DOCSLIB.ORG

GRDA), an Agency of the State of Oklahoma

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GRDA), an Agency of the State of Oklahoma PENSACOLA PROJECT FERC No. 1494 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN As Approved by the Board of Directors on June 11, 2008 GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY VINITA, OKLAHOMA PENSACOLA PROJECT FERC No. 1494 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN June 11, 2008 GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY VINITA, OKLAHOMA PENSACOLA PROJECT FERC NO. 1494 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN Executive Summary The Pensacola Project (FERC No. 1494) (Project) is an existing, federally licensed hydroelectric project located in northeastern Oklahoma that is owned and operated by the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA), an agency of the State of Oklahoma. Completed in 1940, the Project’s Pensacola Dam is the longest multi-arched dam in the world. The Pensacola Dam impounds the waters of the Grand River to form the Grand Lake O’ The Cherokees (Grand Lake). Grand Lake encompasses approximately 46,500 surface acres of water and 1,300 miles of shoreline. The Project boundary is located in close proximity to the shoreline and privately owned land is generally found mere feet from the water’s edge. Since its creation, Grand Lake has been a popular recreational and residential destination. During its history, Grand Lake has hosted the National Governor’s Conference and several nationally recognized fishing tournaments. It is the home of the nation’s oldest long distance regatta on an inland lake and the oldest yacht club in Oklahoma. Current uses of the shoreline include residential and commercial development, agriculture, and wildlife management areas. Grand Lake also has considerable value as an environmental resource. It contains significant aquatic and terrestrial habitat for a host of species. Additionally, the shoreline serves an important function in the local ecology. Increasing development and competing uses for resources around the lake point to the need for a clearly defined, comprehensive and consistent management strategy for the Project’s shoreline. This Shoreline Management Plan (SMP or Plan) provides a comprehensive plan for Grand Lake that considers GRDA’s enabling legislation, the FERC license, historical and current - ES-1 - June 11, 2008 Pensacola Project Shoreline Management Plan public use, and the need to accommodate future growth and changing use patterns; all while maintaining stewardship for the environmental and socioeconomic resources entrusted to GRDA. This document draws the resulting management strategies, policies, and practices from GRDA’s existing practices, FERC directives and guidance, and information gained from interested stakeholders, resource agencies, and other public comments. The management vision for Grand Lake is defined by the Plan’s distinct Shoreline Management Classifications (SMC) and Allowable Use Categories (AUC). The multi-tiered SMC system, which includes Responsible Growth Areas, Stewardship Areas, and Wildlife Management Areas, identifies clear management objectives for Project land. The Allowable Use Categories define the use types that will be permitted in those areas. To implement these goals, objective standards and procedures are detailed in other parts of the Plan. Taken as a whole, the SMP protects Grand Lake’s valued resources by providing clear guidance for determining whether a proposed use is appropriate in an area. This SMP is the product of extensive consultation with stakeholders, including the public and resource agencies. No less than twenty-seven meetings, open to the public, have been held during the plan’s development and thousands of written comments have been received. Additionally, resource agencies have had the opportunity to be actively involved during all stages of the plan’s development. In 2005, GRDA began the process of developing an SMP by having discussions with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission), state and federal resource agencies, and interested stakeholders. To aid in the development of the SMP, GRDA hired Kleinschmidt Associates, an energy and water resource consulting firm. Three public meetings held in October of 2005, led to the development of the Stakeholder Working Group (SWG), an advisory committee comprised of interested individuals, representatives of non-governmental organizations, informal citizen groups, commercial interests, as well as state and federal agencies. The Stakeholder Working Group provided advice and opinions regarding key components of the SMP including the designation of land use - ES-2 - June 11, 2008 Pensacola Project Shoreline Management Plan classifications for shoreline property, definitions of allowable uses within these areas, and suggestions for permitting policies. In December 2006, Kleinschmidt Associates prepared a working draft of the SMP (December 2006 Working Draft), taking into account input from the Stakeholder Working Group, the public, and state and federal resource agencies. In February and March 2007, GRDA held five public hearings to provide stakeholders throughout Oklahoma with the opportunity to comment on the December 2006 Working Draft. Approximately 724 people attended these sessions, which were held in several communities around Grand Lake, and in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, the state’s major population centers. The hearings were moderated by Mr. John D. Rothman, an experienced mediator and attorney, who was hired by GRDA to conduct the hearings and to prepare an independent report summarizing the public’s opinions. In addition to the comments made at