DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecosystem Management in the United States an Assessment of Current Experience

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecosystem Management in the United States an Assessment of Current Experience Ecosystem Management in the United States An Assessment of Current Experience Steven L. Yaffee Ali F. Phillips Irene C. Frentz Paul W. Hardy Sussanne M. Maleki Barbara E. Thorpe THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ¨ THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT EXPERIENCE PROJECT DIRECTOR: Steven L. Yaffee TEAM LEADERS: Irene C. Frentz Ali F. Phillips TEAM MEMBERS: Paul W. Hardy Sussanne M. Maleki Barbara E. Thorpe November 15, 1995 SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN The research that led to this assessment was supported by funds provided by The Wilderness Society and The University of Michigan. We gratefully acknowledge this support, and note that the findings and conclusions in the assessment represent those of the authors and not necessarily those of these sponsors. Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience The School of Natural Resources & Environment at The University of Michigan (SNRE) is a research- oriented professional school focusing on the development of policies and management programs that promote the conservation, protection and sustained use of natural resources, and on the training of practitioners and researchers that seek these ends. Research at SNRE focuses on five thematic areas. One of these areas, "Ecosystems: Conservation, Management, Restoration," includes work underway in topics ranging from landscape ecosystem classification and prairie restoration to endangered species policy and dispute resolution. Master's degree students at SNRE are required to complete a group project as their capstone experience. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT EXPERIENCE began as a master's project, with five graduate students participating as a research team supervised by a faculty member. The master's project work catalogued and assessed the experience evident at 77 sites (subsequently expanded to 105 sites for this report). A master's project report was produced in June 1995. It contains a lengthy assessment of the experience at those sites. Copies of the report are available from SNRE at a cost of $25 (includes shipping). For more information about the master's project report or SNRE, or if you have comments or questions about the research, please contact Dr. Steven L. Yaffee, SNRE, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115. Internet address: [email protected] The idea of developing a catalog and assessment of the current experience with ecosystem management originated through conversations with staff of The Wilderness Society (TWS). TWS subsequently funded a portion of the costs of both the master's project and the second phase of research expanding two electronic databases and the analyses. TWS staff also provided considerable guidance to the research team throughout the year-long project. Besides this inventory and assessment, the databases are avail- able through TWS: one contains a list of the 619 sites, including project name, location and contact information; the other contains an extensive matrix of information about the 105 catalogued sites. Both can be searched through interactive software. For more information about these databases, please contact Spencer Phillips at TWS, Resource Policy and Economics Department, 900 17th Street, Washington, D.C. 20006. * * * The research team wants to thank a variety of contributors to this effort. We greatly appreciate the advice and support of: Greg Aplet, Spencer Phillips and John Shepard from TWS; Arvid Thomsen and David Sumpter of HDR Engineering, Inc.; David Allan, Burton Barnes, Bob Grese, Rachel Kaplan, Wayne Say, and Julia Wondolleck from SNRE; and Mark Shaffer of The Nature Conservancy. In addition, a prior master's project report written by Sara Barth, Lynn Gooch, Jim Havard, David Mindell, Rachel Stevens, and Mark Zankel established a theoretical framework for ecosystem management that facilitated this work. Finally, we want to acknowledge the valuable assistance of the site contacts, whose experiences and observations form the heart of this assessment. Their enthusiasm for the on-the-ground efforts was unmistakable and contributed greatly to our sense of optimism about the future of ecosystem-based approaches to land management. ____________ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ASSESSMENT 3 Introduction 7 What characterizes the ecosystem management project areas? 13 What are the characteristics of the projects? 21 Why were the projects started? 23 What have the projects produced? 27 What has helped the projects to move forward? 31 What obstacles have the projects faced? 35 What do these experiences suggest for future ecosystem management efforts? 39 Conclusions SUMMARY INFORMATION ON 105 SELECTED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECTS 48 Map & index of projects 50 State-by-state listing of projects 52 Agencies, organizations, and individuals initiating projects 55 Age of projects 56 Land ownership patterns of project areas 57 Size of project areas 59 Significant anthropogenic stresses reported on project areas 62 Most significant outcomes of projects DESCRIPTIONS OF 105 SELECTED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECTS 67 Project descriptions COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF 619 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROJECTS 279 State-by-state listing of all projects 291 Project contact information APPENDICES 323 Resources guide 327 Abbrevations and glossary of commonly-used terms ____________ iii Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience ã 1995 School of Natural Resources & Environment The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115 and The Wilderness Society Washington, D.C. 20006 This publication may be cited as follows: Yaffee, Steven L., I.C. Frentz, P.W. Hardy, S.M. Maleki, A.F. Phillips, B.E. Thorpe, 1995. Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, and The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C. ____________ iv ASSESSMENT ____________ 1 Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience ____________ 2 INTRODUCTION In the past two decades, increasing dissatisfaction with traditional resource management approaches coupled with the development of new scientific information about ecosystems has led to a search for new management strategies. Many people have argued that traditional approaches ignore important interconnections between geographic areas, such as when sedimentation or the introduction of invasive species on one land unit result in problems on an adjacent area. Land management approaches have often been overly focused on short-term goals such as commodity production at the expense of long-term ecological health, and have resulted in landscapes that are neither economically productive nor ecologically sound. Management activities have often been inefficient, as agencies and other groups operated in ignorance of each other's efforts. Sometimes this situation has resulted in efforts that are duplicative or conflicting; at other times, the benefits that can come from management partnerships have been lost. Traditional approaches have often neglected the diversity of human interests in the management of natural resources and have resulted in conflict-laden impasses, such as when interest groups and agencies battled to a standstill in the spotted owl dispute in the Pacific Northwest. Issues such as management of salmon stocks in the Northwest, the Everglades in the Southeast, and the Yellowstone region in the Rocky Mountains seem to cry out for a different approach. Ecosystem management has been proposed as a new approach to resource management, and a body of literature has developed describing various ideas about the appropriate goals and methods of such an approach.1 Most authors emphasize a land management approach that incorporates an understanding of ecological systems, considers extended time and spatial scales, and highlights the interconnections between landscapes, ecological processes, and humans and other organisms. Summarizing much of this literature, Edward Grumbine set forth a definition of ecosystem management: Ecosystem management integrates scientific knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and value framework toward the general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long-term.2 Many government agencies have picked up on the evolving concept of ecosystem management and have developed definitions to guide their land management activities. For example, U.S. Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas describes ecosystem management as: a holistic approach to natural resource management, moving beyond a compart- mentalized approach focusing on the individual parts of the forest. It is an approach that steps back from the forest stand and focuses on the forest landscape and its position in the larger environment in order to integrate the human, bio 1For citations to several key pieces of this literature, see the "Resources" section included with this document. 2R. Edward Grumbine, 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8(1):27-38. ____________ 3 Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience logical and physical dimensions of natural resource management. Its purpose is to achieve sustainability of all resources.3 While there is an ongoing debate about the goals and practices of ecosystem man- agement, practitioners are actively testing new land management approaches.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • KDWPT Kiosk Part 1
    Wetlands and Wildlife National Scenic Byway There are over 800 bird Welcome to the Wetlands and Wildlife National The Wetlands and Wildlife National Scenic egrets, great blue herons, whooping cranes, and species in the United States Byway is one of a select group designated bald eagles. Cheyenne Bottoms and Quivira are Scenic Byway, showcasing the life of two of with over 450 found in by the Secretary of the U.S. Department home to nearly half of America’s bird species, of Transportation as “America’s Byways,” 19 reptile species, nine amphibian species, and the world’s most important natural habitats. Kansas and over 350 in offering special experiences of national and a variety of mammals. At the superb Kansas Cheyenne Bottoms and international significance. The byway connects Wetlands Education Center, along the byway two distinctly diverse types of wetlands that and adjacent to Cheyenne Bottoms, state-of-the- Quivira. Besides birds, attract a worldwide audience of birdwatchers, art exhibits and expert naturalists will introduce there are 23 species of lovers of wildlife, photographers, naturalists, the subtle wonders of the area. mammals, 19 species of and visitors in search of the quiet beauty of nature undisturbed. On the southern end of the byway, the 22,000- reptiles, and nine species of acre Quivira National Wildlife Refuge offers Cheyenne Bottoms is America’s largest inland a contrasting wetlands experience – a rare amphibians. freshwater marsh and hosts a staggering inland saltwater marsh. The refuge’s marshes, variety of wildlife. It is considered one of the sand dunes, prairies, and timber support most important stopping points for shorebird such endangered species as the least tern and migration in the Western Hemisphere, snowy plover and provide habitats for quail, hosting tens of thousands of North America’s meadowlarks, raptors, and upland mammals.
