102 resultados para clean water
em Iowa Publications Online (IPO) - State Library, State of Iowa (Iowa), United States
Resumo:
City Audit Report
Resumo:
Audit report on the Iowa Water Pollution Control Works Financing Program (Clean Water Program) and the Iowa Drinking Water Facilities Financing Program (Drinking Water Program), joint programs of the Iowa Finance Authority and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, for the year ended June 30, 2006
Resumo:
Audit report on the Iowa Water Pollution Control Works Financing Program (Clean Water Program) and the Iowa Drinking Water Facilities Financing Program (Drinking Water Program), joint programs of the Iowa Finance Authority and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for the year ended June 30, 2009
Resumo:
Audit report on the Iowa Water Pollution Control Works Financing Program (Clean Water Program) and the Iowa Drinking Water Facilities Financing Program (Drinking Water Program), joint programs of the Iowa Finance Authority and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, for the year ended June 30, 2005
Resumo:
Audit report on the Iowa Water Pollution Control Works Financing Program (Clean Water Program) and the Iowa Drinking Water Facilities Financing Program (Drinking Water Program), joint programs of the Iowa Finance Authority and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, for the year ended June 30, 2004
Resumo:
State Agency Audit Report State Revolving Fund - Clean Water & Drinking Programs
Resumo:
History has taken its toll on Muchakinock Creek. A number of problems over the years have led to the stream’s current state, one that’s landed it on Iowa’s list of impaired waters. However, the stream is also full of opportunity. The opportunity to improve water quality not only for the aquatic life and wildlife that live there, but also to pass along clean water to future generations of Iowans. But to act on this opportunity, we need your help.
Resumo:
The following document serves two purposes. First, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires a state to develop an approved Non-point Source Management Plan (NPSMP or Plan) that encompasses the nine key elements, described in full in Appendix A, to be eligible for federal Clean Water Act Section 319 funding. Second, the Plan serves as a representation of Iowa’s vision, goals, objectives and potential action steps to reduce non-point source pollution and improve water quality over the next five to ten years. This plan is not intended to be, nor should it be, limited to the Department of Natural Resources or Iowa’s Section 319 Program, but rather reflects the collective efforts and intents of the core partners and stakeholder groups that worked together to develop the goals identified herein and programmatic means of achieving those goals.
Resumo:
City Audit Report, Clean Water-State Revolving Fund Grant, Earlham Iowa,
Resumo:
The TMDL and Water Quality Assessment Section of the Iowa DNR Environmental Services Division have released the report entitled, “Biological Assessment of Iowa’s Wadeable Streams.” The report describes a framework for conducting stream bioassessments and how it is used to evaluate the biological condition of Iowa’s wadeable rivers and streams. The document also serves as a foundation for developing biological water quality standards for the protection of designated aquatic life uses and measuring progress toward the achievement of Federal Clean Water Act goals.
Resumo:
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Program at the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) in terms of regulatory compliance. Specific objectives included: 1) Determining if study sites meet the definition of a jurisdictional wetland. 2) Determining the degree of compliance with requirements specified in Clean Water Act Section 404 permits. A total of 24 study sites, in four age classes were randomly selected from over 80 sites currently managed by the Iowa DOT. Wetland boundaries were delineated in the field and mitigation compliance was determined by comparing the delineated wetland acreage at each study site to the total wetland acreage requirements specified in individual CWA Section 404 permits. Of the 24 sites evaluated in this study, 58 percent meet or exceed Section 404 permit requirements. Net gain ranged from 0.19 acre to 27.2 acres. Net loss ranged from 0.2 acre to 14.6 acres. The Denver Bypass 1 site was the worst performer, with zero acres of wetland present on the site and the Akron Wetland Mitigation Site was the best performer with slightly more than 27 acres over the permit requirement. Five of the 10 under-performing sites are more than five years post construction, two are five years post construction, one is three years post construction and the remaining two are one year post construction. Of the sites that meet or exceed permit requirements, approximately 93 percent are five years or less post construction and approximately 43 percent are only one year old. Only one of the 14 successful sites is more than five years old. Using Section 404 permit acreage requirements as the criteria for measuring success, 58 percent of the wetland mitigation sites investigated as part of this study are successful. Using net gain/loss as the measure of success, the Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Program has been successful in creating/restoring nearly 44 acres of wetland over what was required by permits.
