DOCSLIB.ORG

Biodiversity Investment Areas: Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biodiversity Investment Areas: Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1998 BIODIVERSITY INVESTMENT AREAS Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems Version 3 Ron Reid Bobolink Enterprises Washago, Ontario Canada Karen Rodriguez U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chicago, Illinois U.S.A. Amy Mysz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chicago, Illinois U.S.A. July 1999 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1998 BIODIVERSITY INVESTMENT AREAS Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems Version 3 Ron Reid Bobolink Enterprises Washago, Ontario Canada Karen Rodriguez U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chicago, Illinois U.S.A. Amy Mysz U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chicago, Illinois U.S.A. July 1999 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ..................................................................... 1 1.1 Definition and Limitations ................................................... 1 1.2 Addressing Other Sites ..................................................... 2 1.3 Current BIA Activities ...................................................... 3 1.4 Next Steps ............................................................... 4 1.5 Monitoring Progress ....................................................... 4 1.6 Report Format ............................................................ 5 2. Superior North .................................................................. 7 2.1 Ecological Features and Values ............................................... 7 2.2 Current Threats to Ecological Values .......................................... 9 2.3 Current Protection of Ecological Values ....................................... 10 2.4 Assessment .............................................................. 10 2.5 Key Protection Needs ..................................................... 11 2.6 Stewardship Vignette ...................................................... 11 2.6.1 National Marine Conservation Areas ................................. 11 3. Eastern Lake Superior ........................................................... 12 3.1 Ecological Features and Values .............................................. 12 3.2 Current Threats to Ecological Values ......................................... 13 3.3 Current Protection of Ecological Values ....................................... 13 3.4 Assessment .............................................................. 15 3.5 Key Protection Needs ..................................................... 15 4. Grand Sable Dunes–Whitefish Point ............................................... 15 4.1 Ecological Features and Values .............................................. 15 4.2 Current Threats to Ecological Values ......................................... 16 4.3 Current Protection of Ecological Values ....................................... 17 4.4 Assessment .............................................................. 19 4.5 Key Protection Needs ..................................................... 19 4.6 Stewardship Vignette ...................................................... 19 4.6.1 Monitoring the Grand Sable Dunes ................................... 19 5. Keweenaw Peninsula ............................................................ 19 5.1 Ecological Features and Values .............................................. 19 5.2 Current Threats to Ecological Values ......................................... 20 5.3 Current Protection of Ecological Values ....................................... 20 5.4 Assessment .............................................................. 22 5.5 Key Protection Needs ..................................................... 22 6. Greater Chequamegon Region .................................................... 22 6.1 Ecological Features and Values .............................................. 22 6.2 Current Threats to Ecological Values ......................................... 23 6.3 Current Protection of Ecological Values ....................................... 24 6.4 Assessment .............................................................. 26 6.5 Key Protection Needs ..................................................... 26 6.6 Stewardship Vignette ...................................................... 27 6.6.1 Town of Bayfield Land Use Plan .................................... 27 SOLEC 98 - BIAs - Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems i 7. Lake Superior Highlands ......................................................... 27 7.1 Ecological Features and Values .............................................. 27 7.2 Current Threats to Ecological Values ......................................... 28 7.3 Current Protection of Ecological Values ....................................... 29 7.4 Assessment ............................................................. 31 7.5 Key Protection Needs ..................................................... 31 7.6 Stewardship Vignette ...................................................... 32 7.6.1 Adopt -A-Trout .................................................. 32 8. Mackinac-Manitoulin ............................................................ 32 8.1 Ecological Features and Values .............................................. 32 8.2 Current Threats to Ecological Values ......................................... 33 8.3 Current Protection of Ecological Values ....................................... 34 8.4 Assessment .............................................................. 37 8.5 Key Protection Needs ..................................................... 37 8.6 Stewardship Vignette ...................................................... 38 8.6.1 The International Alvar Conservation Initiative ......................... 38 9. Eastern Georgian Bay ........................................................... 38 9.1 Ecological Features and Values .............................................. 