    [Show full text]
  • Framework for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin
    United States Department of Agriculture A Framework for Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Ecosystem Management In United States Department of the Interior the Interior Columbia Basin Bureau of Land Management And Portions of the General Technical Report Klamath and Great Basins PNW-GTR-374 June 1996 United States United States Department of Department Agriculture of the Interior Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project This is not a NEPA decision document A Framework for Ecosystem Management In the Interior Columbia Basin And Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins Richard W. Haynes, Russell T. Graham and Thomas M. Quigley Technical Editors Richard W. Haynes is a research forester at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR 97208; Russell T. Graham is a research forester at the Intermountain Research Station, Moscow, ID 83843; Thomas M. Quigley is a range scientist at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Walla Walla, WA 99362. 1996 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon ABSTRACT Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T.; Quigley, Thomas M., tech. eds. 1996. A frame- work for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin including portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-374. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p. A framework for ecosystem management is proposed. This framework assumes the purpose of ecosystem management is to maintain the integrity of ecosystems over time and space. It is based on four ecosystem principles: ecosystems are dynamic, can be viewed as hierarchies with temporal and spatial dimensions, have limits, and are relatively unpredictable.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Case Management Information Systems Manual
    National Center for State Courts COURT CASE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANUAL: with Model Data Elements, Reporting Forms, and Management Reports, by Mary Louise -Clifford and Lynn A. Jensen prepared by the State Judicial Information Systems Project and the National Court Statistics Project in cooperation with the Conference of State Court Administrators The material contained in this report was prepared by the National Center for State Courts' State Judicial Information Systems Project staff, with support from the staff of the National Court Statistics Project. These two projects were supported by Federal Grant No. 82-CJ-CX-KOOl, awarded to the National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia, by the Systems Development Division, and Federal Grant No. 82-BJ-CX-K014, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, part of the U.S. Department of Justice, under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended. The State Judicial Information Systems Project has been directed by Lynn A. Jensen for the National Center for State Courts and monitored by Donald A. Manson for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The National Court Statistics Project has been directed by Victor E. Flango for the National Center and monitored by Carla Gaskins for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Clifford, Mary Louise. Court case management information systems manual. Bibliography: p. 1. Court adrninistration--United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Jan Garton and the Campaign to Save Cheyenne Bottoms
    POOL 2 –CHEYENNE BOTTOMS, 1984 “Now don’t you ladies worry your pretty little heads. There’s $2,000 in our Article by Seliesa Pembleton budget to take care of the Bottoms this summer.” With those words we were Photos by Ed Pembleton ushered from the office of an indifferent agent of the Kansas Fish and Game Commission (now Kansas Department of Wildlife Parks, and Tourism). Little did he know those were fighting words! snewofficersoftheNorthernFlint Jan Garton came forward to volunteer endangered, too. Water rights for the Hills Audubon Chapter in as conservation committee chair, and with Bottoms were being ignored; stretches of AManhattan, Jan Garton and I had some urging, also agreed to be chapter the Arkansas River were dry; and flows travelled to Pratt seeking a copy of a secretary. We set about finding other from Walnut Creek, the immediate water Cheyenne Bottoms restoration plan community leaders to fill the slate of source, were diminished. prepared years before by a former officers and pull the organization out of Bottoms manager. We were dismissively its lethargy. We recognized the need for a Like a Watershed: Gathering told, “It’s around here somewhere.” compelling cause to rally around and Jan Information & Seeking Advice Managing to keep her cool, Jan informed immediately identified Cheyenne Bottoms Our first actions were to seek advice the agent he needed to find it because we as the issue that inspired her to volunteer. from long-time Audubon members and would be back! On the drive home from By the end of the first year, chapter others who shared concern about the that first infuriating meeting we had time membership had almost doubled in part Bottoms.