DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pipestem Dam

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pipestem Dam DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pipestem Dam Safety Modification Study Stutsman County, North Dakota U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division Omaha District TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Project Description................................................................................................................ 5 1.3 Dam Safety Risk Management ............................................................................................. 7 1.4 Purpose and Need for the Federal Action ............................................................................. 8 1.5 Authority ............................................................................................................................... 8 1.6 National Environmental Policy Act Scoping ........................................................................ 8 2.0 ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Alternative Development .................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 RMP 2A - Stepped Chute Structure with Stilling Basin .............................................. 11 2.1.2 RMP 2B - Stepped Chute Structure with Stilling Basin (Lowered Spillway Channel)11 2.1.3 RMP 3 - Stepped Chute Structure with Stilling Basin and Grade Control Structures . 12 2.1.4 RMP 4 - Stepped Chute Structure with Stilling Basin and Concrete/RCC Lining ...... 13 2.1.5 RMP 6 - Nonstructural/Operational Measures ............................................................ 14 2.2 Alternatives Carried Forward ............................................................................................. 14 2.2.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................................. 15 2.2.2 Refined RMP 2A.......................................................................................................... 15 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 19 3.1.1 Climate and Climate Change ....................................................................................... 19 3.1.2 Geology ........................................................................................................................ 20 3.1.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 21 3.1.4 Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 21 3.1.5 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.6 Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.7 Fisheries ....................................................................................................................... 25 3.1.8 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................ 26 3.1.9 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................................... 27 3.1.10 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 32 3.1.11 Recreation .................................................................................................................. 32 3.1.12 Socio-Economics and Environmental Justice ............................................................ 33 3.2 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................ 35 4.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS .................... 37 Pipestem DSMS Draft EA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers April 2019 Omaha District i 5.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 40 List of Figures Figure 1.1: Pipestem Dam Vicinity Map ........................................................................................ 4 Figure 1.2: Pipestem Dam Location Map ....................................................................................... 5 Figure 1.3: Pipestem Dam Project Features .................................................................................... 6 Figure 1.4: Looking down the spillway from near the Reservoir ................................................... 6 Figure 1.5: Downstream end of spillway where it drops into the Pipestem channel ...................... 7 Figure 2.1: RMP 2A: Stepped Chute Structure with Stilling Basin ............................................. 11 Figure 2.2: RMP 2B – Stepped Chute Structure with Stilling Basin (Lowered Spillway Channel) ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2.3: RMP 3 – Stepped Chute Structure with Stilling Basin and Grade Control Structures ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2.4: Stepped Chute Structure with Stilling Basin and Concrete/RCC Lining ................... 14 Figure 2.5: Refined RMP 2A Conceptual Plan View ................................................................... 16 Figure 2.6: Refined RMP 2A Chute Structure and Stilling Basin Conceptual Profile ................. 17 Figure 2.7: Refined RMP 2A Left Training Dike Conceptual Cross Section .............................. 17 Figure 2.8: Proposed Stockpile and Haul Road Location ............................................................. 18 Figure 3.1: Wetlands near Pipestem Dam ..................................................................................... 23 Figure 3.2: Range of the Piping Plover in North Dakota .............................................................. 