38 9.2 Current Threats to Ecological Values ......................................... 39 9.3 Current Protection of Ecological Values ....................................... 40 9.4 Assessment .............................................................. 43 9.5 Key Protection Needs ..................................................... 43 9.6 Stewardship Vignette ...................................................... 44 9.6.1 Georgian Bay Littoral Biosphere Reserve .............................. 44 10. Bruce Peninsula ................................................................ 44 10.1 Ecological Features and Values ............................................. 44 10.2 Current Threats to Ecological Values ........................................ 47 10.3 Current Protection of Ecological Values ...................................... 47 10.4 Assessment ............................................................. 50 10.5 Key Protection Needs .................................................... 51 10.6 Stewardship Vignette ..................................................... 51 10.6.1 Lyal Island: Preserving a Microcosm of the Bruce ...................... 51 11. Saginaw Bay .................................................................. 52 11.1 Ecological Features and Values ............................................. 52 11.2 Current Threats to Ecological Values ........................................ 53 11.3 Current Protection of Ecological Values ...................................... 53 11.4 Assessment ............................................................. 55 11.5 Key Protection Needs .................................................... 55 12. Misery Bay .................................................................... 55 12.1 Ecological Features and Values ............................................. 55 12.2 Current Threats to Ecological Values ........................................ 56 12.3 Current Protection of Ecological Values ...................................... 57 12.4 Assessment ............................................................. 57 12.5 Key Protection Needs .................................................... 57 ii Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems - BIAs - SOLEC 98 13. Northern Lake Michigan ........................................................ 58 13.1 Ecological Features and Values ............................................. 58 13.2 Current Threats to Ecological Values ........................................ 58 13.3 Current Protection of Ecological Values ...................................... 61 13.4 Assessment ............................................................. 61 13.5 Key Protection Needs .................................................... 61 13.6 Stewardship Vignette .................................................... 62 13.6.1 Beaver Island Botanical Bunch ..................................... 62 14. Chicago Wilderness ............................................................ 62 14.1 Ecological Features and Values ............................................. 62 14.2 Current Threats to Ecological Values ........................................ 63 14.3 Current Protection of Ecological Values ...................................... 63 14.4 Assessment ............................................................. 64 14.5 Key Protection Needs .................................................... 66 14.6 Stewardship Vignette ..................................................... 66 14.6.1 Chicago Region Biodiversity Council ................................ 66 15. Door County and Garden Peninsula ............................................... 66 15.1 Ecological Features and Values ............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • S T a T E O F N E W Y O R K 3695--A 2009-2010
    S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K ________________________________________________________________________ 3695--A 2009-2010 Regular Sessions I N A S S E M B L Y January 28, 2009 ___________ Introduced by M. of A. ENGLEBRIGHT -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. KOON, McENENY -- read once and referred to the Committee on Tourism, Arts and Sports Development -- recommitted to the Committee on Tour- ism, Arts and Sports Development in accordance with Assembly Rule 3, sec. 2 -- committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee AN ACT to amend the parks, recreation and historic preservation law, in relation to the protection and management of the state park system THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM- BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 1 Section 1. Legislative findings and purpose. The legislature finds the 2 New York state parks, and natural and cultural lands under state manage- 3 ment which began with the Niagara Reservation in 1885 embrace unique, 4 superlative and significant resources. They constitute a major source of 5 pride, inspiration and enjoyment of the people of the state, and have 6 gained international recognition and acclaim. 7 Establishment of the State Council of Parks by the legislature in 1924 8 was an act that created the first unified state parks system in the 9 country. By this act and other means the legislature and the people of 10 the state have repeatedly expressed their desire that the natural and 11 cultural state park resources of the state be accorded the highest 12 degree of protection.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Lake Superior in 2000