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Model for Species
    Habitat Model for Species: Yellow Mud Turtle Distribution Map Kinosternon flavescens flavescens Habitat Map Landcover Category 0 - Comments Habitat Restrictions Comments Collins, 1993 Although presence of aquatic vegetation is preferred (within aquatic habitats), it is not necessary. May forage on land and is frequently found crawling from one body of water to another, Webb, 1970 Study in OK. Described as a grassland species. Royal, 1982 Study in KS. Two individuals found on unpaved road between the floodplain and dune sands in Finney Co. Kangas, 1986 Study in Missouri. Abundance of three populations could be accounted for by amount of very course sand in their Webster, 1986 Study Kansas. Species prefers a tan-colored loess "mud" to a dark-brown sandy loam bottom. Addition of aquatic plants to sandy loam caused a shift to vegetated [#KS GAP] All habitat selections were bases on listed criteria (in comment section) and the presence of the selected habitat in the species known range in Kansas. [#Reviewer] Platt: Most observations on upland are within 20-30 feet of an aquatic habitat. But it is sometimes found much farther from water, probably migrating grom one pond to [#Reviewer2] Distler: On the Field Station, observed once in 17 years along abandoned road though cottonwood floodplain woodland, which is adjacent to CRP. 15 - Buttonbush (Swamp) Shrubland Collins, 1993 26 - Grass Playa Lake Kangas, 1986 Study in Missouri. Selected based on "marsh" in Habitat section and species range. 27 - Salt Marsh/Prairie Kangas, 1986 Study in Missouri. Selected based on "marsh" in Habitat section and species range. 28 - Spikerush Playa Lake Kangas, 1986 Study in Missouri.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Stable States and Regime Shifts - Environmental Science - Oxford Bibliographies 3/30/18, 10:15 AM
    Multiple Stable States and Regime Shifts - Environmental Science - Oxford Bibliographies 3/30/18, 10:15 AM Multiple Stable States and Regime Shifts James Heffernan, Xiaoli Dong, Anna Braswell LAST MODIFIED: 28 MARCH 2018 DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199363445-0095 Introduction Why do ecological systems (populations, communities, and ecosystems) change suddenly in response to seemingly gradual environmental change, or fail to recover from large disturbances? Why do ecological systems in seemingly similar settings exhibit markedly different ecological structure and patterns of change over time? The theory of multiple stable states in ecological systems provides one potential explanation for such observations. In ecological systems with multiple stable states (or equilibria), two or more configurations of an ecosystem are self-maintaining under a given set of conditions because of feedbacks among biota or between biota and the physical and chemical environment. The resulting multiple different states may occur as different types or compositions of vegetation or animal communities; as different densities, biomass, and spatial arrangement; and as distinct abiotic environments created by the distinct ecological communities. Alternative states are maintained by the combined effects of positive (or amplifying) feedbacks and negative (or stabilizing feedbacks). While stabilizing feedbacks reinforce each state, positive feedbacks are what allow two or more states to be stable. Thresholds between states arise from the interaction of these positive and negative feedbacks, and define the basins of attraction of the alternative states. These feedbacks and thresholds may operate over whole ecosystems or give rise to self-organized spatial structure. The combined effect of these feedbacks is also what gives rise to ecological resilience, which is the capacity of ecological systems to absorb environmental perturbations while maintaining their basic structure and function.
