DOCSLIB.ORG

Towards a Method for Monitoring Litter Pathways to the Aquatic Environment Clean Europe Network

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Towards a Method for Monitoring Litter Pathways to the Aquatic Environment Clean Europe Network Towards a Method for Monitoring Litter Pathways to the Aquatic Environment Clean Europe Network Authors: Dr Chris Sherrington Dr Chiarina Darrah 18/11/2014 Contents ! 1.0! Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1! 1.1! Impacts of Litter .................................................................................................................. 2! 1.2! Context – Legislation and Research ................................................................................. 5! 2.0! Methodology for Quantitative Field Research ...................................................................... 8! 2.1! Method Overview ................................................................................................................ 9! 2.2! Method for Choosing Pilot Project Sites .......................................................................... 10! 2.2.1! Location Relative to River ......................................................................................... 11! 2.2.2! Availability of Suitable Monitoring Sites ................................................................... 11! 2.2.3! Vulnerability to Littering ............................................................................................ 12! 2.2.4! Ability to Implement Litter Abatement Measures .................................................... 18! 2.2.5! Potential for Mobilisation of Monitoring Resource .................................................. 18! 2.3! Monitoring Methodology .................................................................................................. 19! 2.3.1! Sampling Equipment ................................................................................................. 19! 2.3.2! Number of Repeats .................................................................................................... 22! 2.3.3! Units, Dataflow ........................................................................................................... 24! 2.3.4! Other Equipment ........................................................................................................ 25! 2.3.5! Monitoring Sites ......................................................................................................... 25! 2.4! Definition of Sources/Pathways ...................................................................................... 26! 2.5! A Priori Assessment of Sources and Pathways .............................................................. 29! 2.6! Choice of Abatement Measures ...................................................................................... 31! 2.7! Geographical Location of Test Area and Boundaries ..................................................... 33! 2.8! Time Span and Relationship of Pilot Sites to Each Other .............................................. 36! 2.9! Integration of Data ............................................................................................................ 38! 2.10! Assessment of Cost and Feasibility of Pilot Studies ................................................... 39! 3.0! Toolbox .................................................................................................................................. 44! 3.1! A Priori Assessment of Source/Pathway Prevalence ..................................................... 44! 3.2! Identification of Most Appropriate Interventions ............................................................ 45! 3.3! Evidence Gathering .......................................................................................................... 45! A.1.0! Annex 1 – Literature Review ............................................................................................ 46! A.1.1! Known Sources of Litter and its Pathways to the Aquatic Environment ................... 46! A.1.1.1! Sources ................................................................................................................... 46! A.1.1.2! Pathways ................................................................................................................. 56! Litter Pathways to the Aquatic Environment A.1.2! Assessment of Local Litter Indicators and Data Availability ....................................... 60! A.1.2.1! Public Perceptions and Attitudes .......................................................................... 65! A.1.2.2! Facilities .................................................................................................................. 66! A.1.2.3! Waste and Water Management ............................................................................ 66! A.1.2.4! Recreational Use of Waterways and Riverbank ................................................... 71! A.1.2.5! Commercial & Industrial Activities Adjacent to Rivers ......................................... 72! A.1.2.6! General Indirect Indicators .................................................................................... 72! A.1.2.7! Direct Indicators ..................................................................................................... 78! A.1.3! Monitoring Techniques ................................................................................................. 80! A.1.3.1! Land Based ............................................................................................................. 80! A.1.3.2! River Based ............................................................................................................. 98! A.1.3.3! Discussion ............................................................................................................. 