2005 Guidebook
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Comparison of Sediment Deposition in Reservoirs of Four Kansas Watersheds David P
Comparison of Sediment Deposition in Reservoirs of Four Kansas Watersheds David P. Mau and Victoria G. Christensen Reservoirs are a vital source of water Kansas in 1995. Nine supply, provide recreational opportunities, reservoir studies have been support diverse aquatic habitat, and carried out in cooperation provide flood protection throughout with the Bureau of Kansas. Understanding agricultural, Reclamation, the city of industrial, and urban effects on reservoirs Wichita, Johnson County is important not only for maintaining Unified Wastewater acceptable water quality in the reservoirs Districts, the Kansas but also for preventing adverse Department of Health and environmental effects. Excessive sediment Environment, and (or) the can alter the aesthetic qualities of Kansas Water Office. These reservoirs and affect their water quality studies were supported in and useful life. part by the Kansas State Water Plan Fund and Introduction evaluated sediment deposition along with Figure 1. Bottom-sediment cores were collected with a gravity Reservoir sediment studies are selected chemical corer mounted on a pontoon boat. The corer is lowered to a important because of the effect that constituents in sediment designated distance above the sediment and allowed to free sediment accumulation has on the quality cores (fig. 1) from fall to penetrate through the entire thickness of reservoir of water and useful life of the reservoir. reservoirs located in bottom sediment. Sediment deposition can affect benthic various climatic, organisms and alter the dynamics of the topographic, and geologic landscape annual precipitation ranges from about aquatic food chain. Reservoir sediment regions throughout Kansas and southern 24 inches at Webster Reservoir in north- studies also are important in relation to Nebraska. -
Lake Level Management Plans Water Year 2021
LAKE LEVEL MANAGEMENT PLANS WATER YEAR 2021 Kansas Water Office September 2020 Table of Contents U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, KANSAS CITY DISTRICT .................................................................................................................................... 3 CLINTON LAKE ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 HILLSDALE LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 KANOPOLIS LAKE .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8 MELVERN LAKE .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 MILFORD LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12 -
Kansas Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Tulsa District Oklahoma Resource Area September 1991 KANSAS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Dear Reader: This doCument contains the combined Kansas Record of Decision (ROD) and Resource Management Plan (RMP). The ROD and RMP are combined to streamline our mandated land-use-planning requirements and to provide the reader with a useable finished product. The ROD records the decisions of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for administration of approximately 744,000 acres of Federal mineral estate within the Kansas Planning Area. The Planning Area encompasses BLM adm in i sterad sp 1 it-estate mi nera 1 s and Federa 1 minerals under Federal surface administered by other Federal Agencies within the State of Kansas. The Kansas RMP and appendices provide direction and guidance to BLM Managers in the formulation of decisions effecting the management of Federal mineral estate within the planning area for the next 15 years. The Kansas RMP was extracted from the Proposed Kansas RMP/FIES. The issuance of this ROD and RMP completes the BLM land use planning process for the State of Kansas. We now move to implementation of the plan. We wish to thank all the individuals and groups who participated in this effort these past two years, without their help we could not have completed this process. er~ 1_' Area Manager Oklahoma Resource Area RECORD OF DECISION on the Proposed Kansas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement September 1991 RECORD OF DECISION The decision is hereby made to approve the proposed decision as described in the Proposed Kansas Resource Management Plan/Final Env ironmental Impact Statement (RMP/FEIS July 1991), MANAGEMENT CONSZOERATXONS The decision to approve the Proposed Plan is based on: (1) the input received from the public, other Federal and state agencies; (2) the environmental analysis for the alternatives considered in the Draft RMP/Oraft EIS, as we11 as the Proposed Kansas RMP/FEIS. -
Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information
Prepared in cooperation with the KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4242 EXPLANATION Potential contributing area Boundary of major river basin Hiii Infiltration-excess overland flow only ^H Saturation-excess overland flow only - Subbasin boundary Hi Infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows L I Noncontributing area U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Estimation of Potential Runoff Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information By KYLE E. JURACEK Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4242 Prepared in cooperation with the KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Lawrence, Kansas 1999 U.S. Department of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive 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: U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Information Services U.S. Geological Survey Building 810, Federal Center 4821 Quail Crest Place Box 25286 Lawrence, KS 66049-3839 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................^ 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................^ -
South-Central Kansas (Homeland Security Region G) Multi-Hazard, Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan
