DOCSLIB.ORG

Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Resource Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Resource Assessment STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF CLEARVIEW NORTH PART OF LOT 27, CONCESSION 3, GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF NOTTAWASAGA TOWNSHIP OF CLEARVIEW, COUNTY OF SIMCOE ORIGINAL REPORT Prepared for: CGE Capital Management Inc. 1 Robert Speck Parkway, Suite 960 Mississauga, ON L4Z 3M3 T 905-302-0140 Archaeological Licence #P046 (Clish) Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport PIF# P046-0229-2016 ASI File: 15TS-198 15 August, 2016 Archaeological & Cultural ASI H e r i t a g e S e r v i c e s 528 Bathurst Street Toronto, ONTARIO M5S 2P9 T 416-966-1069 F 416-966-9723 ASIheritage.ca STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF CLEARVIEW NORTH PART OF LOT 27, CONCESSION 3, GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF NOTTAWASAGA TOWNSHIP OF CLEARVIEW, COUNTY OF SIMCOE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASI was retained by CGE Capital Management Inc. to undertake a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Development of Clearview North, part of Lot 27, Concession 3, Geographic Township of Nottawasaga, now in the Township of Clearview, Simcoe County. The subject property encompasses approximately 39 hectares. The Stage 1 assessment entailed consideration of the proximity of previously registered archaeological sites, the original environmental setting of the property, along with nineteenth and twentieth-century settlement trends. This research has led to the conclusion that there is potential for the presence of pre-contact Indigenous and historical Euro-Canadian archaeological resources. The Stage 1 archaeological assessment has resulted in the identification of approximately 80% of the subject property exhibiting archaeological potential. Therefore, a Stage 2 archaeological assessment is required on all undisturbed lands in accordance with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. ASI Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Development of Clearview North Page ii Township of Clearview, County of Simcoe PROJECT PERSONNEL Project Manager: Beverly Garner, Hons. BA Staff Archaeologist and Manager, Stage 1 and 2 Projects, Planning Division Project Director: Andrew Clish, BES (P046) Senior Archaeologist & Geomatics Specialist Project Administrator: Jennifer Ley, Hons. BA (R376) Staff Archaeologist & Assistant Manager of Stage 1 and 2 Projects, Planning Division Field Director: Andrew Clish Report Preparation: Andrew Clish Jennifer Ley Graphics: Andrew Clish Jonas Fernandez, Msc. (R281) Staff Archaeologist & Geomatics Specialist Report Reviewer: Jennifer Ley ASI Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of a Proposed Development of Clearview North Page iii Part of Lot 27, Concession 3, Township of Nottawasaga, County of Simcoe TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ i PROJECT PERSONNEL ........................................................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ iii 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Development Context ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Historical Context ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Historical Overview .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Review of Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Historical Mapping ................................................ 2 1.2.3 Review of Historical Archaeological Potential ............................................................................. 3 1.3 Archaeological Context ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Registered Archaeological Sites ................................................................................................. 3 1.3.2 Previous Assessments ............................................................................................................... 4 1.3.3 Physiography ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.3.4 Review of Pre-contact Archaeological Potential .......................................................................... 5 1.3.5 Subject Property Description ..................................................................................................... 5 2.0 FIELD METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 6 3.0 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 6 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 7 5.0 ADVICE ON COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION ........................................................................................ 8 6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND WORKS CITED ....................................................................................................... 8 7.0 PLATES ............................................................................................................................................... 10 8.0 MAPS ................................................................................................................................................. 11 List of Tables Table 1: Registered Sites within a 1 km Radius of the Subject Property ............................................................ 4 Table 2: Outline of Southern Ontario Prehistory .............................................................................................. 