28 Figure 3.3: Whooping Crane Sightings in North Dakota ............................................................. 29 List of Tables Table 1.1: Pipestem Dam downstream communities ...................................................................... 8 Table 2.1: Final Array of Risk Management Plans....................................................................... 10 Table 3.1: Stutsman County 2017 Population .............................................................................. 33 Table 3.2: Stutsman County 2017 Racial and Ethnic Composition.............................................. 34 Table 3.3: Stutsman County 2017 Gender and Demographics ..................................................... 34 Table 3.4: Stutsman County 2017 Income and Poverty Levels .................................................... 35 Table 3.5: Past, Present, and Foreseeable Actions........................................................................ 35 Pipestem DSMS Draft EA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers April 2019 Omaha District ii List of Acronyms BA Biological Assessment CEQ Council on Environmental Quality cfs Cubic Feet per Second DSMR Dam Safety Modification Report DSMS Dam Safety Modification Study DSOG Dam Senior Oversight Group EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement ER Engineer Regulation ESA Endangered Species Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FRM Flood Risk Management FWAC Future Without Action Condition IDF Inflow Design Flood IEPR Independent External Peer Review IES Issue Evaluation Study IRRM Interim Risk Reduction Measure LPD Local Project Datum NEPA National Environmental Policy Act O&M Operation and Maintenance OMRR&R Operation and Maintenance, Repair, Replacement, and Rehabilitation NDGFD North Dakota Game and Fish Department NEPA National Environmental Policy Act PA Periodic Assessment PAR Population at Risk PED Preconstruction Engineering and Design PFM Potential Failure Mode PFMA Potential Failure Mode Analysis PMF Probable Maximum Flood QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment RMP Risk Management Plan SPRA Screening for Portfolio Risk Analysis SQRA Semi-Quantitative Risk Assessment STRL Societal Tolerable Risk Limit TRG Tolerable Risk Guideline TSP Tentatively Selected Plan USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WAPA Western Area Power Administration WCM Water Control Manual WRDA Water Resources Development Act Pipestem DSMS Draft EA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers April 2019 Omaha District iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Northwestern Division, Omaha District has prepared this draft Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic impacts of alternatives based on the Pipestem Dam Safety Modification Study (DSMS). The purpose of the DSMS is to identify and recommend a Risk Management Plan that reduces risk of erosion of the emergency spillway. This EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council of Environmental Quality’s Regulations (CEQ) (40 CFR 1500-1508), as reflected
Load more

Recommended publications
  • North Dakota's Water Quality Monitoring Strategy for Surface
    North Dakota Department of Health Division of Water Quality Surface Water Quality Management Program ______________________________________________________________________________ North Dakota’s Water Quality Monitoring Strategy for Surface Waters 2008-2019 Final Revision 2 January 2014 North Dakota’s Water Quality Monitoring Strategy for Surface Waters 2008-2019 John Hoeven, Governor Terry Dwelle, M.D., State Health Officer North Dakota Department of Health Division of Water Quality 918 East Divide Avenue Bismarck, North Dakota 58501 701.328.5210 North Dakota’s Water Quality Monitoring Strategy: 2008-2019 Revision 2 Date: January 2014 Page ii of vii TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 A. Background ........................................................................................................................ 1 B. North Dakota’s Surface Water Resources .......................................................................... 1 C. Purpose and Scope .............................................................................................................. 2 II. TYPES OF MONITORING .................................................................................................. 2 III. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT GUIDING PRINCIPLES ....................................... 4 IV. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES .................................. 5 A. Monitoring and Assessment Goal .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 09-003, Spring Flooding April 23, 2009 1:00 P.M. CDT Incident Summary Report #54