113! A.1.4! Abatement Measures .................................................................................................. 113! A.1.4.1! Inventory ................................................................................................................ 113! A.2.0! Annex 2 – Litter Sources and Pathways Checklist ....................................................... 132! A.3.0! Annex 3 – Abatement Measure Database .................................................................... 133! A.4.0! Annex 4 – Litter Item Type Categorisation .................................................................... 134! A.5.0! Annex 5 – Cost Assessment .......................................................................................... 139! 18/11/2014 ii Litter Pathways to the Aquatic Environment 1.0! Introduction Litter, defined most simply as ‘waste in the wrong place’, is an extensive environmental problem, affecting both rural and urban areas, land and sea. It has many different types of negative impacts, whether environmental, social or economic. These range from costs incurred for prevention and clean-up (direct costs), to indirect costs such as impacts on the wellbeing of people and wildlife. Our understanding of the scale of the indirect costs is only just taking shape and it is likely that they are orders of magnitude greater than the direct costs. Once litter has found its way into the environment, it ultimately ends up in the ocean. The accumulation of manmade materials in the ocean is a global environmental issue of increasing concern. Much work has been undertaken and is currently underway to assess the marine litter problem and develop coherent global approaches to tackle it. An often cited statistic is that 80% of marine litter originates from land based sources. Although the empirical basis for this statistic could be more robust, it is likely to be correct in essence. This true of many litter statistics, because some aspects of the litter problem, such as abundance (rather than the more commonly measured prevalence according to some particular characteristic such as item type or material) are very difficult to measure cost-effectively. Additionally, monitoring effort is rarely standardized and this makes it more difficult to collate data to gain regional, national or global overviews. Also, there are some litter attributes, such as source or pathway, for which there is no robust monitoring methodology. Dealing with litter once it has become oceanic is more difficult than dealing with litter at source. There are many junctures at which litter abatement measures can be implemented closer to litter sources. This is as true of abatement measures as it is of monitoring, an important part of litter management for which, as already mentioned, fully developed methods are not yet established. The Clean Europe Network1 has commissioned this report into the design and feasibility of a method for determining the sources and pathways of litter that finds its way into the freshwater aquatic environment. The aim is to develop a methodology 1 The Clean Europe Network, launched in 2013, is a platform for EU organizations active in the field of litter to share best practice, research and expertise. In this way common approaches to litter reduction can be developed Europe wide, where this is of benefit. Its members include national NGOs that campaign on litter as well as packaging industry and recycling associations. The network members are: An Taisce (Ireland) Keep Baltic Tidy (Baltic countries) AVPU – Association des Villes pour Keep Britain Tidy (England) la Propreté Urbaine (France) Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful Der Gruene Punkt (Germany) Keep Scotland Beautiful Håll Sverige Rent (Sweden) Keep Wales Tidy Hoia Eesti Merd (Estonia) Nederland Schoon (the Netherlands)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 APPENDIX a Waters Assessed for Compliance with Designated Uses
    APPENDIX A WATERS ASSESSED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGNATED USES A - 1 APPENDIX A Waters Assessed For Compliance With Designated Uses The attached tables present lists of rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries for which water quality data have been assessed and used to determine compliance with designated water uses. EPD considers all water quality related data that is received in its assessment of State waters. The data reviewed for the 2006 305(b) report included EPD monitoring data for rivers and streams, both trend data and intensive survey data, major lakes project data, toxic substances stream monitoring project data, aquatic biomonitoring project data, and coastal monitoring project data. The assessment also included data from other State, Federal, local governments, contracted Clean Lakes projects, electrical utility companies and other groups. A full list of data sources can be found on page A- 13. The lists are divided into three categories; waters supporting designated uses, waters partially supporting designated uses, and waters not supporting designated uses. The lists are organized by water type (rivers/streams, lakes and estuaries). The rivers/streams section is further organized by river basin. The list includes information on the location, data source, designated water use classification, and estimates of stream miles, lake acres or estuary square miles assessed. In addition, for the partial and not supporting lists, information is provided on the criterion violated, potential cause, actions planned to alleviate the problem, estimates of stream miles, lake acres or estuary square miles affected, 303(d) status, and priority. A discussion of the potential cause and actions to alleviate columns along with a discussion of priorities is given below.
