DOCSLIB.ORG

Shafer & Freeman Lakes Conserv. Corp. V. FERC

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shafer & Freeman Lakes Conserv. Corp. V. FERC USCA Case #19-1066 Document #1848742 Filed: 06/24/2020 Page 1 of 97 ORAL ARGUMENT HAS NOT BEEN SCHEDULED In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit No. 19-1066 ____________ SHAFER & FREEMAN LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION CORPORATION, ET AL., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. ____________ ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ____________ BRIEF OF RESPONDENT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ____________ David L. Morenoff Acting General Counsel Robert H. Solomon Solicitor Elizabeth E. Rylander Attorney For Respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20426 FINAL BRIEF: June 24, 2020 USCA Case #19-1066 Document #1848742 Filed: 06/24/2020 Page 2 of 97 Certificate as to Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases A. Parties All parties and intervenors appearing before this Court are identified in the Brief of Petitioners. B. Rulings 1. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 163 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2018) (Initial Order), R.692, JA 969; and 2. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 166 FERC ¶ 61,030 (2019) (Rehearing Order), R.718, JA 1021. C. Related cases This case has not previously been before this Court or any other court. To counsel’s knowledge, there are no related cases pending before this Court or elsewhere. /s/ Elizabeth E. Rylander Elizabeth E. Rylander FINAL BRIEF: June 24, 2020 USCA Case #19-1066 Document #1848742 Filed: 06/24/2020 Page 3 of 97 Table of Contents Page Statement of Issues .................................................................................... 1 Statutes and Regulations ........................................................................... 4 Statement of Facts ...................................................................................... 4 I. Statutory and regulatory background .............................................. 4 A. Federal Power Act .................................................................... 4 B. National Environmental Policy Act ........................................ 5 C. Endangered Species Act........................................................... 6 II. Factual background ........................................................................... 9 A. The Norway-Oakdale Project .................................................. 9 B. The 2012 drought and the Service’s Technical Assistance Letter .................................................................... 13 C. The license amendment proceeding ...................................... 18 1. The Commission’s Environmental Assessment, and the Staff Alternative .............................................. 19 2. The Service’s Biological Opinion .................................. 24 III. The Commission orders on review .................................................. 27 Summary of Argument ............................................................................. 30 USCA Case #19-1066 Document #1848742 Filed: 06/24/2020 Page 4 of 97 Table of Contents Page Argument………… .................................................................................... 31 I. Standard of review .......................................................................... 31 II. The Commission reasonably incorporated the Service’s reasonable and prudent measure, to protect endangered mussels, into the Project license ..................................................... 33 III. The Coalition’s objections are unavailing ...................................... 37 A. The Commission is not responsible for reviewing the substance of the Biological Opinion ...................................... 38 B. The record before the Commission does not support the factual findings the Coalition prefers ............................. 43 Conclusion…..…… .................................................................................... 47 ii USCA Case #19-1066 Document #1848742 Filed: 06/24/2020 Page 5 of 97 Table of Authorities Court cases: Page Ala. Power Co. v. FERC, 979 F.2d 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ....................................................... 42 Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Bonneville Power Admin., 175 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 1999) ......................................................... 40 Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (1983) ............................................................................. 6 * Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) .............................................................. 36-37, 40 Center for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Interior, 563 F.3d 466 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ..................................................... 8, 35 City of Boston Delegation v. FERC, 897 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ......................................................... 42 * City of Tacoma v. FERC, 460 F.3d 53 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ................. 7-8, 29, 32, 35-37, 39-40, 44 Dep’t of Interior v. FERC, 952 F.2d 538 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ........................................................... 5 Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) ........................................................................... 5 Dow AgroSciences v. NMFS, 637 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2011) ........................................................... 