    09-003, Spring Flooding April 23, 2009 1:00 p.m. CDT Incident Summary Report #54 Incident Overview Summaries are published once daily after 1:00 p.m. Updated information is in red. The following is a summary of key issues related to the 2009 spring flood for the Red River of the North, Souris, Devils Lake, James, Sheyenne and Missouri River Basins. State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) Activation – Level I (Full Activation) Significant Events ¾ Deaths/Injuries – as reported by the N.D. Department of Health Deaths – 2 Injuries – 235 Illnesses – 67 ¾ Rescues Rescues – 139 Animal Rescues – 135 ¾ Livestock Losses – estimated losses reported by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) County Emergency Boards. Calves – 71,823 Cattle – 19,107 Horses – 180 Other Livestock – 2,948 390 producers may be requesting assistance with carcass disposal. (Some producers may not meet eligibility – above normal death loss - for assistance requests) –April 19 ¾ Carcass Removal Kidder County o Officials located approximately 75 livestock carcasses for transport and disposal. - April 22 Cass County o Officials located approximately 25-30 livestock carcasses for transport and disposal. – April 22 ¾ Evacuations/Sheltering Valley City – 250 Evacuees Open Shelters o There are no American Red Cross (ARC) managed or partner shelters open. 1 Local shelters on stand by - April 23 o Oriska School o Sacred Heart Church, Sanborn o Lisbon School (independent shelter) o Jamestown High School State Shelters on stand by -April 20 o Horizon Middle School o Charity Lutheran Church o Century High School o Hughes Administration Building o Simile Middle School o Bismarck High School o Mandan Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of 1976-77 Reservoir Regulation Activities
    MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION OMAHA DISTRICT SUMMARY OF 1976-77 RESERVOIR REGULATION ACTIVITIES ... •''' MISSOlffii RIVFR DIVISION OMAHA DISTRTCT SUMt4!\RY OF 1976-77 RESERVOIR REGUlATION ACTIVITIES SECTIONS PAGE I, PURPOSE AND SCOPB 1 II. RESERVOIRS IN THE OI.'AI!A DISTRICT • 1 III. WATEH SUPPLY 2 IV. RESERVOIR ACCOHPLISH!IENTS 2 v. RESERVOIH OPERATIONS VI. REGULATION PROBLE~lS 6 VII. RESERVOIR REGULATIO!I f.IANUALS 7 VIII. DATA COLLECTIOn 8 IX. HESEfJ\CJI AND STUDIES 8 • x. TRAINING AND METHODS 9 XI. PERSON:t!RI" MID F1JJIDING 9 INCLOSURES 1. Map of Flood Control Dams. 2. Project Data Sheets. 3. Total Number of Flood Control Reservoirs in Omaha District. 4. Water Supply Hap. 5. Regulation Sheets for Past Year. 6. Manual Schedule. 7. Organization Chart, Omaha District. 8. Organization Chart, Reservoir Regulation. DAM NO. 9 - STAGECOACH LAKE OGOHR 197:} A POOl H. 1178.0 H. M.S.L DAM NO. 17 ~ HOMES PARK LAKE DAM NO, 18 · BRANCHED OAK LAKE 1-!ISSOUHI RIVER DIVISION 0: 'A!' A DISTRICT SUVc'ARY OF 19"(6-77 RESERVOIR HEGULATiot! ACTIVITIES I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE. This annual report has been prepared in accordance 1·rith paragraph 12-C of ER 1110-2-llrOO to summarize siEnificant tributary rese>rvoir regulation actjvities of the Omaha District. The period covered is August 1976 through July 1977. II. RESERVOIRS IN TEE m.!f\HA DISTRICT. a. Reservoirs vi.th Flood Control Stor~. There are 33 tributary reservoirs with allocated flood control storage covered in this report. The dams are listed belov. Included are 22 Corps of Engineers dams and 11 of the Bureau of Reclamation da.ros.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the U.S. Fish And
    Report to the Office of Management and Budget on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Fisheries Mitigation Programs Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service May 28,2002 Table of Contents Introduction Definition of Terms General Authorities Recommendations to Facilitate Full Cost Recovery Recommendations for Administrative Actions Recommendations for Legislation Current Fisheries Mitigation Programs Overview Description of Fisheries Mitigation Programs Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tennessee Valley Authority National Marine Fisheries Service Bonneville Power Administration Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Department of Agriculture Appendix I Recent Directives and Recommendations for Fisheries Mitigation Programs 75 Appendix I1 List of Hatcheries involved in Mitigation and State Location 77 Appendix I11 List of Species Raised for Mitigation Programs 78 INTRODUCTION The predecessor of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries, was formed in 1871 to protect and enhance fisheries which were being depleted by a growing Nation. Since that time, the Service's Fisheries Program, including the National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS), has been involved in, among other things, mitigating the losses of fish habitats, fish populations, and fishing opportunities. The U.S. Congress and the Courts have provided laws, appropriations, and orders which have authorized the construction and operation of dams, and other water diversion projects. The construction and operation of these Federal water resource development projects have had impacts on many water systems and their respective fish populations. The construction and operation of these projects have resulted in the need to build and operate fish hatcheries to provide direct mitigation (e.g., provide disease-free fish eggs or fish for stocking) for waters impaired by Federal water resource development projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Memorandum No. Jp-2C Master Plan
