DOCSLIB.ORG

Constructed Farm Wetlands - Treating Agricultural Water Pollution and Enhancing Biodiversity Produced by Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust with Natural England

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constructed Farm Wetlands - Treating Agricultural Water Pollution and Enhancing Biodiversity Produced by Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust with Natural England Constructed farm wetlands - treating agricultural water pollution and enhancing biodiversity Produced by Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust with Natural England Mackenzie, S.M. and McIlwraith, C.I. May 2013 This guidance is aimed at farm advisers, primarily Catchment Sensitive Farming Officers, as well as other Natural England and Environment Advisers working with farmers. The aim is to provide further information and examples on the use of constructed wetlands and sustainable drainage systems on farms. These wetland features can reduce diffuse water pollution from agriculture as well as improving biodiversity and other benefits. Different types of constructed wetlands and sustainable drainage systems are described, with guidance on their suitability for different farm situations and pollution issues, location, design, costs, permits required and case studies. Foreword Rivers, lakes, ponds and coastal waters are important habitats and part of our landscape, as well as providing drinking and bathing water. Water quality and biodiversity have improved dramatically but are still impacted by diffuse water pollution from agriculture. Constructed wetland systems can be designed to create wetland habitats, reduce pollution on farms, control flooding and enhance public enjoyment of the countryside. In order to be effective their design needs to be appropriate for the site and pollutant issues and this guidance aims to give an introduction to constructed farm wetlands and where to seek further advice and support. Catchment Sensitive Farming (CSF) provides training and support to farmers on a range of farm practices and infrastructure improvements that reduce diffuse water pollution from agriculture. Constructed wetlands and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) can be used to trap and treat pollutants, as part of a CSF approach to tackling agricultural pollution. Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) have experience in design, construction and maintenance of constructed wetlands for treating pollutants and creating wetlands and amenity features at sites across the world. WWT worked with CSF to develop this guidance for advisers, on the role of constructed wetlands and sustainable drainage systems on farms. How and where to use these options, singly or in combination, to reduce the source of a pollutant, break the pathway of pollution and protect water bodies or sensitive habitats is described. Philippa Mansfield, Catchment Sensitive Farming Contacts for this publication Head of Wetlands for Water [email protected] Sally Mackenzie Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust http://www.wwt.org.uk/ Trust Project officer - Wetlands [email protected] Catherine McIlwraith for Water Wildfowl & Wetlands http://www.wwt.org.uk/ [email protected] Philippa Mansfield Catchment Sensitive Farming http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/csf Cover photo, Fabrice Gouriveau Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Why use wetlands? ................................................................................... 2 1.2 Type of water that can be treated ............................................................... 2 1.2 How are wetlands used ................................................................................. 4 1.3 Multiple benefits (Ecosystem services) ......................................................... 5 1.4 Limitations of using wetlands ...................................................................... 6 2 Types of farm wetlands .................................................................................... 7 2.1 Summary table of wetland options .............................................................. 8 2.2 General consent issues ............................................................................ 11 2.3 Lining .................................................................................................... 12 3 Farm wetland options .................................................................................... 13 3.1 Swales (1-2 Star systems) ....................................................................... 13 3.2 In-ditch wetlands (2-3 Star systems) ........................................................ 17 3.3 Sediment ponds (2 star systems) .............................................................. 21 3.4 Constructed wetlands (3-5 Star systems) ................................................... 26 4 Complementary Measures – Woodlands ........................................................... 37 5 Funding sources ............................................................................................ 