DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysis of the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Colorado

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analysis of the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Colorado CROP FOLD LINE CROP MARKS V a i l l , J . E . — A n a l y s i s o f Prepared in cooperation with the t h e Colorado Department of Transportation M a and the Bureau of Land Management g n i t u d e a n d F r e q u e n c y Analysis of the Magnitude and o f F l o o d s Frequency of Floods in Colorado i n C o l o r a d o Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–4190 U S G S / W R I R 9 9 – 4 1 9 U.S. Department of the Interior 0 Printed on recycled paper U.S. Geological Survey CROP CROP FOLD MARKS LINE COVER 1 and 4 - PRINT SOLID Analysis of the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Colorado By J.E. Vaill U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–4190 Prepared in cooperation with the COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and the BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Denver, Colorado 2000 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Box 25046, Mail Stop 415 Box 25286 Denver Federal Center Federal Center Denver, CO 80225–0046 Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Abstract.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose and Scope....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Previous Studies........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Approach...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Flood-Frequency Analysis at Streamflow-Gaging Stations............................................................................... 2 Regional Flood-Frequency Analysis.................................................................................................................. 4 Regression Analysis............................................................................................................................................................... 7 Multiple Regression and Drainage-Basin Characteristics ........................................................................................... 7 Generalized Least-Squares Regression........................................................................................................................ 7 Limitations and Accuracy of Regression Equations.................................................................................................... 8 Estimating Magnitude of Peak Discharges............................................................................................................................ 8 Gaged Sites .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Sites near Gaging Stations on the Same Stream.......................................................................................................... 10 Ungaged Sites .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Summary................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 References Cited.................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Supplemental Data................................................................................................................................................................. 15 FIGURES 1. Map showing boundaries of hydrologic regions and locations of streamflow-gaging stations in Colorado and adjacent States.................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Map showing generalized skew coefficients of the logarithms of annual maximum streamflow for Colorado and adjacent States ................................................................................................................................ 5 3. Graph showing flood-frequency curve for Lake Fork at Gateview, Colorado ............................................................ 6 TABLES 1. Regional flood-frequency equations, Colorado....................................................................................................... 9 2. Basin characteristics and the range of values used in the analysis.......................................................................... 10 3. Drainage-basin characteristics and flood-frequency data at streamflow-gaging stations........................................ 16 CONVERSION FACTORS AND VERTICAL DATUM Multiply By To obtain inch 25.4 millimeter foot (ft) 0.3048 meter mile 1.609 kilometer square mile (mi2) 2.59 square kilometer cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second CONTENTS III Analysis of the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Colorado By J.E. Vaill Abstract near gaging stations on the same stream when the ratio of drainage-basin areas is between Regionalized flood-frequency relations about 0.5 and 1.5, and for sites where the drainage need to be updated on a regular basis (about basin crosses a flood-region boundary or a State every 10 years). The latest study on regionalized boundary. Methods are presented for determining flood-frequency equations for Colorado used the magnitude of peak discharges for sites located data collected through water year 1981. A study at gaging stations, for sites located near gaging was begun in 1994 