    THE STATE OF LAKE SUPERIOR IN 2000 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 07-02 The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was established by the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between Canada and the United States, which was ratified on October 11, 1955. It was organized in April 1956 and assumed its duties as set forth in the Convention on July 1, 1956. The Commission has two major responsibilities: first, develop coordinated programs of research in the Great Lakes, and, on the basis of the findings, recommend measures which will permit the maximum sustained productivity of stocks of fish of common concern; second, formulate and implement a program to eradicate or minimize sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes. The Commission is also required to publish or authorize the publication of scientific or other information obtained in the performance of its duties. In fulfillment of this requirement the Commission publishes the Technical Report Series, intended for peer-reviewed scientific literature; Special Publications, designed primarily for dissemination of reports produced by working committees of the Commission; and other (non-serial) publications. Technical Reports are most suitable for either interdisciplinary review and synthesis papers of general interest to Great Lakes fisheries researchers, managers, and administrators, or more narrowly focused material with special relevance to a single but important aspect of the Commission's program. Special Publications, being working documents, may evolve with the findings of and charges to a particular committee. Both publications follow the style of the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Sponsorship of Technical Reports or Special Publications does not necessarily imply that the findings or conclusions contained therein are endorsed by the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Piping Plover: Great Lakes Breeding Habitat
    April- 2001 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE PIPING PLOVER: GREAT LAKES BREEDING HABITAT Final Addendum Division of Economics U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 April 2001 April- 2001 Prepared by: Robert Unsworth, Sarah Malloy, Leslie Katz and Jeremy Sinaikin Industrial Economics, Incorporated 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 April- 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1 IMPLICATIONS AND REVISED ESTIMATES FOR THE DRAFT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................................1 Revisions to Critical Habitat Units.....................................................................................2 Baseline Statutory and Regulatory Requirements .............................................................2 Socioeconomic Profile of the Critical Habitat Areas.........................................................8 Impacts of Critical Habitat Designation on Land Use: Federal, Tribal, State, Local, and Private Lands....................................................9 ECONOMIC COSTS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION..........................................................................................................................30 Number of Consultations and Technical Assistance Calls...............................................30 Costs of
    [Show full text]
  • Catching It All Chequamegon Bay, Apostle Islands by Dick Ellis
    www.onwisconsinoutdoors.com June 22, 2009 Catching It All Chequamegon Bay, Apostle Islands By Dick Ellis Still a bit early to pursue a I pondered Kastern’s offer. deep water search for lake trout Superior was quiet and the fore- near the Apostle Islands, Guide cast called for the big lake to stay Aron Kastern had left the target of flat with gentle winds. Although choice to me; take the sure bet- Kastern knows better lake trout bite and chase Chequamegon fishing is on the horizon as the Bay’s trophy-class smallmouth calendar pages burn away into bass, or vertical jig for lakers in July and August, if we did find water that can reach depths of fish we might tangle with a fero- hundreds of feet with no guarantee cious fighter weighing in at 10 that we would find fish. pounds, 20…or who knows how “I also have a great bite on big. Most appealing to a writer right now casting for walleyes,” who had only fished for lakers on the multi-species guide said on a the Superior hardwater, Kastern bluebird, mid-June morning. “We loves to vertical jig the deep. Most caught lots of nice fish the last other anglers prefer to motor troll. several days on crankbaits in shal- Even a bad day of fishing is low water. We will catch walleyes still fishing, I thought, considering if we go for it. But that can wait the possibility of photographing until late afternoon. Or we can do the dreaded skunk for this column. it all.” We would still be on big, beautiful Kastern does it all.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes/Big Rivers Fisheries Operational Plan Accomplishment
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Fisheries Operational Plan Accomplishment Report for Fiscal Year 2004 March 2003 Region 3 - Great Lakes/Big Rivers Partnerships and Accountability Aquatic Habitat Conservation and Management Workforce Management Aquatic Species Conservation and Aquatic Invasive Species Management Cooperation with Native Public Use Leadership in Science Americans and Technology To view monthly issues of “Fish Lines”, see our Regional website at: (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/) 2 Fisheries Accomplishment Report - FY2004 Great Lakes - Big Rivers Region Message from the Assistant Regional Director for Fisheries The Fisheries Program in Region 3 (Great Lakes – Big Rivers) is committed to the conservation of our diverse aquatic resources and the maintenance of healthy, sustainable populations of fish that can be enjoyed by millions of recreational anglers. To that end, we are working with the States, Tribes, other Federal agencies and our many partners in the private sector to identify, prioritize and focus our efforts in a manner that is most complementary to their efforts, consistent with the mission of our agency, and within the funding resources available. At the very heart of our efforts is the desire to be transparent and accountable and, to that end, we present this Region 3 Annual Fisheries Accomplishment Report for Fiscal Year 2004. This report captures our commitments from the Region 3 Fisheries Program Operational Plan, Fiscal Years 2004 & 2005. This document cannot possibly capture the myriad of activities that are carried out by any one station in any one year, by all of the dedicated employees in the Fisheries Program, but, hopefully, it provides a clear indication of where our energy is focused.