38 5.1 The CSF Capital Grant Scheme ................................................................. 38 5.2 Environmental Stewardship ...................................................................... 38 6 Management of wildlife during creation & management of wetlands ..................... 42 7 Suitable Planting Schemes ............................................................................. 43 8 Further sources of information ........................................................................ 45 9 References ................................................................................................... 46 10 Annex I Case studies .................................................................................. 49 10.1 In ditch wetlands ................................................................................. 49 10.2 Sediment ponds ................................................................................... 52 10.3 Constructed wetlands for diffuse effluent ................................................ 54 10.4 Constructed wetlands for high strength point source effluent ..................... 58 Contributing authors Fabrice Gouriveau, Dianne Mathews, Philippa Mansfield & Louise Webb Acknowledgements We would like to thank Tim Bushell (Natural England), Jamie Letts (Environment Agency), James Grischeff (Catchment Sensitive Farming), Kirstie Richardson-Bull (Environment Agency), Andy Graham (Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust) and Rob Shore (Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust) for their contribution and comments on this document. We are also very grateful to Des Kay (Catchment Sensitive Farming/Natural England), Kathryn Mitchell (Linking Environment and Farming), Stuart Moss (Catchment Sensitive Farming) and John Renner of Bellshill Farm for providing case studies and information to illustrate examples of wetland features in action. Whilst the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and Natural England have used their best endeavours to ensure the accuracy of the guidance, we cannot accept any responsibility for any liabilities arising from its use. 1 Introduction The purpose of the guidance is to provide a basic introduction to the benefits and use of farm wetlands to reduce diffuse water pollution from agriculture (DWPA) and enhance biodiversity. The aim is to provide guidance on the options, suitability, placement, design, construction and cost of farm wetlands and sustainable drainage systems. In this guidance a broad definition of farm wetlands is used to cover rural sustainable drainage systems (Rural SuDS), including sediment ponds and traps, bunds and swales, as well as the creation of artificial wetlands to improve water quality and how these options can be used together. Please refer to Section 3 for more information on each of these features. The aim is to enable Catchment Sensitive Farming Officers (CSFOs) and other advisers, including Natural England local land management advisers and Environment Agency Officers, to understand how and where to use these options, as part of a suite measures that could be implemented on farms to reduce water pollution. Farm wetlands can be used to treat and control pathways of agricultural pollutants, provide some attenuation of flood flow and create wildlife habitats and public access opportunities (See Figure 1). They can be used as an additional option to the existing suite of measures available and require careful targeting and design as part of an overall farm water management plan. Figure 1. Farm swale (WWT) – see section 3. This guidance will build on existing available information and cover a range of wetland options from simple easily created options to treat lightly contaminated water to multi- stage treatment systems which are designed to treat point source high strength wastewater. Depending on the nature of the wastewater, designs will vary in complexity from those the farmer can easily create to something which requires more technical support. 1 1.1 Why use wetlands? Wetlands can be used to improve water quality. They can successfully treat a range of pollutants associated with agricultural wastewater including: Biological Oxygen Demand, suspended solids, ammonia, nitrate, phosphate, faecal indicator organisms (FIO’s) and some pesticides. With careful and specific design wetlands provide many opportunities for wildlife habitat especially if receiving less contaminated water. They are a practical, sustainable, environmentally friendly, aesthetically pleasing option to treating contaminated water in rural areas They can be designed to provide additional benefits such as biofuels, e.g. using willow coppice systems and for wildlife. 1.2 Type of water that can be treated Wetlands can be used to treat lightly contaminated water from farmyards or as a result of run-off from roads, tracks and fields. They are one of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Flamingo ABOUT the GROUP
