DOCSLIB.ORG

Enhancement Strategies for Mitigating Potential Operational Impacts Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Enhancement Strategies for Mitigating Potential Operational Impacts of Cooling Water Intake Structures Approaches for Enhancing Environmental Resources EPRI Report 1007454 Final Report, May 2003 EPRI Project Manager D. Dixon EPRI • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA 800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • [email protected] • www.epri.com DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTEREFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY’S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER’S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT. ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY ORDERING INFORMATION Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520. Toll-free number: 800.313.3774, press 2, or internally x5379; voice: 925.609.9169; fax: 925.609.1310. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Copyright © 2002 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved. CITATIONS This report was prepared by Argonne National Laboratory 9700 S. Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439 Principal Investigators I. Hlohowskyj J. Hayse R. Van Lonkhuyzen J. Veil W. Vinikour L. Urquidi This report describes research sponsored by EPRI. The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner: Enhancement Strategies for Mitigating Potential Operational Impacts of Cooling Water Intake Structures: Approaches for Enhancing Environmental Resources, Final Report, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 2003. EPRI Report 1007454 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge all reviewers who have assisted this effort by providing insightful comments and assistance. These reviewers, in alphabetical order, were: Elizabeth Aldridge Hunton & Williams Inc. David Bailey Mirant Mid-Atlantic Corporation John Balletto Public Service Electric & Gas Co. Kristy Bulleit Hunton & Williams Inc. Doug Dixon EPRI Rick Herd Allegheny Energy Gordon Hester EPRI Kirk LaGory Argonne National Laboratory Jules Loos Mirant Mid-Atlantic Corporation Robert H. Reider Detroit Edison Company Kenny Rose Louisiana State University, Coastal Fisheries Institute Paul Jacobson Langhei Ecology The authors also wish to acknowledge the following staff from Argonne National Laboratory for their invaluable assistance in data collection and evaluation, and technical editing and report production: John DePue Information and Publishing Division Alan Tsao Environmental Assessment Division iv REPORT SUMMARY This report describes environmental enhancement or restoration approaches that may be applicable for mitigating impingement and entrainment impacts associated with cooling water intake structures (CWISs). Background Environmental enhancement approaches (e.g., habitat restoration, restoration of fish passage, fish stocking) are often used to restore aquatic habitats or biological resources that have been affected by such activities as hydropower production, water supply system construction and use, mining, road construction, environmental contaminant cleanup, and commercial development. Environmental enhancements have become a common component of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and relicensing of hydroelectric operations by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Trading of mitigation or restoration credits, historically considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for addressing air emissions, is also an emerging approach in water quality permitting. The USEPA is currently developing Federal regulations to address requirements of Section 316(b) of the CWA. Regulations for new electricity generation sources and draft regulations for existing electricity-generating sources both provide for using enhancements as a voluntary approach to mitigate 316(b) impacts. A need was identified for a review of the state- of-the-science of environmental enhancement and trading to help researchers, regulators, and the regulated community assess the role of enhancements and trading within the Section 316(b) regulatory context. Objectives To determine the state-of-science, including underlying objectives, implementation and operational requirements, costs, current use by government and the private sector, and advantages and limitations of environmental restoration measures for potentially mitigating CWIS operational impacts. Approach Environmental enhancement and trading strategies, decision frameworks, and scaling methods were evaluated against a variety of technical, ecological, regulatory, and operational parameters, including technological status, ability to target CWIS impacts, and the current level-of-use and state-of-the-science. A variety of sources were used to collect information for evaluation, including scientific journals; technical publications; conference and workshop proceedings; government, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and private sector publications and websites; and personal communications with technical and regulatory experts. The project team v did not comparatively evaluate the various enhancement and trading approaches or scaling methods, but rather addressed each on its own merits. Results Enhancement approaches fell into two categories: (1) those that directly address fish numbers and (2) those that address habitat. Stocking addresses fish numbers and may mitigate CWIS impacts by replacing fish directly affected by impingement or entrainment. Habitat restoration mitigates impacts by providing more or better quality habitat to support fish reproduction, growth, and survival. Approaches include restoration of fish passage, creation or restoration of wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation beds, creation of artificial habitats (such as reefs), and the protection of existing habitat. Enhancement approaches are widely used by a variety of government agencies and NGOs to successfully manage, restore, and/or protect fisheries resources in marine and freshwater environments. They have also been used at many power plants to mitigate for CWIS impacts. Trading approaches could include (1) fish-for-fish trading that allows a cooling water user that provides greater CWIS impact reductions than required by its permit to trade those excess reductions to a second cooling water user; and (2) pollutants-for- fish trading that allows a cooling water user to have relaxed CWIS impact limits in its permit in exchange for reducing the load of key pollutants. A four-step framework was identified to aid in the selection and scaling of restoration projects to mitigate CWIS impacts. Steps in this framework include: (1) setting the baseline, which determines the type and amount of resources that incur impingement and entrainment impacts and for which mitigation is needed; (2) consideration of technological and/or operational alternatives; (3) selecting the restoration approach; and (4) scaling the restoration project. A critical component of this framework is the need for consultation with regulators, natural resource agencies, and appropriate stakeholders to develop the scope and scale of an appropriate project. EPRI Perspective This report provides energy company managers, regulators, and interested parties with an improved understanding of environmental enhancement approaches that can potentially mitigate CWIS operational impacts. The report will assist researchers, regulators, and the regulated community by identifying the current status and strengths and weaknesses of various enhancement and trading approaches and opportunities for applying these approaches to the regulation of CWIS. Keywords Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structure Fisheries Environmental Protection and Restoration Water Quality Trading vi CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Project Background ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Overview of Environmental Impacts of Cooling Water Intake Structure Operation........................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Environmental Enhancement Strategies Evaluated in this Report................................ 1-2 1.4 Trading Strategies Evaluated in this
Recommended publications
  • Structures Assisting the Migrations of Non-Salmonid Fish: USSR

