DOCSLIB.ORG

Diagnostic / Feasibility Study for the Management Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Diagnostic / Feasibility Study for the Management Of DIAGNOSTIC / FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF BUTTONWOOD POND MEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS BAYSTATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTSM DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF BUTTONWOOD POND, NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD AND THE MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL UNDER MGL CHAP. 628 MASSACHUSETTS CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM BY BAYSTATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 296 NORTH MAIN STREET EAST LONGMEADOW, MASSACHUSETTS FINAL REPORT AUGUST, 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Project Summary Part I: Diagnostic Evaluation Introduction Data Collection Methods Lake and Watershed Description and History Lake Description Watershed Description Watershed Geology and Soils Historical Lake and Land Use Limnological Data Base Flow and Water Chemistry Bacteria Storm Water Assessment Sediment Analysis Phytoplankton Macrophytes Zooplankton Macroinvertebrates Fish Comparison with Other Studies Hydrologic Budget Nutrient Budgets Phosphorus Nitrogen Diagnostic Summary Management Recommendations Part 11: Feasibility Assessment Evaluation of Management Options Management Objectives Available Techniques Evaluation of Viable Alternatives Recommended Management Approach Impact of Recommended Management Actions Detention Program Diversion Program Dredging Program Education Program Watershed Management Program Monitoring Program Funding Alternatives Environmental Evaluation Necessary Permits Public Participation Relation to Existing Plans and Projects Feasibility Summary References Appendices A: Information Provided by Members of the New Bedford Municipal Advisory Committee B: Data Generated by the BEC Study C: Conversion Factors and Calculation Sheets D: Environmental Notification Form E: Comments by Interested Parties F: Glossary TABLES Page Buttonwood Pond Diagnostic/Feasibility Study Sampling Stations 8 Characteristics of Buttonwood Pond and its Watershed 14 Values of Monitored Parameters in the Buttonwood Pond System 34 Selected Parameter Ranges for Storm Waters 48 Chemical Characteristics of Buttonwood Pond Sediments 53 Fish Population Data 64 Precipitation for the New Bedford, MA Area 69 Hydrologic Budget for Buttonwood Pond 72 Nutrient Export Coefficients 76 Nutrient Load Generation 77 Nitrogen and Phosphorus Mass Flow 78 Estimated Nutrient Loads from Storm Events 80 Nutrient Loads to Buttonwood Pond Based on Empirical Data 82 Lake Restoration and Management Options 94 Anticipated Changes to Result from Management 114 Elements and Costs Associated with Proposed Detention 120 Elements and Costs Associated with Proposed Diversion 126 Elements and Costs Associated with Proposed Dredging 133 Elements and Costs Associated with Monitoring 138 Potential Funding Sources 139 Permits and Approvals Required 142 Summary of Management Actions 148 . ....- ., I1 Ill I I I 1' I PROJECT SUMMARY Buttonwood Pond and its watershed were investigated and evaluated in 1986 and 1987 by Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc., on behalf of the City of New Bedford. The study was made possible by funding through the Massachusetts Clean Lakes Program of the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering and the Olmsted Parks Restoration Program of the Department of Environmental Management. The physical, chemical and biological features of the pond were assessed and management recommendations have been prepared. The results of the study indicate that Buttonwood Pond is receiving excessive loads of water, sediment and nutrients associated with storm water runoff generated in the urban watershed. Past sedimentation has filled in approximately one third of the pond, and current nutrient levels support algal blooms and dense growths of macrophytes. Flooding of park lands occurs in response to periods of intense precipitation; the inlet channel to the pond can handle only about 85 cu.m/min (50 cfs) of flow before overtopping, and the storage capacity of Buttonwood Pond is limited by very slight shoreline slopes. Approximately 62% of the phosphorus load to the pond is attributed to a single storm drainage system serving less than 18% of the watershed area. An upstream detention basin has an outlet structure which prevents detention of water during all but the highest possible flows. The Buttonwood Brook system has not been engineered for downstream water quality or flood control. Review of available management options has eliminated many techniques from consideration. Evaluation of the remaining alternatives in light of technical and economic considerations has yielded a recommended management plan incorporating detention, diversion, dredging, and environmental education. The storm water drainage system contributing the majority of the phosphorus load to the pond is to be routed to the southwest corner of the park, along with four minor drainage systems which can be easily tied into the diversion pipe. The upstream detention basin is to be modified to detain water during low flows while