DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Wakarusa WRAPS 9-Element Watershed Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper Wakarusa WRAPS 9-Element Watershed Plan Upper Wakarusa River WRAPS 9 Element Watershed Plan Overview Impairments to be addressed Directly addressing High Priority TMDLs for: Bacteria – Wakarusa River – Paulen Road Biology/Dissolved Oxygen – Wakarusa River – Paulen Road Biology/Sediment – Wakarusa River – Paulen Road Eutrophication – Clinton Reservoir Additionally, the Upper Wakarusa River WRAPS has a sediment reduction goal of 175,917 tons/yr in order to meet the life expectancy of Clinton Reservoir. Silver Lake Kiro Willard Grantville P erry Targeting Determinations Maple Hill Williamstown Lecompton Tecumseh Top ek a Cropland BMP Targeted areas were identified Big Springs Kanwaka Stull 102 701040108 Lawrence Pauline through SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Dover Keene Forbes FieldB erry ton 102 70 1040103 Clinton Tool) modeling to determine areas of high 1027 01 040106 Auburn 10 2701040 104 Wa ka rus a overland runoff contributing sediment and 102701 040101 1 0270104 01 02 102701040105 10 2701040 107 nutrients to the watershed and Clinton Ca rb on da le Legend Harveyville Overbrook Reservoir. Scranton Upper Wakarusa Project Area HUC 12 Delineations Burlingam e Majo r Reservoirs County Boundary Cit ies and Towns Livestock BMP Targeted areas were identified Deer Creek M ich ig an Vall ey Rock Creek Elk Creek Vassar through analysis of aerial assessment data that Camp Creek Admire Osage City Lynn/Burys CreekMiller Lyndon Pom ona identified areas of high phosphorus runoff potential and the locations of existing bacteria impairments. Streambank Targeted areas were identified through GIS analyses of the main stem of the Upper Wakarusa River. Best Management Practices and Load Reduction Goals Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address phosphorus, sediment, and bacteria in the watershed were chosen by the SLT based on local acceptance/adoption rate and amount of load reduction gained per dollar spent. 175,917 tons of sediment must be reduced annually to Sediment Reducing Cropland/Riparian BMPs: achieve the life expectancy of Clinton Reservoir. Encouragement of Continuous No‐till 289,325 tons/yr 175,917 113,408 tons/yr sediment load tons/yr recommended Buffers into Clinton reduction in allowable Lake sediment sediment load Grassed Waterways required Tile outlet terraces and wetland retention Streambank Stabilization Streambank Restoration Phosphorus Reducing Cropland, Streambank and Livestock BMPs: Encouragement of Continuous No‐till 220,000 lbs of phosphorus must be reduced annually to achieve Tile outlet terraces and wetland retention High Priority Eutrophication TMDL for Clinton Reservoir. Buffers Grassed Waterways 220,000 lbs/yr 120,000 lbs/yr 340,000 lbs/yr reduction in phosphorous phosphorous phosphorous Streambank Stabilization allowed under load into Clinton required to the TMDL Vegetative filter strips between small Lake meet TMDL feeding operations and streams Relocation of small feeding operations away from streams Pasture fencing Promotion of alternative watering sites away from streams Low water crossings Implement rotational grazing practices Bacteria Reducing Livestock BMPs: Vegetative filter strips between small feeding operations and streams Relocation of small feeding operations away from streams Pasture fencing Promotion of alternative watering sites away from streams Low water crossings Implement rotational grazing practices UPPER WAKARUSA WATERSHED RESTORATION AND PROTECTION STRATEGY Nine Element Plan November 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) .................................................... 1 Geographic Setting ‐ HUC 8 ‐ 10270104, HUC 11 ‐ 10270104010 .............................................. 5 Clinton Lake ............................................................................................................................. 5 Watershed Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 6 Manmade Factors ................................................................................................................. 13 Element 1. Identification of causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar sources that need to be controlled to achieve needed load reductions, and any other goals identified in the watershed plan. .............................................................................................. 20 Causes of Impairments .......................................................................................................... 21 Pollutant Sources .................................................................................................................. 30 Element 2. An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures. ...... 32 Load Reduction Requirements .............................................................................................. 32 Unit Load Reductions ............................................................................................................ 39 Element 3. A description of the non point source management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve load reductions and a description for the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement the plan. .......................................................... 