    Structures Assisting the Migrations of Non-Salmonid Fish: USSR

    FAO Structures assisting FISHERIES TECHNICAL the migrations of PAPER non-salmonid fish: USSR 308 D.S. Pavlov Severtsov's Institute of the Evolutionary Morphology and Ecology of Animals Leninskii Prospekt 33 117071 Moscow B-71, USSR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 1989 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. M-42 ISBN 92-5-102857-5 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechani- cal, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Via delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. 0 FAO 1989 PREPARATION OF THIS DOC UMENT The Working Party of Experts on Inland Fisheries of the Indo-Pacific Commission, at a meeting in New Delhi, India, in January 1984, recommended that information be collected on the use of fish-passes. s a result of this recommenda- tion, FAO commissioned a consultant to review stn ctures assisting migration of non-salmonid stocks in the USSR. The original manuscript has been subject to substantial editing by Drs R.
  • Koala Conservation Status in New South Wales Biolink Koala Conservation Review

    Koala Conservation Status in New South Wales Biolink Koala Conservation Review

    koala conservation status in new south wales Biolink koala conservation review Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 3 2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 6 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE NSW POPULATION .............................................................. 6 Current distribution ............................................................................................................... 6 Size of NSW koala population .............................................................................................. 8 4. INFORMING CHANGES TO POPULATION ESTIMATES ....................................... 12 Bionet Records and Published Reports ............................................................................... 15 Methods – Bionet records ............................................................................................... 15 Methods – available reports ............................................................................................ 15 Results ............................................................................................................................ 16 The 2019 Fires .................................................................................................................... 22 Methods .........................................................................................................................
  • Water Sharing Plan for the Hastings Unregulated And

    Water Sharing Plan for the Hastings Unregulated And

    Locality Map ek re C s p o h s ek i re B C e r Stum ek y Kumba py C re p tine e C l re e e k T R e e d y C re e k G e a k ry Karst Cree C K o r i g k e Karst Gowings ll in e ek ic D e ek k Easy Creek r re Gowings Hill C C C C P r l a d e eg r len r Hill i e h G c a p orn Big a oe y e k s C H p C k r re il C p re c s ek l i e C a k o Karst C r K t k e s r e e c B k S eek Cre CRESCENT HEAD k a a e Gowings n d e o e n r i ! C d Hill t g a C c or e r C e G e r g C e e in n re k e s n ek k s Creek o ro ank C C eb Sm in iths T k Cree P e k k ie e Mo r e ek untai re Maria River re n C C ls C C r n el i e K ca w C o e o rri s o v k g o e Ca b k je Creek rlo M Water Source cro e n a fts e u M Cr r er eek C v C i O Forbes River n R 'L s so ea s Wil r o ek y re B C Goolawah Lagoon C r Water Source y e k e e n k e Pige e o o r n M C C y T o s b ad rry r o ra e Ba ive p b R R a Wilson River C l ia r d r e a e C M k r e e Water Source Big k Hill Cundle C C k r r e ee e e k Cr e ls Karst k l k e e B Big Hill B e r F r il C B o rabung Point rs k r k e Cr r ye ree i ree p eek b w C l C oo Sa sh C low C k e u s br ree ng e R tle k Ba e ot r iv e B C r e e D k tr ead M e Fe s Horse Creek ans Cre e e r nwicks ras k Creek G C Barneys Creek t le Creek In ders TELEGRAPH POINT R ud Saltwater Pappinbarra River ! Lake Water Source Upper Hastings River a C C oolapatamb re Limeburners ed eek C ek W ar d Cr at Creek Bitter Groun Co erfall wal Cre C Water Source ek r e e Creek k B re Mortons Creek alyngara C ek Water Kindee Creek Water Source reek Source M Loggy C
  • Minutes of the AFS Southern Division Trout Committee Meeting May 23-24, 2006 Gaston’S Resort, Arkansas