    [Show full text]
  • Maine Rivers Study
    MAINE RIVERS STUDY Final Report State of Maine Department of Conservation U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Mid-Atlantic Regional Office May 1982 Electronic Edition August 2011 DEPLW-1214 i Table of Contents Study Participants i Acknowledgments iii Section I - Major Findings 1 Section II - Introduction 7 Section III - Study Method and Process 8 Step 1 Identification and Definition of Unique River Values 8 Step 2 Identification of Significant River Resource Values 8 Step 3 River Category Evaluation 9 Step 4 River Category Synthesis 9 Step 5 Comparative River Evaluation 9 Section IV - River Resource Categories 11 Unique Natural Rivers - Overview 11 A. Geologic / Hydrologic Features 11 B. River Related Critical / Ecologic Resources 14 C. Undeveloped River Areas 20 D. Scenic River Resources 22 E. Historical River Resources 26 Unique Recreational Rivers - Overview 27 A. Anadromous Fisheries 28 B. River Related Inland Fisheries 30 C. River Related Recreational Boating 32 Section V - Final List of Rivers 35 Section VI - Documentation of Significant River Related 46 (Maps to be linked to GIS) Natural and Recreational Values Key to Documentation Maps 46 Section VII – Options for Conservation of Rivers 127 River Conservation – Energy Development Coordination 127 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Consistency 127 State Agency Consistency 128 Federal Coordination Using the National Wild & Scenic Rivers Act 129 Federal Consistency on Coastal Rivers 129 Designation into National River System 130 ii State River Conservation Legislation
    [Show full text]
  • WVWA Ranked List of Rivers
    WVWA’s Ranked Lists of Rivers, Streams and Creeks The following two lists are a ranking of river sections by paddling difficulty, from easier to more difficult. The rivers were ranked at a flow that a paddler is likely to encounter at an enjoyable level. The sections of larger rivers were ranked assuming a flow somewhere between 1,000 and 3,000 cfs. The creeks and smaller rivers were ranked with a flow somewhere between 200 and 1,000 cfs. A minimum stage or flow is also listed but was not used for ranking purposes. This minimum level may be easier or more difficult and is only listed to indicate a minimum "doable" level. When a classification appears in parentheses it indicates one rapid which is harder that the rapids on the rest of the run. For example, Class II-III+(IV) indicates that one rapid of class IV difficulty may be expected. An * appearing after a river name indicates that adjoining river mileage may be paddled but the additional mileage is harder and may affect the ranking of the river. An ** appearing after the minimum level indicates that a visual gauge is commonly used and a paddler may have to use a conversion factor to obtain that reading. These ranking began with a compilation of rivers and creeks by WVWA member Turner Sharp. The compilations were sent to 25 WVWA members for ranking. Eleven were returned and were used in these rankings. These ranked lists are an attempt to have a consistent method of labeling rivers by difficulty when organizing a trip schedule.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Vrain and Left Hand Creek
    St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District Stream Management Plan Request for Proposal A. Proposal Purpose The St. Vrain and Left Hand Water Conservancy District (District), based in Longmont Colorado, is seeking a consultant, or team of consultants (Consultant), to develop the first phase of a Stream Management Plan (SMP) for the St. Vrain Creek watershed. B. Project Background The St. Vrain Creek watershed (which includes Left Hand Creek) is critical to maintaining the health, biodiversity, character, and economy of communities within the region, including Lyons and Longmont. The creek is a stronghold for native transition zone fishes, receives Colorado River transmountain water, hosts one of the country’s largest outdoor industry events, and has its headwaters in Rocky Mountain National Park and the Indian Peaks Wilderness and its confluence in the county with the largest agricultural economy in Colorado. Further, the watershed has a diverse array of stakeholders that use and derive value from the waters including agricultural users, domestic water providers, conservationists, and recreational users. Colorado’s Water Plan (CWP) sets a measurable objective to cover 80 percent of the locally prioritized lists of rivers with stream management plans. CWP used the South Platte Basin Implementation Plan (BIP) to help inform this measurable objective. The South Platte BIP studied a reach of St. Vrain Creek for environmental and recreational opportunities and concluded adequate streamflows may at times be present to achieve environmental and recreational outcomes. However, the BIP further concluded that opportunities for flow improvements may be available, but additional data and studies on flow and its relationships to form and function, aquatic and riparian ecosystems, and recreation are needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources on Environment: Lok Sabha (Monsoon Session) 2013-14 – Part-II