    Flamingo ABOUT THE GROUP Bulletin of the IUCN-SSC/Wetlands International The Flamingo Specialist Group (FSG) was established in 1978 at Tour du Valat in France, under the leadership of Dr. Alan Johnson, who coordinated the group until 2004 (see profile at www.wetlands.org/networks/Profiles/January.htm). Currently, the group is FLAMINGO SPECIALIST GROUP coordinated from the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust at Slimbridge, UK, as part of the IUCN- SSC/Wetlands International Waterbird Network. The FSG is a global network of flamingo specialists (both scientists and non- scientists) concerned with the study, monitoring, management and conservation of the world’s six flamingo species populations. Its role is to actively promote flamingo research and conservation worldwide by encouraging information exchange and cooperation amongst these specialists, and with other relevant organisations, particularly IUCN - SSC, Ramsar, WWF International and BirdLife International. FSG members include experts in both in-situ (wild) and ex-situ (captive) flamingo conservation, as well as in fields ranging from field surveys to breeding biology, diseases, tracking movements and data management. There are currently 165 members around the world, from India to Chile, and from France to South Africa. Further information about the FSG, its membership, the membership list serve, or this bulletin can be obtained from Brooks Childress at the address below. Chair Assistant Chair Dr. Brooks Childress Mr. Nigel Jarrett Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Slimbridge Slimbridge Glos. GL2 7BT, UK Glos. GL2 7BT, UK Tel: +44 (0)1453 860437 Tel: +44 (0)1453 891177 Fax: +44 (0)1453 860437 Fax: +44 (0)1453 890827 [email protected] [email protected] Eastern Hemisphere Chair Western Hemisphere Chair Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Review Cover Image: Hedgehog by Keith Kirk
    Dumfries & Galloway Wildlife Review Cover Image: Hedgehog by Keith Kirk. Keith is a former Dumfries & Galloway Council ranger and now helps to run Nocturnal Wildlife Tours based in Castle Douglas. The tours use a specially prepared night tours vehicle, complete with external mounted thermal camera and internal viewing screens. Each participant also has their own state- of-the-art thermal imaging device to use for the duration of the tour. This allows participants to detect animals as small as rabbits at up to 300 metres away or get close enough to see Badgers and Roe Deer going about their nightly routine without them knowing you’re there. For further information visit www.wildlifetours.co.uk email [email protected] or telephone 07483 131791 Contributing photographers p2 Small White butterfly © Ian Findlay, p4 Colvend coast ©Mark Pollitt, p5 Bittersweet © northeastwildlife.co.uk, Wildflower grassland ©Mark Pollitt, p6 Oblong Woodsia planting © National Trust for Scotland, Oblong Woodsia © Chris Miles, p8 Birdwatching © castigatio/Shutterstock, p9 Hedgehog in grass © northeastwildlife.co.uk, Hedgehog in leaves © Mark Bridger/Shutterstock, Hedgehog dropping © northeastwildlife.co.uk, p10 Cetacean watch at Mull of Galloway © DGERC, p11 Common Carder Bee © Bob Fitzsimmons, p12 Black Grouse confrontation © Sergey Uryadnikov/Shutterstock, p13 Black Grouse male ©Sergey Uryadnikov/Shutterstock, Female Black Grouse in flight © northeastwildlife.co.uk, Common Pipistrelle bat © Steven Farhall/ Shutterstock, p14 White Ermine © Mark Pollitt,
    [Show full text]
  • References.Qxd 12/14/2004 10:35 AM Page 771
    Ducks_References.qxd 12/14/2004 10:35 AM Page 771 References Aarvak, T. and Øien, I.J. 1994. Dverggås Anser Adams, J.S. 1971. Black Swan at Lake Ellesmere. erythropus—en truet art i Norge. Vår Fuglefauna 17: 70–80. Wildl. Rev. 3: 23–25. Aarvak, T. and Øien, I.J. 2003. Moult and autumn Adams, P.A., Robertson, G.J. and Jones, I.L. 2000. migration of non-breeding Fennoscandian Lesser White- Time-activity budgets of Harlequin Ducks molting in fronted Geese Anser erythropus mapped by satellite the Gannet Islands, Labrador. Condor 102: 703–08. telemetry. Bird Conservation International 13: 213–226. Adrian, W.L., Spraker, T.R. and Davies, R.B. 1978. Aarvak, T., Øien, I.J. and Nagy, S. 1996. The Lesser Epornitics of aspergillosis in Mallards Anas platyrhynchos White-fronted Goose monitoring programme,Ann. Rept. in north central Colorado. J. Wildl. Dis. 14: 212–17. 1996, NOF Rappportserie, No. 7. Norwegian Ornitho- AEWA 2000. Report on the conservation status of logical Society, Klaebu. migratory waterbirds in the agreement area. Technical Series Aarvak, T., Øien, I.J., Syroechkovski Jr., E.E. and No. 1.Wetlands International,Wageningen, Netherlands. Kostadinova, I. 1997. The Lesser White-fronted Goose Afton, A.D. 1983. Male and female strategies for Monitoring Programme.Annual Report 1997. Klæbu, reproduction in Lesser Scaup. Unpubl. Ph.D. thesis. Norwegian Ornithological Society. NOF Raportserie, Univ. North Dakota, Grand Forks, US. Report no. 5-1997. Afton, A.D. 1984. Influence of age and time on Abbott, C.C. 1861. Notes on the birds of the Falkland reproductive performance of female Lesser Scaup.
