881 resultados para Upper South Platte Watershed Protection and Restoration Project.
Resumo:
"August 1999."
Resumo:
"Spring 2004."
Resumo:
This synthesis presents a science overview of the major forest management Issues involved in the recovery of anadromous salmonids affected by timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. The issues involve the components of ecosystem-based watershed management and how best to implement them, including how to: Design buffer zones to protect fish habitat while enabling economic timber production; Implement effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent nonpoint-source pollution; Develop watershed-level procedures across property boundaries to prevent cumulative impacts; Develop restoration procedures to contribute to recovery of ecosystem processes; and Enlist support of private landowners in watershed planning, protection, and restoration. Buffer zones, BMPs, cumulative impact prevention, and restoration are essential elements of what must be a comprehensive approach to habitat protection and restoration applied at the watershed level within a larger context of resource concerns in the river basin, species status under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and regional environmental and economic issues (Fig. ES. 1). This synthesis 1) reviews salmonid habitat requirements and potential effects of logging; 2) describes the technical foundation of forest practices and restoration; 3) analyzes current federal and non-federal forest practices; and 4) recommends required elements of comprehensive watershed management for recovery of anadromous salmonids.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
There is nothing mysterious about how coastal rivers, their estuaries, and their relationship with the sea all work to satisfy many of our greatest needs, including drinkable water, fish and shellfish, and soils essential for sustaining the production of food and fiber. Nor are the methods that have proved successful in the protection and restoration of watershed health difficult to understand. It is difficult, however, to imagine how we are to survive without healthy watersheds. Each watershed along California’s coast shows signs of increasing abuse from road construction and maintenance, livestock grazing, residential development, timber harvesting, and a dozen other human activities. In some cases whole streams have simply been wiped away. This document has been created to guide and support every person in the community, from homemaker to elected official, who wants her or his watershed to provide clean water, harvestable fish resources and other proof that life in the watershed cannot only be maintained but also enjoyed. It is based on years of experience with watershed protection and restoration in California. If citizen involvement is to be effective, it must draw not only on scientific knowledge but also on an understanding of how to translate individual views into commitments and capable group action. This guide briefly reviews the condition of California’s coastal watersheds, identifies the kinds of concerns that have led citizens to successful watershed protection efforts, explains why citizen, in addition to government, effort is essential for watershed protection and restoration to succeed, and puts in the reader’s hands both the technical and organizational “tools of the trade” in the hope that those who use this guide will be encouraged to join in efforts to make their watershed serve this and future generations better.
Resumo:
"Prepared under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act."
Resumo:
"Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Kansas City, Missouri."
Resumo:
"Proposed road closures & roads analysis"--Cover (Appendix A).
Resumo:
“Advanced Watershed Science and Policy (ESSP 660)” is a graduate class taught in the Master of Science in Coastal and Watershed Science & Policy program at California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB). In 2007, the class was taught in four 4-week modules, each focusing on a local watershed issue. This report is one outcome of one of those 4-week modules taught in the fall 2007 session. (Document contains 32 pages)
Resumo:
Due to changes in land use over the last century, the physical nature of many streams and rivers in the British Isles has probably changed. In some cases this change may be large for example as a result of flood defence schemes and is easily observed, whilst in other cases altered land use, farming, forestry or urbanization may have resulted in more subtle changes to river features. This working guide draws together a way of assessing habitat in any stream or river and determine sites or reaches on the assessed watercourse that may benefit from habitat improvement schemes. It will determine a method of measuring existing habitat in a broad sense, whilst referring to R and D studies currently being undertaken in this area. A method of prioritising any proposed habitat restoration work will be suggested. The limitations of fisheries improvement schemes in terms of cross functional acceptance (flood defence and conservation) will be examined along with suggested proposals for some example watercourses. The need for pre and post enhancement monitoring will be discussed as will the requirement for maintenance programs on schemes. Finally methods for determining the cost benefits of small schemes will be examined, compared to other currently used enhancement strategies. This will allow small scale revenue schemes to be used to back up pre project cost benefit analysis as required in future capital submissions.
Resumo:
"Sponsors, University Extension, University of California, Davis ... [et al.] ; co-sponsors, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army ... [et al.]"--P. [2] of cover.
Resumo:
There is an increasing emphasis on the restoration of ecosystem services as well as of biodiversity, especially where restoration projects are planned at a landscape scale. This increase in the diversity of restoration aims has a number of conceptual and practical implications for the way that restoration projects are monitored and evaluated. Landscape-scale projects require monitoring of not only ecosystem services and biodiversity but also of ecosystem processes since these can underpin both. Using the experiences gained at a landscape-scale wetland restoration project in the UK, we discuss a number of issues that need to be considered, including the choice of metrics for monitoring ecosystem services and the difficulties of assessing the interactions between ecosystem processes, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Particular challenges that we identify, using two pilot data sets, include the decoupling of monetary metrics used for monitoring ecosystem services from biophysical change on the ground and the wide range of factors external to a project that influence the monitoring results. We highlight the fact that the wide range of metrics necessary to evaluate the ecosystem service, ecosystem process, and biodiversity outcomes of landscape-scale projects presents a number of practical challenges, including the need for high levels of varied expertise, high costs, incommensurate monitoring outputs, and the need for careful management of monitoring results, especially where they may be used in making decisions about the relative importance of project aims.