    [Show full text]
  • Chequamegon Bay and Its Communities I Ashland Bayfield La Pointe a Brief History 1659-1883
    Chequamegon Bay And Its Communities I Ashland Bayfield LaPointe A Brief Hi story 1659-1883 Chequamegon Bay And Its Communities I Ashland Bayfield La Pointe A Brief History 1659-1883 Lars Larson PhD Emeriti Faculty University of Wisconsin-Whitewater CHEQUAMEGON BAY Chequamegon, sweet lovely bay, Upon thy bosom softly sway. In gentle swells and azure bright. Reflections of the coming night; Thy wooded shores of spruce and pine. Forever hold thee close entwine. Thy lovely isles and babbling rills. Whose music soft my soul enthrills; What wondrous power and mystic hands. Hath wrought thy beach of golden sands. What artist's eye mid painter's brush. Hath caught thy waters as they rush. And stilled them all and then unfurled. The grandest picture of the world— So fair, so sweet to look upon. Thy beauteous bay, Chequamegon. Whitewater Wisconsin 2005 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 The Chequamegon Bay Historians 4 Odes to Chequamegon Bay 7 Introduction 13 Chapter 1—An Overview of Wisconsin History to 1850 26 Chapter 2—Chequamegon Bay and La Pointe 1659-1855 44 Chapter 3—The Second Era of Resource Exploitation 82 Chapter 4—Superior 1853-1860 92 Chapter 5—Ashland 1854-1860 112 Chapter 6—Bayfield 1856-1860 133 Chapter 7—Bayfield 1870-1883 151 Chapter 8—Ashland 1870-1883 186 Chapter 9—The Raikoad Land Grants: Were The Benefits Worth The Cost? 218 Bibliographies 229 Introduction 230 Wisconsin History 23 4 Chequamegon Bay and La Pointe 241 Second Era of Resource Exploitation 257 Superior 264 Ashland 272 Bayfield 293 Introduction 1860-1870 301 Railroad Land Grants 304 Acknowledgements I am deeply indebted to the staffs of the Andersen Library of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, and the Library of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, mid to the Register of Deeds of Bayfield County, for their indispensable assistance mid support in the preparation of this study.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 State Council of Parks Annual Report
    2015 ANNUAL REPORT New York State Council of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Seneca Art & Culture Center at Ganondagan State Historic Site Franklin D. Roosevelt State Park Governor Andrew M. Cuomo at Minnewaska State Park, site of new Gateway to the park. Letchworth State Park Nature Center groundbreaking Table of Contents Letter from the Chair 1 Priorities for 2016 5 NYS Parks and Historic Sites Overview 7 State Council of Parks Members 9 2016-17 FY Budget Recommendations 11 Partners & Programs 12 Annual Highlights 14 State Board for Historic Preservation 20 Division of Law Enforcement 22 Statewide Stewardship Initiatives 23 Friends Groups 25 Taughannock Falls State Park Table of Contents ANDREW M. CUOMO ROSE HARVEY LUCY R. WALETZKY, M.D. Governor Commissioner State Council Chair The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo Governor Executive Chamber February 2016 Albany, NY 12224 Dear Governor Cuomo, The State Council of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation is pleased to submit its 2015 Annual Report. This report highlights the State Council of Parks and the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation’s achievements during 2015, and sets forth recommendations for the coming year. First, we continue to be enormously inspired by your unprecedented capital investment in New York state parks, which has resulted in a renaissance of the system. With a total of $521 million invested in capital projects over the last four years, we are restoring public amenities, fixing failing infrastructure, creating new trails, and bringing our state’s flagship parks back to life. New Yorkers and tourists are rediscovering state parks, and the agency continues to plan for the future based on your commitment to provide a total of $900 million in capital funds as part of the NY Parks 2020 initiative announced in your 2015 Opportunity Agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • FF Directory
