DOCSLIB.ORG

2016 Mississippi Canada Goose EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2016 Mississippi Canada Goose EA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Managing Damage Caused by Canada Geese in the State of Mississippi PREPARED BY: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES IN COOPERATION WITH: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY OCTOBER 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. iii CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 NEED FOR ACTION ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................. 14 1.4 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS DOCUMENT TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS . 17 1.5 AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ........................................................... 18 1.6 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND STATUTES ....................................................................... 20 1.7 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ......................................................................................................... 24 CHAPTER 2: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ISSUES 2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................... 25 2.2 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH DAMAGE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES .............................. 28 2.3 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE ...................................... 34 CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................ 40 3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................................. 46 3.3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR DAMAGE MANAGEMENT ...................... 49 3.4 ADDITIONAL STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES SPECIFIC TO THE ISSUES ...... 50 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ISSUES ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................. 53 4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 BY ISSUE .................................................. 88 CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS AND/OR PERSONS CONSULTED 5.1 LIST OF PREPARERS, REVIEWERS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED ................................... 95 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: METHODS AVAILABLE FOR RESOLVING OR PREVENTING DAMAGE .......... B-1 APPENDIX C: FEDERAL THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN MISSISSIPPI ......... C-1 APPENDIX D: STATE LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................ D-1 ii ACRONYMS AI Avian Influenza APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association BBS Breeding Bird Survey CBC Christmas Bird Count CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy DNC 4,4'-dinitrocarbanilide EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EPP Eastern Prairie Population ESA Endangered Species Act FDA Food and Drug Administration FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FR Federal Register FY Fiscal Year HDP 4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinal INAD Investigational New Animal Drug LD50 Median Lethal Dose LC50 Median Lethal Concentration MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MDAC Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce MDWFP Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks MFGP Mississippi Flyway Giant Population MOU Memorandum of Understanding NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRP Natural Resource Plan NWRC National Wildlife Research Center SJBP Southern James Bay Population SOP Standard Operating Procedure T&E Threatened and Endangered TVA Tennessee Valley Authority USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WS Wildlife Services iii CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS)1 program in Mississippi continues to receive requests for assistance or anticipates receiving requests for assistance to alleviate or prevent damage occurring to agricultural resources, natural resources, and property, including threats to human safety, associated with Canada geese (Branta canadensis). The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) also continues to experience damage and threats of damage associated with geese at facilities or properties they own or manage in Mississippi. Therefore, the TVA could request the assistance of WS to manage damage or threats of damage at those facilities and properties. The goal of WS and the TVA would be to conduct a coordinated program to alleviate goose damage on properties that the TVA owns or manages in accordance with plans and objectives developed by both agencies. The plans and objectives would outline the actions of each agency. All federal actions are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Public Law 9-190, 42 USC 4321 et seq.), including the actions of WS2 and the TVA. The NEPA sets forth the requirement that all federal actions be evaluated in terms of their potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment for the purpose of avoiding or, where possible, mitigating and minimizing adverse impacts. In part, the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulates federal activities affecting the physical and biological environment through regulations in 40 CFR 1500-1508. The NEPA and the CEQ guidelines generally outline five broad types of activities that a federal agency must accomplish as part of projects they conduct. Those five types of activities are public involvement, analysis, documentation, implementation, and monitoring. Pursuant to the NEPA and the CEQ regulations, WS and the TVA are preparing this Environmental Assessment (EA)3 to document the analyses associated with proposed federal actions and to inform decision-makers and the public of reasonable alternatives capable of avoiding or minimizing adverse effects. This EA will serve as a decision-aiding mechanism to ensure that WS and the TVA infuse the policies and goals of the NEPA and the CEQ into the actions of each agency. This EA will also aid WS and the TVA with clearly communicating the analysis of individual and cumulative impacts of proposed activities to the public. In addition, the EA will facilitate planning, promote interagency coordination, and streamline program management analyses between WS, the TVA, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP)4. Individual projects conducted by the WS program to manage goose damage could be categorically excluded from further analysis under the NEPA, in accordance with APHIS implementing regulations for the NEPA (7 CFR 372.5(c), 60 FR 6000-6003). However, the purpose of this EA is to evaluate cumulatively the individual projects that WS could conduct to manage the damage and threats that Canada geese cause, including those projects that WS could conduct at the request of the TVA. More specifically, the EA will assist WS and the TVA with determining if alternative approaches to managing Canada goose damage could potentially have significant individual and/or cumulative effects on the 1 The WS program is authorized to protect agriculture and other resources from damage caused by wildlife through the Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 USC 426-426b) as amended, and the Act of December 22, 1987 (101 Stat. 1329-331, 7 USC 426c). 2 The WS program follows the CEQ regulations implementing the NEPA (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) along with USDA (7 CFR 1b) and APHIS Implementing Guidelines (7 CFR 372) as part of the decision-making process. 3 The CEQ defines an EA as documentation that “...(1) briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an [Environmental Impact Statement]; (2) aids an agency’s compliance with NEPA when no environmental impact statement is necessary; and (3) facilitates preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement when one is necessary” (CEQ 2007). 4 Section 1.6 of this EA discusses the roles, responsibilities, and the authorities of each agency. 1 quality of the human environment that would warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)5 in compliance with the NEPA and CEQ regulations. This EA will assist in determining if the proposed cumulative management of Canada goose damage could have a significant impact on the environment based on previous activities conducted by WS and based on the anticipation of conducting additional efforts to manage damage. WS’ mission and directives6 would be to provide assistance when the appropriate property owner or manager requests such assistance, within the constraints of available funding and workforce. Therefore, it is conceivable that additional damage management efforts could occur beyond those efforts conducted during previous activities. Thus, this EA anticipates
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 198 13. Repulse Bay. This Is an Important Summer Area for Seals
    198 13. Repulse Bay. This is an important summer area for seals (Canadian Wildlife Service 1972) and a primary seal-hunting area for Repulse Bay. 14. Roes Welcome Sound. This is an important concentration area for ringed seals and an important hunting area for Repulse Bay. Marine traffic, materials staging, and construction of the crossing could displace seals or degrade their habitat. 15. Southampton-Coats Island. The southern coastal area of Southampton Island is an important concentration area for ringed seals and is the primary ringed and bearded seal hunting area for the Coral Harbour Inuit. Fisher and Evans Straits and all coasts of Coats Island are important seal-hunting areas in late summer and early fall. Marine traffic, materials staging, and construction of the crossing could displace seals or degrade their habitat. 16.7.2 Communities Affected Communities that could be affected by impacts on seal populations are Resolute and, to a lesser degree, Spence Bay, Chesterfield Inlet, and Gjoa Haven. Effects on Arctic Bay would be minor. Coral Harbour and Repulse Bay could be affected if the Quebec route were chosen. Seal meat makes up the most important part of the diet in Resolute, Spence Bay, Coral Harbour, Repulse Bay, and Arctic Bay. It is a secondary, but still important food in Chesterfield Inlet and Gjoa Haven. Seal skins are an important source of income for Spence Bay, Resolute, Coral Harbour, Repulse Bay, and Arctic Bay and a less important income source for Chesterfield Inlet and Gjoa Haven. 16.7.3 Data Gaps Major data gaps concerning impacts on seal populations are: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule a Nunavut Land Use Plan Land Use Designations