    Minutes of the AFS Southern Division Trout Committee Meeting May 23-24, 2006 Gaston’S Resort, Arkansas

    Minutes of the AFS Southern Division Trout Committee Meeting May 23-24, 2006 Gaston’s Resort, Arkansas The 2006 meeting of the American Fisheries Society – Southern Division Trout Committee was called to order at 8:30 AM by Matt Kulp, Chair. A quorum of 10 members was present. Old Business Matt Kulp distributed the 2005 meeting minutes. Jim Habera made a motion for approval which was seconded by Doug Besler, and the minutes were approved by the membership. Frank Fiss gave a report on the SDAFS meeting held in San Antonio, Texas. A discussion about a proposed symposium on 2-story lake fisheries followed. There is not much information available yet, but the symposium will have invited papers on various issued concerning 2-story fisheries. Darrell Bowman gave the Treasurer’s report. A new account with Bank of America has been opened. Since the last Treasurer’s report, a check to AFS for the publication of the Southern Appalachian Brook Trout paper was written. Also, Jack van Deventer was reimbursed for attending the recent SDAFS meeting to discuss Microfish 3.0. Current balance is $4663 and about $1100 will be needed for the 2006 committee meetng. Mike Kruse made a motion to accept the Treasurer’s report and was seconded by Frank Fiss. The motion passed unanimously. Jim Habera discussed the electrofishing gear study to be conducted August 8-10, 2006. Anyone who would like to participate is welcome and should contact Jim. University of Tennessee researchers have reviewed other studies concerning comparisons of various types of electrofishing gear. Matt Kulp gave an update on Microfish 3.0.
  • Annual Report 2015

    Annual Report 2015

    AnnualAnnual ReportReport 20152015 MassachusettsMassachusetts DivisionDivision ofof FisheriesFisheries && WildlifeWildlife 109 Annual Report 2015 Massachusetts Division of fisheries & WilDlife Wayne MacCallum (partial year) Jack Buckley (partial year) Director Susan Sacco Assistant to the Director Jack Buckley (partial year) Rob Deblinger, Ph.D. (partial year) Deputy Director Deputy Director Administration Field Operations Jim Burnham Debbie McGrath Administrative Assistant to the Administrative Assistant to the Deputy Director, Administration Deputy Director, Field Operations Blank Page Inside Title Page>>> 4 Table of Contents The Board Reports .............................................................................................6 Fisheries ...........................................................................................................16 Wildlife .............................................................................................................30 Private Lands Habitat Management ................................................................47 Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program .........................................50 Information & Education ................................................................................61 Hunter Education ............................................................................................71 District Reports ................................................................................................73 Wildlife Lands ..................................................................................................88
  • Report No. REC-ERC-90-L, “Compilation Report on the Effects

    Report No. REC-ERC-90-L, “Compilation Report on the Effects

    REC-ERC-SO-1 January 1990 Denver Office U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation 7-2090 (4-81) Bureau of Reclamation TECHNICAL REEPORT STANDARD TITLE PAG 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG ~0. 5. REPORT DATE Compilation Report on the Effects January 1990 of Reservoir Releases on 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE Downstream Ecosystems D-3742 7. AUTHOR(S) 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION E. Cheslak REPORT NO. J. Carpenter REC-ERC-90-1 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Bureau of Reclamation Denver Office 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. Denver CO 80225 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Same 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE DIBR 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Denver Office, Denver, Colorado. Ed: RDM 16. ABSTRACT Most of the dams built by the Bureau of Reclamation were completed before environmental regulations such as the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Protection Act, or Toxic Substances Control Act existed. The management and operation of dams was instituted under conditions where the ecology of the downstream habitat was unknown and largely ignored. Changing or modifying structures, flow regimes, and land use patterns are some of the efforts being pursued by the Bureau to reconcile or mitigate the effects of impoundment to comply with these environmental policies and to maximize the potential for recreation, fisheries, and water quality in tailwater habitats for the water resource users. The purpose of this report is to provide a reference document intended to aid in the management, compliance, and problem solving processes necessary to accomplish these goals in Bureau tailwater habitats.
  • Maria River, Maria and Kumbatine National Parks Wild River Assessment 2006