hearings, GRDA received 345 written comments, and petitions with a total of 2,713 signatures. In his summary, Mr. Rothman stated that the public was overwhelmingly opposed to the December 2006 Working Draft, with the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) and the Shoreline Management Classifications (SMC) being the two greatest areas of concern. The VMP was criticized for its extensive permitting requirements, especially for routine maintenance and debris removal, while the SMC were seen as leaving too little shoreline available for future commercial development. On September 12, 2007, GRDA staff presented a revised draft of the SMP (Revised Draft) to the GRDA Board of Directors for review. Stakeholders were given an opportunity to submit written comments on the SMP and to voice their opinions at public hearings held in October, 2007. Public support for the Revised Draft was widespread. As part of this consultation process, GRDA solicited comments from twenty-seven resource agencies. Further, it delayed final approval of the SMP to engage in a meaningful dialog with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. - ES-3 - June 11, 2008 Pensacola Project Shoreline Management Plan GRDA made several changes to the SMP as a result of discussions with the resource agencies. These changes include: • Creation of a distinct SMC for wildlife management; • Consolidation and relocation of areas designated as Stewardship Areas to maximize the benefits of resource management efforts; • Clear identification of factors to be considered prior to permitting new uses; and, • Requirements for pubic hearings prior to permitting new uses. - ES-4 - June 11, 2008 Pensacola Project Shoreline Management Plan GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY VINITA, OKLAHOMA PENSACOLA PROJECT FERC NO. 1494 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Purpose and Scope of the Shoreline Management Plan...................................................... 4 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Territorial Jurisdiction............................................................................................ 5 2.3 Structure of the SMP............................................................................................... 5 3.0 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 8 4.0 Public Participation and Consultation................................................................................. 9 4.1 Kleinschmidt Associates......................................................................................... 9 4.2 Public Information Sessions ................................................................................... 9 4.3 Stakeholder Working Group Meetings ................................................................... 9 4.4 Agency Consultation............................................................................................. 10 4.5 Public Comment on the SMP Drafts..................................................................... 13 5.0 Inventory of existing resources and uses .......................................................................... 15 5.1 Grand River Basin................................................................................................. 15 5.2 Pensacola Project .................................................................................................. 16 5.3 Geology and Soils................................................................................................. 17 5.4 Water Quality........................................................................................................ 18 5.4.1 Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen......................................................... 19 5.4.2 pH.............................................................................................................. 20
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 8/Thursday, January 12, 2017/Notices
    3766 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices of the protest or intervention to the Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Protests may be considered, but Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Revisions to OATT Schedule 12— intervention is necessary to become a 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC Appendix A re: RTEP Projects party to the proceeding. 20426. Approved in Dec 2016 to be effective 4/ eFiling is encouraged. More detailed This filing is accessible on-line at 6/2017. information relating to filing http://www.ferc.gov, using the Filed Date: 1/6/17. requirements, interventions, protests, ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for Accession Number: 20170106–5061. service, and qualifying facilities filings review in the Commission’s Public Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/17. can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ Reference Room in Washington, DC. Docket Numbers: ER17–754–000. docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Applicants: Southern California other information, call (866) 208–3676 Web site that enables subscribers to Edison Company. (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. receive email notification when a Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: GIA Dated: January 6, 2017. document is added to a subscribed and Distribution Service Agmt Kimberly D. Bose, docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Lendlease California City Solar LLC to Secretary. Online service, please email be effective 1/7/2017. [FR Doc. 2017–00564 Filed 1–11–17; 8:45 am] [email protected], or call Filed Date: 1/6/17. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P (866) 208–3676 (toll free).