    Directory WFF (World Flora Fauna Program) - Updated 30 November 2012 Directory WorldWide Flora & Fauna - Updated 30 November 2012 Release 2012.06 - by IK1GPG Massimo Balsamo & I5FLN Luciano Fusari Reference Name DXCC Continent Country FF Category 1SFF-001 Spratly 1S AS Spratly Archipelago 3AFF-001 Réserve du Larvotto 3A EU Monaco 3AFF-002 Tombant à corail des Spélugues 3A EU Monaco 3BFF-001 Black River Gorges 3B8 AF Mauritius I. 3BFF-002 Agalega is. 3B6 AF Agalega Is. & St.Brandon I. 3BFF-003 Saint Brandon Isls. (aka Cargados Carajos Isls.) 3B7 AF Agalega Is. & St.Brandon I. 3BFF-004 Rodrigues is. 3B9 AF Rodriguez I. 3CFF-001 Monte-Rayses 3C AF Equatorial Guinea 3CFF-002 Pico-Santa-Isabel 3C AF Equatorial Guinea 3D2FF-001 Conway Reef 3D2 OC Conway Reef 3D2FF-002 Rotuma I. 3D2 OC Conway Reef 3DAFF-001 Mlilvane 3DA0 AF Swaziland 3DAFF-002 Mlavula 3DA0 AF Swaziland 3DAFF-003 Malolotja 3DA0 AF Swaziland 3VFF-001 Bou-Hedma 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-002 Boukornine 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-003 Chambi 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-004 El-Feidja 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-005 Ichkeul 3V AF Tunisia National Park, UNESCO-World Heritage 3VFF-006 Zembraand Zembretta 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-007 Kouriates Nature Reserve 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-008 Iles de Djerba 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-009 Sidi Toui 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-010 Tabarka 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-011 Ain Chrichira 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-012 Aina Zana 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-013 des Iles Kneiss 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-014 Serj 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-015 Djebel Bouramli 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-016 Djebel Khroufa 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-017 Djebel Touati 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-018 Etella Natural 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-019 Grotte de Chauve souris d'El Haouaria 3V AF Tunisia National Park, UNESCO-World Heritage 3VFF-020 Ile Chikly 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-021 Kechem el Kelb 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-022 Lac de Tunis 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-023 Majen Djebel Chitane 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-024 Sebkhat Kelbia 3V AF Tunisia 3VFF-025 Tourbière de Dar.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration of Woodland Caribou to the Lake Superior Region
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln U.S. National Park Service Publications and Papers National Park Service 1994 Restoration of Woodland Caribou to the Lake Superior Region Peter J. P. Gogan Yellowstone National Park Jean Fitts Cochrane USFWS, Anchorage, AL Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natlpark Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Gogan, Peter J. P. and Cochrane, Jean Fitts, "Restoration of Woodland Caribou to the Lake Superior Region" (1994). U.S. National Park Service Publications and Papers. 11. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/natlpark/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the National Park Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in U.S. National Park Service Publications and Papers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 9 Restoration of woodland caribou to the Lake Superior region PETER J. P. GOGAN AND JEAN FITTS COCHRANE Introduction Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) historically occupied the boreal forest zone across the North American continent. The distribution and abun­ dance of the species has declined in the past century. In particular, it has been extirpated from much of the southern limits of its historical range on both sides of the boundary between Canada and the United States (Bergerud 1974). Translocation of animals from extant populations may be used to reestablish populations in portions of the species' former range. Recently, wildlife biolo­ gists in Ontario have translocated woodland caribou to a number of sites in or adjacent to Lake Superior. While it is too soon to evaluate their long-term suc­ cess, these restoration efforts do provide useful insights into factors likely to influence the outcome of woodland caribou translocations elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • 22 AUG 2021 Index Acadia Rock 14967
