Copyrighted Material
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Comparison of Sediment Deposition in Reservoirs of Four Kansas Watersheds David P
Comparison of Sediment Deposition in Reservoirs of Four Kansas Watersheds David P. Mau and Victoria G. Christensen Reservoirs are a vital source of water Kansas in 1995. Nine supply, provide recreational opportunities, reservoir studies have been support diverse aquatic habitat, and carried out in cooperation provide flood protection throughout with the Bureau of Kansas. Understanding agricultural, Reclamation, the city of industrial, and urban effects on reservoirs Wichita, Johnson County is important not only for maintaining Unified Wastewater acceptable water quality in the reservoirs Districts, the Kansas but also for preventing adverse Department of Health and environmental effects. Excessive sediment Environment, and (or) the can alter the aesthetic qualities of Kansas Water Office. These reservoirs and affect their water quality studies were supported in and useful life. part by the Kansas State Water Plan Fund and Introduction evaluated sediment deposition along with Figure 1. Bottom-sediment cores were collected with a gravity Reservoir sediment studies are selected chemical corer mounted on a pontoon boat. The corer is lowered to a important because of the effect that constituents in sediment designated distance above the sediment and allowed to free sediment accumulation has on the quality cores (fig. 1) from fall to penetrate through the entire thickness of reservoir of water and useful life of the reservoir. reservoirs located in bottom sediment. Sediment deposition can affect benthic various climatic, organisms and alter the dynamics of the topographic, and geologic landscape annual precipitation ranges from about aquatic food chain. Reservoir sediment regions throughout Kansas and southern 24 inches at Webster Reservoir in north- studies also are important in relation to Nebraska. -
Wetlands: an Overview of Issues
Order Code RL33483 Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Updated November 25, 2008 Claudia Copeland Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division Wetlands: An Overview of Issues Summary The 110th Congress, like earlier ones, considered numerous policy topics that involve wetlands. A few of the topics were new to this Congress, such as wetlands provisions in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), while most were examined but not resolved in earlier Congresses, such as applying federal regulations on private lands, wetland loss rates, and restoration and creation accomplishments. The 110th Congress also considered wetland topics at the program level, responding to legal decisions and administrative actions affecting the jurisdictional boundary limits of the federal wetland permit program in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Perhaps the issue receiving the greatest attention was determining which wetlands should be included and excluded from permit requirements under the CWA’s regulatory program, as a result of Supreme Court rulings in 2001 (in the SWANCC case) that narrowed federal regulatory jurisdiction over certain isolated wetlands, and in June 2006 (in the Rapanos-Carabell decision) that left the jurisdictional reach of the permit program to be determined on a case-by-case basis. In the 110th Congress, House and Senate committees held hearings on legislation intended to reverse the Court’s rulings (H.R. 2421, S. 1870). Wetland protection efforts continue to engender intense controversy over issues of science and policy. Controversial topics include the rate and pattern of loss, whether all wetlands should be protected in a single fashion, the effectiveness of the current suite of laws in protecting them, and the fact that 75% of remaining U.S. -
Lake Level Management Plans Water Year 2021
LAKE LEVEL MANAGEMENT PLANS WATER YEAR 2021 Kansas Water Office September 2020 Table of Contents U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, KANSAS CITY DISTRICT .................................................................................................................................... 3 CLINTON LAKE ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 HILLSDALE LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 KANOPOLIS LAKE .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8 MELVERN LAKE .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 MILFORD LAKE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12 -
Measuring Outcomes of Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, and Creation in Idaho—Assessing Potential Functions, Values, and Condition