42 Critical Areas for Implementation of Non Point Source Management Measures ................ 42 Description of Non Point Source Management Measures ................................................... 44 Land Use Assessment ............................................................................................................ 46 Element 4. Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement this plan. .. 49 Technical Assistance to Implement Best Management Practices ........................................ 49 Projected Costs of Technical Assistance to Implement Best Management Practices .......... 50 Element 5. An information and education component used to enhance public understanding of the project and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting, designing, and implementing the nonpoint source management measures that will be implemented. 52 Information and Education Activities .................................................................................... 52 Resources Associated with Information and Education Activities ........................................ 53 Evaluation of Information and Education Activities ............................................................. 54 Technical Assistance and Costs for Watershed Assessment................................................. 55 Element 6. Schedule for Implementing the nonpoint source management measures identified in this plan that is reasonably expeditious ............................................................... 56 PAGE I Projected Load Reductions and Costs for Priority Areas Downstream of Paulen Road ....... 56 Opportunity Limitations .................................................................................................... 57 Recommended Level of Effort to Meet Load Reduction Requirements ........................... 61 Projected Load Reduction and Costs Upstream of Paulen Road .......................................... 62 Conservation Practices Needs Survey ............................................................................... 63 Stormwater Management Strategy to Meet Load Reduction Requirements for Clinton Lake ............................................................................................................................................... 67 Improved land management on croplands ........................................................................... 70 Annual Projections of Load Reduction and Costs ................................................................. 72 Element 7. A description of interim measurable milestones for determining whether nonpoint source management measures or other control actions are being implemented. 74 Water Quality Milestones to Determine Improvements ...................................................... 74 Water Quality Milestones for Upper Wakarusa River .......................................................... 74 Water Quality Milestones for Bacteria – Upper Wakarusa River ......................................... 76 Water Quality Milestones for Clinton Lake ........................................................................... 77 Additional Water Quality Indicators ..................................................................................... 78 Element 8. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standards. ..................................................................................................................... 79 Comparing computed load reductions from all known BMPs over time ............................. 79 Progress in establishing County and Urban development criteria to control stormwater and protect vulnerable areas ......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Haskell Environmental Research Studies Center
    Haskell Environmental Research Studies Center Haskell Indian Nations University 155 Indian Ave Box 5001 Lawrence KS 66046 Phone (785) 749-8498 E-mail address: [email protected] ______________________________________________________________________________ January 1, 2007 TO: Wendall L. Meyer, Assistant Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Kansas Division Office 6111 SW 29th Street, Suite 100, Topeka, KS 66614-4271 FROM: Brenda Brandon, Technical Outreach Services for Native American Communities (TOSNAC) Coordinator SUBJECT: TOSNAC Review and Comments for K-10 South Lawrence Trafficway (SLT), Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, November 2006 ______________________________________________________________________________ The Technical Outreach Services for Native American Communities (TOSNAC) program provides free, non-biased technical assistance to Tribal communities by presenting fundamental scientific information related to environmental issues. Its goal is to empower Native American communities with an independent understanding of the underlying technical issues so that they may participate substantively in environmental decision-making processes. TOSNAC program is housed in the Haskell Environmental Research Studies (HERS) Center at Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU) and provides outreach services to Tribes on a national level. TOSNAC review comments provide one form of technical support through the summary and review of reports related to environmental action and impacted sites. These TOSNAC summary and
