Navionics Hotmaps Platinum Sonarcharttm Shading Coverage
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Lake Real Estate Market Report
Lake Real Estate Market Report A Multi-State, Lake-Focused Real Estate Market Report Winter 2020 Produced By LakeHomes.com Lake Real Estate Market Report – Winter 2020 Table of Contents CEO’s Market Insights ................................................................................................................................. 3 Report Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Overall Top 10s ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Top-Ranked By State .................................................................................................................................. 10 Alabama ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Arkansas ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 Connecticut ................................................................................................................................................. 26 Florida ......................................................................................................................................................... 31 Florida - Central .................................................................................................................................... -
Theodore Roosevelt Reservoir 1995 Sedimentation Survey
THEODORE ROOSEVELT RESERVOIR 1995 SEDIMENTATION SURVEY 1.FOkTF1Ep02. RESOiJ U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation ERRATA Theodore Roosevelt Reservoir 1995 Sedimentation Survey Page 10, Table 1, item 9: This should read 2,100 feet rather than 2214. Page 12, Table 1, item 47,footnote 1: Modifications to Roosevelt Dam completed in 1995 raised the dam elevation and lowered the spillway sill elevation. The original dam elevation was 2142 and the spiliway elevation (top of radial gates) was 2136. Page 13. Table 2, ,foolnole 7: Computed sediment expressed as a percentage of total computed sediment (182,185 acre-feet). REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FormApproved J 0MB No. 0704-0188 Pubhc reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the cotlection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suit 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paper-work Reduction Report (0704-0188), Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED May 1996 Final 4. TITLE AND SUBTiTLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Theodore Roosevelt Reservoir 1995 Sedimentation Survey PR 6. AUTHOR(S) Joe Lyons and Lori Lest 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Bureau of Reclamation REPORT NUMBER Technical Service Center Denver CO 80225 9. -
Lloyd Shoals
Southern Company Generation. 241 Ralph McGill Boulevard, NE BIN 10193 Atlanta, GA 30308-3374 404 506 7219 tel July 3, 2018 FERC Project No. 2336 Lloyd Shoals Project Notice of Intent to Relicense Lloyd Shoals Dam, Preliminary Application Document, Request for Designation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Request for Authorization to Initiate Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426 Dear Ms. Bose: On behalf of Georgia Power Company, Southern Company is filing this letter to indicate our intent to relicense the Lloyd Shoals Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 2336 (Lloyd Shoals Project). We will file a complete application for a new license for Lloyd Shoals Project utilizing the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) in accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) regulations found at 18 CFR Part 5. The proposed Process, Plan and Schedule for the ILP proceeding is provided in Table 1 of the Preliminary Application Document included with this filing. We are also requesting through this filing designation as the Commission’s non-federal representative for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and authorization to initiate consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. There are four components to this filing: 1) Cover Letter (Public) 2) Notification of Intent (Public) 3) Preliminary Application Document (Public) 4) Preliminary Application Document – Appendix C (CEII) If you require further information, please contact me at 404.506.7219. Sincerely, Courtenay R. -
Dark Sky Sanctuaries in Arizona
Dark Sky Sanctuaries in Arizona Eric Menasco NPS Terry Reiners Arizona is the astrotourism capital of the United States. Its diverse landscape—from the Grand Canyon and ponderosa forests in the north to the Sonoran Desert and “sky islands” in the south—is home to more certified Dark Sky Places than any other U.S. state. In fact, no country outside the U.S. can rival Arizona’s 16 dark-sky communities and parks. Arizona helped birth the dark-sky preservation movement when, in 2001, the International Dark Sky Association (IDA) designated Flagstaff as the world’s very first Dark Sky Place for the city’s commitment to protecting its stargazing- friendly night skies. Since then, six other Arizona communities—Sedona, Big Park, Camp Verde, Thunder Mountain Pootseev Nightsky and Fountain Hills—have earned Dark Sky status from the IDA. Arizona also boasts nine Dark Sky Parks, defined by the IDA as lands with “exceptional quality of starry nights and a nocturnal environment that is specifically protected for its scientific, natural, educational, cultural heritage, and/or public enjoyment.” The most famous of these is Grand Canyon National Park, where remarkably beautiful night skies lend draw-dropping credence to the Park Service’s reminder that “half the park is after dark Of the 16 Certified IDA International Dark Sky Communities in the US, 6 are in Arizona. These include: • Big Park/Village of Oak Creek, Arizona • Camp Verde, Arizona • Flagstaff, Arizona • Fountain Hills, Arizona • Sedona, Arizona • Thunder Mountain Pootsee Nightsky- Kaibab Paiute Reservation, Arizona Arizona Office of Tourism—Dark Skies Page 1 Facebook: @arizonatravel Instagram: @visit_arizona Twitter: @ArizonaTourism #VisitArizona Arizona is also home to 10 Certified IDA Dark Sky Parks, including: Northern Arizona: Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument Offering multiple hiking trails around this former volcanic cinder cone, visitors can join rangers on tours to learn about geology, wildlife, and lava flows. -
Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards ( 1) Purpose. The establishment of water quality standards. (2) W ate r Quality Enhancement: (a) The purposes and intent of the State in establishing Water Quality Standards are to provide enhancement of water quality and prevention of pollution; to protect the public health or welfare in accordance with the public interest for drinking water supplies, conservation of fish, wildlife and other beneficial aquatic life, and agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other reasonable and necessary uses and to maintain and improve the biological integrity of the waters of the State. ( b) The following paragraphs describe the three tiers of the State's waters. (i) Tier 1 - Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected. (ii) Tier 2 - Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the division finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the division's continuing planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located. -
SURVEY of REAERATION NEEDS on BUREAU of RECLAMATION PROJECTS ,-->,-\ N Z G 3
PAP 2 HYDRAULICS BRANCH OFFICIAL FILE COPY c SURVEY OF REAERATION NEEDS ON BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PROJECTS ,-->,-\ N z g 3 by E. J. Carlson Hydraulics Branch Division of General Research Engineering and Research Center Bureau of Reclamation Denver, Colorado February 1972 OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10 MAY 1001 EDITION GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.0 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Memorandum Memorandum Denver, Colorado TO Chief, Division of General Research, DATE: June 30, 1972 Regional Director, Region 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 FROM E. J. Carlson SUBJECT: Completion of Study Team Report The report, "Survey of Reaeration Needs on Bureau Projects," was prepared from data obtained mainly from Regional Personnel. Copies of the report are being furnished to all regional offices. By this memorandum regional offices are asked to review the report and make suggestions for changes and additions. The information may be helpful in starting projects which will be required in the near future to meet states' water quality standards. Problem areas in one region may serve as reminders for future problem areas in other regions. The Reaeration Research Program Management Team is available to assist Bureau offices in solving problems caused by oxygen deficiency in reser- voirs, lakes, streams,-canals, and aquifers. The information in the report will also be used by other public agencies and private companies and individuals. The report includes survey-type information and does not reflect policy of the Bureau. i Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan SOIU-108 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The survey of reaeration needs on Bureau of Reclamation Projects was conducted in the Hydraulics Branch under the supervision of the Reaeration Research Program Management Team. -
DIVISION of NATURAL RESOURCES ANNUAL REPORT 2011-2012 Earl Ray Tomblin Governor, State of West Virginia
Natural Resources DIVISION OF NATURAL RESOURCES ANNUAL REPORT 2011-2012 Earl Ray Tomblin Governor, State of West Virginia Keith Burdette Secretary, Department of Commerce Frank Jezioro Director, Division of Natural Resources Emily J. Fleming Assistant to the Director / Legislative Liaison Bryan M. Hoffman Executive Secretary, Administration Section 324 4th Avenue South Charleston, West Virginia 25303 David E. Murphy Chief, Law Enforcement Section Telephone: 304-558-2754 Fax: 304-558-2768 Kenneth K. Caplinger Chief, Parks and Recreation Section Web sites: www.wvdnr.gov Curtis I. Taylor www.wvstateparks.com Chief, Wildlife Resources Section www.wvhunt.com www.wvfish.com Joe T. Scarberry www.wonderfulwv.com Supervisor, Land and Streams Electronic mail: Natural Resources Commissioners [email protected] Jeffrey S. Bowers, Sugar Grove [email protected] Byron K. Chambers, Romney [email protected] David M. Milne, Bruceton Mills [email protected] Peter L. Cuffaro, Wheeling David F. Truban, Morgantown Kenneth R. Wilson, Chapmanville Thomas O. Dotson, White Sulphur Springs The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Annual Report 2011-2012 is published by the Division of Natural Resources and the Department of Commerce Communications. It is the policy of the Division of Natural Resources to provide its facilities, services, programs and employment opportunities to all persons without regard to sex, race, age, religion, national origin or ancestry, disability, or other protected group status. Foreword LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR Foreword i -
Natural Capital in the Colorado River Basin
NATURE’S VALUE IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN NATURE’S VALUE IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN JULY, 2014 AUTHORS David Batker, Zachary Christin, Corinne Cooley, Dr. William Graf, Dr. Kenneth Bruce Jones, Dr. John Loomis, James Pittman ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was commissioned by The Walton Family Foundation. Earth Economics would like to thank our project advisors for their invaluable contributions and expertise: Dr. Kenneth Bagstad of the United States Geological Survey, Dr. William Graf of the University of South Carolina, Dr. Kenneth Bruce Jones of the Desert Research Institute, and Dr. John Loomis of Colorado State University. We would like to thank our team of reviewers, which included Dr. Kenneth Bagstad, Jeff Mitchell, and Leah Mitchell. We would also like to thank our Board of Directors for their continued support and guidance: David Cosman, Josh Farley, and Ingrid Rasch. Earth Economics research team for this study included Cameron Otsuka, Jacob Gellman, Greg Schundler, Erica Stemple, Brianna Trafton, Martha Johnson, Johnny Mojica, and Neil Wagner. Cover and layout design by Angela Fletcher. The authors are responsible for the content of this report. PREPARED BY 107 N. Tacoma Ave Tacoma, WA 98403 253-539-4801 www.eartheconomics.org [email protected] ©2014 by Earth Economics. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. FUNDED BY EARTH ECONOMICS i ABSTRACT This study presents an economic characterization of the value of ecosystem services in the Colorado River Basin, a 249,000 square mile region spanning across mountains, plateaus, and low-lying valleys of the American Southwest. -
