DOCSLIB.ORG

Setting the Stage for Statewide Advance Mitigation in California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Setting the Stage for Statewide Advance Mitigation in California Research Report – UCD-ITS-RR-15-02 Task 2 Report: Setting the Stage for Statewide Advance Mitigation in California January 2015 Gian-Claudia Sciara Jacquelyn Bjorkman Jaimee Lederman James H. Thorne Melanie Schlotterbeck Martin Wachs This research by the University of California-Davis was funded by the California Department of Transportation, under Agreement No. 74A0719 A01. The contents of this document reflect the views of the authors, who are solely responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal Highway Administration. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Institute of Transportation Studies ◦ University of California, Davis 1605 Tilia Street ◦ Davis, California 95616 PHONE (530) 752-6548 ◦ FAX (530) 752-6572 www.its.ucdavis.edu Statewide Advance Mitigation Funding and Financial Strategies Study for the California Department of Transportation Task 2 Report: Setting the Stage for Statewide Advance Mitigation in California Final Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-15-02 January 6, 2015 Dr. Gian-Claudia Sciara, AICP Jacquelyn Bjorkman Jaimee Lederman, Esq. Dr. Jim Thorne Melanie Schlotterbeck Dr. Martin Wachs, FAICP Principal Investigator: Dr. Gian-Claudia Sciara, AICP Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Davis One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 3. Overview and Literature ................................................................................................................................... 19 4. California Experiences with Advance Mitigation ........................................................................................... 24 County Funded Multi-Project Advance Mitigation Efforts ...................................................................................... 29 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) .................................................... 29 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (WRCMSHCP) .................................. 32 Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) ......................... 35 San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG) Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) .................... 37 Caltrans Led/Funded Advance Mitigation Efforts ................................................................................................... 41 Beach Lake Mitigation Bank ............................................................................................................................... 41 Elkhorn Slough Early Mitigation Partnership ...................................................................................................... 44 California State Route 149, Butte County ........................................................................................................... 46 Cottonwood Conservation Area ........................................................................................................................... 48 Honey Lake Wetlands Mitigation Bank .............................................................................................................. 50 Advance Mitigation Planning Efforts – Unattached to Projects or Funds .............................................................. 53 Santa Cruz Conservation Blueprint ..................................................................................................................... 53 5. National Experiences with Advance Mitigation .............................................................................................. 55 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ................................................................................................. 56 Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan Habitat Conservation Plan (BCCP HCP) ........................................... 59 Florida DOT Wetland Mitigation Program ............................................................................................................. 62 Florida DOT Advance Environmental Mitigation (General) .................................................................................. 66 Washington Advanced Environmental Mitigation Revolving Account (AEMRA) .................................................... 68 6. National and State Developments Shaping the Context for Advance Mitigation in California .................. 71 National ................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) & its Reauthorization ............................................. 71 FHWA Eco-Logical & the Strategic Highway Research Program ...................................................................... 72 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) .................................................................... 73 Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) ................................................................................ 75 Blumenauer Gas Tax Proposal ............................................................................................................................ 75 State ......................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) ........................................................... 