DOCSLIB.ORG

Drought Response and Recovery: a Basic Guide for Water Utilities Resources Previous Next OVERVIEW and NAVIGATION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Drought Response and Recovery: a Basic Guide for Water Utilities Resources Previous Next OVERVIEW and NAVIGATION DROUGHT RESPONSE AND RECOVERY A Basic Guide for Water Utilities Select a menu option below. New users should start with Overview and Navigation. Overview and Navigation Staffing, Response Plans Water Supply and Demand Communication and Case Studies and Videos and Funding Management Partnerships Next DISCLAIMER Staffing, Response Plans and Funding This Guide provides practical solutions to help drinking water utilities respond to and recover from drought. This Guide is not intended to serve as regulatory guidance. Mention of trade names, products or services does not convey official U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval, endorsement or recommendation for use. Water Supply and DemanDemandd Management ACKNOWLEDGMENTS EPA wishes to thank the following utilities, organizations and individuals for their participation in support of the project: Communication Utility Case Studies Focus Group Members and Partnerships • Tuolumne Utilities District (TUD), • Mary Ann Dickinson Sonora, California Alliance for Water Efficiency • (Corix) Spicewood Beach Water System, • Liz Gardener (retired) Spicewood, Texas Denver Water Case Studies • City of Las Vegas, New Mexico • Mike Howe and Videos • City of Hogansville, Georgia Texas Section, American Water Works Association • City of Hays, Kansas • Steve Lemoine • City of Russell, Kansas South Grafton Water District, • City of Clinton, Oklahoma Massachusetts • Lain Leoniak City of Bozeman, Montana • Melinda Moritz and David Dimaline City of Leon Valley, Texas • Dale Reed White Bear Lake Township, Minnesota EPA Office of Water MC 4608T EPA 810-B-16-001 March 2016 Page 2 Drought Response and Recovery: A Basic Guide for Water Utilities Resources Previous Next OVERVIEW AND NAVIGATION Staffing, Response Plans and Funding DROUGHT AND UTILITIES WHAT IS DROUGHT RESILIENCE? Although drought is usually a prolonged and slow-moving disaster, impacts can Many states have experienced prolonged For water utilities, drought resilience is the sometimes escalate suddenly and cause periods of abnormally dry or unusually hot ability to respond to immediate water supply water supply disruptions in a matter of Water Supply and weather that threaten the availability of threats, withstand drought impacts and weeks. That is why it is crucial for water Demand ManagemenManagementt water. This trend is projected to continue. recover quickly. Recovery includes consid­ utilities to have an emergency response Unlike other hazards, such as flooding and ering long-term conditions and planning for plan for severe drought conditions, in earthquakes, droughts develop gradually permanent solutions. All utilities should plan addition to longer-term strategies to cope over months or years — and it may take an to make their systems more resilient to the with declining water supplies. affected community or water utility just as impacts of drought. This Guide can help util­ Communication long, if not longer, to recover. ities respond to and recover from drought. Drought response includes taking immediate and Partnerships actions to maintain service to customers by Droughts can result in significant economic, Drought-resilient utilities: increasing supplies and reducing water use. social, environmental and water utility This involves ensuring water for essential • Take action to protect human health and operational impacts, including: services such as medical care, fire protection the environment, while maintaining a and general health and sanitation. For the • Loss of water supply. minimum level of service for customers purposes of this Guide, drought response Case Studies during drought. and Videos • Poor source water quality that may actions are taken when a utility projects affect treatment and the ability to • Manage decreases in water supply, that their water supply may run out within meet drinking water standards. increases in water demand and changes 180 days (6 months). • Stressed alternative and supplementary in water quality. water sources due to high demand by • Plan for future changes in weather other drought-affected users. and climate patterns that can reduce • Increased demand from customers. water supply. • Increased costs and reduced revenues related to drought response. Page 3 Drought Response and Recovery: A Basic Guide for Water Utilities Resources Previous Next OVERVIEW AND NAVIGATION (Continued) Staffing, Response Plans and Funding Once drought conditions have lessened, Drought response and recovery activities Utilities can use this Guide as a pre­ utilities can begin drought recovery activities in this Guide cover: to restore service to previous or newly ad­ paredness tool if they are not currently • Staffing, Response Plans and Funding. justed operating conditions. These activities experiencing a drought. To increase Establish staffing and drought response may include lifting water use restrictions, resilience to future droughts, utilities Water Supply and teams; develop drought response plans; replenishing water supply sources and should have an effective