South-Central Kansas (Homeland Security Region G) Multi-Hazard, Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan Prepared For and Developed With the Jurisdictions Within and Including: Butler County, Cowley County, Harper County, Harvey County, Kingman County, Marion County, McPherson County, Reno County, Rice County , Sedgwick County and Sumner County December, 2013 Prepared By: Blue Umbrella TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... Executive-1 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING COMMITTEE .....................................................Hazard-1 RESOLUTIONS OF ADOPTION .............................................................................. Resolutions-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS .................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 .......................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Hazard Mitigation Planning Process ................................................................... -
Suspended-Sediment Loads, Reservoir Sediment Trap Efficiency, and Upstream and Downstream Channel Stability for Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas, 2008–10
Prepared in cooperation with the Kansas Water Office Suspended-Sediment Loads, Reservoir Sediment Trap Efficiency, and Upstream and Downstream Channel Stability for Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas, 2008–10 Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5187 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front cover. Upper left: Tuttle Creek Lake upstream from highway 16 bridge, May 16, 2011 (photograph by Dirk Hargadine, USGS). Lower right: Tuttle Creek Lake downstream from highway 16 bridge, May 16, 2011 (photograph by Dirk Hargadine, USGS). Note: On May 16, 2011, the water-surface elevation for Tuttle Creek Lake was 1,075.1 feet. The normal elevation for the multi-purpose pool of the reservoir is 1,075.0 feet. Back cover. Water-quality monitor in Little Blue River near Barnes, Kansas. Note active channel-bank erosion at upper right (photograph by Bill Holladay, USGS). Suspended-Sediment Loads, Reservoir Sediment Trap Efficiency, and Upstream and Downstream Channel Stability for Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas, 2008–10 By Kyle E. Juracek Prepared in cooperation with the Kansas Water Office Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5187 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. -
02 09 2016 Sect 1 (Pdf)
2-9-16 Sect. 1.2.qxp #2:Layout 1 2/4/16 1:33 PM Page 1 Brunner elected president of National Cattlemen’s Beef Association By Donna Sullivan, Editor One of those challenges Brunner’s family opera- For Ramona rancher will be to meet the growing tion, Cow Camp Ranch in Tracy Brunner, there’s plen- demand for beef, but Brun- Lost Springs and Cow Camp ty to be optimistic about in ner believes the industry is Feed Yard in Ramona, spe- the beef industry. As he takes up to the task. “I believe cializes in breeding Sim- the helm of the National Cat- global demand will probably mental and SimAngus bulls tlemen’s Beef Association as grow even faster than global and custom feeding and mar- its newly elected president, beef supplies can keep up,” keting cattle. While theirs is he hopes to build on the cur- he said. “We have the bright- a rich history, Brunner be- rent strength of the beef in- est of futures based on a very lieves the industry offers dustry, both domestically high quality product that plenty of potential for those and abroad. people like to enjoy. And we just getting started. “The beef industry today have a great crop of young “I appreciate the beef in- is in a wonderful position,” beef men and women who dustry the most for its oppor- he said. “We have strong do- are continually improving tunity,” he said. “We speak a mestic demand for beef. We the industry as well.” lot about family and heritage have growing global demand His leadership style is one and generations, which is as well, and both are impor- of anticipating positive re- only right. -
Kansas River Basin Model
Kansas River Basin Model Edward Parker, P.E. US Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District KANSAS CITY DISTRICT NEBRASKA IOWA RATHBUN M I HARLAN COUNTY S S I LONG S S I SMITHVILLE BRANCH P TUTTLE P CREEK I URI PERRY SSO K MI ANS AS R I MILFORD R. V CLINTON E WILSON BLUE SPRINGS R POMONA LONGVIEW HARRY S. TRUMAN R COLO. KANOPOLIS MELVERN HILLSDALE IV ER Lake of the Ozarks STOCKTON KANSAS POMME DE TERRE MISSOURI US Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District Kansas River Basin Operation Challenges • Protect nesting Least Terns and Piping Plovers that have taken residence along the Kansas River. • Supply navigation water support for the Missouri River. • Reviewing requests from the State of Kansas and the USBR to alter the standard operation to improve support for recreation, irrigation, fish & wildlife. US Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District Model Requirements • Model Period 1/1/1920 through 12/31/2000 • Six-Hour routing period • Forecast local inflow using recession • Use historic pan evaporation – Monthly vary pan coefficient • Parallel and tandem operation • Consider all authorized puposes • Use current method of flood control US Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District Model PMP Revisions • Model period from 1/1/1929 through 12/30/2001 • Mean daily flows for modeling rather than 6-hour data derived from mean daily flow values. • Delete the requirement to forecast future hydrologic conditions. • Average monthly lake evaporation rather than daily • Utilize a standard pan evaporation coefficient of 0.7 rather than a monthly varying value. • Separate the study basin between the Smoky River Basin and the Republican/Kansas River Basin. -
Quail, Pheasant, & Turkey Brood Survey