    [Show full text]
  • Ramsar COP8 DOC. 29 Regional Overview of the Implementation Of
    “Wetlands: water, life, and culture” 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) Valencia, Spain, 18-26 November 2002 Ramsar COP8 DOC. 29 Information Paper English and Spanish only Regional overview of the implementation of the Convention and its Strategic Plan 1997-2002: North America The National Reports upon which this overview is based can be consulted on the Ramsar Web site, on http://ramsar.org/cop8_nr_natl_rpt_index.htm Contracting Parties in North America: Canada, Mexico, and United States of America (3). Contracting Parties whose National Reports are included in this analysis: Canada, Mexico, United States of America (3). 1. Main achievements since COP7 and priorities for 2003-2005 1.1 Main achievements since COP7 1. There are 3 countries in the North America region; all are already Contracting Parties. 2. To 31 August 2002 the region has 61 Ramsar sites, covering an area of almost 15.4 million hectares. This represents approximately 15% of the world’s Wetlands of International Importance. 3. In COP7 Resolution VII.12, Canada committed itself to designating three new sites and carrying out two site expansions. Since COP7 only two new Ramsar sites were designated in North America: Dzilam (reserva estatal) in Mexico, and Quivira National Wildlife Refuge in the United States of America (USA), covering 61,707 and 8,958 ha. respectively. Additionally, two sites were expanded in the same period: Cheyenne Bottoms State Game Area in the USA – extension of 2,942 ha; total site area of 10,978 ha – and Mer Bleue Conservation Area in Canada – extension of 243 ha; total site area of 3,343 ha.
    [Show full text]
  • FOREST ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 2019‐20 Student Handbook Ecosystem Science and Management College of Agricultural Sciences the Pennsylvania State University
    FOREST ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 2019‐20 Student Handbook Ecosystem Science and Management College of Agricultural Sciences The Pennsylvania State University ecosystems.psu.edu September 2019 Table of Contents Ecosystem Science and Management Department ............................................................................................... 3 Statement on Diversity and Inclusion .................................................................................................................3 Undergraduate Programs Office ............................................................................................................................ 3 Forest Ecosystem Management Undergraduate Program .................................................................................... 4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... ..4 Mission ...............................................................................................................................................................5 Required Field Equipment......................................................................................................................................5 Excel and Technology Resources ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 Forest Ecosystem Management Curriculum Requirements .................................................................................. 6 Community and Urban Forest Management (CURFM) Option ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Marooned on Molokai Or… Coconuts Can Kill You!
    2 3 Marooned on Molokai or… Coconuts can Kill You! By Kalikiano Kalei AEOLIAN FLIGHTS PUBLICATIONS Sacramento, California 4 This work is dedicated to Carlo, wherever he may now be, and his ‘Leakin’ Lena’ sloop, the Vanda. “Life is the farce which everyone has to perform.” -Arthur Rimbaud 5 Copyright © 2017 by Kalikiano Kalei All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, without prior written permission. Kalikiano Kalei/Aeolian Flights Press 5960 S Land Park Drive, Nr. 256 Sacramento, CA/95822-3313 USA www.webs.lanset.com/aeolusaero Publisher’s Note: This is a work of allegorical hyperbole. Names, characters, places, and fantasies are a product of the author’s imagination. Locales and public names are sometimes used for atmospheric purposes. Any resemblance to actual people, living or dead, or to businesses, companies, events, institutions, or locales is very possibly intentional, but who can be entirely sure? Book Layout © 2017 BookDesignTemplates.com Marooned on Molokai. -- 1st ed. ISBN xxxxxxxxxxxxx 6 MAROONED ON MOLOKAI or… Coconuts can kill you… Being the log (or diary) of a 30 day stay on the small Hawaiian Island of Molokai in 2005. Most names have been changed to protect the principal characters, but events and experiences are recorded more or less faithfully in hopes that this manuscript will serve both as an interesting guide and culture-shock manual to this most unique of all the islands (excluding Ni’ihau, of course, the so-called ‘forbidden island’). I would like testify that all of the attached narrative was written entirely bereft of the ancient island ETOH spirit of preference (Okolehao, a word that literally translates to ‘Iron Butt’) that is distilled from the Ti Plant, but I can’t, in all good faith.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildland Fire Management Handbook for Trainers