year-round Water Demand Management consider funding and financing options. regaining financial stability. Utilities can Conservation Program and Drought also explore incorporating new practices, • Water Supply and Demand Management. Response Plan in place prior to a drought. projects and other mitigation measures into Estimate quantity of current water Actions taken before a drought occurs, day-to-day operations to be less vulnerable supplies; develop ways to reduce water such as implementing a leak detection Communication to and better prepared for the next drought. use; identify potential supplemental and repair program, can increase available and Partnerships water supplies. supplies and be more cost effective in the long term. WHY DID EPA DEVELOP THE DROUGHT • Communication and Partnerships. RESPONSE AND RECOVERY GUIDE? Establish and communicate key messages to customers and stakeholders; develop EPA developed this Guide to help drinking partnerships. Case Studies water utilities become more resilient to and Videos drought. The Guide presents real-world examples, best practices and lessons learned in drought response and recovery. When working through the Guide, consider how the suggested actions may be adapted to your utility’s priorities and available resources. Note that your state may have specific rules prohibiting or regulating some of the response actions presented in this Guide. Check with your state regulators or legal counsel before putting any activities into practice. Page 4 Drought Response and Recovery: A Basic Guide for Water Utilities Resources Previous Next NAVIGATING THE GUIDE Staffing, Response Plans and Funding The Guide is divided into four sections: Note that all of the worksheets and links embedded throughout the guide, as well Staffing, Response Plans as additional resources related to drought and Funding response and recovery, can be found by Water Supply and clicking on “Resources” at the bottom of Demand Management each page. Water Supply and Demand Management Navigate directly to the Case Studies and Videos section for more detail on the six case studies showcasing seven utilities that Communication Communication successfully responded to drought. Their and Partnerships and Partnerships best practices and real-world examples are referenced throughout the Guide. The Case Drought Response and Recovery Project for Studies and Videos section will link you Water Utilities: Case Studies Map to the “Drought Response and Recovery Case Studies and Videos Project for Water Utilities: Case Studies Map.” Case Studies This website features a geoplatform map and Videos that hosts short videos on each case study. Navigate within and between sections using the clickable links on the far left and buttons In addition to the six case studies, videos on VIDEOS on the navigation bar at the bottom of each the site also cover: page. Click Next or Previous to move Clicking on these video icons • System efficiency and new water sources page by page through the Guide. will take you to the EPA’s Drought • Water demand Response and Recovery Project for Water Section features: • Partnerships Utilities: Case Studies Map website to view short videos. • Call-out boxes highlighting best practices and real-world examples. You must be connected to the Internet • Web links for learning more about to be taken to the website. The website WORKSHEETS specific topics. features all the videos referenced in this Look for this icon to open work­ Drought Guide. Click on the tabs at the • Easy-to-use worksheets for sheets in Microsoft Word and top of the Case Studies Map website to specific activities. Excel. You can fill in the worksheets and browse through the videos. The Over­ save the information to your computer. view tab explains how to use the map. Page 5 Drought Response and Recovery: A Basic Guide for Water Utilities Resources Previous Next STAFFING, RESPONSE PLANS AND FUNDING Staffing, Response Plans and Funding DROUGHT RESPONSE TEAM BEST PRACTICE: Establish a drought UTILITY STAFFING Drought response will involve internal response team with utility staff knowl­ Drought response activities may take coordination with utility staff and external edgeable in operations, communications, priority over other routine tasks and main­ Water Supply and collaboration with other partners and stake­ regulatory requirements, legal impacts tenance, and can increase staff workloads. Demand Management holders. Designate a utility staff member and financial planning. Engage with
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information
    Prepared in cooperation with the KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4242 EXPLANATION Potential contributing area Boundary of major river basin Hiii Infiltration-excess overland flow only ^H Saturation-excess overland flow only - Subbasin boundary Hi Infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows L I Noncontributing area U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Estimation of Potential Runoff Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information By KYLE E. JURACEK Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4242 Prepared in cooperation with the KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Lawrence, Kansas 1999 U.S. Department of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Information Services U.S. Geological Survey Building 810, Federal Center 4821 Quail Crest Place Box 25286 Lawrence, KS 66049-3839 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................^ 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................^