    [Show full text]
  • Dumfriesshire
    Dumfriesshire Rare Plant Register 2020 Christopher Miles An account of the known distribution of the rare or scarce native plants in Dumfriesshire up to the end of 2019 Rare Plant Register Dumfriesshire 2020 Holy Grass, Hierochloe odorata Black Esk July 2019 2 Rare Plant Register Dumfriesshire 2020 Acknowledgements My thanks go to all those who have contributed plant records in Dumfriesshire over the years. Many people have between them provided hundreds or thousands of records and this publication would not have been possible without them. More particularly, before my recording from 1996 onwards, plant records have been collected and collated in three distinct periods since the nineteenth century by previous botanists working in Dumfriesshire. The first of these was George F. Scott- Elliot. He was an eminent explorer and botanist who edited the first and only Flora so far published for Dumfriesshire in 1896. His work was greatly aided by other contributing botanists probably most notably Mr J.T. Johnstone and Mr W. Stevens. The second was Humphrey Milne-Redhead who was a GP in Mainsriddle in Kircudbrightshire from 1947. He was both the vice county recorder for Bryophytes and for Higher Plants for all three Dumfries and Galloway vice counties! During his time the first systematic recording was stimulated by work for the first Atlas of the British Flora (1962). He published a checklist in 1971/72. The third period of recording was between 1975 and 1993 led by Stuart Martin and particularly Mary Martin after Stuart’s death. Mary in particular continued systematic recording and recorded for the monitoring scheme in 1987/88.
    [Show full text]
  • A Different Way of Travelling Birdflyway
    a different way of travelling Birdflyway People have long been fascinated with the migration of birds. The incredible journeys of storks, swallows and geese are a source of curiosity and intrigue which awakens in us the desire to travel and share their routes. This is now possible with an initiative that combines nature and tourism: Birdflyway. Following the migratory routes of the osprey and the greylag goose, participants will visit some of most important natural areas in Europe and Africa. Both of these notable birds reproduce in the north of Europe. While the greylag goose winters on the Iberian Peninsula the osprey journeys to the west coast of Africa. By taking part in this adventure, the traveller will enjoy spectacular natural environments and get to know new cultures and all they have to offer in terms of art, architecture and gastronomy. A different way of travelling. I 2 I I 3 I A different way of travelling. A wonderful journey to be completed Birdflyway is a wonderful journey which allows the participant to design and schedule their route according to their desires. There is no time limit in which the route must be completed and stages can be undertaken in any order. To show that the natural area has been visited some simple challenges must be met in each location. Completed stages are registered in the Birdflyway passport. Birdflyway begins in the north of Europe, in Scandinavia and the British Isles. The migratory route of the greylag goose begins in Scandinavia and crosses Europe until it reaches the Iberian Peninsula.
    [Show full text]
  • Phosphorus Cycling in the Settlement Lagoon of a Treatment Wetland
    1 Phosphorus cycling in the settlement lagoon of a treatment wetland Santiago Jose Clerici Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds School of Earth and Environment August 2013 2 The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his/her own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. The right of Santiago Jose Clerici to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. © 2013 The University of Leeds and Santiago Jose Clerici 3 Acknowledgements I thank my supervisors Mike Krom, Rob Mortimer and Sally Mackenzie for their constant support. My thanks also go to Sam Allshorn, David Ashley, Rachel Spraggs, Cat Mcilwraith and Teresa Roncal Herrero for their assistance and advice during field and laboratory work. 4 Abstract The South Finger treatment wetland at Slimbridge, UK, was designed to treat water that has been impacted by the faeces of a dense population of waterfowl. The wetland system has been failing consistently in retaining phosphorus (P). It has been suggested that the settlement lagoon of the wetland is the cause for its failure regarding P, because the lagoon exports P in the summer months. The aim of this project was to understand the importance of the settlement lagoon in the overall budget of P, and to understand the mechanisms that result in such behaviour.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter of the Solway Firth Partnership
