DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix a Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix a Heritage Impact Assessment Report APPENDIX A HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT October 9, 2015 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Holt Line Bridge (Duthill Bridge/10th Concession Bridge) Spanning the Sydenham River, St. Clair Township, Ontario Submitted to: Kelly Vader, MCIP, RPP BM Ross and Associates Limited 62 North Street Goderich, ON N7A 2TA Report Number: 1534665-R01 Distribution: 1 Copy - BM Ross and Associates Limited REPORT 1 Copy - Golder Associates Ltd. HIA - HOLT LINE BRIDGE - TOWNSHIP OF ST. CLAIR Executive Summary Golder Associates Ltd. was retained by B.M. Ross and Associates Ltd. (B.M. Ross) to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the proposed rehabilitation or replacement of the of the Duthill Bridge, also known as the Holt Line Bridge, located on Holt Line in the Township of St. Clair, Ontario. The objective of the HIA was to determine whether the structure represented a built heritage resource or a part of a cultural heritage landscape of cultural heritage value or interest. The analysis of the Duthill Bridge was guided by the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture, and Sport’s (MTCS) Ontario Heritage Toolkit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process. This HIA makes the following recommendations: Subject to the confirmation of preferred alternatives for the potential rehabilitation or replacement of the Duthill Bridge, St. Clair Township should consider the mitigation options identified in Section 5.3 of this report to evaluate the potential options that would conserve the cultural heritage value of the bridge. From a best practice standpoint for the conservation of heritage resources, the preferred alternative for the Duthill Bridge would be one of the following three options: Construction of a new bridge adjacent to the existing structure: The retention of the bridge in situ as a part of a pedestrian or recreational vehicle crossing would act as a form of mitigation. Rehabilitation/restoration of the existing bridge: The retention of the bridge in situ as a part of a continued vehicle crossing would act as a form of mitigation. Integration of the bridge into a new bridge: This would result in the construction of a new bridge while integrating design elements, such as the retention of some of the steel truss components of the bridge. The integration of the steel truss elements, if integrated successfully, would conserve the heritage attributes and thus, the cultural heritage value of the bridge. October 9, 2015 Report No. 1534665-R01 HIA - HOLT LINE BRIDGE - TOWNSHIP OF ST. CLAIR Project Personnel Project Director Carla Parslow, Ph.D., Associate, Senior Archaeologist Project Manager Michael Greguol, M.A., CAHP Intern, Cultural Heritage Specialist Historic Research Michael Greguol, M.A., CAHP Intern, Cultural Heritage Specialist Report Production Michael Greguol, M.A., CAHP Intern, Cultural Heritage Specialist Liz Yildiz, Administrative Assistant Senior Review Carla Parslow, Ph.D., Associate, Senior Archaeologist Acknowledgments B.M. Ross Kelly Vader, MCIP, RPP Township of St.Clair Matt Deline, P.Eng., Director of Public Works Lambton County Archives Dana Thorne, Archivist October 9, 2015 Report No. 1534665-R01 HIA - HOLT LINE BRIDGE - TOWNSHIP OF ST. CLAIR Table of Contents 1.0 STUDY PURPOSE AND METHOD .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Process ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Method ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Technical Note ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND HISTORY ............................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Natural Environment ............................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1.1 Historical Context ........................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Bridge Building Context ....................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Duthill Bridge History ........................................................................................................................................... 6 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Context .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 3.2 Approaches ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Abutments ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 3.4 Truss .................................................................................................................................................................. 12 3.5 Deck .................................................................................................................................................................. 