    [Show full text]
  • Suspended-Sediment Loads, Reservoir Sediment Trap Efficiency, and Upstream and Downstream Channel Stability for Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas, 2008–10
    Prepared in cooperation with the Kansas Water Office Suspended-Sediment Loads, Reservoir Sediment Trap Efficiency, and Upstream and Downstream Channel Stability for Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas, 2008–10 Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5187 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front cover. Upper left: Tuttle Creek Lake upstream from highway 16 bridge, May 16, 2011 (photograph by Dirk Hargadine, USGS). Lower right: Tuttle Creek Lake downstream from highway 16 bridge, May 16, 2011 (photograph by Dirk Hargadine, USGS). Note: On May 16, 2011, the water-surface elevation for Tuttle Creek Lake was 1,075.1 feet. The normal elevation for the multi-purpose pool of the reservoir is 1,075.0 feet. Back cover. Water-quality monitor in Little Blue River near Barnes, Kansas. Note active channel-bank erosion at upper right (photograph by Bill Holladay, USGS). Suspended-Sediment Loads, Reservoir Sediment Trap Efficiency, and Upstream and Downstream Channel Stability for Kanopolis and Tuttle Creek Lakes, Kansas, 2008–10 By Kyle E. Juracek Prepared in cooperation with the Kansas Water Office Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5187 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Cedar Bluff Reservoir 2000 Reservoir Survey
    CEDAR BLUFF RESERVOIR 2000 RESERVOIR SURVEY RE.SO' -J U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 0MB No. 0704-0 188 L AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED March 2001 Final _______________________________ 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NTJMBERS Cedar Bluff Reservoir PR 2000 Reservoir Survey 6. AUTHOR(S) Ronald L. Ferrari ______________________ 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver CO 80225-0007 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Federal Center, P0 Box 25007, DIBR Denver CO 80225-0007 ____________________________ 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Hard copy available at Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILiTY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 worch) The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) surveyed Cedar Bluff Reservoir in September of 2000 to develop a topographic map and compute a present storage-elevation relationship (area-capacity tables). The data were used to calculate reservoir capacity lost due to sediment accumulation since dam closure in November of 1950. The underwater survey was conducted in September of 2000 near reservoir elevation 2143.7 feet (project datum). The underwater survey used sonic depth recording equipment interfaced with a global positioning system (GPS) that gave continuous sounding positions throughout the underwater portions of the reservoir covered by the survey vessel. The above-water topography was detennined by digitizing the developed contour lines from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • FISHERIES and WILDLIFE DIVISION FISH CULTURE SECTION 1999 PRODUCTION REPORT
    FISHERIES and WILDLIFE DIVISION FISH CULTURE SECTION 1999 PRODUCTION REPORT h Meade Fish Rearing Station KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS 1'his program receives Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act o f 1973, Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department o f the Interior and its bureaus prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability or sex (in educational programs). I f you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or facility, or if you desire further information please write to: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office for Diversity and Civil Rights Programs-Extemal Programs 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 130 Arlington, VA 22203 FISH CULTURE SECTION 1999 PRODUCTION REPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE DIVISION KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS Steve Williams, Secretary January, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 TRENDS IN FISH PRODUCTION DEMAND 2 FISH PRODUCTION SUMMARY 3 FARLINGTON HATCHERY 5 Channel Catfish 8 Largemouth Bass 10 Redear Sunfish 11 Saugeye 12 Percid/Morone sps. 13 Striped Bass 14 Striped Bass Hybrids 15 Walleye 17 Grass Carp 18 MEADE FISH REARING STATION 19 Hybrid Bluegill 23 Largemouth Bass 24 Smallmouth Bass 26 Grass Carp 28 MILFORD HATCHERY 29 Channel Catfish 33 Largemouth Bass 36 Paddlefish 37 Striped Bass 38 Striped Bass Hybrids (WBxSTB) 40 Percid sp.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Resource & Regional Goal Action Plan Implementation