    Issue 40 Spring/Summer 2014 newsletter of the Solway Firth Partnership Solway Sea Monster was Rubbish! Page 7 Beware, Alien Invaders in the Solway Page 8-9 Foraging for Food Around the Solway Coast Page 1 2-13 Chairman’s Column Alastair McNeill FCIWEM C.WEM MCMI aving served four terms as Chairman of the Solway Firth include: Out of the Blue, which seeks to provide support for the Partnership, Gordon Mann stepped down from the role Galloway seafood industry to build on opportunities for at the Board meeting on the 31 March 2014. Gordon economic development; two IFG projects aimed at improving Htook on the Chairmanship in 2003, when the Partnership became sustainability of the creel fishery; and developments in the an Independent Company with Charitable status, though Solway cockle fishery. Out of the Blue has been enabled by Gordon’s involvement as a leading member of the forum goes support from the European Fisheries Fund awarded by Dumfries back to its inception in 1994. During Gordon’s time with the and Galloway Fisheries Local Action Group and Dumfries and Partnership, the forum has evolved considerably in terms of the Galloway Council. The sustainable creel fisheries projects are variety of work undertaken together with a corresponding being supported by South West Inshore Fisheries Group increase in staff. However, the Partnership continues to adhere through funding from Marine Scotland. Solway cockle fishery to its founding principles of taking a holistic and integrated investigations are currently being led by Marine Scotland. approach to the sustainable management of the Solway involving Thanks are extended to Pam for successfully managing the partners from both the Scottish and English sides of the Firth.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation and Management of Increasing Goose Populations
    wli.wwt.org.uk www.eaaflyway.net Joint Newsletter Issue no. 1, September 2013 Wetland Site CEPA News in the EAA Flyway Dear East Asia Flyway Colleague, EAAFP and the WLI initiative. The newsletter focuses on wetland CEPA activities across the flyway, aiming to share experience of practical wetland CEPA activities In this issue... between partners of both WLI and EAAFP. Wetland centres form an important interface between national and international agreements on conservation, and the Introduction local action and implementation by stakeholders, and play a crucial role in raising awareness of wetlands Invitation to join WLI/EAAFP case with local communities and decision-makers. studies As you will read in this issue, the range of activities is Miranda Wetland Centre - Bioblitz huge, from competitions to get local people excited and involved in surveying wild birds, working with farmers Hong Kong 1 – Bird Race, HKWP to encourage bird-friendly farming, to developing new high-profile wetland centres as part of an international expo. Hong Kong 2 – Community Work at Mai Po We hope that you find these stories as interesting and inspiring as we do, and please do send us stories for Korea – Suncheon International our next issue which is due out in April next year. Wetland Centre Please do send us your articles, around 400 words long and with some pictures of your site, wildlife and activities, see our contact details on the back page. Sungei Buloh – awaiting Best regards, Japan – Kabukiri Numa Chris Rostron Spike Millington Head of WLI EAAFP secretariat We are launching this joint newsletter, to be sent out twice a year, marking the cooperation between the Call for case studies We’re keen to set up a space on the WLI and EAAFP have very little knowledge of what they are.
    [Show full text]
  • The 14 Meeting of the Goose Specialist Group
    The 14th meeting of the Goose Specialist Group Steinkjer, Norway 17 – 22 April 2012 Programme, abstracts and list of participants Nord-Trøndelag University College Steinkjer 2012 The 14th meeting of the Goose Specialist Group Steinkjer, Norway 17 – 22 April 2012 Programme, abstracts and list of participants Sponsored by: County Governor in Nord-Trøndelag, Department of the Environnment Nord-Trøndelag University College Front cover: Pink-footed Geese near Steinkjer May 2011 ©Paul Shimmings Nord-Trøndelag University College ISBN 978-82-7456-651-4 Steinkjer 2012 Welcome to Steinkjer and to the 14th meeting of the Goose Specialist Group! The 14th meeting of the Goose Specialist Group is hosted by the Nord-Trøndelag University College (Høgskolen i Nord-Trøndelag – HiNT) and is held at HiNTs facilities in Steinkjer, Norway. The meeting has received financial sponsorship from The Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management (DN), from The Department of the Environment at the County Governor in Nord-Trøndelag (Fylkesmannen i Nord-Trøndelag, miljøvernavdelingen), as well as from HiNTs own central funds. All of these organizations are kindly thanked for their generous support. In addition, a number of participants received a financial grant to attend the meeting from Faunafonds in the Netherlands - without such support some of the participants would have been unable to attend. The idea for hosting this meeting in Norway arose during discussions in a bar in Sweden during the 12th GSG meeting in Höllviken, and planning of this current meeting in Steinkjer began in February 2011. The board of the Goose Specialist Group (comprising Bart Ebbinge -chair, Tony Fox, Thomas Heinicke, Konstantin Litvin, Jesper Madsen, Johan Mooij, Ingunn Tombre, Berend Voslamber) have been closely involved in getting the meeting off the ground.