17 3.6 Cultural Landscape ............................................................................................................................................ 17 4.0 EVALUATION ................................................................................................................................................................. 19 4.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 ..................................................................................................................................... 19 4.1.1 Cultural Heritage Value ................................................................................................................................ 20 4.1.1.1 Design/Physical Value .............................................................................................................................. 20 4.1.1.2 Historic/Associative Value ........................................................................................................................ 20 4.1.1.3 Contextual Value ...................................................................................................................................... 21 4.1.2 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value ........................................................................................................... 21 4.1.3 Heritage Attributes ....................................................................................................................................... 21 5.0 ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................................................... 22 5.1 Proposed Undertaking ....................................................................................................................................... 22 5.2 Potential Impacts ............................................................................................................................................... 22 5.3 Potential Mitigation Options ............................................................................................................................... 23 October 9, 2015 Report No. 1534665-R01 i HIA - HOLT LINE BRIDGE - TOWNSHIP OF ST. CLAIR 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 24 7.0 SOURCES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 25 8.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT ......................................................................... 26 9.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 27 TABLES Table 1: Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation of the Duthill Bridge ............................................................................................ 19 FIGURES Figure 1: Study Area .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 PLATES Plate 1: View of Sydenham River looking south from the Duthill Bridge .................................................................................... 4 Plate 2: Double Front survey system, 1818-1829 ...................................................................................................................... 5 Plate 3: Duthill Bridge
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recovery Strategy for Northern Riffleshell, Snuffbox, Round Pigtoe, Mudpuppy Mussel and Rayed Bean in Canada
    Recovery Strategy for Five Ontario Freshwater Mussels December 2006 Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series Recovery Strategy for Northern Riffleshell, Snuffbox, Round Pigtoe, Mudpuppy Mussel and Rayed Bean in Canada. December 2006 Recovery Strategy for Five Ontario Freshwater Mussels December 2006 About the Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series What is the Species at Risk Act (SARA)? SARA is the Act developed by the federal government as a key contribution to the common national effort to protect and conserve species at risk in Canada. SARA came into force in 2003 and one of its purposes is “to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity.” What is recovery? In the context of species at risk conservation, recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered, threatened or extirpated species is arrested or reversed, and threats are removed or reduced to improve the likelihood of the species’ persistence in the wild. A species will be considered recovered when its long-term persistence in the wild has been secured. What is a recovery strategy? A recovery strategy is a planning document that identifies what needs to be done to arrest or reverse the decline of a species. It sets goals and objectives and identifies the main areas of activities to be undertaken. Detailed planning is done at the action plan stage. Recovery strategy development is a commitment of all provinces and territories and of three federal agencies — Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada — under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting 22 Minutes