    Water Resources on Environment: Lok Sabha (Monsoon Session) 2013-14 – Part-II Q. No. Q. Type Date Ans by Members Title of the Questions Subject Specific Political State Ministry Party Representative 08.08.2013 Water Shri Narahari Mahato Conservation of Water Environmental Education, AIFB West Bengal *67 Starred Resources NGOs and Media Shri Manohar Tirkey Freshwater and Marine RSP West Bengal Conservation 08.08.2013 Water Km. Saroj Pandey Water Resource Projects Water Management BJP Chhattisgarh *70 Starred Resources 08.08.2013 Water Smt. Putul Kumari Flood Prone States Disaster Management Ind. Bihar *74 Starred Resources Shri Gorakh Nath Water Management BSP Uttar Pradesh Pandey 08.08.2013 Water Shri Vikrambhai Repairing of Bunds Disaster Management INC Gujarat 708 Unstarred Resources Arjanbhai Maadam 08.08.2013 Water Smt. Jayshreeben Patel Modified AIBP Scheme Agriculture BJP Gujarat 711 Unstarred Resources Dr. Mahendrasinh Water Management BJP Gujarat Pruthvisinh Chauhan 08.08.2013 Water Dr. Sanjay Sinh Sharda Sahayak Yojana Agriculture INC Uttar Pradesh 717 Unstarred Resources 08.08.2013 Water Shri Ramsinh Committee on Floods Disaster Management BJP Uttar Pradesh 721 Unstarred Resources Patalyabhai Rathwa 08.08.2013 Water Shri A.K.S. Vijayan Fast Tracking Dam Water Management DMK Tamil Nadu 722 Unstarred Resources Projects 08.08.2013 Water Shri Prataprao Social Commitment SS 752 Unstarred Resources Ganpatrao Jadhav Alternative Technologies Maharashtra Shri Chandrakant Water Management SS Bhaurao Khaire Maharashtra 08.08.2013 Water
    [Show full text]
  • Headwater Trout Fisheries Ln New Zealand
    Headwater trout fisheries ln New Zealand D.J. Jellyman E" Graynoth New Zealand Freshwater Research Report No. 12 rssN 1171-9E42 New Zealmtd, Freshwater Research Report No. 12 Headwater trout fïsheries in New Zealand by D.J. Jellyman E. Graynoth NI\ryA Freshwater Christchurch January 1994 NEW ZEALAND FRBSHWATER RESEARCH REPORTS This report is one of a series issued by NItilA Freshwater, a division of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd. A current list of publications in the series with their prices is available from NIWA Freshwater. Organisations may apply to be put on the mailing list to receive all reports as they are published. An invoice will be sent for each new publication. For all enquiries and orders, contact: The Publications Officer NIWA Freshwater PO Box 8602 Riccarton, Christchurch New Zealand ISBN 0-47848326-2 Edited by: C.K. Holmes Preparation of this report was funded by the New Zealand Fish and Game Councils NIWA (the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd) specialises in meeting information needs for the sustainable development of water and atmospheric resources. It was established on I July 1992. NIWA Freshwater consists of the former Freshwater Fisheries Centre, MAF Fisheries, Christchurch, and parts of the former Marine and Freshwater Division, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (Hydrology Centre, Christchurch and Taupo Research hboratory). Ttte New Zealand Freshwater Research Report series continues the New Zealand Freshwater Fßheries Report series (formerly the New Zealand. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Fisheries Environmental Repon series), and Publications of the Hydrology Centre, Chrßtchurch. CONTENTS Page SUMMARY 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Boyhood: Scenes from Provincial Life
    BOYHOOD Scenes from Provincial Life BY THE SAME AUTHOR •Fiction • Dusklands In the Heart of the Country Waiting for the Barbarians Life & Times of Michael K Foe Age of Iron The Master of Petersburg • Nonfiction • White Writing Doubling the Point: Essays and Interviews Giving Offense J. M. COETZEE BOYHOOD Scenes from Provincial Life Seeker & Warburg LONDON Published by Seeker & Warburg 1997 1357910 8642 Copyright© J.M. Coetzee 1997 First published in Great Britain in 1997 by Seeker & Warburg Limited an imprint of Random House UK Limited 20 Vauxhall Bridge Road, London SW1V 2SA Portions of this work first appeared in Artes, Common Knou,ledge (published hy Oxford University Press), West Coastline, and Granla. J.M. Coetzee has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work Random House Australia (Pty) Limited 20 Alfred Street, Milsons Point, Sydney, New South Wales 2061, Australia Random House New Zealand Limited 18 Poland Road, Glenfield, Auckland 10, New Zealand Random House South Africa (Pty) Limited Endulini, SA Jubilee Road, Parktown 2193, South Africa Random House UK Limited Reg. No. 954009 A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Papers used by Random House UK Limited are natural, recyclable products made from wood grown in sustainable forests. The manufacturing processes conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. ISBN 0-4 36-20448-7 Printed and bound in Great Britain by Mackays of Chatham PLC BOYHOOD Scenes from Provincial Life ONE THEY LIVE ON A HOUSING ESTATE outside the town of Worcester, between the railway line and the National Road.