Measuring outcomes of wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation in Idaho—Assessing potential functions, values, and condition in a watershed context Wildlife Bureau, Habitat Section Idaho Department of Fish and Game PO Box 25 Boise, Idaho 83707 Franklin Wetland Mitigation (left); Jewel Wetland (right) Chris Murphy Tim Weekley EPA Wetland Program 2012 Development Grant # CD – 00J006-01 ABSTRACT A wetland restoration monitoring and assessment program framework was developed for Idaho. The project goal was to assess outcomes of substantial governmental and private investment in wetland restoration, enhancement and creation. The functions, values, condition, and vegetation at restored, enhanced, and created wetlands on private and state lands across Idaho were retrospectively evaluated. Assessment was conducted at multiple spatial scales and intensities. Potential functions and values (ecosystem services) were rapidly assessed using the Oregon Rapid Wetland Assessment Protocol. Vegetation samples were analyzed using Floristic Quality Assessment indices from Washington State. We compared vegetation of restored, enhanced, and created wetlands with reference wetlands that occurred in similar hydrogeomorphic environments determined at the HUC 12 level. HUC 12s were classified using cluster analysis according to spatially derived hydrologic, geologic, soils, and climate data into watershed ecological groups. A primary outcome of this project was that stakeholders are better informed about how restoration benefits watershed processes, functions, -
Flood Impact Planning for High Water Release Rates from Tuttle Creek Dam
Flood Impact Planning for High Water Release Rates from Tuttle Creek Dam Prepared by: City of Manhattan, Public Works Department May 20, 2019 2 Tuttle Creek Lake Drainage Basin 25% of Kansas Basin Flood Storage 3 Tuttle Creek Max Pool Elevation by Year Rank Year Pool Elevation (FT 1 1993 1137.77 2 1973 1127.88 3 2019 1125.10 4 1984 1112.30 5 1987 1111.92 6 2015 1110.91 7 1979 1109.10 8 2010 1106.54 9 1995 1105.02 10 2018 1104.10 6 Action Stages in Relationship to Tuttle Creek Dam Elevations • 1102 Gets in Spillway • Call United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) at least once a week. • 1114 Action Stage • Bring Emergency Services and PW together weekly to discuss USACE outlook . • 1116 Flood Waters Touches the Gates • Schedule weekly meetings with emergency management services. • Update and draft public education and preparedness information. • 1125 • Identify and notify at risk populations of flood risks. • Distributes family preparedness guide to responders. • 1126 Daily Joint EOC meetings • Identify shelter and staging areas that will not be effected. • PIO group drafts advisories, watch, evacuation route maps, flood warning messages. • Monitor and track all river gauges and lake elevations. • 1132 • Establish a 12 hour operational period with briefing. • Secure shelter locations, request shelter support from American Red Cross and Salvation Army. • Ramp up sandbag filling stations and stockpile sand. 7 Public Works Actions Taken • Developed 42 different flood maps for various releases rates and back flow conditions along Kansas -
Wind Turbines, Sensitive Bird Populations and Peat Soils
Charity No. 229 325 Wind Turbines, Sensitive Bird Populations and Peat Soils: A Spatial Planning Guide for on-shore wind farm developments in Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. July 2008 For more details, contact Tim Youngs [email protected] or Steve White [email protected] Produced by the RSPB and The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire, Manchester & North Merseyside (LWT), in partnership with Lancashire County Council, Natural England and the Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (EAS) 1 Contents Section Map Annex Page Background 2 How to use the alert maps 4 Introduction 4 Key findings 5 Maps showing ‘important populations’ of ‘sensitive bird 1-5 6- 10 species’ and deep peat sensitive areas in Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside Legal protection for birds and habitats 11 Methodology and definitions 12- 15 Caveats and notes 16 Distribution of Whooper Swan, Bewick’s Swan and Pink- 17- 22 footed Goose in inland areas of Lancashire, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside Thresholds for ‘important’ populations’ (of sensitive species) 1 23 Definition of terms relating to ‘sensitive species’ of bird 2 24 Background The Inspectors who carried out the Examination in Public of the draft NW Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) between December 06 to February 07, proposed that 'Maps of broad areas where the development of particular types of renewable energy may be considered appropriate should be produced as a matter of urgency and incorporated into an early review of RSS'. This proposal underpins the North West Regional Assembly’s (NWRA) research that is being carried out by Arup consultants. The Secretary of State's response is 'In line with PPS22, we consider that an evidence-based map of broad locations for installation of renewable energy technologies would benefit planning authorities and developers. -
Global Peatland Restoration Manual