76 Greenprinting Efforts ........................................................................................................................................... 77 High Speed Rail in California .............................................................................................................................. 77 California Department of Water Resources ......................................................................................................... 78 Cap-and-Trade ..................................................................................................................................................... 79 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 81 2 1. Executive Summary Advance Mitigation and the Role of Transportation Funding in its Realization Advance mitigation can be defined as a process in which the impacts from one or many transportation projects are estimated and addressed before or during the planning phase. Further, advance mitigation involves assessment of the mitigation that will likely be required and, potentially, mitigation activities to satisfy those requirements. Advance mitigation is characterized by several key attributes: 1. Strategic Planning and assessment of what impacts multiple future transportation projects may have in a region and of mapped regional priorities for conservation/restoration, here called a Greenprint. 2. No Temporal Loss to ensure that the required compensatory mitigation is in place before actual impacts to the environment occur, preventing any temporary loss of biological or ecological resources. 3. Advance Funding to support mitigation activities early or prior to construction of transportation projects, and hence even prior to projects being programmed. This study, the Statewide Advance Mitigation Funding and Finance Study (SAMFFS), acknowledges that advance mitigation requires that mitigation must be considered, purchased, and implemented early in the project planning process, well prior to construction. Within Caltrans’ own project delivery process, advance mitigation would be undertaken before the Project Initiation Document (PID) milestone, rather than after it; as is conventional in current practice. The current approach to funding projects and mitigation together presents a significant roadblock to mitigating environmental impacts early and comprehensively. In California and most other U.S. states, funding for transportation improvements and mitigation of their impacts is tied directly to individual projects themselves. Under normal circumstances, the budget of a single transportation project is what pays for the acquisition, design, restoration, construction, enhancement, and even long-term management of its mitigation sites. Funds budgeted or anticipated for a specific project are available for actual expenditure only once the project is “programmed,” when the time available before construction would begin is relatively short and frequently inadequate for addressing mitigation needs, often leading to cost escalation and delay. Further, tying mitigation funds to single-project budgets makes it difficult to entertain mitigation activities scaled to satisfy the needs of multiple projects at once, limiting opportunities to achieve economies of scale and employ conservation strategies. To overcome this roadblock, funds for mitigation are needed prior to projects being programmed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • White Pelicans Nesting at Honey Lake, California
    NOTES WHITE PELICANS NESTING AT HONEY LAKE, CALIFORNIA IAN C. TAIT, 260 Cardinal Road, Mill Valley, California 94941 FRITZ L. KNOPF, School of Biological Sciences,Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 JOSEPH L. KENNEDY, W. F. Sigler and Associates,Inc., 900 West First Street, Reno, Nevada 89503 The breedingstatus of the White Pelican(Pelecanus erytbrorbyncbos) has been reviewedin papersby Thompson(1933), Liesand Behle(1966) and Sloan(1973). These papersshow that, although the number of breedingbirds may fluctuate considerablyin any one colony from year to year, coloniestend to remainin an- cestrallocations. For example,it appearsthat the only new colony established west of the Rockiesbetween 1965 and 1972 was at Crump Lake, Oregon. We were thus surprisedto find a White Pelican nesting colony on Hartson Reservoir, adjacent to Honey Lake, LassenCounty, California, in June 1976. Although pelicans reportedly laid eggsat Honey Lake in the early 1950s (A.M. Lapp pers. comm.), this appearsto be the first record of a productivecolony at this location. HoneyLake is a salinesink with a waterarea of approximately120 km2 in normal rainfall years and receivesthe flows of severalstreams draining the eastern escarpmentof the DiamondMountains at the northernend of the SierraNevada. It is locatedabout 80 km NNW of PyramidLake, Nevada,and 200 km SSE of the Klamath-ClearLake complex on the California-Oregonborder, the locationsof the closest White Pelican colonies. The colonydiscovered on 5 June1976 waslocated on a sparselyvegetated pen- insulaabout 50 m wide by 300 m long, runningparallel to the easternshoreline of HartsonReservoir. The pelicanbreeding area was shared with Double-crestedCor- morants(Pbalacrocorax auritus), Snowy Egrets (Egretta tbula), Black-crowned Night Herons (Nycticorax nycticorax), Ring-billedGulls (Larusdelawarensis) and CaspianTerns (Sterna caspia).