    [Show full text]
  • WSRF Grant Applications Shall Conform to the Current 2016 WSRF Criteria and Guidelines
    Last Update: August 3, 2017 Colorado Water Conservation Board Water Supply Reserve Fund Grant Application Instructions All WSRF grant applications shall conform to the current 2016 WSRF Criteria and Guidelines. To receive funding from the WSRF, a proposed water activity must be approved by a Roundtable(s) AND the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). The process for Roundtable consideration and recommendation is outlined in the 2016 WSRF Criteria and Guidelines. The CWCB meets bimonthly according to the schedule on page 2 of this application. If you have questions, please contact the current CWCB staff Roundtable liaison: Arkansas Gunnison | North Platte | Colorado | Metro | Rio Grande | South Platte | Yampa/White Southwest Ben Wade Craig Godbout Megan Holcomb [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 303-866-3441 x3238 303-866-3441 x3210 303-866-3441 x3222 WSRF Submittal Checklist (Required) I acknowledge this request for funding was recommended for CWCB approval by the sponsoring X Basin Roundtable(s). X I acknowledge I have read and understand the 2016 WSRF Criteria and Guidelines. X I acknowledge the Grantee will be able to contract with CWCB using the Standard Contract.(1) Exhibit A (2) X Statement of Work (Word – see Exhibit A Template) (2) X Budget & Schedule (Excel Spreadsheet – see Exhibit A Template) Letters of Matching and/or Pending 3rd Party Commitments(2) Exhibit C (2) Map Photos/Drawings/Reports Letters of Support (3) Certificate of Insurance (General, Auto, & Workers’ Comp.) Contracting Documents Certificate of Good Standing(3) W-9(3) Independent Contractor Form(3) (If applicant is individual, not company/organization) Electronic Funds Transfer (ETF) Form(3) (1) Click “Grant Agreements”.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 APPENDIX a Waters Assessed for Compliance with Designated Uses
    APPENDIX A WATERS ASSESSED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH DESIGNATED USES A - 1 APPENDIX A Waters Assessed For Compliance With Designated Uses The attached tables present lists of rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries for which water quality data have been assessed and used to determine compliance with designated water uses. EPD considers all water quality related data that is received in its assessment of State waters. The data reviewed for the 2006 305(b) report included EPD monitoring data for rivers and streams, both trend data and intensive survey data, major lakes project data, toxic substances stream monitoring project data, aquatic biomonitoring project data, and coastal monitoring project data. The assessment also included data from other State, Federal, local governments, contracted Clean Lakes projects, electrical utility companies and other groups. A full list of data sources can be found on page A- 13. The lists are divided into three categories; waters supporting designated uses, waters partially supporting designated uses, and waters not supporting designated uses. The lists are organized by water type (rivers/streams, lakes and estuaries). The rivers/streams section is further organized by river basin. The list includes information on the location, data source, designated water use classification, and estimates of stream miles, lake acres or estuary square miles assessed. In addition, for the partial and not supporting lists, information is provided on the criterion violated, potential cause, actions planned to alleviate the problem, estimates of stream miles, lake acres or estuary square miles affected, 303(d) status, and priority. A discussion of the potential cause and actions to alleviate columns along with a discussion of priorities is given below.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Water Conservation Board Flood Recovery Update
    Colorado Water Conservation Board Flood Recovery Update Chris Sturm Stream Restoration Coordinator Colorado Water Conservation Board [email protected] ORGANIZATIONAL CHART GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES COLORADO WATER Colorado State Colorado Division of Colorado Parks Division of Division of CONSERVATION Avalanche Land Oil &Gas Reclamation, Water & Wildlife Forestry BOARD Information Board Conservation Mining, & Resources Center Commission Safety Stream & Lake Watershed & Interstate, Federal Protection Flood Protection & Water Information (In-Stream Flows) Finance Water Supply Section Planning http://cwcb.state.co.us Colorado Water Conservation Board Watershed & Flood Protection Section Grant Programs: Colorado Watershed Restoration Program (CWRP) Invasive Phreatophyte Control Program (IPCP) Colorado Healthy Rivers Fund (CHRF) Fish and Wildlife Resources Fund (FWRF) Senate Bill 14-179 River Restoration grants CWCB Flood Recovery Team Local Stream Coalition