37 ________________________ *Cases chiefly relied upon are marked with an asterisk. iii USCA Case #19-1066 Document #1848742 Filed: 06/24/2020 Page 6 of 97 Table of Authorities Court cases: Page Duncan’s Point Lot Owners Ass’n v. FERC, 522 F.3d 371 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ......................................................... 31 FERC v. Elec. Power Supply Ass’n, 136 S. Ct. 760 (2016) ................................................................. 32, 42 First Iowa Hydro-Elec. Coop. v. FPC, 328 U.S. 152 (1946) ........................................................................... 4 FPC v. Union Elec. Co., 381 U.S. 90 (1965) ............................................................................. 4 Greenpeace Action v. Franklin, 14 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................................... 46 Marsh v. Or. Nat. Res. Council, 490 U.S. 360 (1989) ................................................................... 33, 39 Myersville Citizens for a Rural Cmty., Inc. v. FERC, 783 F.3d 1301 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ....................................................... 33 Me. Council of Atl. Salmon Fed’n v. FERC, 741 Fed. App’x 807 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ......................................... 37, 43 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 566 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2009) ....................................................... 39 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) ........................................................................... 32 iv USCA Case #19-1066 Document #1848742 Filed: 06/24/2020 Page 7 of 97 Table of Authorities Court cases: Page Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 443 (1989) ........................................................................... 5 S.C. Pub. Serv. Auth. v. FERC, 762 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ...................................................... 32-33 Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Dole, 740 F.2d 1442 (9th Cir. 1984) ......................................................... 40 Taxpayers of Mich. Against Casinos v. Norton, 433 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ........................................................... 6 Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) ........................................................................... 7 Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P’ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ........................................................... 5 Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 534 U.S. 519 (1978) ........................................................................ 5-6 Westlands Water Dist. v. Dep’t of Interior, 376 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) ........................................................... 46 v USCA Case #19-1066 Document #1848742 Filed: 06/24/2020 Page 8 of 97 Table of Authorities Administrative cases: Page N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 121 FERC ¶ 62,009 (2007) (License Order) .......................... 9-11, 13 N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 141 FERC ¶ 62,012 (2012) .............................................................. 14 N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 143 FERC ¶ 62,043 (2013) .............................................................. 14 N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 163 FERC ¶ 61,212 (2018) (Initial Order); on reh’g, 166 FERC ¶ 61,030 (2019) (Rehearing Order) ................. 2, 9, 12-14, 16-19, 27-30, 33-36, 38-41, 46 PacifiCorp, 105 FERC ¶ 61,237 (2003) .............................................................. 36 Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant Cnty., 123 FERC ¶ 61,049 (2008) .............................................................. 36 vi USCA Case #19-1066 Document #1848742 Filed: 06/24/2020 Page 9 of 97 Table of Authorities Statutes: Page Administrative Procedure Act: 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ......................................................................... 31 Endangered Species Act: Section 2(b), 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b) ...................................................... 6 Section 3(19), 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) .................................................. 7 Section 7(a)(2), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) .............................. 7, 8, 35, 38 Section 7(b)(3)(a), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A) .................................... 8 Section 7(b)(4), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4) .............................................. 9 Section 7(o)(2), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(o)(2) .......................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 163 Ferc ¶ 61212 United States of America
    20180621-3085 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/21/2018 163 FERC ¶ 61,212 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Kevin J. McIntyre, Chairman; Cheryl A. LaFleur, Neil Chatterjee, Robert F. Powelson, and Richard Glick. Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC Project No. 12514-074 ORDER AMENDING LICENSE, APPROVING REVISED OPERATION AND COMPLIANCE PLAN, AND TERMINATING TEMPORARY VARIANCE (Issued June 21, 2018) 1. On October 2, 2014, Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC (NIPSCO or licensee)1 applied to amend its license for the 16.4-megawatt (MW) Norway-Oakdale Hydroelectric Project No. 12514 (Norway-Oakdale Project), located on the Tippecanoe River in Carroll and White Counties, Indiana.2 As required by license Article 405, NIPSCO proposes to modify the interim definition of “abnormal river conditions” in license Article 403. 2. As discussed in this order, we approve NIPSCO’s proposed definition of “abnormal river conditions” and amend the project license accordingly. We also approve a revised Project Operation and Compliance Plan and terminate a temporary variance. 1 On March 12, 2018, Commission staff approved a transfer of the license from Northern Indiana Public Service Company to Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC. Staff acknowledged receipt of the signed acceptance sheets on June 6, 2018. 2 NIPSCO made supplemental filings in 2015 on January 26, January 29, February 6, May 1, May 7, June 3, and November 6, and then a supplemental filing on August 29, 2016. 20180621-3085 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 06/21/2018 Project No. 12514-074 -2- I. Background A. Project Description and Area 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Tippecanoe Watershed