Resumo:
1. Stream ecosystem health monitoring and reporting need to be developed in the context of an adaptive process that is clearly linked to identified values and objectives, is informed by rigorous science, guides management actions and is responsive to changing perceptions and values of stakeholders. To be effective, monitoring programmes also need to be underpinned by an understanding of the probable causal factors that influence the condition or health of important environmental assets and values. This is often difficult in stream and river ecosystems where multiple stressors, acting at different spatial and temporal scales, interact to affect water quality, biodiversity and ecosystem processes. 2. In this article, we describe the development of a freshwater monitoring programme in South East Queensland, Australia, and how this has been used to report on ecosystem health at a regional scale and to guide investments in catchment protection and rehabilitation. We also discuss some of the emerging science needs to identify the appropriate scale and spatial arrangement of rehabilitation to maximise river ecosystem health outcomes and, at the same time, derive other benefits downstream. 3. An objective process was used to identify potential indicators of stream ecosystem health and then test these across a known catchment land-use disturbance gradient. From the 75 indicators initially tested, 22 from five indicator groups (water quality, ecosystem metabolism, nutrient cycling, invertebrates and fish) responded strongly to the disturbance gradient, and 16 were subsequently recommended for inclusion in the monitoring programme. The freshwater monitoring programme was implemented in 2002, funded by local and State government authorities, and currently involves the assessment of over 120 sites, twice per year. This information, together with data from a similar programme on the region's estuarine and coastal marine waters, forms the basis of an annual report card that is presented in a public ceremony to local politicians and the broader community. 4. Several key lessons from the SEQ Healthy Waterways Programme are likely to be transferable to other regional programmes aimed at improving aquatic ecosystem health, including the importance of a shared common vision, the involvement of committed individuals, a cooperative approach, the need for defensible science and effective communication. 5. Thematic implications: this study highlights the use of conceptual models and objective testing of potential indicators against a known disturbance gradient to develop a freshwater ecosystem health monitoring programme that can diagnose the probable causes of degradation from multiple stressors and identify the appropriate spatial scale for rehabilitation or protection. This approach can lead to more targeted management investments in catchment protection and rehabilitation, greater public confidence that limited funds are being well spent and better outcomes for stream and river ecosystem health.
Resumo:
This is a report to the California Department of Fish and Game. Between 2003 and 2008, the Foundation of CSUMB produced fish habitat maps and GIS layers for CDFG based on CDFG field data. This report describes the data entry, mapping, and website construction procedures associated with the project. Included are the maps that have been constructed. This report marks the completion of the Central Coast region South District Basin Planning and Habitat Mapping Project. (Document contains 40 pages)
Resumo:
Shellfish bed closures along the North Carolina coast have increased over the years seemingly concurrent with increases in population (Mallin 2000). More and faster flowing storm water has come to mean more bacteria, and fecal indicator bacterial (FIB) standards for shellfish harvesting are often exceeded when no source of contamination is readily apparent (Kator and Rhodes, 1994). Could management reduce bacterial loads if the source of the bacteria where known? Several potentially useful methods for differentiating human versus animal pollution sources have emerged including Ribotyping and Multiple Antibiotic Resistance (MAR) (US EPA, 2005). Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies on bacterial sources have been conducted for streams in NC mountain and Piedmont areas (U.S. EPA, 1991 and 2005) and are likely to be mandated for coastal waters. TMDL analysis estimates allowable pollutant loads and allocates them to known sources so management actions may be taken to restore water to its intended uses (U.S. EPA, 1991 and 2005). This project sought first to quantify and compare fecal contamination levels for three different types of land use on the coast, and second, to apply MAR and ribotyping techniques and assess their effectiveness for indentifying bacterial sources. Third, results from these studies would be applied to one watershed to develop a case study coastal TMDL. All three watershed study areas are within Carteret County, North Carolina. Jumping Run Creek and Pettiford Creek are within the White Oak River Basin management unit whereas the South River falls within the Neuse River Basin. Jumping Run Creek watershed encompasses approximately 320 ha. Its watershed was a dense, coastal pocosin on sandy, relic dune ridges, but current land uses are primarily medium density residential. Pettiford Creek is in the Croatan National Forest, is 1133 ha. and is basically undeveloped. The third study area is on Open Grounds Farm in the South River watershed. Half of the 630 ha. watershed is under cultivation with most under active water control (flashboard risers). The remaining portion is forested silviculture.(PDF contains 4 pages)