Resumo:
In the past century, public health has been credited with adding 25 years to life expectancy by contributing to the decline in illness and injury. Progress has been made, for example, in smoking reduction, infectious disease, and motor vehicle and workplace injuries. Besides its focus on traditional concerns such as clean water and safe food, public health is adapting to meet emerging health problems. Particular troublesome are health threats to youth: teenage pregnancies, violence, substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, and other conditions associated with high-risk behaviors. These threats add to burgeoning health care costs. A conservative estimate of $69 billion in medical spending could be averted through the impact of public health strategies aimed at heart disease, stroke, fatal and nonfatal occupational injuries, motor vehicle-related injuries, low birth weight, and violence. These strategies require the collaboration of many groups in the public and private sectors. Collaboration is the bedrock of public health and Healthy Iowans planning. At the core of Healthy Iowans 2000 and its successor, Healthy Iowans 2010, is the idea that all Iowans benefit when stakeholders decide on disease prevention and health promotion strategies and agree to work together on them. These strategies can improve the quality of life and hold down health care costs. The payoff for health promotion and disease prevention is not immediate, but it has long-lasting benefits. The Iowa plan is a companion to the national plan, Healthy People 2010. An initiative to improve the health of Americans, the national plan is the driving force for federal resource allocation for disease prevention and health promotion. The state plan is used in the same way. Both plans have received broad support from Republican and Democratic administrations. Community planners are using the state plan to help assess health needs and craft health improvement plans. Healthy Iowans 2010 was written at an unusual point in history – a new decade, a new century, a new millennium. The introduction was optimistic. “The 21st century,” it says, “promises to add life as well as years through improved health habits coupled with medical advances. Scientists have suggested that if these changes occur, the definition of adulthood will also change. An extraordinary number of people will live fuller, more active lives beyond that expected in the late 20th century.” At the same time, the country has spawned a new generation of health hazards. According to Dr. William Dietz of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it has replaced “the diseases of deficiency with diseases of excess” (Newsweek, August 2, 1999). New threats, such as childhood overweight, can reverse progress made in the last century. This demands concerted action.
Resumo:
According to the 1972 Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a set of regulations for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The purpose of these regulations is to reduce pollution of the nation’s waterways. In addition to other pollutants, the NPDES regulates stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities, municipal storm sewer systems, and construction sites. Phase II of the NPDES stormwater regulations, which went into effect in Iowa in 2003, applies to construction activities that disturb more than one acre of ground. The regulations also require certain communities with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) to perform education, inspection, and regulation activities to reduce stormwater pollution within their communities. Iowa does not currently have a resource to provide guidance on the stormwater regulations to contractors, designers, engineers, and municipal staff. The Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS) manuals are widely accepted as the statewide standard for public improvements. The SUDAS Design manual currently contains a brief chapter (Chapter 7) on erosion and sediment control; however, it is outdated, and Phase II of the NPDES stormwater regulations is not discussed. In response to the need for guidance, this chapter was completely rewritten. It now escribes the need for erosion and sediment control and explains the NPDES stormwater regulations. It provides information for the development and completion of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) that comply with the stormwater regulations, as well as the proper design and implementation of 28 different erosion and sediment control practices. In addition to the design chapter, this project also updated a section in the SUDAS Specifications manual (Section 9040), which describes the proper materials and methods of construction for the erosion and sediment control practices.
Resumo:
Pollution from sediment and nutrients has hurt Farmers Creek’s fish population and placed the stream on the state’s impaired waters list. If we want to give our children and grandchildren clean water for drinking, swimming and fishing – we need to act now.
Resumo:
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Program at the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) in terms of regulatory compliance. Specific objectives included: 1) Determining if study sites meet the definition of a jurisdictional wetland. 2) Determining the degree of compliance with requirements specified in Clean Water Act Section 404 permits. A total of 24 study sites, in four age classes were randomly selected from over 80 sites currently managed by the Iowa DOT. Wetland boundaries were delineated in the field and mitigation compliance was determined by comparing the delineated wetland acreage at each study site to the total wetland acreage requirements specified in individual CWA Section 404 permits. Of the 24 sites evaluated in this study, 58 percent meet or exceed Section 404 permit requirements. Net gain ranged from 0.19 acre to 27.2 acres. Net loss ranged from 0.2 acre to 14.6 acres. The Denver Bypass 1 site was the worst performer, with zero acres of wetland present on the site and the Akron Wetland Mitigation Site was the best performer with slightly more than 27 acres over the permit requirement. Five of the 10 under-performing sites are more than five years post construction, two are five years post construction, one is three years post construction and the remaining two are one year post construction. Of the sites that meet or exceed permit requirements, approximately 93 percent are five years or less post construction and approximately 43 percent are only one year old. Only one of the 14 successful sites is more than five years old. Using Section 404 permit acreage requirements as the criteria for measuring success, 58 percent of the wetland mitigation sites investigated as part of this study are successful. Using net gain/loss as the measure of success, the Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Program has been successful in creating/restoring nearly 44 acres of wetland over what was required by permits.
