Summary and Response to Upper Missouri River Reservoir Fisheries Management Plan 2010-2019 Public Comments

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Summary and Response to Upper Missouri River Reservoir Fisheries Management Plan 2010-2019 Public Comments Summary and Response to Upper Missouri River Reservoir Fisheries Management Plan 2010-2019 Public Comments Canyon Ferry Walleye The Upper Missouri River Reservoirs Management Plan proposes to manage Canyon Ferry Reservoir as a multi-species fishery with an emphasis on walleye and rainbow trout while recognizing the importance of yellow perch as a sport and forage fish. The management strategy seeks to achieve and maintain a quality walleye fishery while maintaining a balance between walleye abundance and prey availability. If management of walleye population abundance and their predation on desirable sport and forage species is not maintained in a proper balance, all fish populations will suffer and provide diminished angler satisfaction. This balance is particularly difficult to maintain on waters such as Canyon Ferry Reservoir where natural reproduction can be virtually unlimited. Angler harvest regulations are the most cost-effective management tool available to maintain this balance and to increase numbers of desirable sized walleye; however, limits above standard regulations for the Central Fishing District for walleye (5 daily and 10 in possession) are essential to maintain a suitable forage base that will provide growth of walleye into large size groups. Three management alternatives for regulations were proposed by FWP and the Citizen Workgroup for Canyon Ferry to manage the walleye population to attain this goal: Alternative 1: Reduce bag limit to 10 fish daily, 20 in possession with only one fish greater than 28-inches. Maintain 10 fish limit for three years in order to evaluate any changes to walleye population structure. o This alternative will reduce overall angler exploitation of walleye, while continuing to actively manage walleye to reduce predation of other desirable sport fish species. FWP data show that high bag limits may limit the number of fish that recruit to larger size groups. Reducing the bag limit also reduces overall exploitation, which is designed to recruit more fish into more desirable size classes. By limiting harvest to only one fish greater than 28-inches maintains a trophy component to the fishery. Adaptive management strategies allow changes to the bag limit as walleye abundance changes. FWP strives to maintain fishing regulations that achieve management goals and are as clear and simple as possible. Public Comment Support – 8 (includes the Pat Barnes Chapter Trout Unlimited) Original Support in Initial Public Comment Period – 12 Alternative 2: Reduce bag limit to 10 fish daily, 20 in possession with only 4 fish greater than 16-inches and one fish greater than 28-inches. o This alternative further reduces angler exploitation with additional restrictions to angler harvest. Having only 4 fish greater than 16-inches will reduce harvest of larger sized fish while only one fish greater than 28-inches will maintain a trophy component. Additional protection of larger-sized fish offered by this alternative may conflict with management strategies for other sport fish species and increase the risk to the forage base. Creel data demonstrates that few anglers harvest more than 4 fish greater than 16-inches, which reduces that value of this alternative. This alternative proposes more complex regulations to achieve what might be attained by a simpler overall reduction in harvest (i.e., Alternative 1). Public Comment Support – 423 (includes Walleyes Forever and Walleyes Unlimited) Original Support in Initial Public Comment Period – 53 1 Alternative 3: Maintain current bag limit of 20 fish daily, 40 in possession. o This alternative will continue to maximize angler harvest to manage the walleye population. Maximizing angler harvest reduces walleye numbers, which in turn reduces predation of other species in the reservoir and offers the most conservative approach to maintain the predator/forage balance. Data suggests that high harvest also may limit recruitment to larger size groups, further limiting predation by reducing average size of fish. Numbers of other desirable species (i.e., yellow perch and rainbow trout) may be increased through decreased predation by walleye. Public Comment Support – 7 (includes Montana Wildlife Federation) Original Support in Initial Public Comment Period – 12 Miscellaneous Comments: Other comments include proposals for other modified bag limits, management of the Missouri River sections and Hauser and Holter Reservoirs, forage fish, management of other species in the system, and general comments on the Management Plan. Please see Summary Response to Substantive Public Comments below for FWP responses to substantive comments received. Total Miscellaneous Comments – 27 2 Summary Response to Substantive Public Comments Below is a summary response to comments received regarding the Upper Missouri River Reservoir Fisheries Management Plan 2010-2019. Although the FWP Commission requested public comment specifically on all three