic and Cultural Resources, DEN/E072003002.DOC 4-1 Threatened and Endangered Species, Wetlands, Creek and Chico Creeks watersheds, but also the and Floodplains. A list identifying the north-flowing Kiowa and Cherry Creek corresponding sections between the National watersheds within El Paso County). Environmental Policy Act topics and the Cumulative Effects Analysis is provided in The regional cumulative effects analysis noted that Table 4-1. appropriate timeframes for examining individual environmental resources vary, depending on data TABLE 4-1 availability and other factors pertaining to the Corresponding Sections Between the National Environmental resource in question. It should be noted that the Policy Act Topics and the Cumulative Effects Analysis alignment of I-25 through Colorado Springs was National studied and selected in the 1940s, and the roadway Environmental Policy Corresponding Section of was constructed during the late 1950s, opening in Act (NEPA) Topic Cumulative Effects Analysis 1960. At that time, environmental data was not Land use Landscape Patterns collected consistently, or, in the case of some environmental resources, not collected at all. For Traffic Traffic Patterns example, air quality data was not collected prior to Air quality Air Quality the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970. Noise Noise Levels A. Landscape Patterns Farmlands Landscape Patterns The arrangement of landscape components is Section 4(f) / 6(f) Landscape Patterns critical from both a biological and human Ecology Landscape Patterns perspective. Appropriate landscape patterns can help sustain quality of life and biodiversity. This is Threatened or Landscape Patterns because people need access to such places as endangered species factories, offices, schools and stores, and wildlife Wetlands Landscape Patterns need access to places for eating, finding cover, breeding and drinking. If the needed resources Floodplains Landscape Patterns aren’t accessible, life can be difficult or Hydrology Landscape Patterns impossible. Water Quality and Quantity Landscape patterns do not focus on the narrow Water Quality Water Quality and Quantity aesthetic issue of landscaping, but rather address Senate Bill 40 Landscape Patterns the broad overall form and function of land use (Wetlands approval by patterns in terms of how well they serve the needs the Colorado Division of Wildlife) of people and nature. 401 Permit (Clean air) Air Quality Landscape Patterns: Past 402 Permit (Clean Water Quality and Quantity The population of El Paso County was water) approximately 144,000 in 1960, and the City of 404 Permit (Wetlands) Landscape Patterns Colorado Springs had approximately 70,000 residents. In terms of population, the Visual Visual Character Colorado Springs was smaller than the City of Pueblo was in 1960, when I-25 was opened The regional cumulative effects analysis generally through both cities (Today, Colorado Springs is looked backward in time as far as to the mid- about three times the size of Pueblo). Interstate 1950s, and as far forward in time as the year 2025, 25’s construction did displace homes and which is the planning horizon year for the PPACG businesses, but the roadway paralleled already Destination 2025 Regional Transportation Plan. existing linear barriers in the form of freight Community resources were examined within the railroad tracks and Monument Creek. framework of political boundaries (the planning region covered by the Pikes Peak Area Council of A study that ultimately led to the alignment of I-25 Governments), while natural resource issues were in its current location had considered other more conducive to examination in terms of alternative alignments, including one on the watersheds (primarily, the south-flowing Fountain eastern edge of development, Union Boulevard. 4-2 DEN/E072003002.DOC However, like most other “big” cities, Colorado Increased vehicle traffic on more and more roads Springs chose to have the freeway built to provide have fragmented habitats and created barriers to convenient access to the central business district animal movement, while also helping to disperse downtown. the seeds of noxious and invasive plants. Other grassland species native to the semi-arid Pikes A major impetus for growth in the region has been Peak region have been displaced as increasing the establishment and growth of military bases, numbers of human inhabitants planted countless including Fort Carson, Ent Air Force Base (now non-native trees and Kentucky bluegrass lawns. the U.S. Olympic Training Center), the U.S. Air