    DESIGN MEMORANDUM NO. JP-2C MASTER PLAN JAMES RIVER PIPESTEM LAKE, NORTH DAKOTA UPDATED OCTOBER 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District CENWO-OD-TN ( 111 0-2-240a) 3 April2006 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: James River, Pipestem Lake, North Dakota, Design Memorandum No.JP2C, Supplement 1 1. The above supplement is an update of specific pages in the above titled Design Memorandum. The listing below identifies the pages that have been updated. The updated pages are enclosed. a. Page iv- updates the Surface Area (acres) Spillway Design Flood and Flood Control- "Full Pool." b. Page v- updates the Surface Area (acres) Multipurpose Pool. c. Page II-6 -updates 11. CULTURAL RESOURCES paragraph by adding "Cultural Resources Management Plan" for Pipestem Dam and Lake, North Dakota. d. Page II-7- updates paragraph 13.1, second line to read "flows in excess of 1,250 c.f.s." e. Page Il-9- updates TABLE 1. f. Page II-14- updates TABLE 2 to include 2005 Visitors and Visitor Hours information. g. Page Il-15- update~ TABLE 3. y "-''<1''-rt IL<+V-· 2. The subject Design Memorandum No. JP-2C, Supplement I, is approved. 7 Encls ~~?-y--~-­ as ~ Commanding FIFE STEM CREEK DAM AND LAKE, JAMES RIVER J\ASIN, NORTH DAKOTA. PERTINENT DATA (All elevations given are feet above mean sea level) PROJECT AUTHORIZATION Flood Control Act of 1965, Public Law 89-298. Specific Purposes, Flood Control, Recreation, and Fish and t{ildlife . LOCATION . On Pipestem Creek about 4 miles north~T e st of Jamesto~· n , North Dako ta! and approximately the same distance above the confluence ~ith the James River.
    [Show full text]
  • FISCAL YEAR 2020 Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2019
    FISCAL YEAR 2020 Civil Works Budget of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Department of the Army Office, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) March 2019 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL WORKS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20310-0108 OVERVIEW OF FISCAL YEAR 2020 CIVIL WORKS BUDGET The President's Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 for the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program funds the development, management, restoration, and protection of the Nation's water, wetlands, and related resources, through studies, the construction, operation and maintenance of projects, the Corps regulatory program, and emergency response preparedness. These investments will enable communities to reduce their flood risks, facilitate waterborne transportation, restore significant aquatic ecosystems, and generate low-cost renewable hydropower. The Budget focuses on the highest performing work within the three main missions of the Corps: commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The Budget provides $4.827 billion in discretionary funding for the Civil Works program, including $2.308 billion for commercial navigation, $1.011 billion for flood and storm damage reduction, and $187 million for aquatic ecosystem restoration. The Budget funds capital investments in the inland waterways, and proposes establishing an annual fee to support infrastructure investment and economic growth by helping finance the users’ share of future capital investments on inland waterways, as well as 10 percent of the operation and maintenance cost, in these waterways. The Budget also proposes to divest the Washington Aqueduct, which is the wholesale water supply system for Washington, D.C.; Arlington County, Virginia; the City of Falls Church, Virginia; and parts of Fairfax County, Virginia and is the only local water supply system in the Nation owned and operated by the Corps.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District Natural Resource Specialists
    Natural resource specialists Explaining processing of Oil and gas development reach out and educate water supply agreement at Lake Sakakawea public on water safety requests during drought presents big challenge Growth and development at Oahe Dam and reservoir seeded by partnerships U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District June 2013 – Vol. 18, Issue 2 IN THIS ISSUE. Safety 2 Fighting drownings like a firefighter - Eileen Williamson explains how the renowned Omaha District Water Safety team strives to educate the public, promote safe practices and prevent accidents. Sustainable Solutions 6 Cleaning up old mines is ugly work - but the Omaha District’s expertise lands it a massive challenge in a nasty old “cyanide heat-leach gold mine” in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Environmental Resources 8 “Wait a minute - Isn’t the basin in a drought?” Monique Farmer explains the processing of water supply agreement requests during the drought period. Dams & Lakes 10 Partnerships, teamwork - Cheryl Moore explains how Oahe Project plants seeds of growth and development by reaching out to agencies and groups who join hands in stewardship Environmental Resources 14 Friendly competition - is part of the sturgeon broodstock collection effort, but it’s all tempered with camaraderie and good will. Sustainable Solutions 16 Big Challenge: Oil and Gas Development at Lake Sakakawea, N.D. - William Harlon, Environmental Specialist at the Garrison Project, explains impacts of the oil and gas boom on Garrison Project. Spotlight 19 Investing in the future - Brandon Sellers writes about the district’s famed Leadership Development Program and its ambitious class project. 20 A tribute and thank you to all veterans - this poignant article On the cover: Boater on Lake Oahe.
