Abstract
In recent decades many local communities, supported by state, federal and/or international programs, have engaged in efforts to remove human debris from urban stream systems. Typically these clean-up events have involved volunteers who collect garbage and other waste from stream banks or from the water. The aims of these programs are to improve overall stream conditions – especially aesthetics – and remove harmful materials from stream environments including tires, plastics, metals and other potential items of concern such as paint cans, and rubber products. Although many of these efforts report basic data on items collected, with the reports and information often submitted to agencies or the focus of media reports, beyond basic types and numbers of information collected, the data and report do not typically contain any geospatial aspects such as locations, areas cleaned, collection of specific items tied to locations, or addressing possible sources for the debris. Since 1997, local groups within the Maumee Area of Concern in northwest Ohio, USA have been organizing an annual stream cleanup event in their communities that has evolved to over 1000 participants working at more than 60 sites covering 4 streams. This chapter examines the results for the Ten mile Creek/Ottawa River clean-up sites using detailed site specific data from 1995 to 2006 that includes items collected and recorded on data forms and then compiled by location and types of items and examined in reference to spatial aspects of management actions including considering potential sources and addressing local land use and human activities contributing the specific items collected at locations along the stream. Results include identifying the top ten items collected and examples of locations where items can be tied to adjacent land uses for purposes of identifying actions to address continued and persistent sources of debris and needed responses. The recommendations and proposals based on this study are intended to inform decision-makers not only at the local scale but to influence how stream clean-up data can be utilized and to improve reporting of this information. And with the aim of encouraging the collection of geospatial and location aspects as a means of furthering utilization of urban stream clean-up data to support and assist management actions to address aesthetic aspects of urban stream environmental improvements and rehabilitation efforts.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Allison RA, Chiew FHS, McMahon TA (1998) A decision support system for determining effective trapping strategies for gross pollutants. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Clayton
American Rivers (n.d.) National River cleanup organizer’s handbook. Washington, DC
Burres E (2009) Conducting rapid trash assessments. SWRCB-Clean Water Team, Sacramento
California Coastal Commission (n.d.) Municipal best management practices for controlling trash and debris. Sacramento
California Water Boards (2007) A rapid trash assessment method applied to waters of the San Francisco Bay region : trash measurement in streams. San Francisco
Friends of the Los Angeles River (2011) Final results of the first urban river challenge : Friends of the Los Angeles River vs. Friends of the Chicago River. Los Angeles
Golik A, Gertner Y (1992) Litter on the Israeli coastline. Mar Environ Res 33(1):1–15
Larson MG, Booth DB, Morley SA (2001) Effectiveness of large woody debris in stream rehabilitation projects in urban basins. Ecol Eng 18(2):211–226
Lassettre NS, Kondolf GM (2012) Large woody debris in urban stream channels: redefining the problem. River Res Appl 28:1477–1487
Lawrence PL (2011) Achieving teamwork: linking watershed planning and coastal zone management in the great lakes. Coast Manag 39:57–71
Marcus AW, Marston RA, Colvard CR, Gray RD (2002) Mapping the spatial and temporal distributions of woody debris in streams of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, USA. Geomorphology 44:323–335
Maryland Department of the Environment (2010) Total maximum daily loads of trash for the Anacostia River Watershed, Montgomery and Prince George Counties, Maryland and the District of Columbia, Maryland Department of Environment, Baltimore, MD, USA
Missouri River Relief (n.d.) Big river cleanups. Columbia
Nemeth DJ, Keirsey DJ (1999) Elaboration on the nature of woody debris: an ethical snag in the aesthetic justification for organized river cleanup. Yearb Assoc Pacific Coast Geogr 61(1):86–107
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (2007) Removal of threat abatement plan – removal of large woody debris from NSW rivers and streams. New South Wales
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (n.d.) Removal of woody debris and trash from rivers and streams. Albany
Ocean Conservancy (2014) Turning the tide on trash, 2014 report. Washington, DC
Ohio Lake Erie Commission (2013) Lake Erie protection & restoration plan. Sandusky
Riley AL (1998) Restoring streams in cities. Island Press, Washington, DC
Stickel BH, Jahn A, Kier B (2013) Waste in our waters: the annual cost to California communities of reducing litter. Sacramento
Susquehanna River Basin Commission (1996) Managing debris in the Susquehanna River Watershed. Harrisburg
U.S. EPA (2011) Trash free waters : the urban-coastal connection. Washington, DC
Wang T (2005) Friend’s of the L.A. River’s trash sort. In: First state of the River report 2005. Friend’s of the L.A. River, Los Angeles
Water Action Volunteers (2001) Stream and river cleanup. University Wisconsin-Extension, Madison
West Michigan Environmental Action Council (n.d.) How to do an urban streambank cleanup : the plaster creek cleanup binder. Grand Rapids
Acknowledgments
The Clean Your Streams annual event has been organized and conducted by numerous local groups and individuals who were responsible for conducting the event and collection of the data. These include Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water, Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments (TMACOG), Partners for Clean Streams Inc., Ohio Lake Erie Commission, City of Toledo, Lucas County, Washington Township, City of Oregon, Olander Park System, University of Toledo, Village of Ottawa Hills, Toledo Metroparks, and the Boy Scouts of America Erie Shores District. Special thanks is extended to Cherie Blair (OEPA) and Kris Patterson and staff at PCS for their efforts with the annual CYS event and their assistance with the data used in this study. Appreciation is also extended to the many local community partners for providing financial support for CYS and to the thousands of volunteers who participated in the clean-up events.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lawrence, P. (2016). Urban Stream Management Using Spatial Approaches for Stream Clean-Up Data. In: Gatrell, J., Jensen, R., Patterson, M., Hoalst-Pullen, N. (eds) Urban Sustainability: Policy and Praxis. Geotechnologies and the Environment, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26218-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26218-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26216-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26218-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)