4 List of Plates Plate 1: Laneway to extant dwelling. .............................................................................................................. 10 Plate 2: Demolished barn and debris. ........................................................................................................... 10 Plate 3: Agricultural field. ............................................................................................................................. 10 Plate 4: Agricultural field. ............................................................................................................................. 10 Plate 5: Hydro corridor through woodlot. ....................................................................................................... 10 Plate 6: Dense scrub and bush. ..................................................................................................................... 10 Plate 7: Dense scrub and bush. ..................................................................................................................... 10 Plate 8: Creek flowing through property. ....................................................................................................... 10 Plate 9: Creek flowing through property. ........................................................................................................ 11 Plate 10: Culvert under former rail corridor. .................................................................................................... 11 List of Figures Figure 1: Location of the Subject Property. .....................................................................................................12 Figure 2: Subject Property located on the 1871 Hogg's Map of the County of Simcoe. ...................................... 13 Figure 3: Subject Property located on the 1881 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Simcoe. ................ 13 Figure 4: Surficial Geology of the Subject Property. ....................................................................................... 14 Figure 5: Subject Property located on 1993 NTS Sheet Collingwood. ............................................................... 15 Figure 6: Existing conditions of the Subject Property. .................................................................................... 16 Figure 7: Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Results. .................................................................................... 17 ASI Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of a Proposed Development of Clearview North Page 1 Part of Lot 27, Concession 3, Township of Nottawasaga, County of Simcoe 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT ASI was retained by CGE Capital Management Inc. to undertake a Stage 1 archaeological assessment of the proposed development of Clearview North, part of Lot 27, Concession 3, Geographic Township of Nottawasaga, now in the Township of Clearview, Simcoe County (Figure 1). The subject property encompasses approximately 39 hectares. 1.1 Development Context This assessment was conducted under the project management of Ms. Beverly Garner and project direction of Mr. Andrew Clish (MTCS P046-0229-2016). All activities carried out during this
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Majestic “Notty” Moonlight Bay Cottages – North Bay 1958 Glengarry Cottages 1966
    The Majestic “Notty” Moonlight Bay Cottages – North Bay 1958 Glengarry Cottages 1966 Topics for Today •The Notty •The Nottawasaga Steelheaders • Great Fishery, Concerns and Issues •What can we do The Notty ... Majestic Lady Survival of a Great Watershed • Gary Christie • B. Sc. Biology (York) • Training (Sales- Medical & Life Sciences Research Clinical, DNA) • President (Since 2001) Nottawasaga Steelheaders • Passions – Fishing, Wine & Good Friends and…putting a little back with some volunteer work Gary at Wasaga Beach 1957 Nottawasaga The name is derived from Huron First Nation words referring to the “outlet of the river” where Iroquois would attack the Hurons. 1600 km 3500 sq km MW The Notty…did you know? • Notty Basin - 3500 sq km • 3 counties and 18 municipalities • main branch is over 120 km in length • 11 major tributaries >>McIntyre Creek, Little Marl Creek, Marl Creek, Willow Creek, Mad River, Bear Creek, Pine River, Boyne River, Innisfil Creek, Sheldon Creek and the Upper Nottawasaga reaching as far as Orangeville. • many species of fish, including pike, bass, walleye, sturgeon, brown trout, brook trout, rainbow trout, crappie, salmon – 75 Species of Fish • Home of Int’l recognized (RAMSAR) Minesing Wetland • Wasaga Beach historically important –War of 1812. HMS Nancy sunk defending great lakes • Notty was key lumber river in 1800’s and proposed rail line to Toronto from Wasaga Beach • Notty basin formed by Pleistocene era glaciers 20, 000 years ago • 3 Geological Features - Niagara Escarpment - Rolling Moraines - Broad Simcoe
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Lake Huron in 2010 Special Publication 13-01
    THE STATE OF LAKE HURON IN 2010 SPECIAL PUBLICATION 13-01 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]
  • Stayner and Area Transportation Plan Township of Clearview