passing enough flow during major storms to prevent overtopping and localized flooding. Soft sediment, silt laden sand, and accumulated debris are to be removed from Buttonwood Pond, dried and used within the park. The pond shoreline is to be steepened and stabilized in conjunction with the dredging program. An educational slide show and brochure are to be prepared and presented to watershed residents. The proposed management plan is expected to yield substantial reductions in the loads of phosphorus (68 to 89%) and nitrogen (45 to 74%) to Buttonwood Pond. Considerable in-lake decreases in turbidity (40 to 95%) and plant density (60 to 80%) FIGURES Page Sampling Station Locations 9 Buttonwood Pond Sampling Stations 10 Bathymetric Map 15 Hypsographic Curve 16 Boundary and Topography of the Buttonwood Pond Watershed 19 Land Use in the Buttonwood Pond Watershed 20 Sub-Drainage Basins of the Buttonwood Pond Watershed 22 Soil Types in the Buttonwood Pond Watershed 24 Buttonwood Park: Existing Conditions 30 Buttonwood Park: Master Plan 31 Storm Water Drainage System of the Buttonwood Pond Watershed 46 Soft Sediment Depth and Sediment Sampling Locations 52 Residual Turbidity, Settling Rates, and Bulking Factors 55 Phytoplankton Density 58 Distribution of Aquatic Macrophyte Taxa 60 Density of Bottom Coverage by Aquatic Macrophytes 6 1 Hydrologic Inputs and Outputs 73 Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Inputs 83 Possible Sites for Additional Containment of Storm Water 106 Possible Outlet Structures 119 Proposed Pipeline Pathway for Diversion of Storm Water 124 Work Areas Associated with Proposed Dredging 128 Typical Embankment 129 Haybale Silt Barrier 130 PART l DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION are also expected. The probability of flooding will be reduced (30 to 50%) as well. The physical features and appearance of Buttonwood Pond will be altered to provide a more hydrologically functional and aesthetically appealing water body. Habitat quality is expected to increase appreciably for most forms of aquatic life, and pond condition will be more appropriate to its desired uses. The proposed project is consistent with the Buttonwood Park Master Plan, which is in the implementation phase. The total anticipated cost of the proposed management plan is $1,455,350, which includes the basic elements described above and a monitoring program for assessment of results and adjustment of management actions. A four-year implementation schedule has been outlined, with detention and diversion options implemented prior to any dredging. Monitoring and education should take place throughout the period. Additional management actions may be desirable (e.g., additional detention capacity provided upstream of Buttonwood Pond), but the proposed project should yield conditions acceptable for the desired uses of Buttonwood Pond and the surrounding park land. INTRODUCTION The establishment of the Massachusetts Clean Lakes Program under Chapter 628 of the Acts of 1981 enabled many municipalities and lake associations to acquire funding for study and restoration of their lakes. As an environmentally aware and concerned community, the City of New Bedford applied for a grant for a Phase I diagnostic/feasibility study of Buttonwood Pond, a highly visible element of Buttonwood Park. After being awarded the grant, the City contracted Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. to conduct the study. Concern over the present and future status of Buttonwood Pond and its impact on the impending restoration of Buttonwood Park prompted the request for a study. The water quality impacts of human activities in the Buttonwood Pond watershed were largely unquantified, although it was apparent that the routing of storm water through the Buttonwood Brook system (including Buttonwood Pond) was largely responsible for deteriorating water quality and frequent flooding in the park and adjacent neighborhoods. Mitigation of any current negative influences on the pond and prevention of future degradation of this water resource were desired. Under the Olmsted Parks Restoration Program, administered by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management (MDEM), major improvements are to be made in Buttonwood Park. These improvements are intended to provide increased recreational utility in a more aesthetic setting consistent with the park design principles of Frederick Law Olmsted, whose firm was involved with the establishment of Buttonwood Park. A master plan for the park has been developed by the Walker-Kluesing Design Group in conjunction with the MDEM and the City of New Bedford. Restoration work has already
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Partnership Opportunities for Lake-Friendly Living Service Providers NH LAKES Lakesmart Program