Canyon Ferry walleye management alternatives that were proposed in the draft management plan released for public comment in October, 2009, public comment was requested for all aspects of the plan. Canyon Ferry Walleye Alternatives Alternatives Alternative 1: Reduce bag limit to 10 fish daily, 20 in possession with only one fish greater than 28-inches. Maintain 10 fish limit for three years in order to evaluate any changes to walleye population structure. Alternative 2: Reduce bag limit to 10 fish daily, 20 in possession with only 4 fish greater than 16-inches and one fish greater than 28-inches. Alternative 3: Maintain current bag limit of 20 fish daily, 40 in possession. Comments a) Comment: Dropping the limit to 10 fish doesn’t go far enough. We need a 5 or 6 fish limit, 10 in possession and a protective slot. Response: Reducing daily limits to 5 or 6 fish daily with a protective slot would jeopardize the goal of maintaining a multi-species fishery. FWP data suggests that lowering the walleye limit to 6 fish with a protective slot could increase forage consumption by the walleye population by over 40%. Canyon Ferry is forage limited and such increases in consumption by walleye could collapse the forage base, which in turn would have negative effects to all sport fish in the reservoir, including walleye. Analysis of data also shows that a protective slot would not be an effective tool for improving size distribution of walleye in the reservoir. b) Comment: Alternative 2 is the only way the small fish can grow up. One fish over 28-inches doesn’t get it done. Response: Biological data suggests that allowing harvest of only 4 fish greater than 16 inches would have little effect on the walleye population size structure. FWP creel data from 2007-2009 show 23% of anglers harvest more than 4 fish per trip and 7.5% of walleye harvested are greater than 16-inches. Over the same period, 0.2% of harvest is of walleye greater than 30-inches. Implementing a regulation with 10 fish, only 4 greater than 16-inches and one greater than 28-inches would reduce overall walleye harvest by 1.7% beyond what a 10 fish daily bag limit would reduce harvest. c) Comment: (The FWP Biologist) informed us that alternative 1 and alternative 2 will have the same effect, so let’s go with science and have a slot. Response: Biological data suggest that alternative 2 would have little beneficial effect to walleye population structure (see Comment b above), therefore, it may be interpreted that the two alternatives would have the same effect. FWP strives to maintain regulations that achieve stated biological goals but are as simple and clear as possible, which would result in alternative 1 identified as the best science. Also, proposed alternative 2 is not technically considered to be a slot limit. d) Comment: I prefer (alternative) 2 because harvest of breeding sized fish needs to be limited. 3 Response: FWP data suggests that angler harvest of spawning sized fish is not a significant limiting factor to the Canyon Ferry walleye population (see Comment b above). Data also suggests that the reproductive potential of the population in Canyon Ferry Reservoir is not limited by angler harvest of spawning-sized adults. e) Comment: The problem I have with (alternative) 1 is if it doesn’t work to improve the overall age class of fish it will be close to 7 years before (alternative) 2 is fully implemented. Response: The three walleye alternatives for Canyon Ferry Reservoir identified in the plan were proposed as starting points. Regardless of which alternative is adopted at the onset of the management plan, the management plan is adaptive in that progressive management actions may be taken based upon management “triggers” in order to obtain balanced multi-species fisheries. If management triggers are met within the first three years of plan implementation, management action may be deferred to allow strategies outlined in the management plan to take effect, providing the risk to the fisheries resource are minimal. After that three year period, new management strategies will be implemented as soon as possible when population levels reach high or low trigger points. The strategies that would be developed would depend on the triggers reached and would include, but not be limited to those original alternatives. f) Comment: If chosen, alternative 2 will be reviewed, along with the entire plan, after 3 years and 6 years. Response: The management plan will be reviewed annually. Progressive management actions will be implemented if/when population triggers are reached. If triggers are exceeded within the first three-years following plan implementation, management action may be deferred to allow evaluation of new management strategies recommended in the plan. However, if conditions change dramatically, adaptive strategies may be considered for implementation. g) Comment: Leave the walleye limits as (is). The more walleyes you get out of there the better, so we can get our good trout and perch fishing back. Response: FWP data suggest that the 20 fish limit may be effective at limiting walleye population growth through high rates of harvest which limit recruitment to larger size groups.
