DOCSLIB.ORG

Kirwin Lake WRAPS 9 Element Watershed Protection Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kirwin Lake WRAPS 9 Element Watershed Protection Plan Kirwin Lake WRAPS 9 Element Watershed Protection Plan Water Quality Impairments Directly Addressed: • Kirwin Lake Eutrophication TMDL (Medium Priority) Other Impairments Which Stand to Benefit from Watershed Plan Implementation: • Kirwin Lake Dissolved Oxygen TMDL (Medium Priority) • Bow Creek Near Stockton Total Phosphorous 303(d) listing • North Fork Solomon River Near Glade Total Phosphorous 303(d) listing • Logan City Lake Eutrophication 303(d) listing Determination of Priority Areas Information collected by the Graham, Norton and Phillips county NRCS offices was used by KSU in a SWAT model to identify priority HUC12s. Because of extremely low soil erosion rates, the SLT requested KDHE verify the SWAT model results. KDHE used the Cropland/Slope Analysis method to verify the SWAT model data. The results confirmed the SWAT results identifying nine HUC12s. This method also identified eleven additional HUC12s as significant potential sediment contributors. The SLT agreed to develop two priority area, Tiers 1 and 2, above Kirwin Lake to focus BMP implementation towards addressing nonpoint source impairment issues. Best Management Practice and Load Reduction Goals Phosphorus Load to Watershed Plan Kirwin Lake Current Meet Kirwin Lake Phosphorus Load Phosphorus Load EU TMDL (143,000 lbs/yr) Reduction Goal (48,400 lbs/yr) (94,600 lbs/yr) BMPs to be implemented in association Watershed Plan Duration and Costs with Watershed Plan: • Total plan length = 30 years • Cropland-related BMPs o Load reduction goal of plan met during year 30 o Permanent vegetation • o Grassed waterways Total plan cost = $25,802,172 Cropland BMP Implementation o No-till cropland production o . $15,638,153 o Terraces Livestock BMP Implementation o Nutrient management o . o Vegetative Buffers $1,072,359 Subsurface Fertilizer Application o Information and Education o • Livestock-related BMPs . $5,285,626 Technical Assistance o Vegetative filter strips o . o Relocate feeding pens $3,806,034 Relocate pasture feeding sites o o Alternative watering systems Rotational grazing o o Fence out streams and ponds o Grazing management plans Kirwin Lake WRAPS Approved April 30, 2013 Funding for the development of this plan was provided through EPA 319 grant 2009-W035 from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. 1 | Page Stakeholder Leadership Team Includes representatives from: Smoky Solomon Resource Enhancement, Inc. County Conservation Districts K-State Research and Extension Kansas Natural Resource Foundation (KNRF) North Central Prairie Weed Management Area (NCPWMA) Local Agriculture Producers Watershed Representatives: Phillips County: Bob Quanz, Rod Quanz, Melvin Schooler, Jean Stapel, Alan States, and Bruce Williams Norton County: Twila Dizmang K-State Research and Extension: Rachael Boyle, Phillips-Rooks District Prairie Dog Creek WRAPS: Lari Ann Nickell Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge: Brad Krohn, Clay Cole, Stephen Knowles, and Tony Ifland Kansas Department of Health and Environment Project Officer Doug Schneweis, Watershed Field Coordinator Additional Technical Assistance Provided by: Josh Roe, K-State Research and Extension Robert Wilson, K-State Research and Extension Larry Meili, Phillips County District Conservationist, NRCS James Molzahn, Rooks County District Conservationist, NRCS George Carter, Norton County District Conservationist, NRCS Brian Schulze, Graham County District Conservationist, NRCS Matt Palmquist, Sheridan County District Conservationist, NRCS Teresa Chrisler, Kirwin Lake WRAPS Coordinator and Smoky Solomon Resource Enhancement, Executive Director Cover: Aerial view of Kirwin Lake 2 | Page Table of Contents 1.0 Preface 5 2.0 Priority Issues and Goals of the Stakeholder Leadership Team 5 3.0 Watershed Review 7 3.1 Bureau of Reclamation Dam 11 3.2 Land Cover/Land Uses 14 3.3 Designated Uses 17 3.4 Special Aquatic Life Use Waters 18 3.5 Public Water Supply and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 21 3.6 Confined Animal Feeding Operations 24 3.7 Water Quality Impairments 25 3.8 TMDL Load Allocations 27 4.0 Determination of Priority Areas and BMP Needs 29 4.1 Priority Areas 29 4.2 BMP Needs 37 5.0 Load Reduction Estimate Methodology 38 5.1 Cropland BMPs and Pollutant Load Reductions to Address Kirwin Lake EU TMDL 39 5.2 Livestock BMPs and Pollutant Load Reductions to Address Kirwin Lake EU TMDL 44 5.3 Total Pollutant Load Reductions to Address Kirwin Lake EU TMDL 47 6.0 BMP Implementation Milestones 49 7.0 Costs of Implementing BMPs and Possible Funding Sources 51 7.1 Costs of Implementing