DOCSLIB.ORG

Hazard Mitigation Plan Washington County, Arkansas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hazard Mitigation Plan Washington County, Arkansas Hazard Mitigation Plan Washington County, Arkansas Including: Unincorporated Washington County City of Elkins City of Elm Springs City of Farmington City of Fayetteville City of Goshen City of Greenland City of Johnson City of Lincoln City of Prairie Grove City of Springdale City of Tontitown City of West Fork City of Winslow Elkins School District Farmington School District Fayetteville School District Greenland School District Lincoln School District Prairie Grove School District Springdale School District West Fork School District Primary Point of Contact John C. Luther, Director Washington County Office of Emergency Management 2615 Brink Drive, Suite 104 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 479-444-1721 [email protected] Revised October 3, 2007 Revised January 8, 2008 Table of Contents Section 1. Introduction 1.1. General Description 1 1.2. Purpose and Authority 2 1.3. Community Information 4 1.3.1. Physiography, Climate, and Geology 4 1.3.2. Population and Demographics 7 1.3.3. Economy 27 1.3.4. Future Development 28 1.3.5. Capability Assessment 28 Section 2. Plan Adoption 2.1. Multi-Jurisdictional Plan Adoption 46 2.2. Points of Contact for Multi-Jurisdictions 50 Section 3. Planning Process 3.1. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Participation 53 3.2. Documentation of the Planning Process 56 3.2.1 Planning Meeting Documentation 65 3.2.2 Household Natural Preparedness Questionnaire 77 3.2.3 Proof of Publication 102 Section 4. Risk Assessment 4.1. Hazard Identification 104 4.2. Profiling Hazards 110 4.2.1. Tornado Hazard Profile 111 4.2.2. Severe Winter Storm Hazard Profile 125 4.2.3. Flooding Hazard Profile 134 4.2.4. Earthquake Hazard Profile 151 4.2.5. Wildfire Hazard Profile 155 4.2.6. Landslide Hazard Profile 162 4.2.7. Expansive Soil Hazard Profile 166 4.2.8. Straight-Line Wind Hazard Profile 172 4.2.9. Drought Hazard Profile 217 4.2.10 Thunderstorm Hazard Profile 222 4.2.11 Hailstorm Hazard Profile 223 4.2.12 Extreme Heat Hazard Profile 229 4.2.13 Dam Failure Hazard Profile 233 4.3. Vulnerability Assessment 4.3.1. Assessing Vulnerability: Overview 239 4.3.1.1. Washington County Exposure Summary 239 4.3.1.2. Hazard Vulnerability Summary 239 4.3.1.3. Hazard Impact on Vulnerable Structures 242 4.3.2. Multi-Jurisdictional Risk Assessment 245 Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan ii Section 5. Mitigation Strategy 5.1. Local Hazard Mitigation Goals 248 5.2. Identification and Analysis of Mitigation Actions 252 5.3. Implementation of Mitigation Actions 259 5.4. Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Actions 271 Section 6. Plan Maintenance Process 6.1. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating the Plan 274 6.2. Incorporating into Existing Planning Mechanisms 276 6.3. Continued Public Involvement 277 Appendices ATTACHMENT 1 – Plan Review and Prioritization ATTACHMENT 2 – Cooperative Agreements – Benton, Madison and Washington Counties (Assist in Emergency and Disaster Response Operations) Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan iii Section 1: Introduction 1.1 General Description This Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan (WCHMP) was created to protect the health, safety and economic interests of Washington County residents by reducing the risk of natural hazards. The plan provides a path toward continuous, proactive identification and reduction of vulnerability to the most frequent hazards that result in repetitive and often severe social, economic and physical damage. This plan provides a foundation for hazard mitigation activities within incorporated and unincorporated areas of Washington County, including the cities of Elkins, Elm Springs, Farmington, Fayetteville, Goshen, Greenland, Johnson, Lincoln, Prairie Grove, Springdale, Tontitown, West Fork and Winslow (hereinafter referred to as the municipalities of Washington County). This WCHMP is also established to fulfill federal, state, and local hazard mitigation planning requirements. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), Section 322 (a-d) requires local governments to have an approved local mitigation plan in accordance with 44 CFR 201.6 as a condition of receiving future federal disaster mitigation funds. In the past, federal legislation has provided funding for disaster relief, recovery, and some hazard mitigation planning. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) is the latest legislation to improve this planning process. DMA 2000 amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by repealing the previous Mitigation Planning section (409) and replacing it with a new Mitigation Planning section (322). This new section emphasizes the need for State, Tribal, and local entities to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. The new legislation reinforces the importance of mitigation planning and emphasizes planning for disasters before they occur. As such, this Act establishes a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). It also requires that communities must have an approved hazard mitigation plan in order to receive Stafford Act assistance, excluding assistance provided pursuant to emergency provisions. Development and implementation of the Plan has been, and will be directed by the WCHMP Steering Committee, composed of the Executive Board of Washington County Emergency Services (LEPC). The Steering Committee has appointed a Planning Committee, composed of representatives of the municipalities and other stakeholders, to oversee formulation and maintenance of the WCHMP, and to coordinate action items between the involved municipalities. Washington County Emergency Services (WCES) is the agency tasked with supporting the Planning Committee in developing and maintaining the WCHMP. Implementing this Plan provides several benefits to Washington County and its residents and communities, including: Saving lives and protecting property Reducing vulnerability to future hazardous events Facilitating post-disaster funding for mitigation assistance Speeding recovery after a disaster Improving long-term community health Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan 1 Involving the public in decision-making, and Demonstrating community support for emergency management and hazard mitigation. The Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan is being developed to assess the ongoing natural hazard mitigation activities in Washington County, to evaluate additional mitigation measures that should be undertaken, and to outline a strategy for implementation of mitigation projects. This plan is multi-jurisdictional with a planning area that includes all of unincorporated Washington County and thirteen municipalities within the County including the City of Elkins, City of Elm Springs, City of Farmington, City of Fayetteville, City of Goshen, City of Greenland, City of Johnson, City of Lincoln, City of Prairie Grove, City of Springdale, City of Tontitown, City of West Fork, and City of Winslow. This plan also includes the eight School Districts located in Washington County including the Elkins School District, Farmington School District, Fayetteville School District, Greenland School District, Lincoln School District, Prairie Grove School District, Springdale School District, and West Fork School District. A map showing the locations of each of these jurisdictions within Washington County is in the Maps section of this report. Formal adoption and implementation of a hazard mitigation plan presents many benefits to Washington County and its residents. By identifying problems and possible solutions in advance of a disaster, Washington County and participating communities and school districts will be in a better position to obtain pre- and post-disaster funding. Specifically, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 establishes a pre-disaster hazard mitigation program and new requirements for the national post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). It requires that states and communities have a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan in place prior to receiving post- disaster HMGP funds. Adoption of this hazard mitigation strategy will also increase Washington County’s eligibility for assistance from FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program. Washington County and participating communities will also gain additional credit points under FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS) program, which provides discounts on National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) flood insurance premiums for residents of communities that voluntarily participate in this program. Most importantly, Washington County will be able to recover faster and more wisely from a disaster. Through planning and acting on local mitigation strategies, the city will reduce vulnerability to disasters and identify opportunities for mitigation. In addition, the communities may meet comprehensive planning and other planning requirements and achieve community goals. 1.2. Purpose and Authority The purpose of the Washington County Hazard Mitigation Plan is to provide guidance for hazard mitigation activities in Washington County. The Washington County Office of Emergency Management has the responsibility to coordinate all local activities relating to hazard evaluation and mitigation and to prepare and submit to FEMA a Local Mitigation Plan following the criteria established in 44 CFR 201.4 and Section 322 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390). The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 became law on October 30, 2000, and amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Many-Storied Place