Recommended publications
  • Helena Interagency Dispatch Center
    Helena Interagency Dispatch Center Cooperating Agencies: USDA Forest Service- Helena National Forest USDI Bureau of Land Management Montana Dept. of Natural Resources & Conservation- Central Lands Office Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Lewis and Clark, Broadwater, Jefferson and Meagher Counties Helena, Montana NEWS RELEASE For Release Immediately Contact:: Amy Teegarden Office: (406) 495-3747 Cell Phone: (406) 439-9135 FIRE RESTRICTIONS TO BEGIN THIS WEEK HELENA, MONT., July 17, 2007- Stage 1 fire restrictions will be implemented this Friday, by the Helena National Forest and members of the Helena Fire Restrictions division. “Thunderstorms coupled with record-breaking heat this week is a recipe for wildfires and local officials are instituting fire restrictions in an effort to reduce new fire starts.” stated Amy Teegarden, spokesperson for the Helena National Forest. Restrictions on smoking and open fires on federal and state lands, as well as on private-forested lands in Lewis and Clark County will take effect Friday, July 20 at 0001. Restrictions will be enforced on lands administered by the Helena National Forest, Bureau of Land Management and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks in Lewis and Clark, Broadwater and Jefferson Counties. Under the restrictions campfires may be built only in developed recreation sites such as campgrounds and picnic areas. Campfires in rock rings and the use of wood stoves in canvas tents outside of campgrounds and other developed sites are prohibited. The Helena Interagency Dispatch Center provides initial
    [Show full text]
  • Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences in Montana
    Report of Investigation 23 Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences in Montana Richard B. Berg 2015 Cover photo by Richard Berg. Sapphires (very pale green and colorless) concentrated by panning. The small red grains are garnets, commonly found with sapphires in western Montana, and the black sand is mainly magnetite. Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences, RI 23 Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences in Montana Richard B. Berg Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology MBMG Report of Investigation 23 2015 i Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences, RI 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 Descriptions of Occurrences ..................................................................................................7 Selected Bibliography of Articles on Montana Sapphires ................................................... 75 General Montana ............................................................................................................75 Yogo ................................................................................................................................ 75 Southwestern Montana Alluvial Deposits........................................................................ 76 Specifi cally Rock Creek sapphire district ........................................................................ 76 Specifi cally Dry Cottonwood Creek deposit and the Butte area ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri-Madison Project
    Hydropower Project Summary MISSOURI AND MADISON RIVERS, MONTANA MISSOURI-MADISON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2188) Hauser Dam Morony Dam Photos: PPL Montana This summary was produced by the Hydropower Reform Coalition and River Management Society Missouri and Madison Rivers, Montana MISSOURI AND MADISON RIVERS, MONTANA MISSOURI-MADISON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (P-2188) DESCRIPTION: This hydropower license includes nine developments, of which eight were constructed between 1906 and 1930, and the ninth- the Cochrane dam- began operation in 1958. The projects are spread over 324 river-miles on the Missouri and Madison rivers. The Hebgen and Madison developments are located on the Madison River whereas the other seven- Hauser, Holter, Black Eagle, Rainbow, Cochrane, Ryan, and Morony- are located on the Missouri River. The Madison River flows into the Missouri River near the city of Three Forks, approximately 33 miles northwest of Bozeman. While this summary was being prepared, Northwestern Energy, a company based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and serving the Upper Midwest and Northwest, is in the process of acquiring this project. Read more at http://www.northwesternenergy.com/hydroelectric-facilities. A. SUMMARY 1. License application filed: November 25, 1992 2. License issued: September 27, 2000 3. License expiration: August 31, 2040 4. Waterway: Missouri and Madison Rivers 5. Capacity: 326.9 MW 6. Licensee: PPL Montana 7. Counties: Gallatin, Madison, Lewis and Clark, and Cascade Counties 8. Project area: Portions of the project are located on federal lands, including lands within the Gallatin and Helena National Forests 9. Project Website: http://www.pplmontana.com/producing+power/power+plants/PPL+Montana+Hyd ro.htm 10.