Cropland BMPs 51 7.2 Cost of Implementing Livestock BMPs 53 7.3 Total Costs of Implementing BMPs 55 7.4 Service Provider Needs for BMP Implementation 56 7.5 BMP Technical Assistance Annual Cost 58 7.6 Potential BMP Funding Sources 59 8.0 Water Quality Milestones to Determine Improvements 60 8.1 Water Quality Milestones for Kirwin Lake WRAPS Project Area 60 8.2 Water Quality Milestones for Bow Creek and Upper North Fork Solomon River 61 8.3 Additional Water Quality Indictors 62 8.4 Monitoring Water Quality Progress 63 8.5 Volunteer Water Monitoring 63 8.6 Evaluation of Monitoring Data 64 9.0 Information /Education and Technical Assistance Plan 64 9.1 Information/Education and Technical Assistance Schedule with Cost 64 Estimates 9.2 Evaluation of Information and Education Activities 70 10.0 Total Annual Cost of Kirwin Lake WRAPS Plan 71 11.0 Review of the Watershed Plan 72 12.0 Appendix 72 12.1 Glossary of Terms 72 12.2 BMP Definitions 74 12.3 Service Providers 81 12.4 Sub-Watershed Implementation Table 86 3 | Page List of Figures Figure 1: Location of Solomon River Basin within the River Basins of Kansas 7 Figure 2: Location of the Kirwin Lake watershed in relation to the Waconda Lake watershed, Smoky Solomon Resource Enhancement, and the State of Kansas 8 Figure 3: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Area 9 Figure 4: Kirwin Lake Watershed with HUC 12 watersheds 10 Figure 5: Kirwin Lake watershed Land cover and Land Use 14 Figure 6: Common Sources of Nonpoint Water Pollution 16 Figure 7: Kirwin Lake watershed Wildlife Areas 19 Figure 8: Kirwin Lake watershed Public Water Supplies 23 Figure 9: Kirwin Lake watershed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems 24 Figure10: Kirwin Lake watershed Active CAFOs 25 Figure 11. Kirwin Lake watershed Classified Streams and Lakes 29 Figure 12: Kirwin Lake WRAPS - HUC 10260011 Phosphorous Loads, lbs/acre 34 Figure 13 .Kirwin Lake WRAPS - HUC 10260011 Sediment Loads, lbs/acre 35 Figure 14 .Kirwin Lake WRAPS - HUC 10260011 Nitrogen Loads, lbs/acre 35 Figure 15: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Priority areas for BMP Implementation 36 Figure 16. Monitoring Sites in Kirwin Watershed 63 List of Tables Table 1: Land Use and Land Cover Summary 15 Table 2: Kirwin Lake watershed Stream/River/Lake Designated Uses 17 Table 3: Public Water Supplies within Kirwin Lake watershed 21 Table 4: TMDL Development Cycle for Solomon River Basin 26 Table 5: Stream and Lake TMDLS for Upper North Fork Solomon 26 Table 6. 303(d) List for Upper North Fork Solomon 27 Table 7. Agricultural Management Operations Survey Information for portions of Phillips, Norton, and Graham Counties within the Kirwin Lake watershed. 31 Table 8: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Cropland BMPs, Cost, and Reduction Efficiencies 37 Table 9: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Livestock BMPs, Cost, and Reduction Efficiencies 38 Table 10: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Cropland BMPs Annual Adoption 39 Table 11: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Cropland Annual Phosphorus Load Reduction 40 Table 12: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Cropland Annual Nitrogen Reduction 41 Table 13: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Cropland Annual Soil Erosion Reduction 42 Table 14: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Cropland Annual Sediment Reduction 43 Table 15: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Livestock BMP Adoption 44 Table 16: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Livestock BMP Phosphorous Load Reduction 45 Table 17: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Livestock BMP Nitrogen load Reduction 46 Table 18: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Phosphorous load reduction totals 47 Table 19: Kirwin Lake WRAPS BMP % Phosphorous totals 48 Table 20: Kirwin Lake WRAPS Nitrogen Load Reduction totals 48 Table 21: Cropland BMP implementation milestones 49 Table 22: Livestock BMP implementation milestones 50 Table 23: Cropland BMP Annual Cost Before Cost-Share 51 Table 24: Cropland BMP Annual Cost After Cost-Share 52 Table 25: Livestock BMP Annual Cost Before Cost-Share 53 Table 26: Livestock BMP Annual Cost After Cost-Share 54 Table 27: BMP Annual Cost After Cost-Share by BMP Category 55 Table 28: Service Provider Needs for BMP Implementation 56 Table 29: BMP Technical Assistance Annual Cost 58 Table 30: Potential BMP funding sources 59 Table 31: Water Quality Milestones for Kirwin Lake 61 Table 32: Water Quality Milestones for Bow Creek and Upper North Fork Solomon River 62 Table 33: Information/Education and technical assistance schedule with cost estimates 65 Table 34: Total Annual cost of Kirwin Lake