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Appropriateness of Wetland Mitigation Banking As a Mechanism for Securing Aquatic Biodiversity in the Grassland Biome of South Africa
    WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING ASSESSING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING AS A MECHANISM FOR SECURING AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY IN THE GRASSLAND BIOME OF SOUTH AFRICA Report reference # For more information: Date: July 2007 Anthea Stephens Prepared By: Institute of Natural Resources (INR) in Grasslands Programme Manager collaboration with Centre for Environment, Agriculture and [email protected], 012 843 5000 Development (CEAD) ASSESSING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF WETLAND MITIGATION BANKING AS A MECHANISM FOR SECURING AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY IN THE GRASSLAND BIOME OF SOUTH AFRICA Prepared for National Grasslands Water Research Biodiversity Programme Commission JULY 2007 Prepared by INSTITUTE OF NATURAL RESOURCES D. Cox In collaboration with CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT, AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT Dr D. Kotze Prepared for National Grasslands Water Research Biodiversity Programme Commission EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA) established that 30% of grasslands in South Africa are irreversibly transformed and only 2.8% are formally conserved. A Grassland Biodiversity Profile and Spatial Biodiversity Priority Assessment were undertaken for the biome which built on the outcomes of the NSBA. The assessment identified and integrated priority areas for terrestrial and river biodiversity, as well as ecosystem services for future conservation action in the grassland biome - the result being the identification of 15 priority clusters for conservation which represent 50% of the biome. The National Grasslands
    [Show full text]
  • National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Northeast California Deer and Pronghorn Habitat
    National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy Northeast California Deer and Pronghorn Habitat Deer and pronghorn use areas are shown for the strategies for other key wildlife of concern in the planning Northeastern California and Northwestern Nevada portion area. Note that breaks in the data are seen at the of the Nevada and Northeast California Sub-Region. California-Nevada state line due to differences in data Greater sage-grouse management and conservation collection between the states. strategies can be developed in concert with management Tulelake Tule Lake Goose Lake Macdoel Clear Lake Reservoir Fort Bidwell Davis Creek Upper Lake Lake City Cedarville Alturas Canby Middle Alkali Lake Eagleville Lookout Likely Lower Lake Adin Nubieber Mcarthur Madeline Fall River Mills Cassel Burney Termo Ravendale Eagle Lake Susanville Standish Wendel Chester Westwood Janesville Honey Lake Lake Almanor Canyondam Milford Greenville Herlong Crescent Mills Taylorsville Belden Twain Doyle Meadow Valley Quincy Portola Vinton Blairsden-Graeagle Chilcoot Clio Calpine Loyalton Sierraville Downieville Sierra City Goodyears Bar Alleghany Floriston 0 10 Soda Springs Norden Truckee Miles January 2012 No warranty is made by the BLM for the use of the data for purposes not intended by the BLM. Deer (critical summer range, critical winter range, fall holding area, and fawning ground) Pronghorn (kidding grounds, migration corridors, stress migration corridors, and winter range) 75% breeding bird density 100% breeding bird density BLM Field Office boundary Source: BLM 2011, NDOW data acquired from BLM.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Emmp)
    ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN (EMMP) Project/activity, Organizational/administrative, and Environmental Compliance Data Project/Activity Data Project/Activity Name: Feed the Future Senegal Nafoore Warsaaji Geographic Location(s) (Country/Region): Senegal/West Africa Implementation Start/End Dates: March 11, 2020- March 11, 2023 Contract/Award Number: SBAR-CPFF-72068520C00001 Implementing Partner(s): Connexus Corporation Tracking ID: Tracking ID/link of Related IEE: Tracking ID/link of Other, Related Analyses: Organizational/Administrative Data Implementing Operating Unit(s): (e.g. Mission or Bureau or Office) Lead BEO Bureau: Prepared by: Date Prepared: Submitted by: Date Submitted: Environmental Compliance Review Data Analysis Type: EMMP Additional Analyses/Reporting Required: EMMR Purpose Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plans (EMMPs) are required for USAID-funded projects, as specified in ADS 204, when the 22 CFR 216 documentation governing the project (e.g. the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) specifies mitigation measures are needed. EMMPs are in important tool for translating applicable IEE conditions and mitigation measures into specific, implementable, and verifiable actions. FEED THE FUTURE SENEGAL NAFOORE WARSAAJI EMMP i An EMMP is an action plan that clearly defines: 1. Mitigation measures. Actions that reduce or eliminate potential negative environmental impacts resulting directly or indirectly from a particular project or activity, including environmental limiting factors that constrain development. 