    [Show full text]
  • MONTANA 2018 Vacation & Relocation Guide
    HelenaMONTANA 2018 Vacation & Relocation Guide We≥ve got A Publication of the Helena Area Chamber of Commerce and The Convention & Visitors Bureau this! We will search for your new home, while you spend more time at the lake. There’s a level of knowledge our Helena real estate agents offer that goes beyond what’s on the paper – it’s this insight that leaves you confident in your decision to buy or sell. Visit us at bhhsmt.com Look for our new downtown office at: 50 S Park Avenue Helena, MT 59601 406.437.9493 A member of the franchise system BHH Affiliates, LLC. Equal Housing Opportunity. An Assisted Living & Memory Care community providing a Expect more! continuum of care for our friends, family & neighbors. NOW OPEN! 406.502.1001 3207 Colonial Dr, Helena | edgewoodseniorliving.com 2005, 2007, & 2016 People’s Choice Award Winner Sysum HELENA I 406-495-1195 I SYSUMHOME.COM Construction 2018 HELENA GUIDE Contents Landmark & Attractions and Sports & Recreation Map 6 Welcome to Helena, Attractions 8 Fun & Excitement 14 Montana’s capital city. Arts & Entertainment 18 The 2018 Official Guide to Helena brings you the best ideas for enjoying the Queen City - from Shopping 22 exploring and playing to living and working. Dining Guide 24 Sports & Recreation 28 We≥ve got Day Trips 34 A Great Place to Live 38 this! A Great Place to Retire 44 Where to Stay 46 ADVERTISING Kelly Hanson EDITORIAL Cathy Burwell Mike Mergenthaler Alana Cunningham PHOTOS Convention & Visitors Bureau Montana Office of Tourism Cover Photo: Mark LaRowe MAGAZINE DESIGN Allegra Marketing 4 Welcome to the beautiful city of Helena! It is my honor and great privilege to welcome you to the capital city of Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Samuel T. Hauser and Hydroelectric Development on the Missouri River, 1898--1912
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1979 Victim of monopoly| Samuel T. Hauser and hydroelectric development on the Missouri River, 1898--1912 Alan S. Newell The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Newell, Alan S., "Victim of monopoly| Samuel T. Hauser and hydroelectric development on the Missouri River, 1898--1912" (1979). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 4013. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4013 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT IN WHICH COPYRIGHT SUB­ SISTS. ANY FURTHER REPRINTING OF ITS CONTENTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE AUTHOR. MANSFIELD LIBRARY 7' UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA DATE: 1979 A VICTIM OF MONOPOLY: SAMUEL T. HAUSER AND HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT ON THE MISSOURI RIVER, 1898-1912 By Alan S. Newell B.A., University of Montana, 1970 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1979 Approved by: VuOiAxi Chairman,lairman, Board of Examiners De^n, Graduate SctooI /A- 7*? Date UMI Number: EP36398 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest MONTANA Visitvisit Southwest MONTANA