    Partnership Opportunities for Lake-Friendly Living Service Providers NH LAKES LakeSmart Program Only with YOUR help will New Hampshire’s lakes remain clean and healthy, now and in the future. The health of our lakes, and our enjoyment of these irreplaceable natural resources, is at risk. Polluted runoff water from the landscape is washing into our lakes, causing toxic algal blooms that make swimming in lakes unsafe. Failing septic systems and animal waste washed off the land are contributing bacteria to our lakes that can make people and pets who swim in the water sick. Toxic products used in the home, on lawns, and on roadways and driveways are also reaching our lakes, poisoning the water in some areas to the point where fish and other aquatic life cannot survive. NH LAKES has found that most property owners don’t know how their actions affect the health of lakes. We’ve also found that property owners want to do the right thing to help keep the lakes they enjoy clean and healthy and that they often need help of professional service providers like YOU! What is LakeSmart? The LakeSmart program is an education, evaluation, and recognition program that inspires property owners to live in a lake- friendly way, keeping our lakes clean and healthy. The program is free, voluntary, and non-regulatory. Through a confidential evaluation process, property owners receive tailored recommendations about how to implement lake-friendly living practices year-round in their home, on their property, and along and on the lake. Property owners have access to a directory of lake- friendly living service providers to help them adopt lake-friendly living practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Harpswell Open Space Plan
    Town of Harpswell Open Space Plan March 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1 Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................i Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................ii 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................1 2. What is Open Space and Why is it Valuable?..................................................................2 2A. Definition of Open Space ...................................................................................................... 2 2B. A Vision for Open Space in Harpswell ................................................................................ 6 3. What is the Open Space Plan? .........................................................................................7 3A. Description of the Plan.......................................................................................................... 7 3B. The Plan’s Development Process.......................................................................................... 8 4.Assessing Harpswell’s Open Space.................................................................................10 4A. Topography of Harpswell................................................................................................... 10 4B. History and Accomplishments 1987 – 2008......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Friendship Hill National Historic Site Geologic Resource Evaluation Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Friendship Hill National Historic Site Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2008/022 THIS PAGE: Waterfall on Ice Pond Run, Friendship Hill NHP. ON THE COVER: Gallatin House, Friendship Hill NHP NPS Photos Friendship Hill National Historic Site Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2008/022 Geologic Resources Division Natural Resource Program Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 February 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer- reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series include vital signs monitoring plans; "how to" resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and regularly- published newsletters. Views and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect policies of the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]
  • 69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers
    69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers American Rivers releases annual list including dams in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin for a total of 23 states. Nationwide, 1,797 dams have been removed from 1912 through 2020. Dam removal brings a variety of benefits to local communities, including restoring river health and clean water, revitalizing fish and wildlife, improving public safety and recreation, and enhancing local economies. Working in a variety of functions with partner organizations throughout the country, American Rivers contributed financial and technical support in many of the removals. Contact information is provided for dam removals, if available. For further information about the list, please contact Jessie Thomas-Blate, American Rivers, Director of River Restoration at 202.347.7550 or [email protected]. This list includes all dam removals reported to American Rivers (as of February 10, 2021) that occurred in 2020, regardless of the level of American Rivers’ involvement. Inclusion on this list does not indicate endorsement by American Rivers. Dams are categorized alphabetically by state. Beale Dam, Dry Creek, California A 2016 anadromous salmonid habitat assessment stated that migratory salmonids were not likely accessing habitat upstream of Beale Lake due to the presence of the dam and an undersized pool and weir fishway. In 2020, Beale Dam, owned by the U.S. Air Force, was removed and a nature-like fishway was constructed at the upstream end of Beale Lake to address the natural falls that remain a partial barrier following dam removal.