    Thames – Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee Meeting Notice Please be advised that a meeting of the Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee has been called for the following time. If you are unable to attend please contact Erin Carroll at 519-245-3710x 46. Meeting Date: January 8, 2010 Meeting Time: 9:00 am to 3:00 pm Meeting Location: St. Clair Conservation Authority office Proposed Agenda Item Time 1. Chair’s Welcome 9:00 2. Adoption of the Agenda 3. Delegations 4. Minutes From the Previous Meeting 5. Declaration of Conflict of Interest 6. Business arising from the minutes a. Wallaceburg IPZ-2 (presentation) b. Tier 1 Water Budget 7. Business 10:00 a. LTV AR Sections i. Background ii. Watershed Characterization iii. Water Budget iv. Vulnerability Assessment v. Issues Evaluation vi. Conditions vii. Threats and Risk Assessment viii. Great Lakes ix. Data Gaps b. LTV AR Maps Lunch 12:00 c. LTV AR Threats Tables d. LTV AR System Summaries e. LTV AR Section Summaries f. For Approval - Notification of Significant Threats g. Meeting Schedule 8. Information a. Managed Lands Technical Bulletin b. Geothermal Technical Bulletin c. DRAFT - Deadstock Disposal Technical Bulletin 9. In Camera Session 10. Other business Page 1 of 13 11. MOE Liaison report 12. Members reports 13. Adjournment 3:00 Meeting Materials Agenda Item Description 2010.01.4. December minutes 2010.01.7a. LTV AR Sections 2010.017b. LTV Maps 2010.01.7c. LTV Threat tables 2010.01.7d. LTV System Summaries 2010.01.7e. LTV Section Summaries 2010.01.7fg Revised Meeting Schedule - To be distributed later 2010.01.8a.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontario Species at Risk Evaluation Report for Round Pigtoe
    Ontario Species at Risk Evaluation Report for Round Pigtoe (Pleurobema sintoxia) Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) Assessed by COSSARO as ENDANGERED December 2014 Final Pleurobème écarlate (Pleurobema sintoxia) Le pleurobème écarlate est une moule d’eau douce qui peut atteindre une longueur de 13 cm. L’épaisse coquille des adultes est brun acajou parcourue de lignes foncées. Au Canada, le pleurobème écarlate est présent dans le sud-ouest de l’Ontario, dans le delta de la rivière Sainte-Claire et dans la rivière Sydenham River, et qu’en petites populations dans les rivières Grand et Thames. Il pourrait avoir disparu du lac Érié et de la rivière Niagara, mais il faudra réaliser d’autres relevés pour le confirmer. Le pleurobème écarlate utilise différents habitats, notamment les rivières et les lacs aux eaux profondes et aux fonds sablonneux, rocheux ou boueux. Comme toutes les moules d’eau douce, il se nourrit d’algues et de bactéries qu’il filtre hors de l’eau. Les larves de moules sont des parasites qui s’attachent à un poisson-hôte dont elles puisent les nutriments jusqu’à leur métamorphose en juvéniles, puis s’en détachent. Les hôtes du pleurobème écarlate sont, entre autres, le méné bleu, le ventre rouge du Nord, le ventre-pourri et le crapet arlequin. Le pleurobème écarlate est une espèce en voie de disparition en Ontario. Il est présent dans quelques endroits à peine, et le nombre de sites ne cesse de diminuer depuis 10 ans en raison de la présence des moules zébrées envahissantes (critères A2, B1 et B2 du CDSEPO).
    [Show full text]
  • Mitchell's Bay, Dresden, Wallaceburg
    CAIRO RD MAIN LINE 22 LAMBTON LINE 22 RD 40 26 ERICK COUNTY LIM MICHIGAN SARNIA COUNTY OF LAMBTON 121 ALGONAC ST. OF CLAIR 121 23 PETER RD. 31 BOTHWELL MIDDLESEX LANGSTAFF LINE 44 21 ARNOLD ROAD 25 ZONE CENTRE LINE 24 Legend FORHAN STREET 22 FERRY TO 33 PARKWAY 16 U.S. CROTON LINE 2 CLACHAN ROAD KIMBALL ROAD DAWN MILLS RD 29 McCREARY LINE ROAD ZONE ROAD 7 78 MANDAUMIN RD. McCREARY LINE HIGHWAY 40 23 78 IRISH SCHOOL RD. Airport 28 29 CROTON LINE 25 DUFFERIN AVE. 33 H SYDENHAM RIVER ROAD LONGWOODS SYDENHAM RIVER THAMES RIVER COUNTY 32 121 N WALLACEBURG VIA RAIL Angling 15 18 UNCLE FLORENCE ROAD OF LITTLEJOHN BASE LINE TOM'S Parks CLACHA BASE LINE 28 ROAD Blueberries 15 DRESDEN 26 ELGIN MURRAY ST. MURRAY Arena BASE LINE 15 ST. ROAD OAKDALE ROAD JANE ROAD 21 BASE LINE INDUSTRIAL RD. NORTH KENT BRIDGE ROAD FIRST NATIONS 21 2 FIRST NATIONS 29 JANE ST 121 Bed & Breakfast RESERVE 42 29A 28 RESERVE WALPOLE ISLAND LONDON THAMESVILLE MORAVIAN OF SELTON LINE Birding 40 401 15 CENTRE SIDE ROAD THE THAMESORFORD ROAD 121 29 18 iMaze Boat Launch ST. ANNE OLDFIELD LINE 21 ISLAND 2 ROAD 20 ST. CLAIR ROAD 19 ROBIN LINE Bus Terminal SELTON LINE LONGWOODS 29 RIVER LINE Orford Road 19 MUIRKIRK LINE ELECTRIC LINE Exit 117 Camping 18 GOODBRAND LINE 18 19 UNION LINE PRINCE ALBERT ROAD BEAR LINE ROADDOVER 2 VICTORIA ROAD CK Police 42 CENTRE 15 Victoria Road HIGHGATE DUART 28 SCANE ROAD BAY LINE FYSH LINE Exit 401 BURY RD.