    Tippecanoe 8 Digit Watershed (05120106) Tippecanoe Watershed - 12 Digit HUCs Elkhart Total Acres: 1,246,850 LaPorte Indiana Counties Acres Noble Benton County: 11,897 Carroll County: 11,247 Porter CasLsa Ckeounty: 40,292 Porter Fulton County: 230,719 Jasper County: 15,601 Kosciusko Marshall 0105 Kosciusko County: 214,742 0103 Marshall County: 80,293 0304 0205 Miami County: 14,576 0305 0104 Noble County: 13,698 Starke 0402 0202 Pulaski County: 265,906 0302 0101 Starke County: 33,529 0602 Tippecanoe County: 5,391 0102 5 0401 0 White County: 280,104 0 2 0 4 0 4 0 1 Whitley County: 28,855 0604 0601 0 0303 6 0 0203 2 0508 0 0603 0409 0 4 Grey shaded 12-digit watersheds 1001 0404 3 Whitley 0 fall completely or partially within 1002 0606 1 Indiana. Shaded 12-digit watershed 0509 0403 names and acres are on page 2. 1005 1003 0605 0607 0506 0408 0507 4-digit labels represent the last 4 0608 numbers of the 12-digit wJaatesrpsehred 1004 Pulaski 0703 Fulton 0502 0407 code. 1006 0901 0505 0504 0 9 *Please note, all acres 0 0705 0704 1007 3 0501 are approximate.* 0902 0702 0503 1201 0904 0701 Winter 2013 1 1102 0 1 0801 0 2 8 0 0805 1104 2 0802 Newton Jasper 0803 Wabash 6 0 1103 1208 2 0804 1101 1 Huntington 1205 1301 Cass 1207 Miami 1204 White 1304 MI 1203 1302 1305 1303 9 1306 0 3 Benton 1 1307 IL IN OH 1308 Carroll Tippecanoe Grant Grant Howard 0 3.5 7 14 Miles Warren ± KY Number - 12 Digit HUC Last 4 Digits of HUC Name - 12 Digit HUC Acres within Indiana 051201060101 0101 Cedar Lake Branch-Elder Ditch 10,143.9 051201060102 0102 Ridinger Lake-Grassy
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 20 (1993) Volume 101 P
    1 Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 20 (1993) Volume 101 p. 201-219 FISHES OF THE TIPPECANOE RIVER, INDIANA AN OUTSTANDING MIDWESTERN STREAM Douglas A. Carney, Lawrence M. Page, and Thomas M. Keevin 1 Illinois Natural History Survey 607 East Peabody Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820 ABSTRACT: A total of 26 fish samples, taken at 22 sites along the length of the Tippecanoe River from 1985 through 1987, yielded 68 species. Historic and recent ichthyological records increase the total number of fish species known from the river to 84. The fish fauna of the Tippecanoe River is diverse and includes a number of species that are rare or declining throughout their historic ranges. Thus, the Tippecanoe River is a valuable aquatic resource that should be protected from further modification. A synopsis of distributional and habitat information on uncommon fishes that are extant in the river is presented in this paper. The uncommon species are Ichthyomyzon bdellium, Hybopsis amblops, Notropis buchanani, Etheostoma camurum, E. maculatum, E. pellucidum, E. tippecanoe, Percina copelandi, P. evides, and P. shumardi. Additionally, a rare form of logperch, Percina caprodes manitou, was identified from the Tippecanoe River. This subspecies is found in the glacial lakes region of northern Indiana and possibly further north. Type specimens of two nominal forms of Percina previously described from the glacial lakes of northern Indiana were ex- amined. A preliminary analysis of the taxonomic status of P. c. manitou is presented. INTRODUCTION The earliest studies of Tippecanoe River fishes were published in the late 1800s and early 1900s by David Starr Jordan and his proteges, Barton W.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory
    2010 Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory Table of Contents Background 2 Using the Advisory 2 Guidelines to Reduce Your Risks 3 Risk Comparison Table 3 Health Risks and Benefits from Eating Sport and Commercial 4 Fish Advisory Groups 5-6 Carp Advisory for all Indiana Rivers and Streams 6 Group 5 Waterways 6 Fish Consumption Guidelines 6-7 Commonly Asked Questions 8 Parasites and Tumors in Fish 8-9 Summary 9 Indiana Streams and Rivers Advisory 10-31 Indiana Lakes and Reservoirs Advisory 32-39 Lake Michigan and Tributaries Advisory 40 Ohio River Advisory 41-42 Contacts for More Information 42 Indiana Fish Identification 43 Indiana Department of Natural Resources 44 Indiana Department of Environmental Management 44 2010 Indiana Fish Advisory Background We have prepared this booklet to support fishermen and those who like to eat fish by providing helpful information to make healthy choices. Fishing and eating fish from Indiana waterways can be safe and fun if you follow the suggestions on the following pages. In addition to describing healthy eating of sport-caught fish, interest has increased over the years about consuming commercial and farm-raised fish. We have, therefore, included information in the Advisory. The Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH), Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), with support from Purdue University, collaborate to produce this annual Indiana Fish Consumption Advisory . The Advisory is based on the statewide collection and analysis of fish samples for long-lasting contaminants found in fish tissue, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and/or heavy metals (e.g., mercury).