    Maria River, Maria and Kumbatine National Parks Wild River Assessment 2006

    1vertab Maria River, Maria and Kumbatine National Parks Wild River Assessment 2006 December 2006 _________________________________________________________________________________________ Maria Wild River Assessment Report December 2006 Published by: Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW 59–61 Goulburn Street PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232 Report pollution and environmental incidents Environment Line: 131 555 (NSW only) or [email protected] See also www.environment.nsw.gov.au/pollution Phone: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard) Phone: 131 555 (environment information and publications requests) Phone: 1300 361 967 (national parks information, climate change and energy efficiency information and publications requests) Fax: (02) 9995 5999 TTY: (02) 9211 4723 Email: [email protected] Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au © Copyright State of NSW and Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW. With the exception of photographs, the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water and the State of NSW are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced for educational or non-commercial purposes in whole or in part, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged. ISBN 978 1 74293 075 6 DECCW 2010/1049 Released by DEC 2006. Web upload to DECCW website December 2010. _________________________________________________________________________________________ Maria Wild River Assessment Report December 2006 Contents Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………. 1 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 2 1.1 Wild rivers under the National Parks and Wildlife Act………………………………… 2 1.2 Why declare wild rivers?........................................................................................... 2 2. Assessment techniques……………………………………………………………. 4 3. Results………………………………………………………………………………… 5 3.1 Description of the Maria River and catchment…………………………………………. 5 3.2 Description of the study area…………………………………………………………….. 5 3.2.1 Scope and description of study area…………………………………………….
  • The Nature of Flooding in the Kempsey Shire

    The Nature of Flooding in the Kempsey Shire

    ANNEX A TO THE KEMPSEY SHIRE LOCAL FLOOD PLAN THE NATURE OF FLOODING IN THE KEMPSEY SHIRE CATCHMENT FEATURES Except for a small area in the south-east which is drained by the Maria River, the entire Kempsey Shire falls within the catchment area of the Macleay River (see Maps 3 and 4). The river rises well to the west of the shire in the Guyra, Dumaresq, Armidale, Uralla and Walcha areas of the Great Dividing Range, its tributaries extending for a distance of about 160 kilometres from the coast. The whole catchment covers 11,500 square kilometres. The Macleay River valley consists of three distinct zones: 1. The New England Tablelands section, where the principal tributaries (the Chandler, Muddy and Apsley rivers) rise. This section is entirely outside Kempsey Shire. 2. The Gorge section, where the rivers leave the tablelands in a series of waterfalls and join to form the Macleay River in the well-defined gorge zone. Here the valleys are steep sided, stream gradients are steep and flood flow velocities are high. On this section there are several minor tributaries (the Parrabel, Hickeys, Georges and Nulla Nulla creeks and Dykes River) but no major ones. Below the Hickeys Creek confluence the topography becomes less severe as the river emerges from the gorges. 3. The lower valley section which begins at the upper limit of tidal influence about 16 kilometres upstream of Kempsey. Here there are extensive alluvial flats, occupying some 43,000 hectares, and well- defined natural levees along the river and its tributaries (the Belmore River and Christmas, Kinchela and Clybucca creeks).
  • Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern United States

    Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern United States

    NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-209 Impacts to Marine Fisheries Habitat from Nonfishing Activities in the Northeastern United States US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office Gloucester, Massachusetts February 2008 Recent Issues in This Series: 191. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Northern Shortfin Squid, Illex illecebrosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Lisa C. Hendrickson and Elizabeth M. Holmes. November 2004. v + 36 p., 13 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2005- 101437. [Online publication only.] 192. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Herring, Clupea harengus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By David K. Stevenson and Marcy L. Scott. July 2005. vi + 84 p., 40 figs., 7 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-107567. [Online publication only.] 193. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Longfin Inshore Squid, Loligo pealeii, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Larry D. Jacobson. August 2005. v + 42 p., 20 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-110684. [Online publication only.] 194. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2005. By Gordon T. Waring, Elizabeth Josephson, Carol P. Fairfield, and Katherine Maze-Foley, eds. Dana Belden, Timothy V.N. Cole, Lance P. Garrison, Keith D. Mullin, Christopher Orphanides, Richard M. Pace III, Debra L. Palka, Marjorie C. Rossman, and Fredrick W. Wenzel, contribs. March 2006. v + 392 p., 45 figs, 79 tables, 5 app., index. NTIS Access No. PB 2007-104395. 195. A Large Marine Ecosystem Voluntary Environmental Management System Approach to Fisheries Practices. By Frank J. Gable. December 2005.
  • 3. Study Area Characteristics