WRAPS Plan 71 4 | Page 1.0 Preface The purpose of this Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) watershed plan, for Kirwin Lake Watershed, is to outline a plan of restoration and protection goals and actions for the surface waters of the watershed. Watershed goals are characterized as “restoration” or “protection”. Watershed restoration is for surface waters that do not meet Kansas water quality standards, and for areas of the watershed that need improvement in habitat, land management, or other attributes. Watershed protection is needed for surface waters that currently meet water quality standards, but are in need of protection from future degradation. The WRAPS development process involves local communities and governmental agencies working together toward the common goal of a healthy environment. Local participants or stakeholders provide valuable grass roots leadership, responsibility and management of resources in the process. They have the most “at stake” in ensuring the water quality existing on their land is protected. Agencies bring science-based information, communication, and technical and financial assistance to the table. Together, several steps can be taken towards watershed restoration and protection.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0040; FXRS12610900000-190-FF09R20000]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/10/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-18054, and on govinfo.gov Billing Code 4333-15 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Parts 26, 32, 36, and 71 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0040; FXRS12610900000-190-FF09R20000] RIN 1018-BD79 2019–2020 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), open seven National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) that are currently closed to hunting and sport fishing. In addition, we expand hunting and sport fishing at 70 other NWRs, and add pertinent station-specific regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2019–2020 season. We also formally open 15 units of the National Fish Hatchery System to hunting and sport fishing. We also add pertinent station- specific regulations that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing at these 15 National Fish Hatcheries (NFHs) for the 2019–2020 season. This rule includes global administrative updates to every NWR entry in our refuge- specific regulations and the reorganization of general public use regulations. We remove approximately 2,100 regulations that will have no impact on the administration of hunting and sport fishing within the National Wildlife Refuge System. We also simplify over 2,900 refuge- specific regulations to comply with a Presidential mandate to adhere to plain language standards 1 and to reduce the regulatory burden on the public.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Waconda Lake WRAPS 9 Element Watershed Protection Plan
    Waconda Lake WRAPS 9 Element Watershed Protection Plan Water Quality Impairments Directly Addressed: Waconda Lake Eutrophication TMDL (Medium Priority) North Fork Solomon River E. coli TMDL (Medium Priority) South Fork Solomon River E. coli TMDL (High Priority) Other Impairments Which Stand to Benefit from Watershed Plan Implementation: South Fork Solomon River Biology TMDL (Low Priority), Total Phosphorus 303(d) listing, and Total Suspended Solids 303(d) listing North Fork Solomon River Total Phosphorus 303(d) listing, Total Suspended Solids 303(d) listing, and Biology 303(d) listing Twin Creek Dissolved Oxygen TMDL (Medium Priority) Oak Creek Dissolved Oxygen 303(d) listing and Total Phosphorus 303(d) listing Carr Creek Total Phosphorus 303(d) listing and Total Suspended Solids 303(d) listing Beaver Creek Dissolved Oxygen 303(d) listing, Total Phosphorus 303(d) listing, and Total Suspended Solids 303(d) listing Deer Creek Dissolved Oxygen 303(d) listing and Total Phosphorus 303(d) listing Determination of Priority Areas Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL) Model to identify HUC 12 watersheds within highest estimated phosphorus loads for cropland targeted areas Interpretation of water quality data included within bacteria TMDLs for North and South Fork Solomon Rivers to identify HUC 12 watersheds to focus BMP implementation towards addressing bacteria impairment issues. Best Management Practice and Load Reduction Goals Phosphorus Watershed Plan Waconda Lake Load to Meet Waconda Lake Current Waconda Lake
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Glen Elder Dam (Kansas)