    visit SouthWest MONTANA visitvisit SouthWest MONTANA 2016 OFFICIAL REGIONAL TRAVEL GUIDE SOUTHWESTMT.COM • 800-879-1159 Powwow (Lisa Wareham) Sawtooth Lake (Chuck Haney) Pronghorn Antelope (Donnie Sexton) Bannack State Park (Donnie Sexton) SouthWest MONTANABetween Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park lies a landscape that encapsulates the best of what Montana’s about. Here, breathtaking crags pierce the bluest sky you’ve ever seen. Vast flocks of trumpeter swans splash down on the emerald waters of high mountain lakes. Quiet ghost towns beckon you back into history. Lively communities buzz with the welcoming vibe and creative energy of today’s frontier. Whether your passion is snowboarding or golfing, microbrews or monster trout, you’ll find endless riches in Southwest Montana. You’ll also find gems of places to enjoy a hearty meal or rest your head — from friendly roadside diners to lavish Western resorts. We look forward to sharing this Rexford Yaak Eureka Westby GLACIER Whitetail Babb Sweetgrass Four Flaxville NATIONAL Opheim Buttes Fortine Polebridge Sunburst Turner remarkable place with you. Trego St. Mary PARK Loring Whitewater Peerless Scobey Plentywood Lake Cut Bank Troy Apgar McDonald Browning Chinook Medicine Lake Libby West Glacier Columbia Shelby Falls Coram Rudyard Martin City Chester Froid Whitefish East Glacier Galata Havre Fort Hinsdale Saint Hungry Saco Lustre Horse Park Valier Box Belknap Marie Elder Dodson Vandalia Kalispell Essex Agency Heart Butte Malta Culbertson Kila Dupuyer Wolf Marion Bigfork Flathead River Glasgow Nashua Poplar Heron Big Sandy Point Somers Conrad Bainville Noxon Lakeside Rollins Bynum Brady Proctor Swan Lake Fort Fairview Trout Dayton Virgelle Peck Creek Elmo Fort Benton Loma Thompson Big Arm Choteau Landusky Zortman Sidney Falls Hot Springs Polson Lambert Crane CONTENTS Condon Fairfield Great Haugan Ronan Vaughn Plains Falls Savage De Borgia Charlo Augusta Winifred Bloomfield St.
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Fishing Regulations
    MONTANA FISHING REGULATIONS 20March 1, 2018 — F1ebruary 828, 2019 Fly fishing the Missouri River. Photo by Jason Savage For details on how to use these regulations, see page 2 fwp.mt.gov/fishing With your help, we can reduce poaching. MAKE THE CALL: 1-800-TIP-MONT FISH IDENTIFICATION KEY If you don’t know, let it go! CUTTHROAT TROUT are frequently mistaken for Rainbow Trout (see pictures below): 1. Turn the fish over and look under the jaw. Does it have a red or orange stripe? If yes—the fish is a Cutthroat Trout. Carefully release all Cutthroat Trout that cannot be legally harvested (see page 10, releasing fish). BULL TROUT are frequently mistaken for Brook Trout, Lake Trout or Brown Trout (see below): 1. Look for white edges on the front of the lower fins. If yes—it may be a Bull Trout. 2. Check the shape of the tail. Bull Trout have only a slightly forked tail compared to the lake trout’s deeply forked tail. 3. Is the dorsal (top) fin a clear olive color with no black spots or dark wavy lines? If yes—the fish is a Bull Trout. Carefully release Bull Trout (see page 10, releasing fish). MONTANA LAW REQUIRES: n All Bull Trout must be released immediately in Montana unless authorized. See Western District regulations. n Cutthroat Trout must be released immediately in many Montana waters. Check the district standard regulations and exceptions to know where you can harvest Cutthroat Trout. NATIVE FISH Westslope Cutthroat Trout Species of Concern small irregularly shaped black spots, sparse on belly Average Size: 6”–12” cutthroat slash— spots
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of Walleye in the Missouri River Between Holter Dam and Great Falls, Montana