    65°W 70°W 60°W 75°W Alert ! 80°W 51 130 60°W Schedule A 136 82°N Nunavut Land Use Plan 85°W Land Use Designations 90°W 65°W Protected Area 82°N 95°W Special Management Area 135 134 80°N Existing Transportation Corridors 70°W 100°W ARCTIC 39 Proposed Transportation Corridors OCEAN 80°N Eureka ! 133 30 Administrative Boundaries 105°W 34 Area of Equal Use and Occupancy 110°W Nunavut Settlement Area Boundary 39 49 49 Inuit Owned Lands (Surface and Subsurface including minerals) 42 Inuit Owned Lands (Surface excluding minerals) 78°N 75°W 49 78°N 49 Established Parks (Land Use Plan does not apply) 168 168 168 168 168 168 49 49 168 39 168 168 168 168 168 168 39 168 49 49 49 39 42 39 39 44 168 39 39 39 22 167 37 70 22 18 Grise Fiord 44 18 168 58 58 49 ! 44 49 37 49 104 49 49 22 58 168 22 49 167 49 49 4918 76°N M 76°N 49 18 49 ' C 73 l u 49 28 167 r e 49 58 S 49 58 t r 49 58 a 58 59 i t 167 167 58 49 49 32 49 49 58 49 49 41 31 49 58 31 49 74 167 49 49 49 49 167 167 167 49 167 49 167 B a f f i n 49 49 167 32 167 167 167 B a y 49 49 49 49 32 49 32 61 Resolute 49 32 33 85 61 ! 1649 16 61 38 16 6138 74°N 74°N nd 61 S ou ter 61 nc as 61 61 La 75°W 20 61 69 49 49 49 49 14 49 167 49 20 49 61 61 49 49 49167 14 61 24 49 49 43 49 72°N 49 43 61 43 Pond Inlet 70°W 167 167 !49 ! 111 111 O Arctic Bay u t 167 167 e 49 26 r 49 49 29 L a 49 167 167 n 29 29 d 72°N 49 F 93 60 a Clyde River s 65°W 49 ! t 167 M ' C 60 49 I c l i e n 49 49 t 167 o c 72 k Z 49 o C h n 120°W a 70°N n e n 68°N 115°W e 49 l 49 Q i k i q t a n i 23 70°N 162 10 23 49 167 123 110°W 47 156
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of the Hudson Bay Marine Ecosystem
    10–1 10.0 BIRDS Chapter Contents 10.1 F. GAVIIDAE: Loons .............................................................................................................................................10–2 10.2 F. PODICIPEDIDAE: Grebes ................................................................................................................................10–3 10.3 F. PROCELLARIIDAE: Fulmars...........................................................................................................................10–3 10.4 F. HYDROBATIDAE: Storm-petrels......................................................................................................................10–3 10.5 F. PELECANIDAE: Pelicans .................................................................................................................................10–3 10.6 F. SULIDAE: Gannets ...........................................................................................................................................10–4 10.7 F. PHALACROCORACIDAE: Cormorants............................................................................................................10–4 10.8 F. ARDEIDAE: Herons and Bitterns......................................................................................................................10–4 10.9 F. ANATIDAE: Geese, Swans, and Ducks ...........................................................................................................10–4 10.9.1 Geese............................................................................................................................................................10–5
    [Show full text]
  • Iqaluit, 2005
    NUNAVUT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT BOARD MINUTES: MEETING No. 41 IQALUIT, 5 – 7 APRIL 2005 Members and Staff Participating: Harry Flaherty A/Chairperson Nick Amautinuar Member Robert Moshenko Member Kevin McCormick Member Paul Pemik Member Joannie Ikkidluak Member Abraham Kaunak Member Joe Tigullaraq Chief Executive Officer Jim Noble Chief Operating Officer Joseé Galipeau A/Director of Wildlife Tom Demcheson Director of Finance and Administration Michael d’Eςa NWMB Legal Advisor Evie Amagoalik Interpreter Mary Nashook Interpreter Not Available: DIAND Appointee Vacant Other Participants at Various Times: Bert Dean Associate Director, NTI Gabriel Nirlungayuk Director of Wildlife, NTI Dr. John Cooley A/Regional Director, Northern Region, DFO Michelle Wheatley Director, Eastern Arctic Area Martin Giangioppi Fisheries Management Technician Derrick Moggy Habitat Biologist, DFO Iqaluit Tania Gordanier Habitat Biologist, DFO Iqaluit Rick Rudolph Impact Assessment Biologist Mitch Taylor Manager of Wildlife Research, DoE Mike Ferguson Regional Biologist, DoE Siu-Ling Han Section Head, DOE Canada 1 1. Call to Order and Opening Preliminaries Harry Flaherty, A/Chairperson, called the 41st Regular Meeting of the NWMB to order at 9:00 a.m. Abraham Kaunak led the opening prayer. 2. Agenda for Regular Meeting No. 41 The Board decided (Resolution 2005-017) to accept the agenda for Meeting 41 as presented. 3. Minutes: Review and Approval Minutes for all meetings were deferred to the next meeting 4. Financial and Administrative Business 4.A Variance Report for Year Ending March 31/05 This item was deferred to a later Conference Call. 5. Chairperson, Senior Staff, Advisors’ and Members’ Reports Members were advised that these reports were available for review in the binder.