. QUAIL, PHEASANT, & TURKEY BROOD SURVEY - 2018 Performance Report A Contribution in Part of Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Grant W-39-R-25 KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, PARKS, and TOURISM Linda Craghead Interim Secretary Keith Sexson Assistant Secretary Wildlife, Fisheries, and Boating Jake George Wildlife Division Director Prepared by: Jeff Prendergast Small Game Specialist October 2018 PERMISSION TO QUOTE This is an annual progress report that may contain information that is subject to future modification or revision. Persons wishing to quote from this report, for reproduction or reference, should first obtain permission from the Chief of the Wildlife Section, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, 512 SE 25th Avenue, Pratt, KS 67124. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT This program receives Federal financial assistance from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U. S. Department of the Interior and its bureaus prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability or sex (in educational programs). If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility, or if you desire further information, please write to: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Diversity and Civil Rights Programs- External Programs 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 130 Arlington, VA 22203 QUAIL, PHEASANT, AND TURKEY BROOD SURVEY RESULTS – 2018 Prepared by Jeff Prendergast, Small Game Specialist INTRODUCTION The Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism (KDWPT) collects reproductive data for quail (Colinus virginianus and Callipepla squamata), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) statewide. -
Cedar Bluff Reservoir 2000 Reservoir Survey
CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR 2000 RESERVOIR SURVEY RE.SO' -J U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 0MB No. 0704-0 188 L AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED March 2001 Final _______________________________ 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NTJMBERS Cedar Bluff Reservoir PR 2000 Reservoir Survey 6. AUTHOR(S) Ronald L. Ferrari ______________________ 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver CO 80225-0007 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Federal Center, P0 Box 25007, DIBR Denver CO 80225-0007 ____________________________ 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Hard copy available at Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILiTY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 worch) The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) surveyed Cedar Bluff Reservoir in September of 2000 to develop a topographic map and compute a present storage-elevation relationship (area-capacity tables). The data were used to calculate reservoir capacity lost due to sediment accumulation since dam closure in November of 1950. The underwater survey was conducted in September of 2000 near reservoir elevation 2143.7 feet (project datum). The underwater survey used sonic depth recording equipment interfaced with a global positioning system (GPS) that gave continuous sounding positions throughout the underwater portions of the reservoir covered by the survey vessel. The above-water topography was detennined by digitizing the developed contour lines from the U.S. -
FISHERIES and WILDLIFE DIVISION FISH CULTURE SECTION 1999 PRODUCTION REPORT
FISHERIES and WILDLIFE DIVISION FISH CULTURE SECTION 1999 PRODUCTION REPORT h Meade Fish Rearing Station KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS 1'his program receives Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act o f 1973, Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department o f the Interior and its bureaus prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability or sex (in educational programs). I f you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility, or if you desire further information please write to: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office for Diversity and Civil Rights Programs-Extemal Programs 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 130 Arlington, VA 22203 FISH CULTURE SECTION 1999 PRODUCTION REPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE DIVISION KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS Steve Williams, Secretary January, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 TRENDS IN FISH PRODUCTION DEMAND 2 FISH PRODUCTION SUMMARY 3 FARLINGTON HATCHERY 5 Channel Catfish 8 Largemouth Bass 10 Redear Sunfish 11 Saugeye 12 Percid/Morone sps. 13 Striped Bass 14 Striped Bass Hybrids 15 Walleye 17 Grass Carp 18 MEADE FISH REARING STATION 19 Hybrid Bluegill 23 Largemouth Bass 24 Smallmouth Bass 26 Grass Carp 28 MILFORD HATCHERY 29 Channel Catfish 33 Largemouth Bass 36 Paddlefish 37 Striped Bass 38 Striped Bass Hybrids (WBxSTB) 40 Percid sp. -
State of the Resource & Regional Goal Action Plan Implementation
State of the Resource & Regional Goal Action Plan Implementation Report August 2018 Smoky Hill-Saline Regional Planning Area Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................2 WATER USE TRENDS ...........................................................................................................................3 WATER RESOURCES CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................5 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................................................ 5 SURFACE WATER ............................................................................................................................................... 6 WATER QUALITY .............................................................................................................................. 10 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS .......................................................................................................... 14 SURFACE WATER ............................................................................................................................................. 14 IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS ................................................................................................................ 16 REGIONAL GOALS & ACTION PLAN PROGRESS .................................................................................