2. EMMP monitoring indicators.1 Criteria that demonstrate whether mitigation measures are suitable and implemented effectively. 3. Monitoring/reporting frequency. Timeframes for appropriately monitoring the effectiveness of each specific action. 4. Responsible parties. Appropriate, knowledgeable positions assigned to each specific action. 5. Field Monitoring/Issues. Field monitoring needs to be adequately addressed i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedure for Environmental Mitigation Strategy
    Roe Highway Stage 7 Doc No. REP-00-G-0005 Rev B PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION STRATEGY B 24/05/2004 Issued for bulletin Ian Chevis A 10/05/04 Issued for Review C. Watkins REV DATE DESCRIPTION PREPARED CHECKED APPROVED p:\7679 roe 7\alliance\23 environment\23.21 per\responses to per submissions\post per information\roe 7 environmental mitigation strategy\rep-00-g-0005-b (mitigation strategy).doc Sheet 1 of 28 Environmental Mitigation Strategy - Draft Doc No. REP-00-G-0005 Rev A Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 3 2 DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION and OFFSETS 3 3 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE ROE HIGHWAY STAGE 7 PROJECT 4 4 AVOIDANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5 5 REDUCTION IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OR RISKS 7 6 ENVIRONMENTAL OFFSETS 8 6.1 Offset Principles 8 6.2 Policy Context – Western Australia 10 6.3 Overview of the Roe Highway Stage 7offset strategy 12 6.4 Protection of remnant vegetation through land use controls 14 6.4.1 Land Transfers, Vesting and Zoning 15 6.4.2 On-reserve conservation 16 6.4.3 Off-reserve conservation through Conservation Covenants 16 6.5 Other methods of securing high value habitat - the Bush Forever Initiative 17 6.6 Reducing risk of species extinction through targeted research 18 6.7 Restoration of degraded habitat 18 6.8 Maintaining connectivity Error! Bookmark not defined. 7 CONCLUSION 19 8 REFERENCES 20 REP-00-G-0005-B (Mitigation Strategy).doc Sheet 2 of 22 Environmental Mitigation Strategy - Draft Doc No. REP-00-G-0005 Rev A 1 INTRODUCTION The decade following the ratification and enactment of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in 1993 has seen important changes in environmental policy and practice.
    [Show full text]
  • PERU LNG’S Marine Terminal
    Sustainable waste management at PERU LNG’s marine terminal 2016 Maritime Award of the Americas University of Miami, February 2017 About us PERU LNG is a Peruvian company established in 2003, dedicated to the liquefaction of natural gas. It consists of a 408 km pipeline from the highlands of Peru to the LNG Plant located 165km south of Lima. The LNG Plant consists of a process train, two storage tanks, and a marine terminal. The jetty includes a 1.3 km. trestle bridge, a LNG loading platform and a 800 m. long x 25 m. wide breakwater. Shareholders: Hunt Oil, SK, Shell and Marubeni. Magnitude of the Endeavour Open sea without natural structures or protection. Strong waves up to 4.5m height versus 0.8m required for safe vessel operations. Regular dredging of navigational channel (i.e. recurrent impact versus recovery & resilience) Coexistence of maritime activities (> 60 LNG ships / year) with marine biodiversity Environmental Management at PERU LNG’s Marine Terminal Based on “environmental mitigation hierarchy” and industry best practices. Includes 4 key elements: 1. Integrated Management System. 2. Solid & Liquid waste management. 3. Pollution prevention on vessels and jetty maintenance activities. 4. Monitoring & Assurance. 1. Integrated Management System HEALTH & SAFETY: Risk Assessment Risk Control ENVIRONMENT & SOCIAL: Impact Assessment Mitigation Hierarchy QUALITY MANAGEMENT: Quality Assurance Monitoring & Control OHSAS ISO 14001 18001 Occupational Environmental PLAN DO Health & Safety Management Improve ACT CHECK ✔ ISO 9001 OSHA
    [Show full text]
  • Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan for the FM100 Pipeline Project
    Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan for the FM100 Pipeline Project Wildcat Hollow PRM Site Hamlin Township, McKean County, Pennsylvania National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation Prepared By: First Pennsylvania Resource, LLC. a wholly-owned subsidiary of Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC. 33 Terminal Way, Suite 445A Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Revised December 2020 Wildcat Hollow Permittee-Responsible Mitigation Plan National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Objectives............................................................................................................................ 2 3.0 Site Selection ....................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Mitigation Banking ..................................................................................................... 2 3.2 In-Lieu Fee .................................................................................................................. 2 3.3 On-Site Mitigation ...................................................................................................... 3 3.4 Local Watershed Restoration ...................................................................................... 3 3.5 Selected Mitigation Site .............................................................................................. 3 3.6 Congruence with Watershed Needs
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Results Memorandum Final.Pdf
    To: Denise Wilson, Director, Environmental Review Program – Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) From: Barr Engineering Co. Project Team Subject: Public Engagement Survey Results Date: May 3, 2021 Page: 1 Technical Memorandum To: Denise Wilson, Director, Environmental Review Program – Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) From: Barr Engineering Co. Project Team Subject: Public Engagement Survey Results Date: May 3, 2021 Project: Environmental Review Implementation Subcommittee (ERIS) Engagement (Project) 1.0 Introduction As directed by EQB’s 2020-2021 Workplan, and in response to Executive Order 19-37 on climate change, ERIS (a subcommittee of the Environmental Quality Board [EQB]) convened an Interagency Environmental Review Climate Technical Team to advise them on changes to the State Environmental Review Program requirements. Accordingly, the Environmental Review Climate Technical Team developed the DRAFT Recommendations: Integrating Climate Information into MEPA Program Requirements, dated December 2020, (DRAFT Recommendations). The DRAFT Recommendations specified an engagement framework to solicit input from various stakeholders, including the public. EQB contracted with Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) to assist with implementing the engagement process. The engagement consisted of: • Public comment period • Listening sessions • Public survey • Interviews This memorandum summarizes the feedback received through the public survey. A total of 496 survey responses were submitted. Section 2.0 of this memorandum describes the method used to create the survey and targeted outreach. Section 3.0 of this memorandum provides summaries of responses received to each question. 2.0 Survey Implementation Process and Targeted Engagement Barr used the SurveyMonkey platform for conducting the public engagement survey regarding the DRAFT recommendations. Barr and EQB’s technical team collaborated to develop the questions provided in the survey.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Management and Sustainable Development
    Environmental IFAD’s Management Environmental and and Social Assessment Procedures Sustainable Development IFAD Environmental and Social Assessment Procedures TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS............................................................................................................................................ v INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 IFAD’s Commitment to Environmental Management .............................................................................. 1 Chapter 1. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES 7 1.1. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 7 1.2. Purpose of mainstreaming ESA .................................................................................... 7 1.3. General ESA provisions ................................................................................................ 9 1.3.1. ESA Responsibility ........................................................................................................ 9 1.3.2. Financing of Environmental and Social Assessments .................................................. 9 1.3.3. Projects initiated by co-financing institutions................................................................. 9 1.3.4. Consultation in the ESA process................................................................................... 9 1.3.5. Disclosure of documentation