    [Show full text]
  • Qikiqtani Region
    OVERVIEW 2018 Mineral Exploration, NUNAVUT Mining and Geoscience QIKIQTANI REGION AR CT IC LEGEND O Commodity (Number of Properties) OC CE ÉAN AN AR Base Metals, Active (2) Mine, Active (1) Diamonds, Active (2) CT Mine, Inactive (2) IQ NP Gold, Active (1) U aq E irpa ttin Qu Areas with Surface and/or Subsurface Restrictions S CPMA Caribou Protection Measures Apply t D i MBS Migratory Bird Sanctuary N H a r NP National Park T t A NWA National Wildlife Area E S L S B s TP Territorial Park I e D A r WP Wildlife Preserve S a H I N WS Wildlife Sanctuary L N A T É L E - N Inuit Owned Lands (Fee simple title) B a N ) E n E Surface Only A s ER E K Z N en SM t I I ELLE O a R Surface and Subsurface L E S R a o D A E R u N n n SLA G Geological Mapping Programs d I z ne / u A assi Ka EM N L Ag sin D N Canada-Nunavut Geoscience Office E ap Ba N t N E Ice C li A U E A l D Boundaries Q D L a 1 a / NLCA Nunavut Settlement Area ES EN al K ÎL E K R Nunavut Regions A NILCA 2 Nunavik Settlement Area P Müller R ea Ice Cap G M Provincial / Territorial ry AXEL C h EN a BERG Transportation Routes n HEI D n ÎLE ( e l AND E Milne Inlet Tote Road / Proposed Rail Line ISL SMER 'ELLE Proposed Steensby Inlet Rail Line d D 1 n NLCA The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement M s 2 u ale NILCA The Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement a o f W o s S ce s in H ey Pr ld Pr Ellef Rin a fie inc gnes a Ice e S Gu s Amund o ek staf Islan s r A d e u dol u f l n Ringnes d E Sea S o u Island n d Bay Norwegian °N S 70 AND SL Strait I Hazen Belcher C Y hannel RR PA B y P a en rd k m ! io
    [Show full text]
  • NTI IIBA for Conservation Areas Cultural Heritage and Interpretative
    NTI IIBA for Phase I: Cultural Heritage Resources Conservation Areas Report Cultural Heritage Area: McConnell River and Interpretative Migratory Bird Sanctuary Materials Study Prepared for Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. 1 May 2011 This Cultural Heritage Report: McConnell River Migratory Bird Sanctuary (Arviat) is part of a set of studies and a database produced for Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. as part of the project: NTI IIBA for Conservation Areas, Cultural Resources Inventory and Interpretative Materials Study Inquiries concerning this project and the report should be addressed to: David Kunuk Director of Implementation Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. 3rd Floor, Igluvut Bldg. P.O. Box 638 Iqaluit, Nunavut X0A 0H0 E: [email protected] T: (867) 975‐4900 Project Manager, Consulting Team: Julie Harris Contentworks Inc. 137 Second Avenue, Suite 1 Ottawa, ON K1S 2H4 Tel: (613) 730‐4059 Email: [email protected] Cultural Heritage Report: McConnell River Migratory Bird Sanctuary (Arviat) Authors: Philip Goldring, Consultant: Historian and Heritage/Place Names Specialist (primary author) Julie Harris, Contentworks Inc.: Heritage Specialist and Historian Nicole Brandon, Consultant: Archaeologist Luke Suluk, Consultant: Inuit Cultural Specialist/Archaeologist Frances Okatsiak, Consultant: Collections Researcher Note on Place Names: The current official names of places are used here except in direct quotations from historical documents. Throughout the document Arviat refers to the settlement established in the 1950s and previously known as Eskimo Point. Names of
    [Show full text]
  • MCCONNELL RIVER MIGRATORY BIRD SANCTUARY, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands
    MCCONNELL RIVER MIGRATORY BIRD SANCTUARY, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands Effective Date of Information: The information provided is taken from the List of Canadian Wetlands Designated as of International Importance, May 1982 and updated by the Canadian Wildlife Service in March 1993. Reference: 4CA014 Name and Address of Compiler: Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0H3. Date of Ramsar Designation: 24 May 1982. Geographical Coordinates: 6050'N., 9420'W. General Location: Located about 27 km south of Eskimo Point on the west coast at Hudson Bay in the District of Keewatin, Northwest Territories. Area: 32 800 ha. Wetland Type (Ramsar Classification System): Marine and coastal wetlands: Type 4 - rocky marine shores; Type 7 - intertidal mud, sand and salt flats; Type 8 - intertidal marshes. Inland wetlands: Type 5 - permanent freshwater lakes; Type 8 - permanent freshwater ponds, marshes and swamps; Type 14 - tundra wetlands. Altitude: Range is from sea level to 20 m. Overview (Principal Characteristics): Physical Features (Geology, Geomorphology, Hydrology, Soils, Water, Climate): The flat, low-lying and poorly-drained plain is dotted with shallow ponds and lakes with an average depth of 1 m and is typical of much of the west Hudson Bay coastline. Ecological Features (Habitats, Vegetation): Land Tenure: (a) Site: Fee simple title to this sanctuary is held by the Inuit of Nunavut. (b) Surrounding Area: Federal Crown land. Conservation Measures Taken: The sanctuary was established in 1960 and is protected under the Migratory Bird Sanctuary Regulations that stem from the Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1917. Under Article 9 of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement, the sanctuary remains subject to the regulations of the Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Kivalliq Region
    OVERVIEW 2017 NUNAVUT MINERAL EXPLORATION, MINING & GEOSCIENCE n KIVALLIQL REGION son Fury and Hecla Strait Peninsula Igloolik Taloyoak King Hall Beach Cambridge Bay Victoria Strait William Rasmussen Island Prin Gjoa Haven Cha Basin Kugaaruk MELVILLE Is Queen Maud GulfStoris Passage Committee E Wales I. a Bay PENINSULA o FOXE Queen Maud Gulf BASIN C MBS Kitikmeot Naujaat 207 Naujaat F River Ukkusiksalik NP Foxe Channel Wager Bay Back 4 Amaruq Beverly CPMA 301 Nanuq 210 302 Meadow River Meadowbank Mine 329 C AberdeenWhite Hills SOUTHAMPTON Coral Harbour Thelon WS Lake 318 Greyhound Kivalliq ISLAND St. Tropez 504 319 East Bay MBS Baker Lake 503 Harry Kiggavik Roes Welcome Sound Baker Lake Cone Hill Gibbons 312 MBS River Gibson MacQuoid 317 209 Luxx Parker Lake 314 Chesterfield Inlet Fox Lake 313 Kuulu Dubawnt 205 Kahuna Coats River 315 328 Lake 6 Peter Lake Ma Ferguson Lake 330 Meliadine Island 601 Qamanirjuaq Is Angilak CPMA Rankin Inlet 501 Yathkyed Lake 332 334 Pistol Bay Kazan Quartzite Dubawnt Whale Cove North Henik Yandle Lake333 Noomut 331 South Henik LEGEND Lake Commodity (Number of Properties) Hard Cash Arviat Diamonds, Active (3) Diamonds, Inactive (2) 322 323 Gold, Active (18) Uranium, Inactive (2) Nigel Thlewiaza River Uranium, Active (1) Ni Cu PGE, Inactive (1) McConnell River MBS Kiyuk Mine, Active (1) 327 Areas with Surface and/or Subsurface Restrictions CPMA Caribou Protection Measures Apply MBS Migratory Bird Sanctuary NP National Park NWA National Wildlife Area HUDSONTP Te rritorial Park BAY WP Wildlife Preserve WS Wildlife
    [Show full text]
  • Surveys of Nesting Mid-Continent Lesser Snow Geese and Ross's Geese Showing Dates, Equipment and Personnel