Global Peatland Restoration Manual Martin Schumann & Hans Joosten Version April 18, 2008 Comments, additions, and ideas are very welcome to: [email protected] [email protected] Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, Greifswald University, Germany Introduction The following document presents a science based and practical guide to peatland restoration for policy makers and site managers. The work has relevance to all peatlands of the world but focuses on the four core regions of the UNEP-GEF project “Integrated Management of Peatlands for Biodiversity and Climate Change”: Indonesia, China, Western Siberia, and Europe. Chapter 1 “Characteristics, distribution, and types of peatlands” provides basic information on the characteristics, the distribution, and the most important types of mires and peatlands. Chapter 2 “Functions & impacts of damage” explains peatland functions and values. The impact of different forms of damage on these functions is explained and the possibilities of their restoration are reviewed. Chapter 3 “Planning for restoration” guides users through the process of objective setting. It gives assistance in questions of strategic and site management planning. Chapter 4 “Standard management approaches” describes techniques for practical peatland restoration that suit individual needs. Unless otherwise indicated, all statements are referenced in the IPS/IMCG book on Wise Use of Mires and Peatlands (Joosten & Clarke 2002), that is available under http://www.imcg.net/docum/wise.htm Contents 1 Characteristics, -
Peat Bog Ecosystems: Structure, Form, State and Condition
IUCN UK Committee Peatland Programme Briefing Note No. 2 IUCN UK Committee Peatland Programme Briefing Note No 2 Peat Bog Ecosystems: Structure, Form, State and Condition Structure : Actively-growing bogs are wetlands which consist of two layers – a thin living two layers surface layer of peat-forming vegetation (the acrotelm), generally between 10 cm and 40 cm deep, and the relatively inert, permanently-waterlogged peat store (the catotelm) Critical which may be several metres deep. A peat bog can thus be thought of as a tree, much- importance of compressed in the vertical dimension. The acrotelm represents the thin canopy the living consisting of leaves on a tree, the catotelm represents the branches and trunk of surface layer the tree. The analogy is not perfect because in a tree the water travels upwards through (acrotelm) the trunk to the leaves, whereas water in a bog travels from the living canopy downwards into the trunk of the catotelm. The acrotelm supplies plant material which then forms peat in the catotelm, much as leaves provide the products of photosynthesis to create the trunk and branches of a tree. Without an acrotelm a bog cannot accumulate peat or control water loss from the catotelm, just as a tree cannot grow without its canopy of leaves. In a fully functioning natural bog only the acrotelm is visible because the catotelm peat beneath is normally shielded from view by the living acrotelm, much as only the forest canopy is visible when forests are viewed from above. 1. Acrotelm 2. Catotelm Peat-forming Peat-forming species are wetland species, generally consisting of the Sphagnum bog species are mosses and cotton grasses, although other material such as non-Sphagnum mosses, wetland purple moor grass, or heather stems and roots can sometimes make significant species contributions to the peat matrix particularly in shallower or degraded peats. -
Soil Carbon Protocol Development
Soil Carbon Protocols Public Scoping Meeting March 6, 2013 Sacramento, CA Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Overview of the Climate Action Reserve 3. Protocol development process 4. Soil carbon scoping a) Grasslands b) Peatlands 5. Feedback & discussion 2 Introductions . Climate Action Reserve − Max DuBuisson, Senior Policy Manager − Teresa Lang, Policy Manager − Sami Osman, Policy Manager . Attendees 3 CLIMATE ACTION RESERVE OVERVIEW 4 What We Do . Mission: to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by pioneering credible market-based policies and solutions . Development of high-quality, stakeholder-driven, standardized project protocols . Accredited offset project registry under the California cap- and-trade program . Serve compliance and voluntary carbon markets . Reputation for integrity and experience in providing best-in- class registry services for offset markets 5 Separation of Roles . Independent from the State of California . Reserve does not fund or develop projects . Does not take ownership of offsets . Is not an exchange . Is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization . Independent from third-party verification – Consistent with international standards – ANSI accreditation, training by Reserve or ARB 6 Serving Multiple Markets . Compliance market: – Compliance buyers under California’s cap-and-trade – Western Climate Initiative – CEQA compliance . Voluntary market: – Voluntary corporate buyers – LEED certification (USGBC) – Retail and individual buyers 7 CA Compliance Offsets . Early action: projects use Reserve protocols, and then move to compliance program through a desk verification . Compliance offsets: credits issued against compliance protocols . 4 Reserve protocols adopted for early action and adapted for compliance use – Forest, Urban Forest, Livestock, Ozone Depleting Substances . Additional protocols will be developed by ARB staff, building upon existing methodologies – Strong interest in agricultural protocols – Next up: Rice Cultivation, Coal Mine Methane – workshop in Sacramento March 28 8 Compliance Offset Market . -
Questioning Ten Common Assumptions About Peatlands