    Wildland Fire Management Handbook for Trainers Forest Management Team Timo V. Heikkilä Forestry Department Food and Agricultural Organization Roy Grönqvist of the United Nations Mike Jurvélius Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153, Rome, Italy Tel: +39 06 57054392 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.fao.org/forestry/firemanagement Wildland Fire Management Handbook for Trainers Rome 2010 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Forest Management Team Forestry Department Wildland Fire Management Handbook for Trainers TIMO V. HEIKKILÄ, ROY GRÖNQVIST, MIKE JURVÉLIUS Rome 2010 Cover picture Mike Jurvélius Photographs Mike Jurvélius Roy Grönqvist Timo V. Heikkilä TABLE OF CONTENTS Page: 4.3 Contents of a Wildfire Prevention Plan 64 FOREWORD ......................................................... 6 4.4 Wildfire Causes and Risk ...................... 65 THE SAN DIEGO DECLARATION ........................ 8 4.4.1 Land owners, farmers, and the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................... 14 rural population ............................ 65 4.4.2 Cigarette smoking ........................ 67 1. BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION 4.4.3 Campfires ...................................... 68 FOR INTENSIFIED FOREST FIRE 4.4.4 Logging and other forestry CONTROL ACTIVITIES .............................. 16 operations ..................................... 69 1.1 General .................................................... 16 4.4.5 Arsonists .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries and Wildlife Research 1982
    Fisheries and Wildlife Research 1982 Activities in the Divisions of Research for the Fiscal Year 1982 Edited by Paul H. Eschmeyer, Fisheries Thomas G. Scott, Wildlife Published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office Denver, Colorado • 1983 •• , :e. ' • Noel Snyder, field biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Condor Research Center, carries a travel case containing a California condor chick from the chick's nesting site northeast of Los Angeles. The bird was captured in August, after biologists determined that the parents were not feeding the chick regularly. The chick was taken to the San Diego Wild Animal Park to begin a captive breeding program for this critically endangered species. Dr. Phil Ensley, veterinarian for the Zoological Society of San Diego, accompanied Dr. Snyder on the capture operation. Photo by H. K. Snyder. 11 Contents Foreword ...................................................... iv Tunison Laboratory of Fish Nutrition ........ 86 Fisheries and Wildlife Research .............. 1 National Reservoir Research Program . 88 Animal Damage Control ............................ 2 East Central Reservoir Investigations . 89 Denver Wildlife Research Center ............ 2 Multi-Outlet Reservoir Studies .................. 91 Southeast Reservoir Investigations .......... 93 Environmental Contaminant Evaluation 25 White River Reservoir Studies .................... 95 Columbia National Fisheries Research Seattle National Fishery Research Laboratory ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cameras in the Courtroom: Guidelines for State Criminal Trials
    Michigan Law Review Volume 84 Issue 3 1985 Cameras in the Courtroom: Guidelines for State Criminal Trials Nancy T. Gardner University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Communications Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Nancy T. Gardner, Cameras in the Courtroom: Guidelines for State Criminal Trials, 84 MICH. L. REV. 475 (1985). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol84/iss3/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cameras in the Courtroom: Guidelines for State Criminal Trials In 1965, only two states permitted photographic and electronic media coverage1 of courtroom proceedings.2 Today, forty-three states permit television coverage of their appellate and/or trial proceedings on an experimental or permanent basis. 3 This development has not come about in a systematic or uniform fashion. Lacking guidance from the federal courts, the states have independently conducted ex­ periments and adopted their own guidelines in an attempt to accom­ modate the conflicting constitutional4 and policy interests5 involved. The development of state guidelines6 has stemmed largely from the belief that media self-discipline is insufficient to ensure fair treatment 1. The phrase "photographic and electronic media coverage," referred to herein as "televis­ ing" or "broadcasting," includes both the acquisition of information (through devices such as still news photography, audio taping, motion picture filming and videotaping), and the public dissemination and broadcast of that information.
    [Show full text]