    [Show full text]
  • Sheriff's Sale
    2016 BCBA 6/23/16 BUCKS COUNTY LAW REPORTER Vol. 89, No. 25 Sheriff’s Sale Certificate, Series 2006-Ff13 v. Marika Roscioli owner(s) of property situate in the Second Publication BENSALEM TOWNSHIP, BUCKS County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, being 4911 By virtue of a Writ of Execution to me Oxford Court a/k/a 4911 Oxford Court Apt. directed, will be sold at public sale Friday, J1, Bensalem, PA 19020-1758. July 8, 2016 at 11 o’clock A.M., prevailing TAX PARCEL #02-093-087. time, at the James Lorah Auditorium located PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4911 Oxford Court at the corner of Broad and Main Streets, in the a/k/a 4911 Oxford Court Apt. J1, Bensalem, Borough of Doylestown, Bucks County, Pa., PA 19020-1758. the following real estate to wit. JUDGMENT AMOUNT: $229,547.33. Judgment was recovered in the Court of IMPROVEMENTS: CONDOMINIUM. Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Action SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: MARIKA ROSCIOLI. – as numbered above. No further notice of the PHELAN HALLINAN DIAMOND & filing of the Schedule of Distribution will be JONES given. EDWARD J. DONNELLY, Sheriff BEDMINSTER TOWNSHIP Sheriff’s Office, Doylestown, PA DOCKET #2015-07633 DOCKET #2014-03765 ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or tract of ground Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. s/b/m to Wachovia with the residential improvements erected Bank, National Association v. Deborah Lynn thereon, SITUATE in the TOWNSHIP Hickson a/k/a Deborah Hickson owner(s) OF BEDMINSTER, County of Bucks, of property situate in the BENSALEM Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, bounded and TOWNSHIP, BUCKS County, Pennsylvania, described according to a Plan of “Spruce Hill being 2351 Paris Avenue, Trevose, PA 19053- Acres” made by Robert D.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Open Space and Recreation Plan Update
    Town of Bridgewater Open Space and Recreation Plan Update 2017 Prepared for: Town of Bridgewater Prepared by: January 2018 Acknowledgements Town of Bridgewater Community and Economic Development Town Council Michael Dutton, Town Manager Andrew Delonno, Director, Community and Economic Development Lisa Sullivan, Executive Assistant, Community and Economic Development Open Space and Recreation Plan Steering Committee Tom Hall, Planning Board Carlton Hunt, Master Plan Committee Charlie Simonds, Parks and Recreation Department Superintendent Kevin Mandeville, Open Space Committee Marilyn MacDonald, Conservation Commission Kitty Doherty, Nunckatessett Greenway & Taunton Wild & Scenic River Study Committee Planning Consultants VHB Renee Guo, AICP Stephen Derdiarian, ASLA, LEED AP JM Goldson Community Preservation + Planning Jen Goldson, AICP Bridgewater Open Space and Recreation Plan Update Table of Contents Table of Contents Plan Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Statement of Purpose ............................................................................................................. 4 The Planning Process and Public Participation ...................................................................... 4 Community Setting ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Master Report
    Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii INTRODUCTION PROJECT SCOPE 5 BACKGROUND 6 CONTEXT AND SITE DESCRIPTION 7 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PURPOSE OF ANALYSIS 15 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 16 SLOPES 19 WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS 25 VEGETATION 33 WILDLIFE AND HABITAT 35 VIEWS 39 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION 40 ANALYSIS SUMMARY (ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVTY INDEX) 43 SOCIAL ANALYSIS HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 49 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE 51 FRANCIS J. CLARKE INDUSTRIAL PARK 53 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 54 ZONING 59 LIABILITY ON PUBLIC RECREATION LANDS 61 CONCEPTS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT 65 CONCEPT #1: GATEWAY TO RECREATION 67 CONCEPT #2: CLARKE PARK CONNECTIONS 71 INDUSTRIAL PARK RECOMMENDATIONS 75 CONSERVATION PLANNING 77 CONCLUSION 81 REFERENCES 83 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: GREENWAY ECONOMICS APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY NEWS APPENDIX C: COMMERCIAL LAND USE INFORMATION APPENDIX D: STATE POLICY APPENDIX E: CONSERVATION INFORMATION Tables and Figures Figure 1 CONTEXT 9 Figure 2 AERIAL PHOTO 11 Figure 3 SOILS 17 Table 1 COMPARISON OF SLOPE PERCENTAGES 19 Figure 4 SLOPES 21 Figure 5 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 23 Figure 6 WATERWAYS INVENTORY 29 Figure 7 WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS SENSITIVITY 31 Figure 8 RARE SPECIES & UNIQUE HABITATS 37 Figure 9 ACCESS 41 Figure 10 ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY INDEX 45 Table 2 COMPARISON OF PLAYING FIELDS, COURTS, AND TRACKS 51 Table 3 COMPARISON OF DEVELOPED PARKS AND NON-INTENSIVE ACRES 52 Table 4 TRAIL SYSTEM REVENUES 55 Figure 11 TRAIL CORRIDOR 57 Figure 12 CONCEPT 1 ”GATEWAY TO RECREATION” 69 Figure 13 CONCEPT 2 “CLARKE PARK CONNECTIONS”73 INTRODUCTION Terre Haute Land-Use Study PROJECT SCOPE In January 2003, a student design team from the Conway School of Landscape Design was contracted by the Town of Bethel to do a land-use feasibility study for the Terre Haute property and the contiguous watershed lands.