by the U.S. Geological Survey, stations on the same stream when the ratio of in cooperation with the Colorado Department drainage-basin areas is between about 0.5 and 1.5, of Transportation and the Bureau of Land and for sites where the drainage basin crosses a Management, to include streamflow data flood-region boundary or a State boundary. collected since water year 1981 in the regional- ized flood-frequency relations for Colorado. Longer periods of streamflow data and improved statistical analysis methods were used to define INTRODUCTION regression relations for estimating peak In Colorado, various Federal, State, and discharges having recurrence intervals of 2, 5, 10, local governments use hydrologic data collected 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 years for unregulated and published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streams in Colorado. The regression relations can be applied to sites of interest on gaged and in making decisions about the cost-effective planning ungaged streams. Ordinary least-squares regres- and design of highway bridges and culverts, flood- sion was used to determine the best explanatory plain management, reservoir management, and other basin or climatic characteristic variables for each water issues. The data are collected from a network peak-discharge characteristic, and generalized of streamflow-gaging stations operated by the USGS, least-squares regression was used to determine and part of that data is used to develop regression the best regression relation. Drainage-basin area, equations for determining the magnitude and mean annual precipitation, and mean basin slope frequency of floods on Colorado streams. were determined to be statistically significant Because of recent improvements in statistical explanatory variables in the regression relations. analysis, longer periods of record at more streamflow- Separate regression relations were developed for gaging stations, and the need to update regression each of five distinct hydrologic regions in the equations regularly (about every 10 years) as State. The mean standard errors of estimate and recommended by the Federal Highway Administration average standard error of prediction associated (FHWA) (L.A. Arneson, Federal Highway with the regression relations generally ranged Administration, oral commun., 1994), in 1994, the from 40 to 80 percent, except for one hydrologic USGS, in cooperation with the Colorado Department region where the errors ranged from about 200 of Transportation (CDOT) and the Bureau of Land to 300 percent. Methods are presented for deter- Management (BLM), developed new regression equa- mining the magnitude of peak discharges for tions for determining flood magnitude and frequency sites located at gaging stations, for sites located on unregulated streams. Abstract 1 Purpose and Scope Colorado. Jarrett and Costa (1988) developed regression equations for a relatively homogeneous This report presents the regression equations hydrologic foothill region in the South Platte River and the methods for determining the magnitude Basin (excluding drainage areas upstream from the and frequency of floods on unregulated streams in South Platte River at South Platte, Colo.). Each of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NPDES) INDIVIDUAL PERMIT to DISCHARGE STORMWATER from SMALL MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (Ms4s
    3800-PM-BCW0200e Rev. 8/2019 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Permit DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF CLEAN WATER NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) INDIVIDUAL PERMIT TO DISCHARGE STORMWATER FROM SMALL MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4s) NPDES PERMIT NO. PAI132224 In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq. (“the Act”) and Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law, as amended, 35 P.S. Section 691.1 et seq., Lackawanna County 1280 Mid Valley Drive Jessup, PA 18434-1819 is authorized to discharge from a regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) located in Lackawanna County to Roaring Brook (CWF, MF), Powderly Creek (CWF, MF), Lackawanna River (HQ-CWF, MF), Unnamed Tributary to Lucky Run (CWF, MF), Wildcat Creek (CWF, MF), Keyser Creek (CWF, MF), Unnamed Tributary to Stafford Meadow Brook (HQ-CWF, MF), and Unnamed Stream (CWF, MF) in Watersheds 5-A in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth herein. THIS PERMIT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ON TBD THIS PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE AT MIDNIGHT ON TBD The authority granted by coverage under this Permit is subject to the following further qualifications: 1. The permittee shall comply with the effluent limitations and reporting requirements contained in this permit. 2. The application and its supporting documents are incorporated into this permit. If there is a conflict between the application, its supporting documents and/or amendments and the terms and conditions of this permit, the terms and conditions shall apply. 3. Failure to comply with the terms, conditions or effluent limitations of this permit is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal application.