Native species of mammals and birds have given Force Academy, the North American Air Defense way to opportunistic species better adapted to the Command, Peterson Air Force Base, and Falcon urban forest. Air Station (now Schriever Air Force Base). Most recently, in the aftermath of the September 11, Landscape Patterns: Present 2001, terrorist attacks, Colorado Springs was also selected as the headquarters for the Northern Today, the Interstate 25 corridor is largely Command, which is the nerve center for dealing developed, and the ultimate inadequacies of with any future attacks against the American 1960s-era interchange designs for third homeland. millennium traffic volumes has led to interchange reconstruction and other safety projects that These military installations transformed a once reinforce I-25’s linear barrier qualities. Five sleepy resort city into Colorado’s second largest existing noise walls along the corridor add to this metropolitan area. Growth boosters in the 1960s perception. were proud of their “space-age” city. The influx of military personnel generated demand for housing, Downtown Colorado Springs has developed into a durable goods, and consumer goods and services. vibrant center of office buildings, restaurants and Many retirees from the military bases enjoyed the small shops. Academy Boulevard is lined with Colorado Springs climate and decided to make the “big box” retailers, but is starting to lose business region
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Arkansas River Flood of June 3-5, 1921
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ALBERT B. FALL, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE 0ns SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 4$7 THE ARKANSAS RIVER FLOOD OF JUNE 3-5, 1921 BY ROBERT FOLLANS^EE AND EDWARD E. JON^S WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1922 i> CONTENTS. .Page. Introduction________________ ___ 5 Acknowledgments ___ __________ 6 Summary of flood losses-__________ _ 6 Progress of flood crest through Arkansas Valley _____________ 8 Topography of Arkansas basin_______________ _________ 9 Cause of flood______________1___________ ______ 11 Principal areas of intense rainfall____ ___ _ 15 Effect of reservoirs on the flood__________________________ 16 Flood flows_______________________________________ 19 Method of determination________________ ______ _ 19 The flood between Canon City and Pueblo_________________ 23 The flood at Pueblo________________________________ 23 General features_____________________________ 23 Arrival of tributary flood crests _______________ 25 Maximum discharge__________________________ 26 Total discharge_____________________________ 27 The flood below Pueblo_____________________________ 30 General features _________ _______________ 30 Tributary streams_____________________________ 31 Fountain Creek____________________________ 31 St. Charles River___________________________ 33 Chico Creek_______________________________ 34 Previous floods i____________________________________ 35 Flood of Indian legend_____________________________ 35 Floods of authentic record__________________________ 36 Maximum discharges
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Arkansas River Comp Act Administration 5 2003
    1 2 3 4 ARKANSAS RIVER COMP ACT ADMINISTRATION 5 2003 ANNUAL MEETING 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DECEMBER 9, 2003 15 16 17 18 19 20 Lamar Community Building 21 610 South Sixth Street 22 Lamar, Colorado 1 1 2 3 4 CHAIRPERSON: Federal Representative, Mr. Robin Jennison 5 6 7 FOR KANSAS: 8 Mr. David Pope 9 Mr. Randy Hayzlett 10 Mr. David Brenn 11 Mr. Lee Rolfs 12 13 14 15 FOR COLORADO: 16 Mr. Rod Kuharich 17 Mr. James Rogers 18 Mr. Tom Pointon 19 Mr. Dennis Montogomery 20 21 22 23 2 1 ROBIN JENNISON: If I could get your attention, I think we will go ahead and call the 2 Arkansas River Compact Administration to order. I'm Robin Jennison, the Federal 3 Commissioner. I think what we'll do, is we'll just start over here and let Kansas 4 introduce their self, then Colorado can introduce their self. After we do that, there's not a 5 lot of people here and I think it would be good ... We do have a sign up sheet that is 6 floating around and I would ask that you would sign that. And also I think we're going to 7 start up here and just give everybody a minute to stand up and say who they are and who 8 you are with. I think it would kind of give everybody a flavor for who's here and help 9 everybody to get to know everybody. Kansas. Randy, do you want to start? 10 Randy Hayzlett from Lakin.