    Project Profile Glen Elder Dam Glen Elder, Kansas Project Profile(2010) Project Summary The US Bureau of Reclamation completed original construction of the Glen Elder Dam and Spillway in 1968. This dam serves multiple purposes in controlling flooding as well as creating Waconda Lake which is used for municipal and irrigation water. The 664 ft wide spillway underwent significant renovation of the inlet slabs in early 2010. The existing concrete in both the inlet apron and the pier noses/gate structure had extensive deterioration due to freeze-thaw damage which promoted alkali-silica reaction. The repair procedure consisted of removing deteriorated concrete using hydro-demolition and replacing new concrete back to the existing lines and grades. Due to uneven deterioration, the removed concrete varied from full-depth removal (18”) to intermediate removals ranging to the areas of sound concrete. The islands of good concrete were saw-cut at sharp angles (image 1). Further, the replacement concrete coarse aggregate was only locally available in 1/2” nominal, which further increased concerns regarding shrinkage cracking. Islands of sound concrete remain after removing Extensive shrinkage cracking appears 1-2 weeks uneven depths of deteriorated concrete. after pouring concrete mix without PREVent-C. When the new concrete was placed, extensive shrinkage cracking occurred within the first seven days. The concrvete mix was re- evaluated for improvements before proceeding further. Convention SRAs based on glycol ether were considered and may have improved the shrinkage cracking moderately, but were not chosen based on their potential effects on compressive strength gain as well as freeze- thaw durability concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Level Management Plans Water Year 2017
    LAKE LEVEL MANAGEMENT PLANS WATER YEAR 2017 KANSAS WATER OFFICE 2016 CORPS OF ENGINEERS, KANSAS CITY DISTRICT ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 CLINTON LAKE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 HILLSDALE LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 KANOPOLIS LAKE ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 MELVERN LAKE ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 MILFORD LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 PERRY LAKE .............................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Glen Elder District Fisheries Vol
    Glen Elder District Fisheries Vol. 2, Issue 2 Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, & Tourism Fisheries Division Fall 2011 Fall Offers Some of the Finest Angling About the time many anglers are putting away their favorite fishing rods, storing tackle, and winterizing the boat until next spring, most area lakes and reservoirs begin to experience a change in fishing patterns. The good news for those anglers still out there hitting the water, is that this a change for the better. While some anglers realize what a tremendous opportunity is available to them between now and first ice, others are already carrying a shotgun or bow through the woods. Below is a summary of what can be expected if you choose to extend your angling season a couple of months this fall. Using past angler reports, personal experience, and observations from annual fall sampling, the guide below will at least give you an idea of where to start. Crappie: These guys have just about become a year-round fishery on most major reservoirs. They can be caught through the ice, during the spawn, and now there is a good summertime bite (both deep and shallow) that has started catching on around here. Fall is no different in that the crappie are out there and ready to bite if you can find them. As the water cools, the crappie tend to congregate, many of them migrating to the brush piles and other structure in the reservoir. Anglers tend to do well hitting these areas with jigs, spoons, and minnows. During our fall sampling, we see good numbers of fish shallow, as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Goal Action Plans Section
    CIMARRON REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION PLANS CIMARRON PRIORITY GOAL #1 REDUCE THE RATE OF DECLINE OF THE OGALLALA AQUIFER IN THE REGION THROUGH VOLUNTARY, INCENTIVE-BASED CONSERVATION AS ASSESSED EVERY FIVE YEARS CIMARRON PRIORITY GOAL #2 EXTEND THE USABLE LIFETIME OF THE OGALLALA AQUIFER IN THE REGION THROUGH TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION (IRRIGATION, INDUSTRIAL, MUNICIPAL, ETC.), NEW CROP VARIETIES AND CONSERVATION FOR ALL USES AND FOR MANY GENERATIONS Goals 1 and 2 seek to reduce water use in the region therefore the following actions apply to both ACTION STEPS • Define and quantify the regional aquifer decline, establishing a baseline for comparison • Work with partners, including KDA and NRCS, to develop baseline of water saving technologies in use and voluntary incentive based conservation occurring and a