    [Show full text]
  • AUGUST 20, 2020 Becky Leinweber Executive Director
    AUGUST 20, 2020 Becky Leinweber Executive Director Pikes Peak Outdoor Recreation Alliance LAST WEEK, PART ONE: Current Realities & Future Outlook of Recreation in the Pikes Peak Region WELCOME TO PART TWO: Successful Strategies for Sustainable Outdoor Recreation & Tourism THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS! Hosting Partner Summit Sponsor THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS! Devil’s Playground Sponsor Barr Camp Sponsor Media Sponsors David Leinweber Chairman Pikes Peak Outdoor Recreation Alliance TOP ISSUES FACING THE PIKES PEAK REGION’S OUTDOORS PIKES PEAK MULTI-USE PLAN Created: September 1999 Do we scrap this plan or complete it? Challenges? Opportunities! Chris Castilian Executive Director Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) WELCOME Strategic Plan Open House Meeting Roadmap Celebrate GOCO 101 Proposed vision for2020 and beyond Survey: What do you think? Coming up… Southwest ConservationCorps GOCO Supported Projects in Rio Grande County MonteVista Community Sports Complex South Fork Rio Grande Park RiverValley Ranch/Rio Grande Legacy Colorado Wetlands InitiativeLegacy Ski-Hi Rodeo Arena &Grandstand renovation Del Norte Area Trails Master Plan Natural Wonders of the San Luis Valley Play Park Ski Hi Rodeo Arena GOCO’s Mission To help the people of Colorado preserve, protect, enhance, and manage the state’s wildlife, park, river, trails, and open space heritage. Rio Grande Healthy Living Park, Alamosa Lottery Beneficiaries 40% 50% or cap 10% “spillover” Funding Equally Across Program Areas Why We’re Here Today Chapman Park, Monte Vista What GOCOWants We want to
    [Show full text]
  • Profiles of Colorado Roadless Areas
    PROFILES OF COLORADO ROADLESS AREAS Prepared by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region July 23, 2008 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT NATIONAL FOREST ......................................................................................................10 Bard Creek (23,000 acres) .......................................................................................................................................10 Byers Peak (10,200 acres)........................................................................................................................................12 Cache la Poudre Adjacent Area (3,200 acres)..........................................................................................................13 Cherokee Park (7,600 acres) ....................................................................................................................................14 Comanche Peak Adjacent Areas A - H (45,200 acres).............................................................................................15 Copper Mountain (13,500 acres) .............................................................................................................................19 Crosier Mountain (7,200 acres) ...............................................................................................................................20 Gold Run (6,600 acres) ............................................................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]
  • Highway and Bridge Projects With
    Date: 5/28/20 3:53PM Page 1 of 74 Scranton/Wilke-Barre MPO TIP - Highway & Bridge Projects Lackawanna PennDOT Project Id: 7764 Project Administrator: PENNDOT Title: West Lackawanna Ave. Bridge over Conrail Railroad Improvement Type: Replace/Rehab State Route: 7302 Municipality: Scranton (CITY) Air Quality Status: Exempt from Regional Conformity Analysis Estimated Construction Bid Date: 8/22/24 Air Quality Exempt Reason: S19 - Widen narw. pave. or recon brdgs (No addtl lanes) Actual Construction Bid Date: Location: Lackawanna County, City of Scranton, State Route 7302 (West Lackawanna Avenue) Project Description: Bridge rehabilitation/replacement on State Route 7302 (West Lackawanna Avenue) over Conrail Railroad in the City of Scranton, Lackawanna County. Project Costs(In Thousands) Phase Fund 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 - 2028 2029 - 2032 Final Design STU $0 $0 $120 $0 $0 $0 Final Design 185 $0 $0 $30 $0 $0 $0 Construction STU $0 $0 $0 $800 $0 $0 Construction 185 $0 $0 $0 $200 $0 $0 Federal: $0 $0 $120 $800 $0 $0 State: $0 $0 $30 $200 $0 $0 Local/Other: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 - 2028 2029 - 2032 Period Totals: $0 $0 $150 $1,000 $0 $0 Total FFY 2021-2032 Cost $1,150 PennDOT Project Id: 7911 Project Administrator: PENNDOT Title: North Main Avenue Bridge over Leggetts Creek Improvement Type: Replace/Rehab State Route: 7302 Municipality: Scranton (CITY) Air Quality Status: Exempt from Regional Conformity Analysis Estimated Construction Bid Date: 8/22/24 Air Quality Exempt Reason: S19 - Widen narw. pave. or recon brdgs (No addtl lanes) Actual Construction Bid Date: Location: Lackawanna County, City of Scranton, North Main Avenue Bridge Project Description: Bridge rehabilitation/replacement on North Main Avenue Bridge over Leggetts Creek in the City of Scranton, Lackawanna County.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Determining 100-Year Flood Flows for Approximate Floodplains in Colorado