    An Evaluation of Walleye in the Missouri River between Holter Dam and Great Falls, Montana PPL-Montana MOTAC projects 771-09, 771-10, 759-11, 771-11 and Fisheries Bureau Federal Aid Job Progress Report Federal Aid Project Number F-113-R9, R10, R11, R12 Montana Statewide Fisheries Management Submitted to PPL-Montana 336 Rainbow Dam Great Falls, Mt. 59404 Prepared by Grant Grisak, Brad Tribby and Adam Strainer Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 4600 Giant Springs Road Great Falls, Mt. 49505 January 2012 1 Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 5 Study Area……………………………………………………………………………. 5 Creel survey………………………………………………………………… 10 Angling……………………………………………………………………... 10 Fish Abundance………………………………………………………………………. 11 Tagging……………………………………………………………………………….. 15 Radio Telemetry……………………………………………………………………… 17 Early Life History…………………………………………………………………….. 28 Diet…………………………………………………………………………………… 32 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….. 34 References……………………………………………………………………………. 37 2 List of Tables No. Page 1. Angler use statistics for Missouri River section 9, 1991-2009………………... 8 2. Economic statistics for the Missouri River section 9, 1995-2009……………... 9 3. Angler use statistics for Missouri River section 8, combined angler days with 9 section 9, and economic statistics for section 8 and section 9, 1991- 2009……………………………………………………………………………. 4. Landmarks and associated river miles in the Missouri River between Holter 18 Dam and Black Eagle Dam……………………………………………………. 5. Meristics of radio tagged walleye in Missouri River, total miles traveled and 26 total days radio transmitter was active, 2008-2011……………………………. 6. Locations in the Missouri River and proportional use by radio tagged walleye 27 2008-10. Missouri River, Montana……………………………………………. 7. Young of the year walleye seined at sites in the Missouri River between 30 Cascade and Great Falls……………………………………………………….. 8. Number of fish species sampled by year and total number of sites where 31 found.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the UNITED.Tif
    Exhibit A Exhibit A Rule 2002 Service List Description of Party Notice Party Address1 Address2 Address3 City State Zip Office of the United States Trustee Office of the United States Trustee Frank J. Perch III 844 King Street Suite 2207 Wilmington DE 19801 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Attn: Cynthia A. Marlette 888 First Street NE Washington DC 20246 Montana Public Service Commission Montana Public Service Commission Rob Rowe, Chairman 1701 Prospect Avenue Helena MT 59620-2601 South Dakota Public Service Commission South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Pam Bonrud, Executive Director Capitol Building, 1st Floor 500 East Capitol Avenue Pierre SD 57501-5070 Nebraska Public Service Commission Nebraska Public Service Commission Anne C. Boyle, Chairwoman 1200 N. Street, Suite 300 Lincoln NE 68508 Securities and Exchange Commission Securities and Exchange Commission Attn: David Lynn, Chief Counsel 450 Fifth Street Washington DC 20549 Timothy R. Pohl, Esq. Attorney for DIP Lenders Skadden Arps Samuel Ory, Esq. 333 West Wacker Drive Chicago IL 60606 Jesse Austin, Esq. Attorney for Debtor Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP Karol Denniston, Esq. 600 Peachtree Road NE Atlanta GA 30308 Scott D. Cousins, Esq. Victoria W. Counihan, Esq. Local Counsel Greenberg Traurig LLP William E. Chipman, Jr., Esq. The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street Suite 1540 Wilmington DE 19801 Cayman Islands Branch/Syndicated Primary Lender and Agent for Finance Group Pre-petition Lenders Credit Suisse First Boston Secured Term Loan Credit Facility Attn: Rob Loh 11 Madison Avenue 21st Floor New York NY 10010 DIP Lender Bank One, NA DIP Lender Attn: Andrew D.