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Zebra Mussel Waters
    INDIANA ZEBRA MUSSEL WATERS Allen County St. Joseph River Lake Freeman Carroll County Cedarville Reservoir Tippecanoe River Clark County Ohio River Crawford County Ohio River Dearborn County Ohio River DeKalb County Fish Creek Delaware County Phillips Quarry Elkhart County Simonton Lake Praire Creek Reservoir St. Joseph River Floyd County Ohio River Fountain County Wabash River Franklin County Brookville Reservoir Fulton County Lake Manitou Tippecanoe River Gibson County Wabash River Harrison County Ohio River Hamilton County Geist Reservoir Henry County Summit Lake Jefferson County Ohio River Knox County Wabash River Lagrange County Adams Lake Big Long Lake Kosciusko County Banning Lake Cass Lake Big Barbee Lake Cedar Lake Big Chapman Lake Fawn River Center Lake Fish Lake (shared w/ MI) Dewart Lake Lake of the Woods Hoffman Lake Messick Lake Irish Lake N. Twin Lake James Lake Oliver Lake Kuhn Lake Pretty Lake Lake Tippecanoe Big Turkey Lake Lake Wawasee Little Turkey Lake Little Barbee Lake Little Chapman Lake Lake County Cedar Lake Oswego Lake Deep River Pike Lake Lake Michigan Sechrist Lake Robinson Lake Syracuse Lake Wolf Lake Tippecanoe River Waubee Lake LaPorte County Hudson Lake Webster Lake Lake Michigan Winona Lake Pine Lake Stone Lake Marion County Geist Reservoir Fall Creek Noble County Sylvan Lake Marshall County Lake Maxinkuckee Diamond Lake Lake of the Woods Tippecanoe River Ohio County Ohio River Parke County Wabash River Perry County Ohio River Porter County Flint Lake Posey County Hovey Lake Lake Michigan Ohio River Wabash
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Indiana Field Office (ES) 620 South Walker Street Bloomington, IN 47403-2121 Phone: (812) 334-4261 Fax: (812) 334-4273 July 5, 2017 Introduction This document transmits the (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the FERC Staff Alternative identified in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) Final Environmental Assessment (EA) dated 10 November 2016. The FERC Staff Alternative prescribes operation of the Norway-Oakdale Hydroelectric Complex operated by Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO). The Norway-Oakdale Complex comprises Norway Dam and Lake Shafer, Oakdale Dam and Lake Freeman, and the small flowing reach of the Tippecanoe River between Lake Freeman and the Norway Dam. It affects the Tippecanoe River in White, Carroll, and Tippecanoe Counties in Indiana. This biological opinion evaluates the effects of the FERC Staff Alternative on the endangered clubshell mussel (Pleurobema clava), fanshell mussel (Cyprogenia stegaria), sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus), rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) and threatened rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) mussel and rabbitsfoot Critical Habitat in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your 16 February 2017 request for formal consultation was received on 21 February 2017. This biological opinion is based on information provided in the Final EA, which the FERC submitted as its biological assessment (BA), field investigations by the Service in coordination with the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), public meetings, meetings with NIPSCO, the Shafer and Freeman Lakes Conservation Commission (SFLECC), Congressman Todd Rokita (Indiana), the office of the Lieutenant Governor (Indiana) and other sources of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of the Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) of the Wabash River Drainage Final Report
    ILLIN I S UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN PRODUCTION NOTE University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007. SURVEY OF THE THE FRESHWATER MUSSELS (MOLLUSCA: UNIONIDAE) OF THE WABASH RIVER DRAINAGE FINAL REPORT Kevin S. Cummings, Christine A. Mayer, and Lawrence M. Page Center for Biodiversity Technical Report 1992 (b) Illinois Natural History Survey 607 E. Peabody Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820 Prepared for Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife 607 State Office Building Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Study Funded by a Grant from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Nongame and Endangered Species Wildlife Program Endangered Species Act Project E- 1, Study 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. ii LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 2 M ETHODS........... .............. .......................................... ............................................... 12 STUDY AREA............................... ............... ................................................................... 14 RESULTS & DISCUSSION............................................................ ............................... 15 BASIN SUM M ARIES ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Report – 2017 North Central Division American Fisheries Society Kayla Werbianskyj