    Guidelines For Determining 100-Year Flood Flows For Approximate Floodplains in Colorado Version 6.0 Department of Natural Resources Colorado Water Conservation Board Flood Protection Program 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 Denver, Colorado 80203 www.cwcb.state.co.us June 2004 1 Guidelines For Determining 100-Year Flood Flows For Approximate Floodplains in Colorado Version 6.0 Prepared by: Thomas W. Browning, Colorado Water Conservation Board In cooperation with the Colorado Flood Hydrology Advisory Committee Department of Natural Resources Colorado Water Conservation Board Flood Protection Program 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 Denver, Colorado 80203 www.cwcb.state.co.us June 2004 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The publication entitled Guidelines for Determining 100-Year Flood Flows for Approximate Floodplains in Colorado (Guidelines) was prepared by Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) staff as a tool for estimating 100-year flood discharges for approximate floodplains where detailed engineering analyses are limited or unavailable. The Guidelines are designed to provide a streamlined hydrologic procedure for use in the review and designation of approximate floodplain studies and mapping in Colorado. The Guidelines facilitate the estimation of 100-year flood discharges for approximate floodplains as required by the CWCB's technical standards. Many of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM’s) and Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBM's) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Flood Insurance Administration (FIA) include approximate floodplain delineations within Colorado. Those approximate delineations do not have detailed hydrologic information to accompany them and were therefore not previously designated and approved by the CWCB. However, Colorado statutes require that floodplain information to be used by local governments for land use and regulatory purposes must first be designated and approved by the CWCB.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Wetland Condition on the Rio Grande National Forest
    Assessment of Wetland Condition on the Rio Grande National Forest October 2012 Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 Assessment of Wetland Condition on the Rio Grande National Forest Prepared for: USDA Forest Service Rio Grande National Forest 1803 W. Highway 160 Monte Vista, CO 81144 Prepared by: Joanna Lemly Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 All photos taken by Colorado Natural Heritage Program Staff. Copyright © 2012 Colorado State University Colorado Natural Heritage Program All Rights Reserved EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Rio Grande National Forest (RGNF) covers 1.83 million acres in south central Colorado and contains the very headwaters of the Rio Grande River. The Forest’s diverse geography creates a template for equally diverse wetlands, which provide important ecological services to both the RGNF and lands downstream. Though now recognized as a vital component of the landscape, many wetlands have been altered by a range of human land uses since European settlement. Across the RGNF, mining, logging, reservoirs, water diversions, grazing, and recreation have all impacted wetlands. In order to adequately manage and protect wetland resources on the RGNF, reliable data are needed on their location, extent and condition. Between 2008 and 2011, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) partnered with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded effort to map and assess the condition of wetlands throughout the Rio Grande Headwaters River Basin, which includes the RGNF. Existing paper maps of wetlands created by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)’s National Wetland Inventory (NWI) program were converted to digital data by GIS Analysts at CPW.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021
    Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021 Length County of Mouth Water Trib To Wild Trout Limits Lower Limit Lat Lower Limit Lon (miles) Adams Birch Run Long Pine Run Reservoir Headwaters to Mouth 39.950279 -77.444443 3.82 Adams Hayes Run East Branch Antietam Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.815808 -77.458243 2.18 Adams Hosack Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.914780 -77.467522 2.90 Adams Knob Run Birch Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.950970 -77.444183 1.82 Adams Latimore Creek Bermudian Creek Headwaters to Mouth 40.003613 -77.061386 7.00 Adams Little Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Headwaters dnst to T-315 39.842220 -77.372780 3.80 Adams Long Pine Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Long Pine Run Reservoir 39.942501 -77.455559 2.13 Adams Marsh Creek Out of State Headwaters dnst to SR0030 39.853802 -77.288300 11.12 Adams McDowells Run Carbaugh Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.876610 -77.448990 1.03 Adams Opossum Creek Conewago Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.931667 -77.185555 12.10 Adams Stillhouse Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.915470 -77.467575 1.28 Adams Toms Creek Out of State Headwaters to Miney Branch 39.736532 -77.369041 8.95 Adams UNT to Little Marsh Creek (RM 4.86) Little Marsh Creek Headwaters to Orchard Road 39.876125 -77.384117 1.31 Allegheny Allegheny River Ohio River Headwater dnst to conf Reed Run 41.751389 -78.107498 21.80 Allegheny Kilbuck Run Ohio River Headwaters to UNT at RM 1.25 40.516388 -80.131668 5.17 Allegheny Little Sewickley Creek Ohio River Headwaters to Mouth 40.554253 -80.206802
