I HAVE ATTACHED SOME INFORMATION FOR YOU AND DONNA

(ATTACHED FORM 3) APPLICATION FORM LOGO AND SLOGAN USE
4 STANDARD ERROR OF ESTIMATE EXAMPLE USE THE ATTACHED
7 APPLICATION FOR DEREGISTRATION (SEE ATTACHED NOTES FOR COMPLETION

AP4 LUTON BOROUGH COUNCILS LOCAL CONDITIONS TO BE ATTACHED
APPENDIX Q MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS (SAMPLE ATTACHED) EXAMPLE MUTUAL
APPENDIX‘A’ PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COUNCIL DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO BE ATTACHED

I have attached some information for you and Donna concerning the Lake Watershed Project

I have attached some information for you and Donna concerning the Lake Watershed Project. I think you will find it helpful and informative. Please pass it along to others who may be interested. For additional information you my also want to visit our web site at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/watersheds/lakeshed_project.html and/or the USGS web site at: http://gisdmnspl.cr.usgs.gov/watershed/start_page.htm. The USGS web site provides an interactive environment to view drainage area and detailed Minor (HUC Level 5/6/7) characteristic information for Minnesota.


In regards to the last paragraph in your email below –your suggestion is on track. I also recommend that you do not use a "generic" buffer of 1,000 feet for your watershed analysis. The lake watersheds developed by our project will easily demonstrate that a buffer is just that -a buffer, and not a watershed.


In the past year I have dealt with other projects that began their analysis by using this “buffer approach” that eventually used watersheds from our project. As a hydrologist I have a hard time understanding the use of buffers in place of actual watersheds. I feel the reasoning for it is more related to GIS than actual resource management. In other words, GIS applied with the integration of buffered lake/wetland polygons and digital land use data offers a fast and simple analysis solution. However, such methods don’t represent the actual hydrology of those basin and their respected watersheds.



>>> Sean Vaughn 9/22/2006 7:01 PM >>>

A couple of weeks ago I got a call at 5:00 PM from a GIS specialist working late in the GIS lab at the U of M on the Land Cover project http://land.umn.edu/cont.htm . They are using our watersheds in their analysis. However, they are also using buffers. In addition to our lake watersheds, they are building buffers around hydrologic features, mainly lakes, and incorporating their land use satellite data in the analysis. I tried to explain over the phone why I feel that buffers generate garbage data but it wasn't as effective as a demonstration on a white board or a view in GIS software.


I'm starting to feel left out. There must be more to the use and application of buffers that I am aware of. I've done some research on the Web but I really didn't come up with much. I still don't think "buffers" are as magical as many think but the list of people using buffers as watersheds keeps growing. I've had conversations/email about buffers with DNR Fisheries, DNR Wildlife DNR ECO, U of MN NRRI and U of MN St. Paul staff. So far I blame GIS folks trying to be hydrologists or at least just simply excluding hydrology in their analysis.


In addition to buffers there is the issue of Direct Contributing Areas (DCA). Both exclude upstream contributing watersheds for analysis. This exclusion has lead to more and more use of Direct Contributing Areas, a delineation far better than a buffer but still excluding the upstream contributing area(s). Looking back over my notes, some dating back to December 1998, when Joe, Rob, Jim, Tim, Robert and I first tried to define a DCA, I have a greater appreciation for Jim's comments paraphrased to say "DCA's are not watersheds and we shouldn't consider them". However, it seems like wherever I go to talk watersheds and promote the Watershed Project they are interested in a DCA. I still attribute this to a lack of available time and lake or wetland project-based funding often ties the scope of projects to the Direct Contributing Area. In other words, the true lake watershed can be a complicated beast and it is easier to work locally. So, to set some standards since we can control the outcome, I tried to once again define a DCA. In addition to reviewing our old notes, I filled up a page of draft definitions, drew on my white board and reviewed countless delineations. As a result I developed the following, but I still struggle with the first sentence that builds the primary definition.


Please take a moment to review the definition(s) and make changes/suggestions.


Direct Contributing Area (DCA). A height of land delineation that contains the adjacent wetlands, and or the landward water, land and or upstream features that route overland flow directly into the lake or wetland basin of interest.


- DCA’s are not a true catchment or classic watershed delineation.


- DCA’s only exist when there are upstream contributing areas to the lake or wetland basin of interest.


- DCA’s do not include concentrated flow from upstream-delineated watersheds.


- DCA’s can be defined volumetrically as the contributing area’s volume flowing through a pour point minus any upstream delineated catchment’s volume.


- DCA’s include concentrated flow sources that would result in a Remnant Watershed if the conveyance feature were delineated separately.


- DCA’s also be called Local Area Watershed or Local Area Catchment.


- DCA’s used alone are not suitable for hydrologic analysis.


- DCA’s delineations are often delineated because available time and lake or wetland project-based funding ties the scope of projects to the direct contributing area.


If you ever come across any information regarding buffers used as watersheds please pass it my way.


Thanks for your time,


Sean


Sean Vaughn


________________________________________________________________


Sean don't get too worked up over buffers and DCAs. They are used because they are easy and people are lazy. Most people don't know how to delineate a watershed even if they do know what they are. They are faced with a time or money deadline and can't take the time or money to delineate watersheds. This is not new. It goes back to the original shoreland zoning language in the 1960s where the boundary of the shoreland district is defined as the watershed boundary(DCA) or 400'(???) back from the OHW. Especially in zoning, buffers have been used a lot because they are easy. You could define them by using a compass to trace around a lake or stream even before you could do it with GIS software on a computer.

–Email from Joe Gibson, 9/25/2006 8:08 AM



APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT A CV MAY BE ATTACHED BUT
ATTACHED ARE RES INFANT DEATH & LOW BIRTHWEIGHT REVIEW
ATTACHED FIGURE 11 DIAGRAMMATIC SKETCH OF LOCATION OF DEMONSTRATION


Tags: attached some, donna, attached, information