    River & Streams Technical Committee State of Indiana Report – 2017 North Central Division American Fisheries Society Kayla Werbianskyj The following accounts have been solicited from the Indiana American Fisheries Society membership and summarize some of the major lotic ecological research, restoration projects, management strategies, monitoring appointments, and conservation efforts ongoing across the state of Indiana. Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) / Office of Water Quality / Watershed Assessment and Planning Branch Compiled by Kayla Werbianskyj Probabilistic Monitoring Efforts The main objective of IDEM’s Probabilistic Monitoring Program is to provide a comprehensive, unbiased assessment of the ability of rivers and streams in a river basin to support aquatic life and recreational uses. Sites are randomly generated each year for the selected basin from a laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. This project is on a watershed rotation schedule to cover the whole state in 9 years (West Fork White River, Patoka River, East Fork White River, Great Miami, Upper Wabash, Lower Wabash, Kankakee River, Great Lakes, Ohio River). In 2017, sampling for the program focused on waterbodies in the Kankakee River Basin. For the purpose of this program, the Kankakee River Basin is geographically defined as within the borders of Indiana and is contained by the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes 07120001, 07120002, and 07120003. Biological communities and habitat information were sampled at 38 sites with landowner approval. Water chemistry and E. coli were sampled at the same 38 sites and an additional 7 sites (in the event of a rejection of the original 38). Starhead Topminnow (Fundulus dispar) – Kankakee River Basin Performance Measures Monitoring Efforts Performance monitoring is initiated to show improvements in water quality when waterbodies cited in Categories 4A and/or 5A of Indiana’s 303(D) List of Impaired Waters have received documented nonpoint source (NPS) control or watershed planning and restoration efforts.
    [Show full text]
  • Period for Indiana's Draft 2016 303(D) List
    Indiana Register DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Office of Water Quality Notice of Public Comment Period for the Draft 2016 List of Impaired Waters and Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act PURPOSE OF NOTICE The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) is soliciting public comment for the development of its draft 2016 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and the Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (CALM) used to develop it. The 303(d) list will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) by April 1, 2016. Any person having water quality data to support or refute the listing of a specific waterbody or to add a waterbody to the list will be able to provide that information to IDEM during the public comment period. Comments and suggestions regarding the CALM will also be accepted during this period. IDEM will review and respond to all comments received and will work with U.S. EPA after the comment period ends to finalize the list for U.S. EPA approval. The draft 303(d) list and the CALM will be also be available April 6, 2016, on IDEM's website at: http://www.in.gov/idem/programs/water/303d/index.html AUTHORITY: IC 13-18-2-3. SUBJECT MATTER Basic Purpose and Background The IDEM Office of Water Quality (OWQ) is preparing to update its 303(d) List of Impaired Waters, as required by Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Water Quality Planning and Management regulation contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR Part 130.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana's Draft 2016 303(D) List of Impaired Waters