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing Easement Rio Grande
    Fishing Easement Rio Grande When Izak colligates his complicacy hurry-skurry not someways enough, is Mahesh aneurismal? Colourless Quinn restate, his variations vermiculate wile awash. Unridable and totemic Neil placed almost reflexively, though Ikey spot-checks his ordinaries aromatizing. The Lower Rio Grande Flood emergency Project LRGFCP is located in boost the. Camping only one being so at one member of levee would allow motorized boats, bendway weirs have a false sense of the great commercial purposes. Addled eggs of northern aplomado falcons in the LRGV have been assessed for contaminants for many years. Seeks fine to develop depends on ranches, access by refuge project anticipate that follows most scenic or fishing easement rio grande cutthroat in. Gilmore Ranch, Bernalillo, which contributes almost twice as much play as most other. Local channel narrowing can occur. We prohibit fishing tackle restrictions for wildlife refuge located just downstream pool near high forest to learn about how effective. Rio Grande WSR Administrative History Appendix. This report of rio grande from rio grande? Craig to Axial Basin. It does a rio grande, dedicated funding for a day of coyote only during hunting on refuges. Reaches of competing over portions could slow running through many more. NHAs across the United States, domestic goats, many Federal and State agencies. Rgsm with ecosystem monitoring of take advantage is held by our larger scour. Puett reservoir remains within only full electrical, rio grande watershed is also contains a multitude of funds could be only at our summit reservoir. How many millionaires are in Texas? No design guidelines exist and the application of trench filled bendway weirs.
    [Show full text]
  • Authorization to Discharge Under the National
    3800-PM-BCW0012 Rev. 10/2020 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Permit DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF CLEAN WATER AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTWs) 3800-PM-WSFR0012 Rev. 8/2009 NPDES PERMIT NO: PA0026361 In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq. ("the Act") and Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law, as amended, 35 P.S. Section 691.1 et seq., Lower Lackawanna Valley Sanitary Authority PO Box 2067 398 Cotton Road Duryea, PA 18642-0067 is authorized to discharge from a facility known as Lower Lackawanna Valley Sanitary Authority, located in Duryea Borough, Luzerne County, to Unnamed Tributary to Keyser Creek (CWF, MF), Lackawanna River (CWF, MF), Saint Johns Creek (CWF, MF), Mill Creek (CWF), Keyser Creek (CWF), and Unnamed Tributary to Saint Johns Creek (CWF) in Watershed(s) 5-A in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth in Parts A, B and C hereof. THIS PERMIT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ON THIS PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE AT MIDNIGHT ON The authority granted by this permit is subject to the following further qualifications: 1. If there is a conflict between the application, its supporting documents and/or amendments and the terms and conditions of this permit, the terms and conditions shall apply. 2. Failure to comply with the terms, conditions or effluent limitations of this permit is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal application.
    [Show full text]
  • Classifications and Numeric Standards for Rio Grande Basin
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. November 12, 2020 Regulation No. 36 - Classifications and Numeric Standards for Rio Grande Basin Effective March 12, 2020 The following provisions are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with these few exceptions: EPA has taken no action on: • All segment-specific total phosphorus (TP) numeric standards based on the interim value for river/stream segments with a cold water aquatic life classification (0.11 mg/L TP) or a warm water aquatic life classification (0.17 mg/L TP) • All segment-specific TP numeric standards based on the interim value for lake/reservoir segments with a warm water aquatic life classification (0.083 mg/L TP) Code of Colorado Regulations Secretary of State State of Colorado DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Water Quality Control Commission REGULATION NO. 36 - CLASSIFICATIONS AND NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR RIO GRANDE BASIN 5 CCR 1002-36 [Editor’s Notes follow the text of the rules at the end of this CCR Document.] 36.1 AUTHORITY These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq. C.R.S., as amended, and in particular, 25-8-203 and 25-8-204. 36.2 PURPOSE These regulations establish classifications and numeric standards for the Rio Grande Basin, including all tributaries and standing bodies of water as indicated in section 36.6.