Recommended Nutrient Criteria for West Virginia Lakes
Recommended Nutrient Criteria for West Virginia Lakes April 21, 2006 Submitted to: Lisa McClung, Director Division of Water and Waste Management West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25301 Submitted by: Evan Hansen and Martin Christ West Virginia Rivers Coalition 801 N. Randolph Ave. Elkins, WV 26241 Margaret Janes Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment PO Box 507 Lewisburg, WV 24901 Joseph Hankins The Conservation Fund Freshwater Institute 1098 Turner Road Shepherdstown, WV 25443-4228 Neil Gillies Cacapon Institute Rt 1 Box 326 High View, WV 26808 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 4 2 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 6 3 Guidelines adopted by the NCC ............................................................................................. 8 4 Scientific background............................................................................................................. 9 4.1 Hypoxia due to eutrophication........................................................................................ 9 4.2 Degradation of, and shifts in, fish communities ............................................................. 9 4.3 Damage to recreation .................................................................................................... 10 5 Review of analyses -
Of Georgia Water Coalition Re Draft Environmental Impact Statement
GIEORGIA WATER COALITION '-Fl FC- C-3, November 28, 2007 Ti Chief, Rules and Directives Branch I-F-i --A Division of Administrative Services '7/P//tP 7 IC Office of Administration Mailstop T-6D59 1~2fX~ ~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: [email protected] 0 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Plant Vogtle Early Site Permit To Whom It May Concern: The Georgia Water Coalition ("GWC" or "the Coalition") wishes to submit the following comments concerning the draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") for Plant Vogtle's Early Site Permit ("ESP"). The GWC is composed of 150 conservation, recreation, evangelical, civic and business organizations and represents hundreds of thousands of Georgians; a list of member organizations is attached to this letter. The Coalition is dedicated to the protection of water quality and water resources throughout the state. We have serious concerns about the implications of the expansion of Plant Vogtle on the water quality and stream flow of the Savannah River and its tributaries and believe that the DEIS is deficient in adequately addressing those concerns. Additionally, four of our member groups including Atlanta WAND, Center for a Sustainable Coast, Savannah Riverkeeper, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, have challenged the legality of the ESP, which raises several important water related issues. In our previously filed scoping comments, we asked that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") conduct a thorough environmental review of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed expansion on the Savannah River's ecology and on the local economies of downstream communities. -
Center for Excellence in Disabilities at West Virginia University, Robert C
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This publication was made possible by the support of the following organizations and individuals: Center for Excellence in Disabilities at West Virginia University, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center West Virginia Assistive Technology System (WVATS) West Virginia Division of Natural Resources West Virginia Division of Tourism Partnerships in Assistive Technologies, Inc. (PATHS) Special thanks to Stephen K. Hardesty and Brittany Valdez for their enthusiasm while working on this Guide. 1 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 3 • How to Use This Guide ......................................... 4 • ADA Sites .............................................................. 5 • Types of Fish ......................................................... 7 • Traveling in West Virginia ...................................... 15 COUNTY INDEX .......................................................... 19 ACTIVITY LISTS • Public Access Sites ............................................... 43 • Lakes ..................................................................... 53 • Trout Fishing ......................................................... 61 • River Float Trips .................................................... 69 SITE INDEX ................................................................. 75 SITE DESCRIPTIONS .................................................. 83 APPENDICES A. Recreation Organizations ......................................207 B. Trout Stocking Schedule .......................................209 -
Fecal Coliform TMDL Report
Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Nineteen Stream Segments in the Tennessee River Basin for Fecal Coliform Submitted to: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia Submitted by: The Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Atlanta, Georgia January 2004 Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation January 2004 Tennessee River Basin (Fecal coliform) Table of Contents Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Watershed Description......................................................................................................1 1.3 Water Quality Standard.....................................................................................................5 2.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 8 3.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Point Source Assessment ................................................................................................. 9 3.2 Nonpoint Source Assessment........................................................................................