    [Show full text]
  • 5B. Identification of High Value Areas of Open Space
    5B. Identification of High Value Areas of Open Space In order to identify the large uninhabited areas to preserve for open space, maps from the Maine Natural Areas and Beginning with Habitat Programs were used to determine the location of Harpswell’s natural habitat and water resources. ( See Appendix 4 ) Tax maps and the Inventory of Protected Land in Harpswell were used to identify the location of scenic, civic, cultural, historic and recreational resources. (See Maps 3,4,5 and 6 and Appendix 15 for more details about the methodology). This information, coupled with local knowledge, was used to select Focus Areas for preservation of Harpswell’s largest high value areas. In addition, the following criteria were used in the selection: • Limited or no current development in the area • Size of area with priority given to larger areas, including blocks of undeveloped land over 20 acres in size • Connectivity of the land to existing preserved and undeveloped land or wildlife habitat • Existence of permanently protected land and land with limited protection in the area • Equity in the distribution of open space in all major areas within the town • Public input Harpswell Open Space Plan –rev. 3/5/2009 16 In addition, Harpswell Islands over one acre in size , are high value areas and, therefore, priority for open space preservation. Island ecology is fragile by nature and easily destroyed so it is important that their natural areas are preserved because: • The undeveloped areas provide important wildlife habitat for nesting waterfowl, birds and animals with minimal human disturbance. • Thirty of our islands have been identified by the Maine Dept of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife as important sea bird nesting islands and have been zoned for Resource Protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Þ70 ·|}Þ89 ·|}Þ49
    Elysian Valley Jim Peterson Hill Hamilton Mountain Diamond Mountain United States Department of Agriculture 28N20 Forest Service Aspen Flat Westwood 28N02 28N15 Pine Town Janesville Plumas National Forest Red Rock Bear Flat 28N15A Clear Creek Buntingville Hartson Sand Ridge 28N15F Coyote Peak 28N02J The Beaver Ponds 28N52 29N99 Round Mountain 28N02C3 28N02T Forest System Roads Indicator Peak 28N02N Mountain Meadows Reservoir Mountain Meadows 28N02P 28N02S 28N26X1 Travel Analysis Process 28N08 28N26X2 28N19D 28N02C Hamilton Branch Mountain 28N19C 28N26X Meadows 29N99A Thompson Peak Little Dyer Mountain 28N23 28N02D Reservoir 28N19B 28N35 Cairn Butte 28N02A 28N02B Map 2 of 2 28N03 Lowe Flat 28N34 28N19A1 28N37 28N48 28N10 28N39B 28N14 28N19A 28N25 28N02F Lone Rock 28N31A 28N02 28N02F2 Honey Plumas 28N02E 28N03 28N02Y 28N02F1 Lake National 28N39 28N19 28N31 28N99 Redding 28N40 28N26 Forest Moonlight Peak 28N17A Wildcat Ridge Wales Canyon Deerheart 28N40A 28N02G 28N12 Dyer Mountain Mountain Meadows 28N44 28N12B Reno Lake 27N09E 28N17 27N46B East Shore 27N77 CALIFORNIAAlmanor West Hidden 28N30 28N30B 27N04B Lake 27N09A 28N02YA 28N11 Mud LakeRockSan Lake Keddie Ridge Lone Rock Valley Hallett Meadow 27N37 27N71 Francisco 27N78 Moonlight Valley 28N30B1 28N03J 29N43G 27N04C 28N01J Homer 27N29 27N04J 28N11D 28N30C 27N65 28N30D 27N46A 28N11C Lake 27N29B 27N04E 28N36 Lonesome Canyon 27N72 27N04D Lake Keddie Peak 28N00A China Gulch 27N09D 27N60 Clarks Peak Almanor 28N30C1 27N04 Almanor 27N16 27N69Y 27N46 Doctor Smith Flat 27N72C Superior Ravine Lower
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Use of This PDF File of the Pond Guidebook, NRAES-178 by Jim Ochterski, Bryan Swistock, Clifford Kraft, and Rebecca Schneid