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    Draft Environmental Impact Statement Washington State’s Draft Rule on Wetland Mitigation Banks WAC 173-700 Wetland Mitigation Banks November 2002, Revised March 2009 Publication no. 01-06-022 Publication and Contact Information This report is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0106022.html For more information contact: Publications Coordinator Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (360) 407-6096 For more information about mitigation banking in Washington State, contact Kate Thompson in the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Department of Ecology, Olympia, phone (360) 407-6749, e-mail: [email protected] or visit our web page at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/mitigation/banking Recommended Bibliographic Citation: Driscoll, Lauren, K. Thompson, and T. Granger. 2009. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Washington State's Draft Rule on Wetland Mitigation Banks. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov/ o Headquarters, Olympia (360) 407-6000 o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue (425) 649-7000 o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia (360) 407-6300 o Central Regional Office, Yakima (509) 575-2490 o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane (509) 329-3400 If you need this publication in an alternate format, call Publications Coordinator at (360) 407- 6096. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341. Cover illustration: Tim Schlender Draft Environmental Impact Statement Washington State’s Draft Rule on Wetland Mitigation Banks WAC 173-700 Wetland Mitigation Banks by Lauren Driscoll, K.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbonate Deposition, Pyramid Lake Subbasin, Nevada: 2
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- ubP lished Research US Geological Survey 1995 Carbonate deposition, Pyramid Lake subbasin, Nevada: 2. Lake levels and polar jet stream positions reconstructed from radiocarbon ages and elevations of carbonates (tufas) deposited in the Lahontan basin Larry Benson U.S. Geological Survey, [email protected] Michaele Kashgarian Lawrence Livemore National Laboratory Meyer Rubin U.S. Geological Survey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Part of the Geology Commons, Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons, Other Earth Sciences Commons, and the Other Environmental Sciences Commons Benson, Larry; Kashgarian, Michaele; and Rubin, Meyer, "Carbonate deposition, Pyramid Lake subbasin, Nevada: 2. Lake levels and polar jet stream positions reconstructed from radiocarbon ages and elevations of carbonates (tufas) deposited in the Lahontan basin" (1995). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1014. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1014 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- ubP lished Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. PhJ.d @ ELSEVIER Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology 117 (1995) 1-30 Carbonate deposition, Pyramid Lake subbasin, Nevada: 2. Lake levels and polar jet stream positions reconstructed from radiocarbon ages and elevations of carbonates (tufas) deposited in the Lahontan basin Larry Benson a, Michaele Kashgarian b, Meyer Rubin c a U.S. Geological Survey, 3215 Marine St., Boulder, CO 80303, USA b Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Mitigation and Regeneration Through Sustainable Farming and Food Security
    Scientific Research and Essay Vol.4 (8), pp. 773-779, August, 2009 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/SRE ISSN 1992-2248 © 2009 Academic Journals Full Length Research Paper Environmental mitigation and regeneration through sustainable farming and food security J. H. Pen-Mogi Nyeko Gulu University, P. O. Box 166, Gulu, Uganda. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]. Accepted 14 July, 2009 We recognized the farming practice of the communities around Keyo hills in Kilak, which is a complex and fragile ecosystem, as being purely dependent on annual food and cash crops production system and rain fed agriculture in nature. There are noticeable decline in food and cash crops production in the area. There are regular reported cases of mild to severe famine in the northern and eastern parts of Uganda. The community has resorted to overexploitation of natural resources such as charcoal burning and stone quarrying for daily subsistence. This practice is not sustainable and is environmentally destructive yet this hill is the main watershed that feeds rainwater to River Nile. Over the years, the rainfall pattern in the area has become unreliable due to environmental destruction. We designed a project that aimed at introducing perennial food and cash crops and improved livestock with high milk production to reduce poverty and ensure availability of food throughout the year. Another component of the project was to introduce the use of wood saving stoves or cooking places to reduce wastage of firewood and conserve trees. We supplied improved banana suckers to the communities to provide food security and income and with the help of Send a Cow; we received 57 in-calf heifers and 264 goats.
    [Show full text]