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL Canyonferry Cover.Psd
    Revised Environmental Assessment Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Purpose and Need .............................................................1 Background ..................................................................2 Dam and Reservoir...........................................................2 Helena Valley Irrigation District ................................................3 Toston Irrigation District ......................................................5 City of Helena...............................................................6 Relationship of the Proposed Action of Other Activities ...............................7 Decisions to be Made...........................................................9 Issues.......................................................................9 Significant Issues..............................................................9 Other Resource Issues..........................................................9 Chapter 2: Alternatives Alternatives Considered in Detail................................................11 Proposed Action Alternative ...................................................11 Irrigation ................................................................11 Municipal and Industrial Water ...............................................13 Mitigation Measures .......................................................13 Water Quality ...........................................................13 Riparian Habitat .........................................................14 Grebe Nesting...........................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Final Listing Support Document
    United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. March Washington, D.C. 20460 2011 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final Rule – ACM Smelter & Refinery Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final Rule ACM Smelter and Refinery March 2011 Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................v Introduction................................................................................................................................................vi Background of the NPL.........................................................................................................................vi Development of the NPL.......................................................................................................................vii Hazard Ranking System.......................................................................................................................vii Other Mechanisms for Listing ............................................................................................................viii Organization of this Document.............................................................................................................ix
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology Is Generally Defined As a Science Dealing with the Interrelation- 7.2.2 Ship Between Water on and Under the Earth and in the Atmosphere
    C H A P T E R 7 H Y D R O L O G Y Chapter Table of Contents October 2, 1995 7.1 -- Hydrologic Design Policies - 7.1.1 Introduction 7-4 - 7.1.2 Surveys 7-4 - 7.1.3 Flood Hazards 7-4 - 7.1.4 Coordination 7-4 - 7.1.5 Documentation 7-4 - 7.1.6 Factors Affecting Flood Runoff 7-4 - 7.1.7 Flood History 7-5 - 7.1.8 Hydrologic Method 7-5 - 7.1.9 Approved Methods 7-5 - 7.1.10 Design Frequency 7-6 - 7.1.11 Risk Assessment 7-7 - 7.1.12 Review Frequency 7-7 7.2 -- Overview - 7.2.1 Introduction 7-8 - 7.2.2 Definition 7-8 - 7.2.3 Factors Affecting Floods 7-8 - 7.2.4 Sources of Information 7-8 7.3 -- Symbols And Definitions 7-9 7.4 -- Hydrologic Analysis Procedure Flowchart 7-11 7.5 -- Concept Definitions 7-12 7.6 -- Design Frequency - 7.6.1 Overview 7-14 - 7.6.2 Design Frequency 7-14 - 7.6.3 Review Frequency 7-15 - 7.6.4 Frequency Table 7-15 - 7.6.5 Rainfall vs. Flood Frequency 7-15 - 7.6.6 Rainfall Curves 7-15 - 7.6.7 Discharge Determination 7-15 7.7 -- Hydrologic Procedure Selection - 7.7.1 Overview 7-16 - 7.7.2 Peak Flow Rates or Hydrographs 7-16 - 7.7.3 Hydrologic Procedures 7-16 7.8 -- Calibration - 7.8.1 Definition 7-18 - 7.8.2 Hydrologic Accuracy 7-18 - 7.8.3 Calibration Process 7-18 7–1 Chapter Table of Contents (continued) 7.9 -- Rational Method - 7.9.1 Introduction 7-20 - 7.9.2 Application 7-20 - 7.9.3 Characteristics 7-20 - 7.9.4 Equation 7-21 - 7.9.5 Infrequent Storm 7-22 - 7.9.6 Procedures 7-22 7.10 -- Example Problem - Rational Formula 7-33 7.11 -- USGS Rural Regression Equations - 7.11.1 Introduction 7-36 - 7.11.2 MDT Application 7-36
    [Show full text]