    A Many-storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator Midwest Region National Park Service Omaha, Nebraska 2017 A Many-Storied Place Historic Resource Study Arkansas Post National Memorial, Arkansas Theodore Catton Principal Investigator 2017 Recommended: {){ Superintendent, Arkansas Post AihV'j Concurred: Associate Regional Director, Cultural Resources, Midwest Region Date Approved: Date Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set. Proverbs 22:28 Words spoken by Regional Director Elbert Cox Arkansas Post National Memorial dedication June 23, 1964 Table of Contents List of Figures vii Introduction 1 1 – Geography and the River 4 2 – The Site in Antiquity and Quapaw Ethnogenesis 38 3 – A French and Spanish Outpost in Colonial America 72 4 – Osotouy and the Changing Native World 115 5 – Arkansas Post from the Louisiana Purchase to the Trail of Tears 141 6 – The River Port from Arkansas Statehood to the Civil War 179 7 – The Village and Environs from Reconstruction to Recent Times 209 Conclusion 237 Appendices 241 1 – Cultural Resource Base Map: Eight exhibits from the Memorial Unit CLR (a) Pre-1673 / Pre-Contact Period Contributing Features (b) 1673-1803 / Colonial and Revolutionary Period Contributing Features (c) 1804-1855 / Settlement and Early Statehood Period Contributing Features (d) 1856-1865 / Civil War Period Contributing Features (e) 1866-1928 / Late 19th and Early 20th Century Period Contributing Features (f) 1929-1963 / Early 20th Century Period
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Affiliation Statement for Buffalo National River
    CULTURAL AFFILIATION STATEMENT BUFFALO NATIONAL RIVER, ARKANSAS Final Report Prepared by María Nieves Zedeño Nicholas Laluk Prepared for National Park Service Midwest Region Under Contract Agreement CA 1248-00-02 Task Agreement J6068050087 UAZ-176 Bureau of Applied Research In Anthropology The University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85711 June 1, 2008 Table of Contents and Figures Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................2 Chapter One: Study Overview.............................................................................................5 Chapter Two: Cultural History of Buffalo National River ................................................15 Chapter Three: Protohistoric Ethnic Groups......................................................................41 Chapter Four: The Aboriginal Group ................................................................................64 Chapter Five: Emigrant Tribes...........................................................................................93 References Cited ..............................................................................................................109 Selected Annotations .......................................................................................................137 Figure 1. Buffalo National River, Arkansas ........................................................................6 Figure 2. Sixteenth Century Polities and Ethnic Groups (after Sabo 2001) ......................47
    [Show full text]
  • CARES ACT GRANT AMOUNTS to AIRPORTS (Pursuant to Paragraphs 2-4) Detailed Listing by State, City and Airport
    CARES ACT GRANT AMOUNTS TO AIRPORTS (pursuant to Paragraphs 2-4) Detailed Listing By State, City And Airport State City Airport Name LOC_ID Grand Totals AK Alaskan Consolidated Airports Multiple [individual airports listed separately] AKAP $16,855,355 AK Adak (Naval) Station/Mitchell Field Adak ADK $30,000 AK Akhiok Akhiok AKK $20,000 AK Akiachak Akiachak Z13 $30,000 AK Akiak Akiak AKI $30,000 AK Akutan Akutan 7AK $20,000 AK Akutan Akutan KQA $20,000 AK Alakanuk Alakanuk AUK $30,000 AK Allakaket Allakaket 6A8 $20,000 AK Ambler Ambler AFM $30,000 AK Anaktuvuk Pass Anaktuvuk Pass AKP $30,000 AK Anchorage Lake Hood LHD $1,053,070 AK Anchorage Merrill Field MRI $17,898,468 AK Anchorage Ted Stevens Anchorage International ANC $26,376,060 AK Anchorage (Borough) Goose Bay Z40 $1,000 AK Angoon Angoon AGN $20,000 AK Aniak Aniak ANI $1,052,884 AK Aniak (Census Subarea) Togiak TOG $20,000 AK Aniak (Census Subarea) Twin Hills A63 $20,000 AK Anvik Anvik ANV $20,000 AK Arctic Village Arctic Village ARC $20,000 AK Atka Atka AKA $20,000 AK Atmautluak Atmautluak 4A2 $30,000 AK Atqasuk Atqasuk Edward Burnell Sr Memorial ATK $20,000 AK Barrow Wiley Post-Will Rogers Memorial BRW $1,191,121 AK Barrow (County) Wainwright AWI $30,000 AK Beaver Beaver WBQ $20,000 AK Bethel Bethel BET $2,271,355 AK Bettles Bettles BTT $20,000 AK Big Lake Big Lake BGQ $30,000 AK Birch Creek Birch Creek Z91 $20,000 AK Birchwood Birchwood BCV $30,000 AK Boundary Boundary BYA $20,000 AK Brevig Mission Brevig Mission KTS $30,000 AK Bristol Bay (Borough) Aleknagik /New 5A8 $20,000 AK
    [Show full text]
  • Departure Procedures 08073