    State of the Resource & Regional Goal Action Plan Implementation Report August 2018 Smoky Hill-Saline Regional Planning Area Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................2 WATER USE TRENDS ...........................................................................................................................3 WATER RESOURCES CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................5 GROUNDWATER ................................................................................................................................................ 5 SURFACE WATER ............................................................................................................................................... 6 WATER QUALITY .............................................................................................................................. 10 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS .......................................................................................................... 14 SURFACE WATER ............................................................................................................................................. 14 IMPLEMENTATION NEEDS ................................................................................................................ 16 REGIONAL GOALS & ACTION PLAN PROGRESS .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Guidebook
    KANSAS FIELD CONFERENCE FIELD GUIDE 2005 FIELD CONFERENCE CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS WATER, RECREATION, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT JUNE 8–10, 2005 EDITED BY ROBERT S. SAWIN REX C. BUCHANAN CATHERINE S. EVANS JAMES R. MCCAULEY THIS PROJECT IS OPERATED BY THE KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND FUNDED, IN PART, BY THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS, THE KANSAS WATER OFFICE, AND THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES. KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGY EXTENSION THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS 1930 CONSTANT AVE. LAWRENCE, KANSAS 66047–3726 KGS OPEN-FILE TELEPHONE: (785) 864–3965 REPORT 2005–17 WWW.KGS.KU.EDU CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS WATER, RECREATION, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2005 FIELD CONFERENCE 3 2 7 8 1 6 5 Proposed HorseThief Reservoir 4 Wednesday Thursday Friday 0 10 mi KANSAS FIELD CONFERENCE Central Great Plains Water, Recreation, and Economic Development 2005 FIELD CONFERENCE June 8-10, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS Participants List ....................................................................................................... 1 - 1 Biographical Information ........................................................................................ 1 - 5 KANSAS FIELD CONFERENCE 2005 Field Conference – “Central Great Plains – Water, Recreation, and Economic Development” ....... 2 - 1 Sponsors .................................................................................................................. 2 - 3 Kansas Geological Survey ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Smoky Hill River (Elkader
    SMOKY HILL/SALINE RIVER BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD Water Body/Assessment Unit: Cedar Bluff Lake and Smoky Hill River (Elkader, Gove, and Trego) Water Quality Impairment: Sulfate 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Subbasin: Smoky Hill Headwaters, North Fork Smoky Hill, Upper Smoky Hill, Ladder, and Hackberry Counties: Gove, Greeley, Lane, Logan, Ness, Scott, Sherman, Thomas, Trego, Wallace, and Wichita HUC 8: 10260001 HUC 11 (14): 010 (090, 100, 110) (Figure 1) 020 (010, 020, 030) 030 (010, 020, 030, 040) 040 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060) 10260002 010 (060, 070, 080, 090, 100, 110, 120) 030 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060) 10260003 010 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060) 020 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070, 080, 090) 030 (010, 020, 030) 040 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070, 080) 050 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070, 080) 10260004 010 (040, 050, 060, 070, 080) 020 (030, 040, 050, 060, 070, 080, 090) 030 (010, 020, 030, 040) 040 (010, 020, 030, 040) 050 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070, 080, 090) 10260005 010 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060) 020 (010, 020, 030, 040, 050, 060, 070) Ecoregion: Western High Plains, Moderate Relief Rangeland (25c) Western High Plains, Flat to Rolling Cropland (25d) Central Great Plains, Rolling Plains and Breaks (27b) Drainage Area: Approximately 4,305 square miles. 1 Cedar Bluff Lake Conservation Pool: Area = 6,618 acres Watershed Area: Lake Surface Area = 416:1 Maximum Depth = 19.0 meters (62.3 feet) Mean Depth = 7.8 meters (25.6 feet) Retention Time = 1.36 years (16.3 months) Designated Uses: Primary and Secondary Contact Recreation; Expected Aquatic Life Support; Food Procurement; Irrigation Authority: Federal (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Induced Seismicity: the Potential for Triggered Earthquakes in Kansas Rex C