    3. Study Area Characteristics

    Pacific Highway Upgrade – Oxley Highway to Kempsey Preferred Route Report 3. Study Area Characteristics 3.1 Local Community 3.1.1 Overview The study area is located within the Port Macquarie – Hastings and Kempsey Local Government Areas (LGAs). The boundary between the two LGAs is located south of Kundabung, in the north of the study area. The Port Macquarie – Hastings LGA covers an area of 3,693 square kilometres and is located approximately 420 km north of Sydney and 510 km south of Brisbane. The topography of the LGA is very diverse, with features including coastal plains and wetlands, flood plains, river systems and mountain ranges, national parks and state forests. The Port Macquarie – Hastings LGA has an overall population of 64,485 (2001 Census). The main towns in the LGA are Port Macquarie and Wauchope. Port Macquarie, located on the coast approximately 10 km to the east of the southern boundary of the study area, is the largest town with a population of 38,289 people (2001 Census). It serves as a major tourist destination and regional centre for the area. Wauchope, located approximately seven kilometres to the west of the southern boundary of the study area, serves as the regional centre for the inland area, particularly for the rural communities along the Oxley Highway and the associated agricultural industries. The LGA has many small localities and villages in addition to the main towns. Of these, the village of Telegraph Point is located in the study area, on the Wilson River. Kempsey LGA covers an area of 3,377 square kilometres.
  • Utilization of Unique Tailwater Habitats Below High-Head Dams Has Become

    Utilization of Unique Tailwater Habitats Below High-Head Dams Has Become

    Brown Trout Population Response to Trophy Regulations and Reservoir Discharge in a Large, Southeastern U.S. Tailwater by: David P. Dreves, Jeff R. Ross, and Jarrad T. Kosa Bulletin No. 111 March 2014 BROWN TROUT POPULATION RESPONSE TO TROPHY REGULATIONS AND RESERVOIR DISCHARGE IN A LARGE, SOUTHEASTERN U.S. TAILWATER By David P. Dreves, Jeff R. Ross, Jarrad T. Kosa Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources March 2014 Partially funded by Sport Fish Restoration Funds Sport Fish Restoration Project F-40 “Statewide Fisheries Research” ABSTRACT Reservoir tailwaters can be an important resource for developing quality trout fisheries, especially when managed with special regulations. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a 508 mm minimum length limit and a one-fish-per-day creel limit on improving the size structure of the brown trout Salmo trutta population in the Cumberland River below Lake Cumberland, Kentucky. The purpose of the new regulations, which did not include gear or bait restrictions, was to increase the numbers of quality (381-507 mm total length) and trophy-size (≥ 508 mm total length) brown trout in the 121 km tailwater. A significant increase in brown trout electrofishing catch per unit effort was observed across years for small (< 381 mm), quality, trophy-size trout, and all sizes combined. As brown trout electrofishing and angler catch rates increased over time, no corresponding decrease in growth or condition was observed. Reservoir discharge was positively correlated with warmer water temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen in the tailwater. Growth and condition of brown trout in the tailwater were inversely correlated with an index of discharge from the reservoir.
  • Potential Maritime Markets for Marine and Hydrokinetic Technologies: Draft Report

    Potential Maritime Markets for Marine and Hydrokinetic Technologies: Draft Report

    Potential Maritime Markets for Marine and Hydrokinetic Technologies: Draft Report April 2018 This information is predecisional and is for informational purposes only. No funding is being offered and no proposals are being solicited. (This page intentionally left blank) ii This information is predecisional and is for informational purposes only. No funding is being offered and no proposals are being solicited. 1 Acknowledgements 2 The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office would like to express our 3 appreciation to everyone who has contributed to the general fact-finding of this task, including DOE 4 leadership, other DOE offices, the national labs, our friends in the U.S. Department of Defense and Navy, our 5 friends at other federal agencies, our affiliated universities, representatives from companies in the marine 6 energy community, and our new friends representing new industries and opportunities for marine energy. iii This information is predecisional and is for informational purposes only. No funding is being offered and no proposals are being solicited. 7 Table of Contents 8 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... iii 9 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... iv 10 List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................