    C1 TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES 08073 INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE CHARTS IFR TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES Civil Airports and Selected Military Airports ALL USERS: Airports that have Departure Procedures (DPs) designed specifically to assist pilots in avoiding obstacles during the climb to the minimum enroute altitude , and/or airports that have civil IFR take-off minimums other than standard, are listed below. Take-off Minimums and Departure Procedures apply to all runways unless otherwise specified. Altitudes, unless otherwise indicated, are minimum altitudes in MSL. DPs specifically designed for obstacle avoidance are referred to as Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) and are described below in text, or published separately as a graphic procedure. If the (Obstacle) DP is published as a graphic procedure, its name will be listed below, and it can be found in either this volume (civil), or a separate Departure Procedure volume (military), as appropriate. Users will recognize graphic obstacle DPs by the term "(OBSTACLE)" included in the procedure title; e.g., TETON TWO (OBSTACLE). If not assigned a SID or radar vector by ATC, an ODP may be flown without ATC clearance to ensure obstacle clearance. Graphic DPs designed by ATC to standardize traffic flows, ensure aircraft separation and enhance capacity are referred to as "Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs)". SIDs also provide obstacle clearance and are published under the appropriate airport section. ATC clearance must be received prior to flying a SID. CIVIL USERS NOTE: Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 prescribes standard take-off rules and establishes take-off minimums for certain operators as follows: (1) Aircraft having two engines or less - one statute mile.
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan for the Canadian River 2 from U
    FINAL - Submitted for Approval Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) Management Plan for the Canadian River From U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith, Texas © Konrad Schmidt Canadian River Municipal Water Authority June 2005 Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan for the Canadian River 2 from U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) Management Plan for the Canadian River from U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith, Texas This management plan is a cooperative effort between various local, state, and federal entities. Funding for this plan was provided by the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. Suggested citation: Canadian River Municipal Water Authority – 2005 – Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) Management Plan for the Canadian River from U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith, Texas Preparation of this Plan was accomplished by John C. Williams, acting as Special Advisor under contract to CRMWA. Technical review was provided by Rod Goodwin, Wildlife Biologist and Head of the Water Quality Division of CRMWA. Editorial review was performed by Jolinda Brumley. Cover photograph: Arkansas River Shiner by Ken Collins, USFWS Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan for the Canadian River 3 from U. S. Highway 54 at Logan, New Mexico to Lake Meredith Table of Contents Introduction and Background …………………………………………………………7 Species Biology ...................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Noteworthy Records of the Seminole Bat, Lasiurus Seminolus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), from Southwestern Arkansas and Northeastern Arkansas Chris T
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 58 Article 25 2004 Noteworthy Records of the Seminole Bat, Lasiurus seminolus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), from Southwestern Arkansas and Northeastern Arkansas Chris T. McAllister Texas A&M University-Texarkana Zachary D. Ramsey Texas A&M University-Texarkana Nancy E. Solley Texas A&M University-Texarkana Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation McAllister, Chris T.; Ramsey, Zachary D.; and Solley, Nancy E. (2004) "Noteworthy Records of the Seminole Bat, Lasiurus seminolus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), from Southwestern Arkansas and Northeastern Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 58 , Article 25. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol58/iss1/25 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This General Note is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 58 [2004], Art. 25 Noteworthy Records of the Seminole Bat, Lasiurus seminolus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), from Southwestern Arkansas and Northeastern Texas Chris T. McAllister*,Zachary D.Ramsey and Nancy E. Solley Department of Biology Texas A&MUniversity-Texarkana Texarkana, TX75505 ""Corresponding Author The specimen was not weighed.