    [Show full text]
  • SITES Table 5 Below Lists the Principal Sites for Non-Breeding
    PRINCIPAL SITES Table 5 below lists the principal sites for few changes to the top twenty sites listed non-breeding waterbirds in the UK as in the principal sites table, with the order monitored by WeBS. All sites supporting of the top ten changing little from year to more than 10,000 waterbirds are listed, as year. are all sites supporting internationally The Wash remains as the key waterbird important numbers of one or more site in terms of absolute numbers and in waterbird species. Naturalised species ( e.g. 2009/10 held figures well above average for Canada Goose and Ruddy Duck) and non- recent years. The total of 435,227 birds native species presumed to have escaped represents the highest site total in WeBS from captive collections have been history. With the exceptions of North excluded from the totals, as have gulls and Norfolk Coast and Morecambe Bay, numbers terns since the recording of these species is at the majority of other top 10 sites were optional (see Analysis ). In contrast to below recent average. Following the previous years, all Greylag Geese are now highest total at Ribble Estuary for ten years included following a reclassification of the in 2008/09, the total in 2009/10 was the listing of populations. Table 6 lists other lowest since 2001/02. Reduced totals were sites holding internationally important especially marked at the two most numbers of waterbirds, which are not important non-estuarine sites, namely routinely monitored by standard WeBS Somerset Levels and Ouse Washes. This was surveys but by the Icelandic Goose Census probably attributable to the effects of and aerial surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • Reintroduction Ecology of the Eurasian Crane Grus Grus
    Reintroduction ecology of the Eurasian crane Grus grus Submitted by Andrea Soriano Redondo to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biological Sciences In March 2017 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature:…………………………………………………………… 1 To my parents 2 Abstract Successful conservation strategies to increase the survival prospects of a population must be accompanied by an accurate knowledge of the population dynamics. In this thesis, I examine the population dynamics of Eurasian cranes (Grus grus) in the UK and assess the impact of a reintroduction on the future population size and distribution. Additionally, I cover other aspects of crane conservation, such as public engagement in crane conservation and crane resilience to extreme weather events. To do so, I use a wide range of tools: Internet-based monitoring methods, stochastic matrix population models, point process models and GPS-accelerometer tracking devices. I show that there is a geographic gradient in interest in reintroduction projects; people living near the project area have a greater interest than people from areas further away. I also show that the UK crane population is acting as a pseudo-sink; current levels of survival and productivity allow the population’s persistence but immigration is driving population recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Spoon-Billed Sandpiper Task Force · News Bull · No 22 · May 2020
    Spoon-billed Sandpiper Task Force · News Bull · No 22 · May 2020 Spoon-billed Sandpiper Task Force News Bulletin No 22 · May 2020 Contents Foreword from the Editor .................................................................................................................................. 3 Guest Editorial: Scott Hecker, Director of Bird Conservation, ICFC ............................................................ 4 Message from the EAAFP Secretariat: Doug Watkins, Chief Executive ....................................................... 6 Spoon-billed Sandpiper Census in China, January 2020 ............................................................................... 7 A new Site for the Spoon-billed Sandpiper in Vietnam ............................................................................... 12 Gulf of Mottama – Spoon-billed Sandpiper midwinter Census January 2020 .......................................... 17 Save the long Journey from Russia to Myanmar ........................................................................................... 23 News from Pak Thale Nature Reserve ............................................................................................................ 24 Updates from ICFC supported Projects in the wintering Areas .................................................................. 26 Summary of SBS Winter Counts 2020 ............................................................................................................ 29 Hunting pressure on Shorebirds in Kamchatka ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]