    Kansas Geological Survey Public Information Circular 36 • April 2014 Induced Seismicity: The Potential for Triggered Earthquakes in Kansas Rex C. Buchanan, K. David Newell, Catherine S. Evans, and Richard D. Miller, Kansas Geological Survey Introduction Earthquake activity in the Earth’s crust is known as seismicity. When linked to human activities, it is commonly referred to as “induced seismicity.” Industries that have been associated with induced seismicity include oil and gas production, mining, geothermal energy production, construction, underground nuclear testing, and impoundment of large reservoirs (National Research Council, 2012). Nearly all instances of induced seismicity are not felt on the surface and do not cause damage. In the early 2000s, concern began to grow over an increase in the number of earthquakes in the vicinity of a few oil and gas exploration and production operations, particularly in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Ohio, Colorado, and Texas. Figure 1—Earthquake hazard maps show the probability that ground shaking, or motion, will Horizontal drilling in conjunction exceed a certain level, over a 50-year period. The low-hazard areas on this map have a 2% chance with hydraulic fracturing has often of exceeding a low level of shaking and the high-hazard areas have a 2% chance of topping a much been singled out for blame in the greater level of shaking (modified from USGS, 2008). public discourse. Hydraulic fracturing, popularly called “fracking,” does of wells currently in operation have recorded near disposal wells starting cause extremely low-level seismicity, been suspected of inducing earthquakes in September 2013, about three years too small to be felt, as do explosions large enough to be felt or cause damage after horizontal drilling activities in the associated with quarrying, mining, dam (National Research Council, 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrologic Conditions in Kansas, Water Year 2019
    Hydrologic Conditions in Kansas, Water Year 2019 The U.S. Geological Survey Kansas provides important information Kansas at the end of WY 2017 (fig. 2A). (USGS), in cooperation with Federal, for many functions including managing During WY 2018, most of the eastern State, and local agencies, maintains water resources, protecting human life half of the State experienced normal a long-term network of hydrologic and property, maintaining agricultural (average) to below normal precipitation, monitoring stations in Kansas. In water and industrial activities, the operation of whereas parts of the western half of the year (WY) 2019, this network included reservoirs, the development of infrastruc- State experienced above normal precipi- 217 real-time streamgages (fig. 1). A WY ture, accurate ecological assessments, and tation, particularly north-central Kansas is the 12-month period from October 1 recreational purposes. (fig. 2B). South-central and eastern through September 30 and is designated Kansas experienced below and much by the calendar year in which it ends. below normal precipitation, resulting in Real-time hydrologic data are veri- abnormally dry to extreme drought condi- fied by USGS personnel throughout the Preceding Conditions and tions at the end of WY 2018 (fig. 3) that year providing regular measurements of Precipitation continued into WY 2019. streamflow, lake levels, and groundwater Heavy rainfall events in October and levels. These data and associated analyses Despite some isolated, heavy November of 2018 ended drought condi- provide a unique overview of hydrologic precipitation events, overall streamflow tions, and by the beginning of December, conditions and help improve the under- and drainage basin runoff conditions dry conditions were virtually nonexis- standing of Kansas’ water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 238/Tuesday, December 11, 2012
    73828 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0071. You may proposes to list the lesser prairie- submit a comment by clicking on chicken as a threatened species Fish and Wildlife Service ‘‘Comment Now!’’ throughout its range. (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail The Endangered Species Act provides 50 CFR Part 17 or hand-delivery to: Public Comments the basis for our action. Under the [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0071: Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2012– Endangered Species Act, we can 4500030113] 0071; Division of Policy and Directives determine that a species is an Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife endangered or threatened species based RIN 1018–AV21 Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS on any of five factors: (A) The present 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. or threatened destruction, modification, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife We request that you send comments or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) and Plants; Listing the Lesser Prairie- only by the methods described above. overutilization for commercial, Chicken as a Threatened Species We will post all comments on http:// recreational, scientific, or educational AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, www.regulations.gov. This generally purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) Interior. means that we will post any personal the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or ACTION: Proposed rule. information you provide us (see the Information Requested section below for manmade factors affecting its continued SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and more information).