    Surveys of Nesting Mid-continent Lesser Snow Geese and Ross’s Geese in Eastern and Central Arctic Canada, 1997-98 Richard H. Kerbes 1, Katherine M. Meeres 1, Ray T. Alisauskas 1, F. Dale Caswell 2, Kenneth F. Abraham 3 and R. Kenyon Ross 4 1 Canadian Wildlife Service, Prairie and Northern Wildlife Research Centre, 115 Perimeter Road, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 0X4, Canada 2 Canadian Wildlife Service, 123 Main Street, Suite 150, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 4W2, Canada 3 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 300 Water Street, Peterborough, Ontario K9J SMS, Canada 4 Canadian Wildlife Service, 49 Camelot Drive, Napean, Ontario K1A 0H3, Canada Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No. 447 This series may be cited as: R. H. Kerbes, K. M. Meeres, R. T. Alisauskas, F. D. Caswell, K. F. Abraham and R. K. Ross. 2006. Surveys of Nesting Mid-continent Lesser Snow Geese and Ross’s Geese in Eastern and Central Arctic Canada, 1997-98. Technical Report Series No. 447, Canadian Wildlife Service, Prairie and Northern Region, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Issued under the Authority of the Minister of Environment Canadian Wildlife Service © Minister of Supply and Services Canada 2006 Catalogue No. CW69-5/447E ISBN 0-662-42499-9 Copies may be obtained from: Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service Prairie and Northern Region 115 Perimeter Road Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 0X4 Ph: 306 975 5417 Fax: 306 975 4089 Email: [email protected] Abstract We estimated minimum numbers of nesting birds in the known colonies of the Mid-continent Population of Lesser Snow Geese ( Chen caerulescens caerulescens ) and Ross’s Geese ( Chen rossii ), using aerial photography supplemented with ground surveys, in the Eastern Canadian Arctic in June 1997 and the Central Canadian Arctic in June 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • Part II HIGH GOOSE POPULATIONS: CAUSES, IMPACTS and IMPLICATIONS
    ARCTIC ECOSYSTEMS IN PERIL: REPORT OF THE ARCTIC GOOSE HABITAT WORKING GROUP Part II HIGH GOOSE POPULATIONS: CAUSES, IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS KENNETH F. ABRAHAM, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Box 5000, 10401 Dufferin Street, Maple, ON L6A 1S9 ROBERT L. JEFFERIES, Department of Botany, University of Toronto, 25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3B2 INTRODUCTION Many species of Arctic breeding geese have increased significantly over the last thirty years (Ogilvie and St. Joseph 1976, CWS, USFWS and Atlantic Flyway Council 1981, Boyd and Pirot 1989, Owen and Black 1991, Fox et al. 1992, Abrahamet al. 1996). In North America, these include lesser snow geese (Anser caerulescens caerulescens), greater snow geese (A. c. atlantica), Ross' Geese (A. rossii), greater white-fronted geese (A. albifrons), and some populations of Canada geese (Branta canadensis), e.g., B.c. interior of the Mississippi Valley Population and B.c. parvipes of the Short Grass Prairie Population. In addition, some temperate breeding Canada geese (B.c. maxima) have also increased (Rusch et al. 1995, Allan et al. 1995). Most increases are the direct or indirect result of human activities; their combined effects represent biomanipulation of goose populations on a massive scale. The mid-continent population of lesser snow geese, for example, now exceeds three million birds, and the population is increasing at a rate of at least 5% per annum (Abraham et al.1996) (Fig. 2.1). The intense foraging activities of lesser snow geese, greater snow geese, Ross' geese and some Canada goose populations, have altered plant communities in both natural and agricultural ecosystems (Lynch et al.1947, Smith and Odum 1981, Giroux and Bédard 1987, Jefferies 1988a,b, Kerbes et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Licenced Research Northwest Territories