    [Show full text]
  • Campgrounds, Sand Hills, Playground, Sand Volleyball Court, Nature Trail, Hiking Trails, Horseshoe Pits, Picnic Shelters, Fishing
    MileByMile.com Personal Road Trip Guide Oklahoma United States Highway #64 "Oklahoma-New Mexico State Line to Oklahoma-Arkansas State Line" Miles ITEM SUMMARY 0.0 Oklahoma-New Mexico From Clayton, NM, US Highway 64 crosses the state line and enters the State Line community of Felt, OK. Runs concurrently with US Highways 412 & 56. Altitude: 4744 feet 12.0 Felt, OK Community of Felt, OK. Limited services. Altitude: 4455 feet 28.4 US Highway 385 South to the Oklahoma-Texas state line. NOTE: Overlap to the north with US Highway 64. Altitude: 4209 feet 31.8 US Highway NOTE: US Highway 385 ends its overlap with US Highway 64, joins 385/Oklahoma State OK State Highway 3 and goes north to the Oklahoma-Colorado state Highways 3/325 line. OK State Highway 325 heads west-north to the community of Kenton, OK. - Black Mesa Oklahoma State Park (County Rd 325, Tel. 580-426-2222): picnic area, nature preserve, campsites, playground, hiking trails, wildlife viewing, showers, restrooms; open dawn to dusk; and the Oklahoma-New Mexico state line. NOTE: OK State Highway 3 overlaps US Highway 64. Altitude: 4167 feet 32.2 Boise City, OK Community of Boise City, OK. Limited services. Altitude: 4154 feet 33.4 US Highway 287 North-west-north to Boise City Airport (a public use airport north of Boise, OK) and the Oklahoma-Colorado state line. South to the Oklahoma-Texas state line. Altitude: 4140 feet 39.3 US Highway 56 NOTE: US Highway 56 separates from US Highway 64. Northeast to the communities of Keyes, OK (limited services) and Sturgis, OK (limited services).
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration and Maintenance of the Access to the Neosho River at Jacobs Creek-John Redmond Reservoir)
    FEASIBILITY STUDY (RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ACCESS TO THE NEOSHO RIVER AT JACOBS CREEK-JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR) 2008 Prepared for Kansas Water Office 901 South Kansas Topeka, KS 66612 Prepared by Watershed Institute, Inc. 1200 SW Executive Dr. Topeka, KS 66615 www.watershedinstitute.biz Cover Page Photo: Neosho River Logjam from Jacobs Landing FEASIBILITY STUDY — NEOSHO RIVER LOGJAM ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION...........................................................................................................2 PROJECT SETTING ...............................................................................................................................2 Neosho River Logjam..........................................................................................................................4 NEOSHO RIVER RESEARCH...............................................................................................................4 Natural and Regulated Flows/Historical Droughts ............................................................................4 High-Flow Frequency/Channel Geometry..........................................................................................5 Geomorphic Effects/Overflow Dams...................................................................................................5 Channel Stability Downstream from John Redmond Dam
    [Show full text]
  • CHECK out OTHER FISHING INFORMATION at OUR WEBSITE: Kansas Fishing: We’Ve Come a Long Way, Baby!
    Details Back Cover CHECK OUT OTHER FISHING INFORMATION AT OUR WEBSITE: www.kdwp.state.ks.us Kansas fishing: We’ve come a long way, baby! hat's right. Kansas fishing isn't what it used to be. It's much more. Oh, we still have some of the best channel, Tflathead, and blue catfishing to be found, but today Kansas anglers have great variety. If you're an old-school angler and still want to catch the whiskered fish native to our streams and rivers, you have more opportunities today than ever. Channel catfish are found in nearly every stream, river, pond, lake, and reservoir in the state. They remain one of the most popular angling species. To keep up with demand, state fish hatcheries produce mil- lions of channel cats each year. Some are stocked into lakes as fry, but more are fed and grown to catchable size, then stocked into one of many state and community lakes around the state. Our reservoirs hold amazing numbers of channel catfish, and for the most part, the reservoir cats are overlooked by anglers fishing for other species. Fisheries biologists consider channel cats an underutilized resource in most large reservoirs. For sheer excitement, the flathead catfish is still king. Monster flatheads weighing 60, 70 and even 80 pounds are caught each owned, but some reaches are leased by the department through summer. Most of the truly large flatheads come from the larger the Fishing Impoundments and Stream Habitats (F.I.S.H) rivers in the eastern half of the state, where setting limb and trot Program, while other reaches are in public ownership.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Impact Statement for the Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan for the Endangered American Burying Beetle