Questioning ten common assumptions about peatlands University of Leeds Peat Club: K.L. Bacon1, A.J. Baird1, A. Blundell1, M-A. Bourgault1,2, P.J. Chapman1, G. Dargie1, G.P. Dooling1,3, C. Gee1, J. Holden1, T. Kelly1, K.A. McKendrick-Smith1, P.J. Morris1, A. Noble1, S.M. Palmer1, A. Quillet1,3, G.T. Swindles1, E.J. Watson1 and D.M. Young1 1water@leeds, School of Geography, University of Leeds, UK 2current address: Centre GEOTOP, CP 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada 3current address: Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, UK _______________________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY Peatlands have been widely studied in terms of their ecohydrology, carbon dynamics, ecosystem services and palaeoenvironmental archives. However, several assumptions are frequently made about peatlands in the academic literature, practitioner reports and the popular media which are either ambiguous or in some cases incorrect. Here we discuss the following ten common assumptions about peatlands: 1. the northern peatland carbon store will shrink under a warming climate; 2. peatlands are fragile ecosystems; 3. wet peatlands have greater rates of net carbon accumulation; 4. different rules apply to tropical peatlands; 5. peat is a single soil type; 6. peatlands behave like sponges; 7. Sphagnum is the main ‘ecosystem engineer’ in peatlands; 8. a single core provides a representative palaeo-archive from a peatland; 9. water-table reconstructions from peatlands provide direct records of past climate change; and 10. restoration of peatlands results in the re-establishment of their carbon sink function. In each case we consider the evidence supporting the assumption and, where appropriate, identify its shortcomings or ways in which it may be misleading. -
Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Main Report
Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate change Main Report Published By Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur & Wetlands International, Wageningen First Published in Electronic Format in December 2007 This version first published in May 2008 Copyright © 2008 Global Environment Centre & Wetlands International Reproduction of material from the publication for educational and non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior permission from Global Environment Centre or Wetlands International, provided acknowledgement is provided. Reference Parish, F., Sirin, A., Charman, D., Joosten, H., Minayeva , T., Silvius, M. and Stringer, L. (Eds.) 2008. Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Main Report . Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands International, Wageningen. Reviewer of Executive Summary Dicky Clymo Available from Global Environment Centre 2nd Floor Wisma Hing, 78 Jalan SS2/72, 47300 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Tel: +603 7957 2007, Fax: +603 7957 7003. Web: www.gecnet.info ; www.peat-portal.net Email: [email protected] Wetlands International PO Box 471 AL, Wageningen 6700 The Netherlands Tel: +31 317 478861 Fax: +31 317 478850 Web: www.wetlands.org ; www.peatlands.ru ISBN 978-983-43751-0-2 Supported By United Nations Environment Programme/Global Environment Facility (UNEP/GEF) with assistance from the Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN) Design by Regina Cheah and Andrey Sirin Printed on Cyclus 100% Recycled Paper. Printing on recycled paper helps save our natural -
Blanket Bogs
SCOTTISH INVERTEBRATE HABITAT MANAGEMENT Blanket bogs Claish Moss © Scottish Natural Heritage Introduction that may also provide important sub-habitats. Britain has about 10-15% of the total global area Invertebrates in upland moorland or bog habitats of blanket bog, making it one of the most are an essential component of the diet of many important international locations for this habitat. bird species; cranefly larvae and adults have 80-85% of Britain’s blanket bog habitat is found in been shown to be important food for grouse Scotland, covering 1.8 million hectares, and chicks and breeding waders, such as Golden representing 23% of the country’s land area. This plover. Adult grouse may also eat craneflies to makes Scotland an internationally important supplement their diet of heather shoots. country for blanket bog. Managing habitats to benefit these invertebrates Blanket bog is found in cool, wet, typically is thus likely to have a significant impact on the oceanic climates, where it can cover whole survival of upland birds. landscapes, such as in the North-West of In addition, the Scottish Invertebrate Species Scotland. Peat accumulates slowly over many Knowledge Dossiers: Pseudoscorpiones years and can reach depths exceeding 5m, indicated the possibility that the Bog chelifer although 0.5-3m is more typical. Blanket bog is (Microbisium brevifemoratum ) is likely to occur in “ombrotrophic”, that is, the water and mineral Scottish bogs—highlighting that there may yet be supply comes entirely from atmospheric sources unrecorded species in this important Scottish (rainwater, mist, cloud-cover). The water habitat (Legg, 2010). chemistry is nutrient-poor and acidic and the Support for management described in this habitat is dominated by acid-loving plant document is available through Scotland Rural communities, especially Sphagnum mosses.