    [Show full text]
  • Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003
    Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003 Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team Arkansas Field Office 601 North University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 Oklahoma Field Office 2727 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74114 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment ii 12/2003 Table of Contents Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment............................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................4 Ecoregional Boundary Delineation.............................................................................................................................................4 Geology..........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Soils................................................................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Airport Listings of General Aviation Airports
    Appendix B-1: Summary by State Public New ASSET Square Public NPIAS Airports Not State Population in Categories Miles Use Classified SASP Total Primary Nonprimary National Regional Local Basic Alabama 52,419 4,779,736 98 80 75 5 70 18 25 13 14 Alaska 663,267 710,231 408 287 257 29 228 3 68 126 31 Arizona 113,998 6,392,017 79 78 58 9 49 2 10 18 14 5 Arkansas 53,179 2,915,918 99 90 77 4 73 1 11 28 12 21 California 163,696 37,253,956 255 247 191 27 164 9 47 69 19 20 Colorado 104,094 5,029,196 76 65 49 11 38 2 2 27 7 Connecticut 5,543 3,574,097 23 19 13 2 11 2 3 4 2 Delaware 2,489 897,934 11 10 4 4 1 1 1 1 Florida 65,755 18,801,310 129 125 100 19 81 9 32 28 9 3 Georgia 59,425 9,687,653 109 99 98 7 91 4 18 38 14 17 Hawaii 10,931 1,360,301 15 15 7 8 2 6 Idaho 83,570 1,567,582 119 73 37 6 31 1 16 8 6 Illinois 57,914 12,830,632 113 86 8 78 5 9 35 9 20 Indiana 36,418 6,483,802 107 68 65 4 61 1 16 32 11 1 Iowa 56,272 3,046,355 117 109 78 6 72 7 41 16 8 Kansas 82,277 2,853,118 141 134 79 4 75 10 34 18 13 Kentucky 40,409 4,339,367 60 59 55 5 50 7 21 11 11 Louisiana 51,840 4,533,372 75 67 56 7 49 9 19 7 14 Maine 35,385 1,328,361 68 36 35 5 30 2 13 7 8 Maryland 12,407 5,773,552 37 34 18 3 15 2 5 6 2 Massachusetts 10,555 6,547,629 40 38 22 22 4 5 10 3 Michigan 96,716 9,883,640 229 105 95 13 82 2 12 49 14 5 Minnesota 86,939 5,303,925 154 126 97 7 90 3 7 49 22 9 Mississippi 48,430 2,967,297 80 74 73 7 66 10 15 16 25 Missouri 69,704 5,988,927 132 111 76 4 72 2 8 33 16 13 Montana 147,042 989,415 120 114 70 7 63 1 25 33 4 Nebraska 77,354 1,826,341 85 83
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Aviation Operation Plan Earthquake Annex
    Arkansas Aviation Operations -March 2014 Earthquake Annex AA-01 v1.r1 Arkansas Aviation Operation Plan Earthquake Annex 1.0 Purpose This annex provides an overview of an earthquake hazard assessment, along with other earthquake related hazards information. This will outline and describe the vulnerability of the State of Arkansas to earthquakes. It also serves as a supplement to the Arkansas Aviation Operation Plan and is intended to expand the response and recovery organization for a catastrophic New Madrid event. Many of the operational concepts could be adapted to a large scale man-made or natural hazard. By far the largest hazard threat to the State of Arkansas is a catastrophic earthquake in the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ). The New Madrid Seismic Zone encompasses eight states and the fault itself is 150 miles long and stretches from Cairo, Illinois down to Marked Tree, AR. 1.1 Lead Agencies ESF #1 (Ground/Air) • Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department • Arkansas Department of Aeronautics 1.1.1 Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) • The AHTD is the Primary Agency responsible for coordinating ground transportation activities. AHTD ESF# 1 is responsible for coordinating state resources needed to restore and maintain transportation routes necessary to protect lives and property during an emergency/disaster and will provide an ESF# 1 liaison to the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC). 1.1.2 Arkansas Department of Aeronautics (ADA) • The AR Department of Aeronautics (ADA) is responsible for the coordination of air transportation activities. ADA will provide a liaison to the state Air Coordination Group. ESF # 1 will coordinate the available state air assets through the Air Coordination Group (ACG) according to the Arkansas Aviation Operations Plan annex to the Arkansas Emergency Operations Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Water in the Lower Arkansas River Valley, Arkansas