    [Show full text]
  • AOP) Has Been Prepared for the Federally-Owned Dams and Reservoirs in the Niobrara, Lower Platte, and Kansas River Basins
    SYNOPSIS General This year is the 54th consecutive year that an Annual Operating Plans (AOP) has been prepared for the Federally-owned dams and reservoirs in the Niobrara, Lower Platte, and Kansas River Basins. The plan has been developed by the Water Operations Group in McCook, Nebraska for the 16 dams and reservoirs that are located in Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas. These reservoirs, together with 9 diversion dams, 9 pumping plants, and 20 canal systems, serve approximately 269,532 acres of project lands in Nebraska and Kansas. In addition to irrigation and municipal water, these features serve flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife purposes. A map at the end of this report shows the location of these features. The reservoirs in the Niobrara and Lower Platte River Basins are operated by either irrigation or reclamation districts. The reservoirs in the Kansas River Basin are operated by either the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), or the Corps of Engineers. Kirwin Irrigation District provides operational and maintenance assistance for Kirwin Dam. The diversion dams, pumping plants, and canal systems are operated by either irrigation or reclamation districts. A Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA) located at McCook is used to assist in operational management of all 11 dams under Reclamation's jurisdiction that are located in the Kansas River Basin. A Hydromet system collects and stores near real-time data at selected stations in the Nebraska-Kansas Projects. The data includes water levels in streams, canals, and reservoirs and also gate openings. This data is transmitted to a satellite and downloaded to a Reclamation receiver in Boise, Idaho.
    [Show full text]
  • Sebelius Reservoir Economic Impact Report 2018
    Keith Sebelius Reservoir, Prairie Dog State Park, and Norton Wildlife Area Economic Impact Study 2018 Report Prepared For Kansas Water Office Topeka, Kansas and Norton City/County Economic Development Prepared By The Docking Institute of Public Affairs Fort Hays State University Copyright © 2018 All Rights Reserved Fort Hays State University 600 Park Street Hays, Kansas 67601-4099 Telephone: (785) 628-4197 FAX: (785) 628-4188 www.fhsu.edu/docking Michael S. Walker Dr. Jian Sun Director Assistant Director Bradley Pendergast, MPA Lynette Ottley Research Coordinator Administrative Specialist Mission: To Facilitate Effective Public Policy Decision-Making. The staff of the Docking Institute of Public Affairs and its University Center for Survey Research are dedicated to serving the people of Kansas and surrounding states. Keith Sebelius Reservoir, Prairie Dog State Park, and Norton Wildlife Area Economic Impact Study 2018 Report Prepared By: Preston Gilson, Ph.D. Senior Policy Fellow Docking Institute of Public Affairs Gary Brinker, Ph.D. Senior Policy Fellow Docking Institute of Public Affairs Michael S. Walker, M.S. Director Docking Institute of Public Affairs Prepared For: Kansas Water Office Topeka, Kansas and Norton City/County Economic Development Copyright © 2018 All Rights Reserved Table of Contents List of Figures, Tables, Graphs, Maps, and Charts ...........................................................................ii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]