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Northeastern Kansas: Public Field Trip in Celebration Of
    Geology of Northeastern Kansas Field Trip Public Field Trip in Celebration of Earth Science Week October 7, 2000 Jim McCauley Liz Brosius Rex Buchanan Bob Sawin Kansas Geological Survey Open-file Report 2000-55 1 2 Geology of Northeastern Kansas Field Trip Jim McCauley, Liz Brosius, Rex Buchanan, and Bob Sawin Kansas Geological Survey Introduction means by which water can move out of the lake during times of extremely high water levels (though This field trip will introduce participants to the the water has never been that high). The bike path geology of northeastern Kansas, highlighting rocks along the floor of the spillway was added in the and fossils in the vicinity of Lawrence and Topeka 1990’s as part of the construction of the South (see map). The stops are located in Douglas, Lawrence Trafficway. Shawnee, and Wabaunsee counties, and, with the The spillway is a good place to view a cross exception of Stop 2, lie within the physiographic section of the rock layers that are typical of this area. province called the Glaciated Region. These interbedded limestones and shales were The field trip is part of the Survey’s participation deposited during the Pennsylvanian Period of in Earth Science Week (October 8–14), a national geologic history (also known as the Coal Age), about celebration of the earth sciences, established in 1998 300 million years ago. At that time, Kansas was by the American Geological Institute, based in near the equator, the climate was warmer, and a Alexandria, Virginia. Earth Science Week is a time shallow sea advanced and retreated repeatedly across to increase public awareness and understanding of eastern Kansas (figs.
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Historic Kansas Places Registration Form
    Kansas State Historical Society State Register Listed November 16, 2013 Register of Historic Kansas Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating individual properties and districts. The format is similar to the National Register of Historic Places form. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets. Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name Wakarusa Presbyterian Church other names/site number KHRI # 177-3290 2. Location street & number 10135 SW Jordan Road not for publication city or town Wakarusa vicinity state Kansas code KS county Shawnee code 177 zip code 66546 3-4. Certification I hereby certify that this property is listed in the Register of Historic Kansas Places. SEE FILE ____________________________________ Signature of certifying official Date _____________________________________ Title State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government 5. Classification Ownership of Property Category of Property Number of Resources within Property (Check as many boxes as apply) (Check only one box) (Do not include previously listed resources in the count.) Contributing Noncontributing x private x building(s) 1 buildings public - Local district district public - State site site public - Federal structure structure object object 1 0 Total Wakarusa Presbyterian Church Shawnee County, KS Name of Property County and State Name of related multiple property listing Number of contributing resources previously (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing) listed in the State Register N/A 0 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Potential Wetland Development in Aging Kansas Reservoirs
    Investigating Potential Wetland Development in Aging Kansas Reservoirs. Kansas Biological Survey Report No. 191 August 2017 by Kaitlyn Loeffler Central Plains Center for BioAssessment Kansas Biological Survey University of Kansas For Kansas Water Office Prepared in fulfillment of KWO Contract 16-111, EPA Grant No. CD 97751901 KUCR KAN74759 Investigating Potential Wetland Development in Aging Kansas Reservoirs By © 2017 Kaitlyn Loeffler B.S., Central Methodist University, 2015 Submitted to the graduate degree program in Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Science. Chair: Dr. Josh Roundy Co-Chair: Dr. Vahid Rahmani Dr. Don Huggins Dr. Ted Peltier Date Defended: August 15, 2017 The thesis committee for Kaitlyn Loeffler certifies that this is the approved version of the following thesis: Investigating Potential Wetland Development in Aging Kansas Reservoirs Chair: Dr. Josh Roundy Co-Chair: Dr. Vahid Rahmani Date Approved: August 2017 ii Abstract Reservoirs around the world are losing their storage capacity due to sediment infilling; and with this infilling, the quality or value of some reservoir uses such as boating, fishing and recreation are diminishing. However, the sediment accumulating in the upper ends of reservoirs, particularly around primary inflows with well-defined floodplains, could potentially be developing into wetland ecosystems that provide services such as sediment filtration, nutrient sequestration, and habitat for migratory birds and other biota. The objectives of this study are as follows: 1) use water level management data and topography to delineate the primary zone of potential wetland formation around the reservoir perimeter, 2) examine the relationship between ground slope in this area and wetland delineations found in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Twin Mound, Douglas County, Kansas 1857-1903