    19 SEP 2021 Index 543 Au Sable Point 14863 �� � � � � 324, 331 Belle Isle 14976 � � � � � � � � � 493 Au Sable Point 14962, 14963 �� � � � 468 Belle Isle, MI 14853, 14848 � � � � � 290 Index Au Sable River 14863 � � � � � � � 331 Belle River 14850� � � � � � � � � 301 Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Res- Belle River 14852, 14853� � � � � � 308 cue System (AMVER)� � � � � 13 Bellevue Island 14882 �� � � � � � � 346 Automatic Identification System (AIS) Aids Bellow Island 14913 � � � � � � � 363 A to Navigation � � � � � � � � 12 Belmont Harbor 14926, 14928 � � � 407 Au Train Bay 14963 � � � � � � � � 469 Benson Landing 14784 � � � � � � 500 Acadia Rock 14967, 14968 � � � � � 491 Au Train Island 14963 � � � � � � � 469 Benton Harbor, MI 14930 � � � � � 381 Adams Point 14864, 14880 �� � � � � 336 Au Train Point 14969 � � � � � � � 469 Bete Grise Bay 14964 � � � � � � � 475 Agate Bay 14966 �� � � � � � � � � 488 Avon Point 14826� � � � � � � � � 259 Betsie Lake 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agate Harbor 14964� � � � � � � � 476 Betsie River 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agriculture, Department of� � � � 24, 536 B Biddle Point 14881 �� � � � � � � � 344 Ahnapee River 14910 � � � � � � � 423 Biddle Point 14911 �� � � � � � � � 444 Aids to navigation � � � � � � � � � 10 Big Bay 14932 �� � � � � � � � � � 379 Baby Point 14852� � � � � � � � � 306 Air Almanac � � � � � � � � � � � 533 Big Bay 14963, 14964 �� � � � � � � 471 Bad River 14863, 14867 � � � � � � 327 Alabaster, MI 14863 � � � � � � � � 330 Big Bay 14967 �� � � � � � � � � � 490 Baileys
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 1 Geoscientific Desktop Preliminary Assessment of Potential
    Phase 1 Geoscientific Desktop Preliminary Assessment of Potential Suitability for Siting a Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel MUNICIPALITIES OF ARRAN-ELDERSLIE, BROCKTON AND SOUTH BRUCE, TOWNSHIP OF HURON-KINLOSS AND TOWN OF SAUGEEN SHORES, ONTARIO APM-REP-06144-0108 JUNE 2014 This report has been prepared under contract to the NWMO. The report has been reviewed by the NWMO, but the views and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the NWMO. All copyright and intellectual property rights belong to the NWMO. For more information, please contact: Nuclear Waste Management Organization 22 St. Clair Avenue East, Sixth Floor Toronto, Ontario M4T 2S3 Canada Tel 416.934.9814 Toll Free 1.866.249.6966 Email [email protected] www.nwmo.ca Phase 1 Geoscientific Desktop Preliminary Assessment of Potential Suitability for Siting a Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Nuclear Fuel Municipalities of Arran-Elderslie, Brockton and South Bruce, Township of Huron-Kinloss and Town of Saugeen Shores Revision: 0 (Final) Prepared for: Nuclear Waste Management Organization 22 ST. Clair Avenue East, 6th Floor Toronto, Ontario M4T 2S3 Prepared by: Document ID: Sed Sites_Main Report_ June 30_R0 NWMO Report Number: APM-REP-06144-0108 June 2014 Geoscientific Desktop Suitability Assessment Study Sedimentary Sites, Southern Ontario Final Report Phase 1 Geoscientific Desktop Preliminary Assessment of Potential Suitability for Siting a Deep Geological Repository for Canada’s Used Title: Nuclear Fuel,
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Annual Beach Monitoring Report
    MI/DEQ/WRD-12/034 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WATER RESOURCES DIVISION AUGUST 2012 STAFF REPORT MICHIGAN BEACH MONITORING YEAR 2011 ANNUAL REPORT INTRODUCTION The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program, is summarized in the January 1997 report entitled, “A Strategic Environmental Quality Monitoring Program for Michigan’s Surface Waters” (Strategy) (MDEQ, 1997). The objectives of the beach monitoring component of the Strategy are listed below: 1. Assist local health departments to implement and strengthen beach monitoring programs. 2. Create and maintain a statewide database. 3. Determine whether waters of the state are safe for total body contact recreation. 4. Compile data to determine overall water quality. 5. Evaluate the effectiveness of MDEQ programs in attaining Water Quality Standards (WQS) for pathogen indicators. 1. ASSIST LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS TO IMPLEMENT AND STRENGTHEN BEACH MONITORING PROGRAMS Beach Monitoring The monitoring of beaches in Michigan is voluntary and is conducted by the local health departments. Health departments are required to comply with Michigan’s WQS according to R 333.12544 of the Public Health Code, 1978 PA 368 (Act 368), as amended. According to R 333.12541 of Act 368, a local health officer or an authorized representative of a local health department that conducts tests at bathing beaches is required to notify the MDEQ and other entities of the test results within 36 hours of conducting a test or evaluation. This rule also states that the local health department may petition the circuit court for an injunction ordering the owners of a beach to close the beach.
    [Show full text]