    Ground Water in the Lower Arkansas River Valley, Arkansas GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1669-V Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers Ground Water in the Lower Arkansas River Valley, Arkansas By M. S. BEDINGER and H. G. JEFFERY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HYDROLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1669-V Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract____.______________________________.__ VI Introduction_________ ____________________________________ 1 Well-numbering system.________________________________________ _ 3 Geology. ____________________________ ____ ______ ___ 3 Quaternary System____________________________________________ 4 Terrace deposits_________________________________ ___ 4 Alluvium.______________________________________________ 5 Ground-water hydrology _________________________________________ 6 Water table____________________________________ 6 Fluctuations._____________________________________________ 6 Superposed-__-___-____---__-__--___------_---_-__---_ 6 Basic._______________________________________________ 7 Configuration_______ _____________________________________ 9 Recharge.____________________________________________________ 11 Discharge. ______________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Sales and Use Tax Distribution Page: 1 Run Time: 1:48:49PM 7/1/2014 to 6/30/2015 User: Rgraves
    Run Date: 10/9/2015 Sales and Use Tax Distribution Page: 1 Run Time: 1:48:49PM 7/1/2014 To 6/30/2015 User: rgraves County/City Amount Arkansas County Treasurer $1,235.80 Almyra AF Arkansas Co Total $1,235.80 Arkansas County Treasurer $3,560,383.83 Arkansas County Total $3,560,383.83 Ashley County Treasurer $2,758,204.95 Crossett City Treasurer $671,222.74 Fountain Hill City Treasurer $21,329.95 Hamburg City Treasurer $348,226.51 Montrose City Treasurer $43,147.43 Parkdale City Treasurer $33,762.24 Portland City Treasurer $52,410.70 Wilmot City Treasurer $67,036.93 Ashley County Total $3,995,341.45 Batesville Regional Airport $4,300.93 Independence County Treasurer $3,225.71 Batesville Regional AF Independence Co Total $7,526.64 Baxter County Treasurer $3,711,519.97 Big Flat City Treasurer $16,100.03 Briarcliff City Treasurer $36,534.66 Cotter City Treasurer $150,163.70 Gassville City Treasurer $321,690.85 Lakeview City Treasurer $114,712.67 Mountain Home City Treasurer $1,927,049.04 Norfork City Treasurer $79,106.84 Salesville City Treasurer $69,663.60 Baxter County Total $6,426,541.36 Avoca City Treasurer $89,046.44 Bella Vista City Treasurer $4,836,337.50 Benton County Treasurer $7,824,006.00 Bentonville City Treasurer $6,441,450.63 Bethel Heights City Treasurer $432,824.02 Cave Springs City Treasurer $343,264.07 Centerton City Treasurer $1,736,222.86 Decatur City Treasurer $310,020.26 Elm Springs City Treasurer $14,688.04 Garfield City Treasurer $91,601.04 Gateway City Treasurer $73,901.22 Gentry City Treasurer $576,247.16 Gravette
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation 2
    Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission Regulation No. 2, As Amended Regulation Establishing Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Arkansas TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: AUTHORITY, GENERAL PRINCIPLES, AND COVERAGE ........................ 1-1 Reg. 2.101 Authority .............................................................................................. 1-1 Reg. 2.102 Purpose ................................................................................................. 1-1 Reg. 2.103 Commission Review ............................................................................ 1-2 Reg. 2.104 Policy for Compliance .......................................................................... 1-2 Reg. 2.105 Environmental Improvement Projects .................................................. 1-2 Reg. 2.106 Definitions ............................................................................................ 1-2 CHAPTER 2: ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY ....................................................................... 2-1 Reg. 2.201 Existing Uses ........................................................................................ 2-1 Reg. 2.202 High Quality Waters ............................................................................. 2-1 Reg. 2.203 Outstanding Resource Waters .............................................................. 2-1 Reg. 2.204 Thermal Discharges .............................................................................. 2-1 CHAPTER 3: WATERBODY USES ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]