    Final Environmental Impact Statement For the Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan for the Endangered American Burying Beetle for American Electric Power in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas Volume II: Appendices September 2018 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Region Albuquerque, NM Costs to Develop and Produce this EIS: Lead Agency $29,254 Applicant (Contractor) $341,531 Total Costs $370,785 Appendix A Acronyms and Glossary Appendix A Acronyms and Glossary ACRONYMS °F Fahrenheit ABB American burying beetle AEP American Electric Power Company AMM avoidance and minimization measures APE Area of Potential Effects APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee APP Avian Protection Plan Applicant American Electric Power Company ATV all-terrain vehicles BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMP best management practices CE Common Era CFR Code of Federal Regulations Corps Army Corps of Engineers CPA Conservation Priority Areas CWA Clean Water Act DNL day-night average sound level EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMF electric magnetic fields EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FR Federal Register GHG greenhouse gases HCP American Electric Power Habitat Conservation Plan for American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas ITP Incidental Take Permit MDL multi-district litigation NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHD National Hydrography Dataset NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWR National Wildlife Refuge OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration ROD Record of Decision ROW right-of-way American Electric Power Habitat Conservation Plan September 2018 A-1 Environmental Impact Statement U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • RV Sites in the United States Location Map 110-Mile Park Map 35 Mile
    RV sites in the United States This GPS POI file is available here: https://poidirectory.com/poifiles/united_states/accommodation/RV_MH-US.html Location Map 110-Mile Park Map 35 Mile Camp Map 370 Lakeside Park Map 5 Star RV Map 566 Piney Creek Horse Camp Map 7 Oaks RV Park Map 8th and Bridge RV Map A AAA RV Map A and A Mesa Verde RV Map A H Hogue Map A H Stephens Historic Park Map A J Jolly County Park Map A Mountain Top RV Map A-Bar-A RV/CG Map A. W. Jack Morgan County Par Map A.W. Marion State Park Map Abbeville RV Park Map Abbott Map Abbott Creek (Abbott Butte) Map Abilene State Park Map Abita Springs RV Resort (Oce Map Abram Rutt City Park Map Acadia National Parks Map Acadiana Park Map Ace RV Park Map Ackerman Map Ackley Creek Co Park Map Ackley Lake State Park Map Acorn East Map Acorn Valley Map Acorn West Map Ada Lake Map Adam County Fairgrounds Map Adams City CG Map Adams County Regional Park Map Adams Fork Map Page 1 Location Map Adams Grove Map Adelaide Map Adirondack Gateway Campgroun Map Admiralty RV and Resort Map Adolph Thomae Jr. County Par Map Adrian City CG Map Aerie Crag Map Aeroplane Mesa Map Afton Canyon Map Afton Landing Map Agate Beach Map Agnew Meadows Map Agricenter RV Park Map Agua Caliente County Park Map Agua Piedra Map Aguirre Spring Map Ahart Map Ahtanum State Forest Map Aiken State Park Map Aikens Creek West Map Ainsworth State Park Map Airplane Flat Map Airport Flat Map Airport Lake Park Map Airport Park Map Aitkin Co Campground Map Ajax Country Livin' I-49 RV Map Ajo Arena Map Ajo Community Golf Course Map
    [Show full text]
  • The 1951 Kansas - Missouri Floods
    The 1951 Kansas - Missouri Floods ... Have We Forgotten? Introduction - This report was originally written as NWS Technical Attachment 81-11 in 1981, the thirtieth anniversary of this devastating flood. The co-authors of the original report were Robert Cox, Ernest Kary, Lee Larson, Billy Olsen, and Craig Warren, all hydrologists at the Missouri Basin River Forecast Center at that time. Although most of the original report remains accurate today, Robert Cox has updated portions of the report in light of occurrences over the past twenty years. Comparisons of the 1951 flood to the events of 1993 as well as many other parenthetic remarks are examples of these revisions. The Storms of 1951 - Fifty years ago, the stage was being set for one of the greatest natural disasters ever to hit the Midwest. May, June and July of 1951 saw record rainfalls over most of Kansas and Missouri, resulting in record flooding on the Kansas, Osage, Neosho, Verdigris and Missouri Rivers. Twenty-eight lives were lost and damage totaled nearly 1 billion dollars. (Please note that monetary damages mentioned in this report are in 1951 dollars, unless otherwise stated. 1951 dollars can be equated to 2001 dollars using a factor of 6.83. The total damage would be $6.4 billion today.) More than 150 communities were devastated by the floods including two state capitals, Topeka and Jefferson City, as well as both Kansas Cities. Most of Kansas and Missouri as well as large portions of Nebraska and Oklahoma had monthly precipitation totaling 200 percent of normal in May, 300 percent in June, and 400 percent in July of 1951.
