Illinois Institute of Natural Resources project list : January 1, 1981.

Includes index.

Fish toxicants and the environment : an ad hoc report to the Research Advisory Council, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Cover title.

America's department of natural resources;

Mode of access: Internet.

Report on a review of the Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) program and the Solid Waste Alternatives Program (SWAP) administered by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2015

Report on a review of the Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) program and the Solid Waste Alternatives Program (SWAP) administered by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the period July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2015

Report on the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for the year ended June 30, 2015

Report on the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for the year ended June 30, 2015

Audit report on the Iowa Water Pollution Control Works Financing Program and the Iowa Drinking Water Facilities Financing Program, joint programs of the Iowa Finance Authority and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for the year ended June 30, 2015

Audit report on the Iowa Water Pollution Control Works Financing Program and the Iowa Drinking Water Facilities Financing Program, joint programs of the Iowa Finance Authority and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources for the year ended June 30, 2015

Inventory of resource rich areas in Illinois : an evaluation of ecological resources /

"IDNR/EEA-96/08"--T.p. verso.

Statewide screening activities for Illinois' low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facility : final report to the Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Task Group and the director, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety /

"This report was prepared under a contract with the Illinois Dept. of Nuclear Safety (IDNS) in support of the Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Task Group. Numerous staff members of the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) and the Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) contributed to this report, which was compiled under the general administrative direction of Bill Shilts and Derek Winstanley, Chiefs of the ISGS and ISWS, respectively."--P. iv.

Preparing for and adapting to climate change impacts: Next steps for the Washington state department of National Resources Aquatic Resources Program

In response to a growing body of research on projected climate change impacts to Washington State’s coastal areas, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources��� (DNR) Aquatic Resources Program (the Program) initiated a climate change preparedness effort in 2009 via the development of a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (the Strategy)i. The Strategy answers the question “What are the next steps that the Program can take to begin preparing for and adapting to climate change impacts in Washington’s coastal areas?” by considering how projected climate change impacts may effect: (1) Washington’s state-owned aquatic landsii, (2) the Program’s management activities, and (3) DNR’s statutorily established guidelines for managing Washington’s state-owned aquatic lands for the benefit of the public. The Program manages Washington’s state-owned aquatic lands according to the guidelines set forth in Revised Code of Washington 79-105-030, which stipulates that DNR must manage state-owned aquatic lands in a manner which provides a balance of the following public benefits: (1) Encouraging direct public uses and access; (2) Fostering water-dependent uses; (3) Ensuring environmental protection; (4) Utilizing renewable resources. (RCW 79-105-030) The law also stipulates that generating revenue in a manner consistent with these four benefits is a public benefit (RCW 79-105-030). Many of the next steps identified in the Strategy build off of recommendations provided by earlier climate change preparation and adaptation efforts in Washington State, most notably those provided by the Preparation and Adaptation Working Group, which were convened by Washington State Executive Order 70-02 in 2007, and those made in the Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment (Climate Impacts Group, 2009). (PDF contains 4 pages)

S.C. Dept. of Natural Resources Annual Accountability Report 1994/95

Each year the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources reports to the Office of State Budget that includes the agency's mission, goals and objectives to accomplish the mission, and performance measures regarding the goals and objectives.

Annual report to the Board of Natural Resources and Conservation /

Title varies.

Illinois inventory of greenhouse gas emissions.

Description based on: 1998.

Landowners guide to natural resources management incentives /

"September 2002."

Resident perceptions of natural resources between cities and across scales in the Pacific Northwest

As the global population becomes increasingly urban, research is needed to explore how local culture, land use, and policy will influence urban natural resource management. We used a broad-scale comparative approach and survey of residents within the Portland (Oregon)-Vancouver (Washington) metropolitan areas, USA, two states with similar geographical and ecological characteristics, but different approaches to land-use planning, to explore resident perceptions about natural resources at three scales of analysis: property level (“at or near my house”), neighborhood (“within a 20-minute walk from my house”), and metro level (“across the metro area”). At the metro-level scale, nonmetric multidimensional scaling revealed that the two cities were quite similar. However, affinity for particular landscape characteristics existed within each city with the greatest difference generally at the property-level scale. Portland respondents expressed affinity for large mature trees, tree-lined streets, public transportation, and proximity to stores and services. Vancouver respondents expressed affinity for plentiful accessible parking. We suggest three explanations that likely are not mutually exclusive. First, respondents are segmented based on preferences for particular amenities, such as convenience versus commuter needs. Second, historical land-use and tax policy legacies may influence individual decisions. Third, more environmentally attuned worldviews may influence an individual’s desire to produce environmentally friendly outcomes. Our findings highlight the importance of acknowledging variations in residents’ affinities for landscape characteristics across different scales and locations because these differences may influence future land-use policies about urban natural resources.