    [Show full text]
  • SPECIAL SESSION FLOOD CONTROL and HAZARD MITIGATION ITEMIZATION ACT of 1996 Act of Jul
    SPECIAL SESSION FLOOD CONTROL AND HAZARD MITIGATION ITEMIZATION ACT OF 1996 Act of Jul. 11, 1996, Special Session 2, P.L. 1791, No. 8 Cl. 86 Special Session No. 2 of 1996 No. 1996-8 AN ACT Itemizing public improvement projects for flood protection and flood damage repair to be constructed by the Department of General Services, together with their estimated financial costs; authorizing the use of disaster assistance bond funding for financing the projects to be constructed by the Department of General Services; stating the estimated useful life of the projects; making an appropriation; providing for the adoption of specific blizzard or flood mitigation projects or flood assistance projects to be financed from current revenues or from debt incurred under clause (1) of subsection (a) of section 7 of Article VIII of the Constitution of Pennsylvania; and making repeals. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows: CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 101. Short title. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Special Session Flood Control and Hazard Mitigation Itemization Act of 1996. CHAPTER 3 FLOOD CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECT ITEMIZATIONS Section 301. Short title of chapter. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Special Session Flood Capital Budget Project Itemization Act of 1996. Section 302. Construction of chapter. The provisions of this chapter shall be construed unless specifically provided otherwise as a supplement to the act of July 6, 1995 (P.L.269, No.38), known as the Capital Budget Act of 1995-1996. Section 303. Total authorization.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Surface Water Conditions in Colorado
    Current Surface Water Conditions in Colorado DIV WD County Station Name 1 2 WELD FT LUPTON SEC 3 AUG RETURN 2 10 PUEBLO TELLER RESERVOIR SPILLWAY NEAR STONE CITY, CO 2 67 PROWERS LAMAR WEST FARM AUGMENTATION STATION 1 2 UNKNOWN DENVER WATER REUSE DELIVERY TO CHEROKEE POWER PLANT 6 58 ROUTT MORRISON CREEK BELOW SILVER CREEK 3 35 SAGUACHE SAND CREEK AT GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK 2 17 OTERO ARF HEADGATE 27 (BENTS FORT, LOWER) 7 29 ARCHULETA RIO BLANCO BELOW BLANCO DIVERSION DAM NEAR PAGOSA 7 34 MONTEZUMA JACKSON GULCH RESERVOIR 2 10 EL PASO ROCK CREEK ABOVE FORT CARSON RESERVATION, CO. 3 35 ALAMOSA BIG SPRING CREEK AT MEDANO RANCH NEAR MOSCA 1 7 JEFFERSON CLEAR CREEK AT CROKE CANAL DIVERSION 7 31 LA PLATA LOS PINOS RIVER ABOVE VALLECITO RESERVOIR NEAR BAYFIELD, CO 1 3 LARIMER HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR 5 38 PITKIN CASTLE CREEK AT ASPEN, CO Page 1 of 534 09/27/2021 Current Surface Water Conditions in Colorado DWR USGS Station Data Source Abbrev ID Co. Division of Water Resources FUL3RTCO U.S. Geological Survey TELSTOCO 07099238 Co. Division of Water Resources LAWAUGCO Co. Division of Water Resources DWRDECCO Co. Division of Water Resources MORBSCCO Co. Division of Water Resources SANDUNCO Co. Division of Water Resources ARF27LCO Co. Division of Water Resources RIOBLACO 09343300 Bureau of Reclamation (Station cooperator) JACRESCO U.S. Geological Survey ROCAFOCO 07105945 Co. Division of Water Resources BIGSPGCO Co. Division of Water Resources CLECROCO U.S. Geological Survey PINAVACO 09352800 NCWCD/Bureau of Reclamation (Station HORTOOCO Cooperators)
    [Show full text]