    [Show full text]
  • 21. Chico Creek Watershed 21.1
    21. Chico Creek Watershed 21.1. Introduction and Overview Chico Creek Watershed is about 736 square miles and is located in the southeastern portion of El Paso County and the northeastern portion of Pueblo County, immediately east of the Fountain Creek Watershed. The two main subwatersheds within the Chico Creek Watershed are Upper Black Squirrel and Chico Creek. Within the Upper Black Squirrel Sub-watershed, there are many existing districts, developed areas, and a number of major urban developments that were approved at the conceptual stage. Chico Creek Subwatershed consists of large farms and has several unique ecosystems. Both of these areas are included in the South Central Comprehensive Plan, which is a small area element of the El Paso County Master Plan. 21.2. Land Use The Upper Black Squirrel Subwatershed is primarily a rural area that consists of existing and proposed small clusters of single-family homes, and between these clusters it is primarily rural in nature. The established subdivision and development patterns are expected to remain the same except for the possible redevelopment of certain parcels with lower density uses, especially next to major intersections. Major growth is also limited to areas where services, including roads, can be provided. The primary land use in the Chico Creek Subwatershed is agriculture/farming followed by residential. The Colorado State Land Board is the largest single landowner in the Chico Creek Subwatershed. The Land Board owns about 215,000 acres of land (about half of the total watershed area) in the Chico Creek Basin and 260,000 acres of mineral rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts and Mitigation
    SECTION 3 Impacts and Mitigation This section summarizes the results of the Transportation Resources and Issues............ 3-3 environmental analyses conducted for this EA. Human Resources and Issues ....................... 3-13 The resource areas that were studied are consistent Socioeconomics ........................................ 3-15 with the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Justice............................... 3-19 (NEPA) and implementing regulations, as well as Right-of-Way............................................ 3-25 CDOT and Federal Highway Administration Community Resources and Issues................ 3-31 (FHWA) guidelines. Detailed studies for these Neighborhoods.......................................... 3-33 resource areas were completed, and the resulting Parks and Recreation ................................ 3-37 information is contained in Technical Memoranda. Land Use................................................... 3-47 The Technical Memoranda are contained in the Visual Resources....................................... 3-51 Technical Appendices to this EA. Air Quality ................................................ 3-57 Noise ......................................................... 3-63 The project study area can generally be described Water Resources and Issues ......................... 3-73 as extending approximately one-half mile from Watersheds................................................ 3-75 either side of the centerline of I-25, as shown in Floodplains...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fountain Creek Watershed Stormwater
    Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control & Greenway District FACT SHEET Stormwater Management ABOUT THE FOUNTAIN CREEK WATERSHED A watershed is a region that drains into a river, river system or other common body of water. The Fountain Creek Watershed is located along the central front range of Colorado. It is a 927-square-mile area of land and water that drains to the Arkansas River at Pueblo and, ultimately, to the Gulf of Mexico. The watershed’s boundaries are defined by the shape of the land – Palmer Divide to the north, Pikes Peak to the west, and a minor divide 20 miles east of Colorado Springs. Why is watershed protection important? Improving our waterways helps with water quality, stormwater management, flood prevention, creating recreational opportunities and nature habitat for wildlife. D O U G L A S C O U N T Y E L B E R T C O U N T Y OUR UNIQUE WATERSHED REQUIRES ADVANCED «¬67 Palmer Lake k Dirty Woman Creek e STORMWATER MANAGEMENT e r Teachout Creek C t Jackson Creek n me U.S. Air Monu Black Forest Creek Monument Fountain Creek drains a 927-square-mile watershed. That’s Force Academy ek Monument Branch re C ith E L P A S O C O U N T Y impressive, but it’s not unique. What IS unique is the extraor- m Black Squirrel Creek Woodland S Park Elkhorn Tributary dinary range in elevation. This watershed starts at 14,115 Green Mountain ¤£ feet – the top of Pikes Peak – and runs downhill to 4,640 feet Middle Tributary e Cree k 24 in k Falls P e e k r Dry e C (the confluence of Fountain Creek and the Arkansas River Cr Cre eek d d tonw o o n Colorado Springs ¤£ Cot a 24 S in Pueblo).