    ' ·· I I I J 1 T J Index of Licenced Research II Northwest Territories • j '\I 1985 { J j Science Advisor J P.o. Box 1617 I Government of the Northwest Territories J ~ - I January 1986 Q 179.98 .C66 1985 copy2 I. -] INTRODUCTION l Scientific Research Licenses are mandatory for all research conducted in the N.W.T. There are three categories. Wildlife Research is licensed by the Department of Renewable Resources, J Archaeology is licensed by the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre and all other research is licensed by the Science Advisor under the Scientists Act. A description of the procedures is J appended to the Index. l During the 1985 calendar year 260 li'cences to carry out scientific research were issued to scientists. Ninety-four 1985 licences were 1 issued to scientists directly affiliated with educational institutions. Of these 94 licences, 79 were issued to scientists from Canadian universities, 13 to scientists from U.S. universities, and 2 to scientists from other foreign universities. Of the 79 licences J granted to scientists from Canadian universities: Ontario received ............. 40 0 A1 berta received ..•..•.... , . 13 Quebec recetved . • . • . 9 Bri'tish Columbia received .... l Manitoba received ............ 5 J Newfoundland received ....•..• 3 J Saskatchewan received ..•..... 2 J The. i.ndex of 1 icenced research gi-ves the followi.ng information on each project: licence number, name and address of affi.liation of 1icen~ee. objective of the research and its location. I.t should be noted that i.nves ti,gators are ob'l i gated by the Ordinance to supply a report to the Commissi.oner withtn a stated ti"me.
    [Show full text]
  • Nunavut-Manitoba Route Selection Study: Final Report
    NISHI-KHON/SNCLAVALIN November 14, 2007 BY EMAIL Kivalliq Inuit Association P.O. Box 340 Rankin Inlet, NU X0C 0G0 016259-30RA Attention: Melodie Sammurtok, Project Manager Dear Ms. Sammurtok: Re: Nunavut-Manitoba Route Selection Study: Final Report We are pleased to submit the final documentation of the Nunavut-Manitoba Route Selection Study as a concluding deliverable of this two-year multi-disciplinary study. An electronic copy of the Final Report is submitted initially via email. One hard-copy report will be subsequently provided to each member of the Project Working Group, along with a CD containing the electronic copies of the Final and Milestone Reports, along with all the associated Appendices. On behalf of the Nishi-Khon/SNC-Lavlin Consultant Team, we would like to thank you, members of the Project Working Group and the Project Steering Committee, for your guidance and valuable contributions to this study. It has been our pleasure to work with KIA, Nunavut, Manitoba and Transport Canada on this challenging project. We look forward to continuing working with you over the next few years on the business case development, more detailed engineering and environmental studies necessary to bring this important project to fruition. Yours truly, SNCLAVALIN INC. Tim Stevens, P. Eng. Project Manager Enclosures DISTRIBUTION LIST Project Steering Committee: Methusalah Kunuk Assistant Deputy Minister, Transportation, Nunavut Department of Economic Development & Transportation Tongola Sandy President, Kivalliq Inuit Association John Spacek Assistant
    [Show full text]