    [Show full text]
  • 09-003, Spring Flooding April 21, 2009 1:25 P.M. CDT Incident Summary Report #52
    09-003, Spring Flooding April 21, 2009 1:25 p.m. CDT Incident Summary Report #52 Incident Overview Summaries are published once daily after 1:00 p.m. Updated information is in red. The following is a summary of key issues related to the 2009 spring flood for the Red River of the North, Souris, Devils Lake, James, Sheyenne and Missouri River Basins. State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) Activation – Level I (Full Activation) Significant Events ¾ Deaths/Injuries – as reported by the N.D. Department of Health Deaths – 2 Injuries – 235 Illnesses – 67 ¾ Rescues Rescues – 139 Animal Rescues – 135 ¾ Livestock Losses – estimated losses reported by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and County Emergency Boards. Calves – 71,823 Cattle – 19,107 Horses – 180 Other Livestock – 2,948 390 producers may be requesting assistance with carcass disposal. (Some producers may not meet eligibility – above normal death loss - for assistance requests) –April 19 ¾ Evacuations/Sheltering Open Shelters o Oriska School shelter closed - April 21. o Shelters on standby – 3 - April 20 ¾ Sacred Heart Church, Sanborn ¾ Lisbon School (independent shelter) ¾ Jamestown High School State Shelters on Stand-By -April 20 o Horizon Middle School o Charity Lutheran Church o Century High School 1 o Hughes Administration Building o Simile Middle School o Bismarck High School o Mandan Jr. High School o Mandan High School State Reception Center on Stand-By – April 17 o NDDoH Environmental Health Training Facility, Bismarck Pet Shelters o Currently open – 6 population-65 pets - April 20 o Animal shelters on standby – 6 o Animals presently sheltered - 48 – April 19 ¾ Sewage System Failure Barnes County o The N.D.
    [Show full text]
  • 09-003, Spring Flooding April 27, 2009 12:00 P.M. CDT Incident Summary Report #57
    09-003, Spring Flooding April 27, 2009 12:00 p.m. CDT Incident Summary Report #57 Incident Overview Summaries are published once daily after 1:00 p.m. Updated information is in red. The following is a summary of key issues related to the 2009 spring flood for the Red River of the North, Souris, Devils Lake, James, Sheyenne and Missouri River Basins. State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) Activation – Level I (Full Activation) Significant Events ¾ Deaths/Injuries/Illnesses – as reported by the N.D. Department of Health (NDDoH) and the N.D. Highway Patrol (NDHP) Deaths – 3; two were caused by cardiac arrest, as reported by NDDoH; the NDHP classified the third as a traffic fatality. Injuries – 246 Illnesses – 69 – April 24 ¾ Rescues Rescues – 139 Animal Rescues – 135 ¾ Confirmed livestock loss reports received from County Extension agents in 22 of 53 counties. – April 24 Calves – 18,555 Cattle – 4,012 Horses – 27 Other Livestock - 120 ¾ Evacuations/Sheltering Local shelters on stand by - April 23 o Oriska School o Sacred Heart Church, Sanborn o Lisbon School (independent shelter) o Jamestown High School o First Assembly of God (also backup registration center) State Shelters on stand by -April 20 o Horizon Middle School o Charity Lutheran Church o Century High School 1 o Hughes Administration Building o Simile Middle School o Bismarck High School o Mandan Jr. High School o Mandan High School State Reception Center on Stand-By o NDDoH Environmental Health Training Facility, Bismarck o Jamestown YMCA, Jamestown Pet Shelters o Four animal shelters are open; a total of 23 pets are being sheltered.