    [Show full text]
  • Spotted Sucker,Minytrema Melanops
    COSEWIC Status Appraisal Summary on the Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops in Canada SPECIAL CONCERN 2014 COSEWIC status appraisal summaries are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk in Canada. This document may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC status appraisal summary on the Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xvi pp. (www.registrelep- sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC acknowledges Nick Mandrak and Lynn Bouvier for writing the status appraisal summary on the Spotted Sucker, Minytrema melanops, in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This status appraisal summary was overseen and edited by John Post, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Freshwater Fishes Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-938-4125 Fax: 819-938-3984 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Sommaire du statut de l’espèce du COSEPAC sur le Meunier tacheté (Minytrema melanops) au Canada. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2014. Catalogue No. CW69-14/2-44-2015E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-25616-0 COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – November 2014 Common name Spotted Sucker Scientific name Minytrema melanops Status Special Concern Reason for designation This species is a relatively rare fish that inhabits lakes and rivers in southwestern Ontario. Its spatial distribution has remained relatively constant in these environments but there are indications that occurrence has declined in the Lake Erie part of its range.
    [Show full text]
  • Neogobius Melanostomus (Round Goby) [Original Text by J
    Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June 2019 Revised, September 2019 Web Version, 11/18/2019 Photo: E. Engbretson, USFWS. Public domain. Available: https://digitalmedia.fws.gov/digital/collection/natdiglib/id/5112/rec/2. (June 2019). 1 Native Range and Status in the United States Native Range From Fuller et al. (2019): “Eurasia including Black Sea, Caspian Sea, and Sea of Azov and tributaries (Miller 1986).” 1 From Freyhof and Kottelat (2008): “Native: Azerbaijan; Bulgaria; Georgia; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Kazakhstan; Moldova; Romania; Russian Federation; Turkey; Turkmenistan; Ukraine” Status in the United States From Fuller et al. (2019): “Already spread to all five Great Lakes, with large populations in Lakes Erie and Ontario. Likely to find suitable habitat throughout Lake Erie and in all Great Lakes waters at depths less than 60 m (USEPA 2008). Established outside of the Great Lakes basin in 1994 (Dennison, personal communication), and in 2010 spread into the lower Illinois River (K. Irons, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL, personal communication)” “Round Goby was considered extremely abundant in the St. Clair River in 1994. Short trawls made in Lake Erie in October 1994 turned up 200 individuals. Frequent trawling in 1995 collected over 3,000 individuals near Fairport Harbor, Ohio (Knight, personal communication). Densities in Calumet Harbor exceed 20 per square meter (Marsden and Jude 1995). Gravid females and different size classes have been found in Lake Erie (T. Cavender, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, personal communication). In Lake Superior, primarily established in Duluth-Superior Harbor and lower St.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Round Hickorynut Mussel (Obovaria Subrotunda)
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Round Hickorynut Mussel (Obovaria subrotunda) Photo credit: Environment Canada October 2019 Version 1.0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Atlanta, GA 1 Primary Contributors • Andrew Henderson - Asheville Field Office, Lead Biologist (Region 4) – primary author • Heidi Crowell - Pacific Southwest Regional Office, SAT Project Manager (Region 8) • Mark Endries - Asheville Field Office (Region 4) – mapping support Contributors & Agency Reviewers (underlined) • Paul Hartfield, Leroy Koch (retired), Angela Boyer, Stephanie Chance (retired), Bob Anderson, Tyler Hern, Andy Ford, Patty Morrison (retired), Bob Butler (retired), Josh Hundley (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) • Dr. Todd Morris (Fisheries & Oceans Canada) • Chuck Howard (retired), Tim Keeling (Tennessee Valley Authority) • Kierstin Carlson (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy) • Steve Ahlstedt (retired) (U.S. Geological Survey) • Dr. Arthur Bogan, Jamie Smith (North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences) • Jeremy Tiemann, Rachel Vinsel, Kevin Cummings (Illinois Natural History Survey) • Heidi Dunn, Emily Grossman (Ecological Specialists, Inc.) • Dr. Paul Johnson, Jeff Garner, Michael Buntin, Todd Fobian, Ashley Peters (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) • Gerry Dinkins (University of Tennessee) • Matt Johnson, Greg Zimmermann (EnviroScience, Inc.) • Mike Compton, Ian Horn (Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission) • Chad Lewis, Clarissa Lawliss (Lewis Environmental Consulting) • Nevin Welte (Pennsylvania Boat and Fish Commission) • Amy Mahar, Nick Conrad (New York Natural Heritage Program) • Darran Crabtree (New York Chapter, The Nature Conservancy) • Debbie Wolschki (Ohio Natural Heritage Program) • Janet Clayton (West Virginia Natural Resources) • Brant Fisher (Indiana Department of Natural Resources) • Dr. Monte McGregor, Adam Shepard, Keith Wethington (Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources) • Stuart McGregor (Geological Survey of Alabama) • Don Hubbs, Jason Wisenwski (Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency) • Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Baldoon Settlement