Development and Coordination Watershed and Stream Master Planning, Updated hydrology Technical Support for exigent stabilization projects Develop Strategy for Multi-Objective Diversion Design/Construction Program Management- Stream Restoration Design/Implementation Watershed Coalitions •Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed •Estes Valley Watershed Coalition •Big Thompson River Coalition •Little Thompson Watershed Coalition •St. Vrain Creek Coalition •Fourmile Watershed Coalition •Left Hand Watershed Oversight Group •Coal Creek Canyon Watershed Partnership •Middle South Platte River Alliance •El Paso County Regional Watershed Collaborative CWCB’s mission is “to conserve, develop, protect, and manage Colorado’s water for present and future generations” Colorado’s Water Plan Colorado Water Conservation Board December 2015 Watershed Health, Environment, and Recreation Colorado’s Water Plan sets a measurable objective to cover 80 percent of the locally prioritized lists of rivers with stream management plans, and 80 percent of critical watersheds with watershed protection plans, all by 2030.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Stream Design Team to Deliver Resilience
    Building a Stream Design Team ColoradoTo Deliver Emergency Resilience Watershed Protection Program Update St. Vrain Creek Watershed Coalition Board February 2r, 2016 Presentation Overview 1. Building a Foundation for Recovery and Resiliency (CWCB Initiatives) 2. Colorado 2013 EWP Phase II 3. Building a Team to Deliver Resiliency Building a Foundation for Recovery and Resiliency Colorado Water Conservation Board Initiatives Colorado Water Conservation Board CWCB’s mission is “to conserve, develop, protect, and manage Colorado’s water for present and future generations” Non‐consumptive and Consumptive Water Use Colorado’s Water Plan Colorado Water Conservation Board December 2015 Watershed Health, Environment, and Recreation Colorado’s Water Plan sets a measurable objective to cover 80 percent of the locally prioritized lists of rivers with stream management plans, and 80 percent of critical watersheds with watershed protection plans, all by 2030. CWCB Flood Recovery Team • Local Stream Coalition Development and Coordination • Watershed and Stream Master Planning, Updated hydrology • Technical Support for exigent stabilization projects (EWP Phase I) • Develop Strategy for Multi-Objective Diversion Design/Construction • Program Management- Stream Restoration Design/Implementation Watershed Coalitions • Estes Valley Watershed Coalition • Big Thompson River Restoration Coalition • Little Thompson Watershed Restoration Coalition • St. Vrain Creek Coalition • Fourmile Watershed Coalition • Left Hand Watershed Oversight Group • Coal Creek Canyon Watershed Partnership • Middle South Platte River Alliance • El Paso County Regional Watershed Collaborative Colorado 2013 Flood Recovery EWP Phase 2 Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program 2013 Colorado Flood Recovery Phase II NRCS EWP Program Summary • Purpose: Implement emergency recovery measures to protect life and property in watersheds impaired by a natural disaster • Funding: $63.2 mil.
    [Show full text]
  • CA GROW Report 3.18.13Indd.Indd
    california ISTOCK TIM PALMER Mill Creek. Cover: Tuolomne River. Letter from the President ivers are the great treasury of biological noted scientists and other experts reviewed the survey design, and diversity in the western United States. state-specifi c experts reviewed the results for each state. RAs evidence mounts that climate is The result is a state-by-state list of more than 250 of the West’s changing even faster than we feared, it outstanding streams, some protected, some still vulnerable. The becomes essential that we create sanctuaries Great Rivers of the West is a new type of inventory to serve the on our best, most natural rivers that will modern needs of river conservation—a list that Western Rivers harbor viable populations of at-risk species— Conservancy can use to strategically inform its work. not only charismatic species like salmon, but a broad range of aquatic and terrestrial This is one of 11 state chapters in the report. Also available are a species. summary of the entire report, as well as the full report text. That is what we do at Western Rivers Conservancy. We buy land With the right tools in hand, Western Rivers Conservancy is to create sanctuaries along the most outstanding rivers in the West seizing once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to acquire and protect – places where fi sh, wildlife and people can fl ourish. precious streamside lands on some of America’s fi nest rivers. With a talented team in place, combining more than 150 years This is a time when investment in conservation can yield huge of land acquisition experience and offi ces in Oregon, Colorado, dividends for the future.
    [Show full text]