    The Near Miss: Twin Mound, Douglas County, Kansas 1857-1903 McKenzie Combes Chapman Center for Rural Studies History 589 Fall 2016 This is a brief history of Twin Mound in Douglas County, Kansas. It focuses on the life and near misses of the community from 1857 to the post office closing in 1903. This history utilizes newspaper articles, plat maps, and site research and photographs. 1 Imagine travelling for weeks by wagon with nothing but essential items and family and for most of the journey, seeing nothing but the desolate open plains of Kansas for miles. The sun is blazing in the hot summer months and the heat is unbearable. Eventually, the landscape changes to small gently rolling hills and in the distance you can see two large identical mounds, each easily a quarter mile long. This fertile land nestled between two creeks is the perfect place to stop and rest. This land is known to history as Twin Mound, Kansas. Twin Mound was a small community located in Douglas County in northeastern Kansas. The town site was triangulated between present-day Topeka, Lawrence, and Emporia, Kansas. This community was subject to several near misses for permanence, everything from the railroad to a university. Twin Mound had great potential but was blindsided by missed opportunities that ultimately led to the demise of such a promising town. Founding and Early Years Within the gently rolling hills and flat fertile land that made up the Kansas Territory before 1861 were two mounds, of identical shape and size that characterized the area; one is pictured below in Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural and Cultural Resources Natural and Cultural Resources Form the Base of Everything in Shawnee County
    CHAPTER TWO Natural and Cultural Resources Natural and cultural resources form the base of everything in Shawnee County. Not only does agriculture play a significant role in the area’s economy, but the landscape also creates opportunities and constraints to development. This comprehensive plan brings together water management, conservation, land use planning, and industries like agriculture and mining to identify the best ways to continue a high quality of life. It also demonstrates how people rely on the health and productivity of the landscape and how land stewardship is critical in maintaining its health and productivity. Wisely managing these resources allows the County to build for present and future generations and mitigate natural hazards which saves lives, property, and money. DRAFT 09-01-2017 PERCEPTIONS FIGURE 2.1: Questionnaire Responses: Natural Resources (1 being Poor and 5 being Excellent) Survey participants completed a “report card” SURVEY RESPONSE RATINGS AVERAGE RATING questionnaire in which they were asked to rank Lake Shawnee 4.01 various natural and cultural resources issues and opportunities on a one-to-five scale, with five Clinton Lake Wildlife Refuge 3.44 representing “excellent” and one representing “poor.” Regional Parks and Recreation Areas 3.37 Attributes with average scores of 3.0 or above are Preservation of Natural Features (Flint Hills, Glacial Hills, and Osage Cuestas) 3.17 perceived strengths and those with scores below Overall Quality of Shawnee County's Environment 3.07 2.5 represent areas of perceived weaknesses. Soil Conservation 2.88 These results were then better understood through Water Conservation 2.84 stakeholder meetings.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on the Birds of Douglas County, Kansas
    Birds of Douglas County, Kansas 91 NOTES ON THE BIRDS OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS BY JEAN LINSDALE AND E. RAYMOND HALL The aim of this paper is to place on record our observations that, excepting those obtainable from specimens collected, might otherwise not be available. The paper deals chiefly with occurrence and is wholly limited to birds collected and observed by us in Douglas County, Kansas, mainly, between September, 1919, and May, 1923. A few observations made after this time are included but all such are indicated by date. A total of 253 field-trips was made. These cover 231 separate days. Records were also kept of birds seen about the authors’ homes in Lawrence. Nearly all of the northern part of the country was worked. Most work was done in spring and fall and least in summer. Of the 201 identifications 164 are based on speci- men3 collected. All these specimens, numbering more than one thou- sand, are now in the collection of the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History at Lawrence. The city of Lawrence is located in the north-central part of Douglas County on the Kansas River. Most of the work here reported on was done south, east and west of, and within ten miles of, Lawrence. The Kansas River, whose valley is three to six miles wide, forms most of the northern boundary of the county and is joined, eight miles south of Lawrence, by the Wakarusa River. The latter is a smaller stream that passes three miles south of Lawrence and runs east by- north.