    [Show full text]
  • North Dakota 2004 Integrated Section 305(B) Water Quality Assessment Report and Section 303(D) List of Waters Needing Total Maximum Daily Loads
    North Dakota 2004 Integrated Section 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report and Section 303(d) List of Waters Needing Total Maximum Daily Loads Submitted to EPA March 31, 2004 Approved August 17, 2004 North Dakota 2004 Integrated Section 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report and Section 303(d) List of Waters Needing Total Maximum Daily Loads John Hoeven, Governor Terry Dwelle, M.D., State Health Officer North Dakota Department of Health Division of Water Quality 1200 Missouri Avenue P.O. Box 5520 Bismarck, North Dakota 58506-5520 701.328.5210 CONTENTS PART I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................... I-1 PART II. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... II-1 A. Section 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report........................................................ II-1 B. Section 303(d) TMDL List of Water Quality-limited Waters....................................... II-1 PART III. BACKGROUND........................................................................................ III-1 A. Atlas............................................................................................................................... III-1 B. Total Waters................................................................................................................... III-2 PART IV. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY......................................................... IV-1 A. Introduction...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Creating Data As a Service for US Army Corps of Engineers Reservoirs
    Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions CreatingCreating a Centralized Data as a Database Service for for U.S. LaurenArmy Patterson Corps of Engineers Reservoir Data Martin W. DoyleU.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoirs Lauren Patterson* Martin W. Doyle* Samantha Kuzma** * Report Report NI R 18-01 NI R 17-02 NICHOLAS INSTITUTE NICHOLASFOR ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTE POLICY SOLUTIONS January 2018 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY SOLUTIONS November 2017 CONTENTS SUMMARY In the United States, our water data infrastructure does Introduction 2 not allow us to consistently and quickly answer the The Slow Data Revolution for Water 3 most basic questions about our water system’s quantity, The Open Water Data Initiative 4 quality, and use. The data to answer those questions are The Army Corps’ Federalist Structure for Reservoir often collected but by multiple agencies across different Operations and Data Management 6 scales and for different purposes, making them difficult Open Data Models 8 to access, to integrate with other data, and to put to Building a National Database of Army Corps further use to support decision making. Even within Reservoirs 9 single agencies, data are often not shared among regional Incorporating Federated District Databases 18 offices, and even if they were, they would have to be Discussion 27 standardized to be of use. Data Availability 30 Appendix A: Table Descriptions 31 One huge repository of water data is the U.S. Army Appendix B: Description of District Data 32 Corps of Engineers. Through a federated governance structure—whereby each region has its own political References 61 authority, management, and data—the Army Corps Affiliation manages day-to-day operations.
    [Show full text]
  • G Recreation Costs Incurred by Those Who Use Recreation Amenities Most Heavily
    EExecutive Summary ver the past half century, the nation’s federal manmade lakes have become a powerful recre- O ation attraction. These lakes, a product of dams built primarily for other purposes, have acquired significant added value in water-related recreation. They have become popular destina- tions for vacations and day trips. By the hundreds of thousands, people flock to their waters, their shores, their adjacent parks, and their tailwaters downstream. Federal lakes are a canvas of boat- ing, camping, swimming, fishing, hiking, and other leisure pursuits. Lake recreation is also an economic force, greatly buoying state tourism and local economies. This very success, however, reveals long neglected and growing problems at fed- eral lakes. Despite good intentions, many of the federal agencies in charge of lakes are unable to provide recreation facilities and lake conditions that meet public demand and present-day expectations; and they are failing to recognize and act on recreation opportunities. So say recreation consumers, industry groups, conservation organizations, and state and local governments. All have become increasingly dissatisfied with recreation at federal lakes. The National Recreation Lakes Study Commission was created by Congress and appointed by President Clinton to examine these concerns. After a year of research, nationwide workshops, and deliberations, the Commission finds that recreation at federal lakes is, in fact, beset by a multitude of difficulties and shortcomings. At many sites, facilities ranging from restrooms to boat docks to roads are inad- equate, aging, and falling apart. Pollution and aquatic plant invasions threaten lake health. Fish habitat is compromised, and with it, species survival and sport fishing.
    [Show full text]