    Fair Use of this PDF file of The Pond Guidebook, NRAES-178 By Jim Ochterski, Bryan Swistock, Clifford Kraft, and Rebecca Schneider Published by NRAES, October 2007 This PDF file is for viewing only. If a paper copy is needed, we encourage you to purchase a copy as described below. Be aware that practices, recommendations, and economic data may have changed since this book was published. Text can be copied. The book, authors, and NRAES should be acknowledged. Here is a sample acknowledgement: ----From The Pond Guidebook, NRAES-178, by Jim Ochterski et al., and published by NRAES (2007).---- No use of the PDF should diminish the marketability of the printed version. This PDF should not be used to make copies of the book for sale or distribution. If you have questions about fair use of this PDF, contact NRAES. Purchasing the Book You can purchase printed copies on NRAES’ secure web site, www.nraes.org, or by calling (607) 255-7654. Quantity discounts are available. NRAES PO Box 4557 Ithaca, NY 14852-4557 Phone: (607) 255-7654 Fax: (607) 254-8770 Email: [email protected] Web: www.nraes.org More information on NRAES is included at the end of this PDF. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION NRAES-178 The Pond Guidebook Jim Ochterski Senior Extension Educator Cornell Cooperative Extension Bryan Swistock Senior Extension Assistant College of Agricultural Sciences School of Forest Resources, The Pennsylvania State University Clifford Kraft Associate Professor Department of Natural Resources Cornell University Rebecca Schneider Associate Professor and Leader Department of Natural Resources Extension Cornell University Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service (NRAES) Cooperative Extension PO Box 4557 Ithaca, New York 14852-4557 i nraes–178 September 2007 © 2007 by NRAES (Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service).
    [Show full text]
  • The City of Northampton Local Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
    THE CITY OF NORTHAMPTON LOCAL NATURAL HAZARDS MITIGATION PLAN Adopted by the Northampton City Council on __________ Prepared by: The Northampton Natural Hazards Mitigation Planning Committee and The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission 26 Central Street, Suite 34 West Springfield, MA 01089 (413) 781-6045 www.pvpc.org This project was funded by a grant received from the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation Services (formerly the Department of Environmental Management) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 - INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 Hazard Mitigation ...................................................................................................................1 Planning Process .....................................................................................................................1 2 – LOCAL PROFILE .................................................................................................................. 6 Community Setting ................................................................................................................6 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................7 Natural Resources ................................................................................................................10 3 – HAZARD IDENTIFICATION & ANALYSIS ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Friendship Hill National Historic Site Geologic Resource Evaluation Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Friendship Hill National Historic Site Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2008/022 THIS PAGE: Waterfall on Ice Pond Run, Friendship Hill NHP. ON THE COVER: Gallatin House, Friendship Hill NHP NPS Photos Friendship Hill National Historic Site Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2008/022 Geologic Resources Division Natural Resource Program Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 February 2008 U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer- reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series include vital signs monitoring plans; "how to" resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and regularly- published newsletters. Views and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect policies of the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]