method to track participation. Consider using the annual water reporting system, producer surveys and other means to identify water saving efforts if needed. • Secure funding, including statutory SGF transfer to SWPF, to support water conservation programs and evaluation of technologies, crop varieties and water management to save water. • Provide water users with information on available tools and programs, including but not limited to; LEMAS, WCAs, Multi-Year Flex Accounts, Water Banks, Irrigation Scheduling, RCPP-Soil Probe program through GMDs, K-State Extension tools, K-State Research/farms and additional tools and programs as made available. • Change producer perception from a “use it or lose it” mentality. • Use demonstration projects to educate producers to economically reduce water used. (Water technology farms, LEMAS, WCAs, K-State Research and Extension farm projects and other water management and water efficiency projects can provide valuable examples and information to producers to encourage their participation in water saving efforts.) • GMD3 and DWR work with producers to establish LEMAs and WCAs.
    [Show full text]
  • Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge Fishing Expansion
    U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION STATEMENT FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION The Service proposes to expand fishing opportunities (boating regulations changes) on 1,360 acres of the Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge, Kansas in accordance with existing State, local, and Refuge-specific regulations (50 CFR 32.35). Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife resources, I have established the following administrative record and determined that the following proposed action is categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements consistent with 40 CFR 1508.4, 43 CFR 46.205, and 516 DM 8.5. The Service has fully satisfied the other requirements for expanding these opportunities on the refuge, including: □X determining that the opportunities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (see attached Compatibility Determination); □X ensuring the opportunities are consistent with existing State, local, and refuge- specific regulations (50 CFR 32.35); *Use of signs and brochures may supplement the refuge-specific regulations □X complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (see attached); □X complying with the Endangered Species Act section 7 evaluation (see attached) OR □ N/A because there are no candidate, threatened or endangered species present; □X complying with the National Historic Preservation Act section 106 consultation; OR □ N/A because there are no cultural or historic resources present; The Service is, therefore, waiving the requirement to prepare an opening package in compliance with Service policy (605 FW 2.9A).
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Level Management Plans Water Year 2019
    LAKE LEVEL MANAGEMENT PLANS WATER YEAR 2019 Kansas Water Office September 2018 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
    [Show full text]
  • General Fishing Atlas Information
    ATLAS COVER Pages FISH 2021.qxp_ATLAS COVER Pages FISH 2/17/21 10:42 AM Page 1 Kansas Fishing Atlas 2021 Public Fishing Access Includes Walk-in Fishing Access (WIFA) Get our mobile app HuntFish KS ATLAS COVER Pages FISH 2021.qxp_ATLAS COVER Pages FISH 2/17/21 10:42 AM Page 2 WIFA Area Rules Walk-in Fishing Access (WIFA), formerly F.I.S.H., sites 6. Avoid stretching fences when crossing them, and use are leased from private landowners and are typically open to fence stiles where available. public fishing from March 1 – Oct. 31, though some proper- ties are open year-round. The WIFA program provides 7. Do not attempt to contact cooperating landowners to ask anglers increased opportunities to enjoy fishing on the state’s about fishing other portions of their land. streams and small impoundments, all that is required is a state fishing license. Funding for the program is provided Regulations governing WIFA area use: through fishing license revenues and Sport Fish Restoration Funds. Please observe all rules and regulations, and remem- • Impounded WIFA waters have a creel limit of two channel ber that common sense and ethical behavior will influence catfish, a creel limit of two largemouth bass, and an 18-inch the future of the program. minimum length limit on largemouth bass. Otherwise, all Kansas fishing regulations and statewide creel limits apply. It’s The following guidelines help maintain a good relation- especially important for anglers using the sites to respect and fol- ship between landowners and anglers: low the rules that apply on WIFA properties.
    [Show full text]