    A history of Wallaceburg and Vicinity 1804 to the present by Frank Mann April 7, 1968 Page 1 Dedicated to those people who have made Wallaceburg and vicinity such a wonderful place in which to live CHATHAM -KENT PUBLIC liB~ Page 2 Table of Contents Message rrom the Municipality Author's Forward List or Illustrations and Maps Chapter 1 Introduction 2 The Baldoon Settlement 3 Pioneer Living Alter Baldoon 4 The Baldoon Mystery 5 Wallaceburg's Birth and Growth 6 Growth ol Industries 7 Neighbouring Communities 8 Way of Lile In Wallaceburg in the Late 1800's and Early 1900's 9 Development or Local Government and lnsututlons 10 Transportation and Lodging ll Boats and Navigation 12 Floods and Fires 13 Railroad Building 14 A Misunderstanding: The Negro Story 15 Some Statistics of Early Wallaceburg 16 Stories of Islands and Rivers 17 Ethnic Groups 18 Summary Page 3 THE TOWN OF WALLACEBURG WALLACEBURG, ONTARIO, CANADA }.fessage /ro1n the Municipa/;ty FORWARD The Centennial Year 1967 of Canadian Confederation brought to many Canadians a ne\1 realization that we had not completed another 100 years but rather a time of colourful history of which we may be justly proud. We, in Wallaceburg, fell the inl'ectious fever of Canada's Centennial and looked to our past with pride. With this in mind your Town Council Commissioned Mr. Frank Mrum or Wallaceburg lo place, in book form, the knowledge gained by a life lime bobby. The people of Wallaceburg gratefully acknowledge the foresight, effort and interest ol Frank Mann and his associates in making possible for our future citizens an insight of !be trials and tribulations of our first citizens and the promise of a future greater Wal­ laceburg.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Strategy for Northern Riffleshell (Epioblasma Torulosa
    PROPOSED Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series Recovery Strategy for Northern Riffleshell, Snuffbox, Round Pigtoe, Mudpuppy Mussel and Rayed Bean in Canada August 2006 About the Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series What is the Species at Risk Act (SARA)? SARA is the Act developed by the federal government as a key contribution to the common national effort to protect and conserve species at risk in Canada. SARA came into force in 2003 and one of its purposes is “to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a result of human activity.” What is recovery? In the context of species at risk conservation, recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered, threatened or extirpated species is arrested or reversed, and threats are removed or reduced to improve the likelihood of the species’ persistence in the wild. A species will be considered recovered when its long-term persistence in the wild has been secured. What is a recovery strategy? A recovery strategy is a planning document that identifies what needs to be done to arrest or reverse the decline of a species. It sets goals and objectives and identifies the main areas of activities to be undertaken. Detailed planning is done at the action plan stage. Recovery strategy development is a commitment of all provinces and territories and of three federal agencies — Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada — under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. Sections 37–46 of SARA (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/the_act/default_e.cfm) spell out both the required content and the process for developing recovery strategies published in this series.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Clair Region Assessment Report Updated – November 14, 2014 I St