    [Show full text]
  • The University Op Oklahoma Graduate College An
    THE UNIVERSITY OP OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE AN ANALYSIS OP THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OP ELECTRIC POWER BY THE GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY BY C. ORVILLE ELLIOTT Norman, Oklahoma 1958 AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OP ELECTRIC POWER BY THE GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY APPROVED BY DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank Dr. Jim E. Reese, professor of economics at the University of Oklahoma, for suggesting this topic for research. As director of the dissertation. Dr. Reese gave unselfishly of his counsel in the field of public policy and of his time. His advice and encouragement were invaluable. Dr. Paul A. Brinker, professor of economics; Dr. Virgle G. Wilhite, professor of economics; Mr. Dewey L. Bames, professor of accounting; and Mr. James M. Murphy, assistant professor of finance, all of the University of Oklahoma, deserve grateful acknowledgment for their suggestions as the research progressed and their careful study of the completed work. Mr. W. B. Hoss, General Manager; Mr. Q. B. Boydston, General Counsel; Mr. James I. Monroe, General Auditor; and the entire staff of the Grand River Dam Authority at Vinita, Oklahoma, were very cooperative and helpful in providing full access to the records of the Grand River Dam Authority and in making many suggestions as the research was conducted. Without their cooperation it would have been impossible for iii this study to have "been completed. Mr. Francis J. Borelli and his staff in the Division of Water Resources, of the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board, were also very cooperative in permitting access to their records, files and publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis Rafinesqueana)
    Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) Cover photo: Dr. Chris Barnhart (Missouri State University) Prepared by: The Neosho Mucket Recovery Team This species biological report informs the Draft Recovery Plan for the Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017). The Species Biological Report is a comprehensive biological status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the Neosho Mucket and provides an account of species overall viability. A Recovery Implementation Strategy, which provides the expanded narrative for the recovery activities and the implementation schedule, is available at https://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es/. The Recovery Implementation Strategy and Species Biological Report are finalized separately from the Recovery Plan and will be updated on a routine basis. Executive Summary The Neosho Mucket is a freshwater mussel endemic to the Illinois, Neosho, and Verdigris River basins in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. It is associated with shallow riffles and runs comprising gravel substrate and moderate to swift currents, but prefers near-shore areas or areas out of the main current in Shoal Creek and Illinois River. It does not occur in reservoirs lacking riverine characteristics. The life-history traits and habitat requirements of the Neosho Mucket make it extremely susceptible to environmental change (e.g., droughts, sedimentation, chemical contaminants). Mechanisms leading to the decline of Neosho Mucket range from local (e.g., riparian clearing, chemical contaminants, etc.), to regional influences (e.g., altered flow regimes, channelization, etc.), to global climate change. The synergistic (interaction of two or more components) effects of threats are often complex in aquatic environments, making it difficult to predict changes in mussel and fish host(s) distribution, abundance, and habitat availability that may result from these effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Water Flow on Neosho Madtom
    Am. Midl. Nat. 156:305–318 Influence of Water Flow on Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus) Reproductive Behavior JANICE L. BRYAN1 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211 MARK L. WILDHABER U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, Missouri 65201 AND DOUGLAS B. NOLTIE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211 ABSTRACT.