    ATTACHMENT 7 Category 5 Waters: Indiana’s Draft 2016 303(d) List of Impaired Waters HYDROLOGIC ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CAUSE OF BASIN COUNTY UNIT CODE UNIT ID UNIT NAME IMPAIRMENT GREAT LAKES 41000030401 STEUBEN INA0341_01 WEST BRANCH FISH CREEK E. COLI IMPAIRED BIOTIC GREAT LAKES 41000030401 STEUBEN INA0341_01 WEST BRANCH FISH CREEK COMMUNITIES IMPAIRED BIOTIC GREAT LAKES 41000030401 STEUBEN INA0341_02 WEST BRANCH FISH CREEK COMMUNITIES GREAT LAKES 41000030401 STEUBEN INA0341_02 WEST BRANCH FISH CREEK E. COLI GREAT LAKES 41000030402 STEUBEN INA0342_01 FISH CREEK E. COLI GREAT LAKES 41000030402 STEUBEN INA0342_T1003 FISH CREEK - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY E. COLI GREAT LAKES 41000030402 STEUBEN INA0342_T1004 FISH CREEK - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY E. COLI GREAT LAKES 41000030404 DEKALB INA0344_03 HIRAM SWEET DITCH E. COLI DISSOLVED GREAT LAKES 41000030405 STEUBEN INA0345_01 FISH CREEK OXYGEN IMPAIRED BIOTIC GREAT LAKES 41000030405 STEUBEN INA0345_01 FISH CREEK COMMUNITIES GREAT LAKES 41000030405 STEUBEN INA0345_01 FISH CREEK E. COLI GREAT LAKES 41000030406 DEKALB INA0346_01 FISH CREEK E. COLI IMPAIRED BIOTIC GREAT LAKES 41000030406 DEKALB INA0346_01 FISH CREEK COMMUNITIES GREAT LAKES 41000030406 DEKALB INA0346_02 FISH CREEK E. COLI IMPAIRED BIOTIC GREAT LAKES 41000030406 DEKALB INA0346_T1003 FISH CREEK - UNNAMED TRIBUTARY COMMUNITIES GREAT LAKES 41000030502 DEKALB INA0352_03 BIG RUN E. COLI GREAT LAKES 41000030502 DEKALB INA0352_04 BIG RUN E. COLI IMPAIRED BIOTIC GREAT LAKES 41000030502 DEKALB INA0352_04 BIG RUN COMMUNITIES IMPAIRED BIOTIC GREAT LAKES 41000030502 DEKALB INA0352_05 BIG RUN COMMUNITIES PCBS (FISH GREAT LAKES 41000030505 DEKALB INA0355_01 ST. JOSEPH RIVER TISSUE) PCBS (FISH GREAT LAKES 41000030506 DEKALB INA0356_03 ST. JOSEPH RIVER TISSUE) GREAT LAKES 41000030601 DEKALB INA0361_01 MCCULLOUGH DITCH E. COLI MCCULLOUGH DITCH - UPSTREAM GREAT LAKES 41000030601 DEKALB INA0361_01A E.
    [Show full text]
  • Programmatic Environmental Assessment Indiana Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
    Programmatic Environmental Assessment Indiana Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Photo courtesy of USDA NRCS. Farm Service Agency United States Department of Agriculture September 2004 2004 Indiana CREP Programmatic Environmental Assessment Cover Sheet Mandated Action: The United States Department of Agriculture, Commodity Credit Corporation (USDA/CCC) and the State of Indiana have agreed to implement the Indiana Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), a component of the national Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The Farm Service Agency (FSA) of the USDA proposes to authorize a CREP agreement in the State of Indiana covering the counties of Benton, Boone, Carroll, Cass, Delaware, Fulton, Gibson, Hamilton, Hancock, Henry, Jasper, Kosciusko, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Miami, Noble, Pike, Posey, Pulaski, Randolph, Starke, Tippecanoe, Tipton, Vanderburgh, Warrick, White, and Whitley. USDA is provided the statutory authority by the provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3830 et seq.), and the regulations at 7 CFR 1410. In accordance with the 1985 Act, USDA/CCC is authorized to enroll lands through December 31, 2007. The State of Indiana, through the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to Indiana Code (IC) 14-11-1-1. Additional support for the State’s entry into this Agreement is provided under IC 14-11-1-2. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Ducks Unlimited, Inc. shall be authorized to perform some of the obligations in this CREP.
    [Show full text]
  • HUMAN DIMENSIONS of FRESHWATER MUSSELS in the TIPPECANOE RIVER Compilation Report
    HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS IN THE TIPPECANOE RIVER Compilation Report Prepared January 2017 by: Belyna Bentlage, Laura Esman, and Linda Prokopy Natural Resources Social Science Lab Department of Forestry and Natural Resources Purdue University The Natural Resources Social Science Lab studies how human interactions with the environment impact natural resources. Our research, teaching, and engagement activities focus on how to best motivate farmers, stakeholders, and citizens of all kinds to participate in more environmentally friendly behaviors and practices. For more information, please go to https://www.purdue.edu/fnr/prokopy Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................ 3 In-Person Comparison Survey Report: 2014-2016 ............................................................................. 4 In-Person Survey Data Report 2014 ................................................................................................ 12 In-Person Survey Data Report 2016 ................................................................................................ 29 Mail Survey Comparison Data Report 2014-2016: All Cases ............................................................. 51 Mail Survey Comparison Data Report 2014-2016: Paired Cases ......................................................
    [Show full text]