    Thames-Sydenham and Region Source Protection Committee St. Clair Region Source Protection Area Assessment Report Approved September 16, 2015 Made possible through the support of the Government of Ontario Thames – Sydenham and Region c/o Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 1424 Clarke Road, London, ON, N5V 5B9 September 17, 2015 Dear reader Re: Approval of Source Protection Plan and Updated Assessment Reports The Thames-Sydenham Region Source Protection Plan and the updated Assessment Reports for the Lower Thames Valley, St. Clair Region and Upper Thames River Source Protection Areas represent significant milestones in the Source Protection Committee’s progress in protecting municipal drinking water sources in the Thames-Sydenham and Region. The Assessment Reports were approved September 16, 2015 and the Source Protection Plan was approved September 17, 2015. The Source Protection Plan will come into effect December 31, 2015. The Source Protection Committee realizes that these are “living documents” which will need to be updated and amended from time to time. Future updates will need to be approved prior to coming into effect. After formal submission of these documents for approval the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, requested that several additional changes be made prior to approval. The general changes made to the enclosed documents, between submission of the documents and approval of the documents, are listed below. Source Protection Plan Minor corrections to the margin notes of Volume II policy OC-2.42 and the title of Volume III policy 2.30 Addition of this letter Assessment Reports (SCRSPA, LTVSPA and UTRSPA) Identification of microsystin LR as an issue for Wheatley and Chatham/South Kent intakes (LTVSPA) Revisions to Appendix 4 to direct reader to comments from final consultation Minor revisions to wording (SCRSPA, UTRSPA Addition of text describing Pre-Consultation in section 2 of the Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement Plan - 2015 Addition of this letter Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority St.
    [Show full text]
  • National Recovery Plan No. 25 October 2003
    National Recovery Plan No. 25 October 2003 National Recovery Strategy for Species At Risk in the Sydenham River: An Ecosystem Approach Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife For additional copies contact: Recovery Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-1410 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: [email protected] Recovery Web Site: http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/recovery/default_e.cfm Cataloguing in Publication Data Main entry under title: National recovery strategy for species at risk in the Sydenham River : an ecosystem approach (National Recovery Plan No. 25) "Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife" Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-662-34621-1 Cat. no. CW69-11/25-2003E 1. Fishes — Habitat — Ontario — Sydenham River (Middlesex-Chatham-Kent) 2. Mussels — Habitat — Ontario — Sydenham River (Middlesex-Chatham-Kent) 3. Wildlife recovery — Ontario — Sydenham River (Middlesex-Chatham-Kent) 4. Endangered species — Ontario — Sydenham River (Middlesex-Chatham-Kent) I. Dextrase, A.J. II. Staton, S.K. III. RENEW (Canada) IV. Canadian Wildlife Service V. Series QL614.83C3D49-2003 333.95'6153'0971325 C2003-980242-6 Cover illustration: Snuffbox © Burch, J.B. 1973. Freshwater Unioniacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Revised edition. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. 204 pp. Reproduced with permission from John B. Burch. Blackstripe Topminnow © Joseph R. Tomelleri Également disponible en français sous le titre : « Programme de rétablissement des espèces en péril de la rivière Sydenham : une approche écoystèmique. » © Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife 2003 Content (excluding illustrations and photos) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source. Recommended citation: Dextrase, A.J., S.K.
    [Show full text]
  • COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Mapleleaf Quadrula Quadrula, Great Lakes - Upper St
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula Great Lakes - Upper St. Lawrence population Saskatchewan - Nelson Rivers population in Canada Great Lakes - Upper St. Lawrence population – SPECIAL CONCERN Saskatchewan - Nelson Rivers population - THREATENED 2016 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2016. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula, Great Lakes - Upper St. Lawrence population and Saskatchewan - Nelson Rivers population, in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xi + 86 pp. (http://www.registrelep- sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=24F7211B-1). Previous report(s): COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Mapleleaf Mussel Quadrula quadrula (Saskatchewan-Nelson population and Great Lakes-Western St. Lawrence population) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 58 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge David Zanatta, Jordan Hoffman and Joseph Carney for writing the status report on the Mapleleaf. This report was prepared under contract with Environment and Climate Change Canada and was overseen by Dwayne Lepitzki, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Molluscs Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment and Climate Change Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-938-4125 Fax: 819-938-3984 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la Mulette feuille d’érable (Quadrula quadrula), population des Grands Lacs et du haut Saint-Laurent et population de la rivière Saskatchewan et du fleuve Nelson, au Canada.
    [Show full text]