—The Neosho madtom is a small, short-lived catfish species endemic to gravel bars of the Neosho River in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, U.S.A. It spawns during summer in nesting cavities excavated in gravel. Although the species has survived dam construction within the Neosho River basin, its declining numbers resulted in it being added to the federal threatened species list in 1991. To test how water flow affects the reproductive behavior of Neosho madtoms, we compared activities of male-female pairs in static versus flowing-water aquaria. Using a behavioral catalog, we recorded their behavior sequences during randomly selected 5-min nighttime periods. For males and females, Jostle and Embrace were the most performed reproductive behaviors and the Jostle-Embrace-Carousel was the most performed reproductive behavior sequence. Water flow decreased the mean frequency of occurrence, percentage of time spent and mean event duration of male Nest Building. Because Neosho madtom courtship, reproduction and parental care is a complex and extended process, disturbances such as heightened river flows during the species’ spawning season may negatively affect nest quality and reproductive success. INTRODUCTION Many environmental cues trigger spawning in temperate fish species, including food abundance, photoperiod, temperature, flooding, lunar cycles and social interaction (Bye, 1984; Munro et al., 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Neosho River (Chanute) Water Quality Impairment: Copper
    NEOSHO BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD Water Body/Assessment Unit: Neosho River (Chanute) Water Quality Impairment: Copper 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Subbasin: Upper Neosho Counties: Coffey, Anderson, Woodson, Allen, and Neosho HUC 8: 11070204 HUC 11 (HUC 14s): 050 (010, 020, 050) Drainage Area: 448 square miles (Station 560 only) Main Stem Segments: 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 starting near confluence with Crooked Creek in southeastern Coffey County and traveling downstream through Woodson and Allen Counties to northwest Neosho County at monitoring station #560 and confluence with Sutton Creek (Figure 1). Tributary Segments: Sutton Creek (35), Slack Creek (30), Charles Branch Creek (27), Onion Creek (24), Elm Creek (1050), Rock Creek (7), Spring Creek (46), Indian Creek (924), Little Indian Creek (939), Martin Creek (49), Crooked Creek (44) Designated Uses: Special Aquatic Life Support, Primary Contact Recreation; Domestic Water Supply; Food Procurement; Ground Water Recharge; Industrial Water Supply Use; Irrigation Use; Livestock Watering Use for Main Stem Segments in HUC 11070204. Impaired Use: Expected Aquatic Life Support Water Quality Standard: Acute Criterion = WER[EXP[(0.9422*(LN(hardness)))-1.700]] Hardness-dependent criteria (KAR 28-16-28e(c)(2)(F)(ii)). Aquatic Life (AL) Support formulae are: (where Water Effects Ratio (WER) is 1.0 and hardness is in mg/L). 2. CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONDITION AND DESIRED ENDPOINT Level of Support for Designated Use under 2002 303(d): Not Supporting Aquatic Life Monitoring Site: Station 560 near Chanute Period of Record Used for Monitoring and Modeling: 1985 - 2001 for Station 560. Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) modeling period for soil data is 1998 – 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Mparative [Nfluences of Environmental
    ~~MPARATIVE [NFLUENCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS ON ABUNDANCES OF HYBRID STRIPED BASS AND WHITE BASS IN THE .@RAND _!t-AKE !Ail,WATER, OKLAHOMA - !'>.'<~ ~ .. By TODD GREGORY ADORNATO !i Bachelor of Science Denison University Granville, Ohio 1986 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requi1~ements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December 1990 .. :·..... J.. t~ ;' •.... ·(· }' d ru~D-LDJ \C:1c10 A:.t-n c._ top.~ Oklahoma State Univ. LibrlU'Y COMPARATIVE INFLUENCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS ON ABUNDANCES OF HYBRID STRIPED BASS AND WHITE BASS IN THE GRAND LAKE TAil~WATER, OKLAHOMl~ Thesis Approved: 1380759 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to expre~s sincere appreciation to Dr. Al Zale for his encouragement and advice throughout my graduate ~ candidacy. I al~o thank Dr. Tracy Carter and Dr. Larry Talent for serving on my graduate committee. To Dr. Bill Fisher and Matt Lechne~, who provided valuable assistance in the study, I extend my gratitude. For statistical advice, I am grateful to Dr. J. Leroy Folks. This project coul~ not. have been done without the help of the staff and technicians. of the Oklahoma Cooperative. Fish and Wildlife Research Unit; the time and equipment allocated is much appeciated. , Many thanks go to Jan Mord, Kent Sorenson, an~ Vince Tra~riichek for their help in the '' field and in the office. The project was much more enjoyable and efficient because of.them. I would also like to acknowledge the financial ·supp.ort and cooperation of the Grand River Dam Authority. ,, Finally, I would like .to thank my family.
    [Show full text]