    [Show full text]
  • SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS and INCORPORATED AREAS VOLUME 1 of 2
    SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS AND INCORPORATED AREAS VOLUME 1 of 2 COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER Auburn, City of 200332 Rossville, City of 200334 Shawnee County, Unincorporated Areas 200331 Silver Lake, City of 200335 Topeka, City of 205187 Willard, City of 200337 Shawnee County EFFECTIVE: September 29, 2011 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 20177CV001A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 through A30 AE VI through V30 VE B X C X Countywide
    [Show full text]
  • Douglas County Wakarusa Survey Area II
    REPORT FOR THE HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY OF WAKARUSA TOWNSHIP, DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS (Phase II: 2014) (Eben Baldwin Barn, 1879, Wakarusa Township, KHRI #045-0000-00011) FOR THE HERITAGE CONSERVATION COUNCIL, DOUGLAS COUNTY BY DALE E. NIMZ, Historic Preservation Consultant June 30, 2014 Table of Contents Acknowledgements Introduction Project Description and Goals Methodology Survey Findings Historical Context Wakarusa Township Heritage Survey Summary of inventory Previously designated properties Individually eligible properties Architectural analysis Construction dates Building forms/types Building function Recommendations National Register evaluation Public education Preservation planning Bibliography List of Figures Map of surveyed properties-Wakarusa Township List of Surveyed Properties Appendix 2 Acknowledgements The consultants gratefully acknowledge the support of the Douglas County Commissioners, Nancy Thellman, Jim Flory, Mike Gaughan, and the Douglas County Heritage Council members in 2013- 2014, Ken Grotewiel, John Bradley, Shelly Hickman Clark, Julia Manglitz, Larry McElwain, Dennis Domer, and Gary Price. We appreciate the cooperation of Heritage Council program manager, Bobbi Rahder, and Terrol Palmer, Douglas County GIS, who prepared the survey area maps. We appreciate the generosity of the members of the Unitarian Fellowship of Lawrence for giving us the opportunity to hold public meetings in their building. In Wakarusa Township, several residents and property owners attended the initial and final public meetings and provided information. 3 Introduction Project Description and Goals Historic architectural resources give a community its special character. Survey is the process of identifying and evaluating a community's historic architectural resources and survey information is necessary to plan for preservation. This survey project has been funded by a Historic Preservation Fund grant from the Kansas Historic Preservation Office with matching funds and services from the Douglas County Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Wakarusa River Watershed Water Quality Impairment: Sediment Impact on Aquatic Life
    KANSAS-LOWER REPUBLICAN BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD Waterbody: Upper Wakarusa River Watershed Water Quality Impairment: Sediment Impact on Aquatic Life 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Subbasin: Lower Kansas River Counties: Douglas, Osage, Shawnee, and Wabaunsee HUC 8: 10270104 HUC 11: 010 (entire watershed) Drainage Area: Approximately 364 square miles. Main Stem Segments: 30 and 31, starting at Clinton Lake with headwaters in eastern Wabaunsee County near Eskridge. Designated Uses: Expected Aquatic Life Support, Primary Contact Recreation and all other designated uses. 1998 303d Listing: Table 2–Stream Segments Identified by Biological Monitoring Impaired Use: Expected Aquatic Life Support on Segments 30 & 31 Water Quality Standard: Suspended solids--Narrative: Suspended solids added to surface waters by artificial sources shall not interfere with the behavior, reproduction, physical habitat or other factor related to the survival and propagation of aquatic or semi-aquatic or terrestrial wildlife. (KAR 28-16-28e(c)(2)(D)). 2. CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONDITION AND DESIRED ENDPOINT Level of Support for Designated Use under 303d: Partially Supporting Aquatic Life Monitoring Sites: Station 109 near Topeka Period of Record Used: Stream Chemistry: 1985–1998 Biological Monitoring: 1982–1996 Current Condition: Percent EPT taxa and total suspended solid concentrations need to be analyzed to address the sediment/biological impact impairment. The MBI index may also be examined; however it is not as good of an indicator as percent EPT taxa. The EPT index is the proportion of aquatic taxa present 1 within a stream belonging to pollution intolerant orders; Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies). Higher percentages of total taxa comprising these three groups indicate less pollutant stress and better water quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas
    BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION: Public comment will be taken for each regular agenda item as each item is discussed. Individuals will be limited to one comment per agenda item. Individuals are asked to come to the microphone, sign in, and state their name. We ask that you sign in so that we can get the spelling of your name correct in the minutes of the meeting. Speakers should address all comments/questions to the Commission. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2019 4:00 p.m. -Consider approval of the minutes for February 6 and February 13, 2019. CONSENT AGENDA (1) (a) Consider approval of Commission Orders; (b) Consider approval a County Resolution granting a cereal malt beverage license to The Clinton Store located at 598 N 1190 Road. (Clerk’s Office) (c) Consider approval a County Resolution granting a cereal malt beverage license to The Poor Farm Restaurant located at 598 N 1190 Road. (Clerk’s Office) (d) Consider awarding construction contract for bridge deck rehabilitation, Bridge Nos. 17-27N-10.00E and 17.30N-10.81E for Project No. 2019-70 (Keith Browning); (e) Consider awarding construction contract for bridge superstructure painting, Bridge Nos. 02.00N-14.80E and 03.06N-10.00E for Project No. 2018-52. (Keith Browning); (f) Adopt resolution to waive GAAP requirements for K.S.A. 75-1120a(a) for FY2019 (Brooke Sauer); and (g) Accounts Payable REGULAR AGENDA (2) Approve an increase to the Douglas County District Court Budget for a Programmer/Analyst position. (Linda Koester-Vogelsang); (3) Hold a public hearing to consider using the construction manager at risk project delivery method for the Douglas County Correctional Facility expansion.
    [Show full text]
  • 31St Street Mitigation Plan FINAL 2013-05-17.Docx
    31st Street Improvements MITIGATION PLAN FOR OFF-SITE, PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION MAY 2013 PREPARED FOR: THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, KANSAS CITY DISTRICT PREPARED BY: PREPARED ON BEHALF OF: This page intentionally blank Table of Contents Section 1 Project Description and Background 1 Section 2 Mitigation Objectives 1 Section 3 Site Selection 2 Section 4 Mitigation Site Protection 3 Section 5 Basic Project Information 3 Section 6 Determination of Credits 7 Section7 Mitigation Work Plan 7 Section 8 Operation and Maintenance Plan 11 Section 9 Performance Standards 12 Section 10 Monitoring Requirements 13 Section 11 Long-term Management Plan 14 Section 12 Adaptive Management Plan 14 Section 13 Financial Assurances 14 Section 14 Completion of Mitigation 14 Section 14 References 15 Attachments Project Area Map with Impact and Proposed Mitigation Sites Lower Kansas WRAPs 9 Element Plan Overview and Executive Summary Stream Mitigation Calculation Worksheets 31st Street Wetland Delineation Report This page intentionally blank SectionSectionSection 1 ––– Project Description and Background The proposed 31st Street project site is located in Township 13 S., Range 20 E., Section 17 in the City of Lawrence, in Douglas County, Kansas. The proposed project would consist of construction of approximately 1 mile of a divided, 2-lane roadway with stormwater curb and gutter on the interior sides of the roadway and a 16-foot wide grassed median. The exterior shoulder of both roadways will consist of a 46-foot graded and vegetated shoulder with sidewalks constructed along both sides of the roadway. See Attachments for a map of the proposed project location where impacts are expected to occur and the proposed location for mitigation of these impacts.
    [Show full text]