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of June 1965 in Arkansas River Basin, Colorado, Kansas, and New Mexico
    Floods of June 1965 in Arkansas River Basin, Colorado, Kansas, and New Mexico GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1850-D Prepared in cooperation with the States of Colorado, Kansas, and New Mexico and with agencies of the Federal Government Floods of June 1965 in Arkansas River Basin, Colorado, Kansas, and New Mexico By R. J. SNIPES and others FLOODS OF 1965 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1850-D Prepared in cooperation with the States of Colorado, Kansas, and New Mexico and with agencies of the Federal Government UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1974 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 74-600042 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington, D. C. 20402 - Price $2.35 (paper cove') Stock Number 2401-02483 CONTENTS Page Abstract __________________________________________ Dl Introduction ______________________________________ 1 Destructive forces at work _____________________________ 1 Floods and flood areas ______________________________ 4 Acknowledgments ___________________________________ 4 Relative magnitude of the floods __________________________ 5 Comparison with maximum floods known _____________________ 5 Comparison by frequency relations ________________________ 6 Causes ___________________________________________ 7 Antecedent conditions ________________________________ 7 Precipitation ______________________________________ 7 Rainfall on June 14-15 ____________________________ 10 Rainfall on June 16______________________________ 10 Rainfall on June 17______________________________ 11 Rainfall on June 18-19 ____________________________ 12 Description of the floods _________________ ________ 12 Arkansas River above John Martin Dam 13 Fountain Creek basin _____________________________ 13 Arkansas River Fountain Creek to Las Animas _ _ _ 13 Arkansas River Las Animas to John Martin Dam __________ _.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Setting
    C H A P T E R 11: R E G I O N A L S E T T I N G CHAPTER 11: REGIONAL SETTING INTRODUCTION The Regional Setting chapter is a result of the Transportation Reauthorization Act of 2006 (also known as SAFTEA-LU) which required Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Plans to contain a discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation activities for environmental resources affected by the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2035 RTP will provide many benefits to the human community in the metropolitan planning region because it will lessen traffic congestion, make the roadways safer, and improve public transportation. However, the addition of roadways, bridges, and more lanes as well as the large amount of construction needed to complete these projects will have a significant effect on the environment as well as the cultural and community resources in the region. The Regional Setting of the 2035 RTP divides the areas of impact down into seven (7) categories and looks at the severity of each to assess general areas of concern: 1) Natural Setting 2) Landscape and Vegetation 3) Biological Resources 4) Surface Water and Groundwater Issues 5) Cultural Resources 6) Community Resources 7) Air Quality The Regional Setting chapter recognizes that because so many of the ecological functions are so closely related, it is important to look at the whole picture to understand how each project will affect the greater area and take an entire ecosystem approach to assess the cause and effect. The chapter is divided into two sections: • SECTION II - Resource Description provides a discussion of each resource and the current conditions of that resource.
    [Show full text]
  • Parks Master Plan
    El Paso County Parks Master Plan Updated June 2013 Acknowledgements Board of County Commissioners Dennis Hisey, Chair Amy Lathen, Vice Chair Sallie Clark, Parks Liaison Darryl Glenn Peggy Littleton Administration Jeff Greene, County Administrator Monnie Gore, Deputy County Administrator Planning Commission Steve Hicks, Chair Jane Dillon Timothy Trowbridge Robert Cordova Jerome W. Hannigan Anna Sparks Dave Kinnischtzke Jim Egbert Anthony Gioia Park Advisory Board Jim Mariner, Chair Jane Fredman Barbara Remy Michael Straub Ann Nichols Jeff Cramer Anna Sparks Shirley Gipson Judy Tobias Terri Hayes Acknowledgements and Table of Contents i Master Plan Committee Dan Cleveland, Citizen, Chair Susan Davies, Trails and Open Space Coalition, Vice Chair Jeff Cramer, Park Advisory Board Jane Dillon, El Paso County Planning Commission Larry Fariss, Black Forest Trails Association Nancy Fortuin, Manitou Springs Open Space Advisory Committee Jane Fredman, Park Advisory Board William Hensley, Citizen Warren Hill, Citizen Tom Kassawara, City of Monument Bill Koerner, Trails and Open Space Coalition Chris Lieber, City of Colorado Springs/Parks Jim Mariner, Park Advisory Board Nathan Moyer, Palmer Land Trust Mike Pesicka, Town of Monument Larry Small, Fountain Creek Watershed, Flood Control and Greenway District Dave Smedsrud, City of Fountain Michael Straub, Park Advisory Board Cindy Tompkins, Town of Calhan, Town of Ramah Risë Foster‐Bruder, Friends of El Paso County Nature Centers Key Staff Tim Wolken, Community Services Department Director Elaine Kleckner,
    [Show full text]