1 Arkansas River Comp Act Administration 5 2003
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 -
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. -
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............................................... -
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). -
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. -
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 __________ _. -
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. -
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,