    Stayner and Area Transportation Plan Township of Clearview Prepared by R.J.Burnside & Associates Limited 3 Ronnell Crescent, Collingwood ON L9Y 4J6 Canada August, 2009 File No: MCG 16235 The material in this report reflects best judgement in light of the information available at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. Township of Clearview E-1 Stayner and Area Transportation Plan August, 2009 1.0 Executive Summary This study has been prepared to provide a transportation plan for Stayner and area, as background to ongoing planning work to update the Official Plan and the Development Charges By-Law within the Township of Clearview. The focus of this study is the road system and pedestrian/trail system. Consideration of regional transportation initiatives (e.g. improved bus service, rail service or car pool lots) are beyond the scope of this present study. Projects identified within this Plan may be implemented through the completion of a subsequent Class Environmental Assessment, as required. 1.1 Forecasted Growth and Traffic Considerations This transportation plan responds to Provincial and County growth allocations, which forecasts a population increase of 11,400 persons and job increases of 1,400 jobs, within Clearview Township, between 2006 and 2031. The Township has prepared a draft growth plan for Stayner which responds to these growth allocations, and which forms the basis for this transportation plan.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Wasaga Beach
    The History of Wasaga Beach What comes to mind when you think of Wasaga Beach? Most say they first think of its natural attributes; the sun, the sand and our beautiful 14-mile freshwater beach, the longest in the world. But beyond its beauty, the story of our Town is a story of our people. To learn about Wasaga Beach, it is essential to travel back in time to learn about the people that shaped this Town – indigenous peoples, soldiers, loggers, fishermen, businesspeople and tourists of every type. There are so may interesting characters and events that have placed Wasaga Beach on the pages of international history. The story of our Town is one of a special landscape and how people interacted with that landscape over the past two centuries. The first to settle here were of course, First Nations peoples. Wasaga Beach is situated on what was once the traditional land of the Anishinaabeg. The enduring presence of the First Nation Métis and Inuit people on this land is felt here, and as we move forward, we journey in the spirit of reconciliation and respect. Wasaga and its surrounding area was first occupied by the Algonquin First Nation, who gifted us with the words ‘Nottawa’ an Algonquin word meaning ‘Iroquois’, and ‘Saga’ meaning ‘mouth of the River’. These were the Indigenous peoples present in small groups throughout the British military presence in the early 1800’s. After a significant period of largely uninhabited solitude, the banks of the Nottawasaga River began to come alive with activity due to the War of 1812-14.
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk: Lake Sturgeon in the Nottawasaga River Canadian Wildlife Essa Federation Township
    Species at Risk: Lake Sturgeon in the Nottawasaga River Canadian Wildlife Essa Federation Township Nature Conservancy Sturgeon Point of Canada Marina Dorsal Fin Scutes (Bony Plates) Heterocercal Tail Barbels Sucker Mouth Lake Sturgeon Diet Benthic Organisms Small Fish Molluscs Algae and Crayfish plants Spawning Behaviour Sexual Maturity: Males start spawning between 12 to 20 years of age Females start spawning between 14 to 33 years of age Periodic: Males spawn every 2 to 3 years Females spawn every 4 to 9 years Spawning Habitat Riffles - shallow, fast flowing water over a clean coarse gravel/rock bottom Spawning occurs in the Spring between late April and early June in water temperatures between 9 - 18oC Nursery Habitat • Juvenile sturgeon prefer low velocity current, shallow water (1-3 feet deep) and sandy to gravel substrate • Hatchlings grow rapidly, about 15 – 20 cm by the end of the summer • Nottawasaga River is abundant in potential nursery habitat Main Threats Barriers to Spawning Migration Habitat Degradation Pollution and An early commercial catch of lake contaminants sturgeon from Lake Erie (MNR photo). Illegal Harvest Invasive Species Stormwater Gobies and Zebra Mussels Garden River Mississagi River Spanish River North Channel Georgian Bay Saginaw Bay Nottawasaga River St. Clair River Wasaga Beach Alliston Identify Candidate Lake Sturgeon Spawning Habitat Lake Sturgeon 2012 Radio Tracking Project Objectives: Identify critical Lake Sturgeon spawning habitat. MNR staff captured lake sturgeon in Georgian Bay at the mouth of the Nottawasaga River and in the lower 500m of the river, both locations in Wasaga Beach in April 2012. MNR and NVCA staff jointly Installed 21 radio-transmitters into 20 adult sturgeon between April 18 and May 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Researching the Petun by Charles Garrad
    Garrad Researching the Petun 3 Researching the Petun Charles Garrad More than a century of research has led to the present state of knowledge of the Petun occupation of the Petun Country, in the former Collingwood, Nottawasaga, and Mulmur townships. Many individuals, with different skills and interests, have contributed to the study of the Petun between ca. AD 1580 and 1650. This paper outlines the history of investigation of the Petun, describing the work of the more notable contributors. Introduction identification, and interpretation of at least the principal archaeological sites there. This was done The area of Ontario between the Nottawasaga withs a little damage to the resource as possible River and the Blue Mountains, south of andn i co-operation with Petun descendants. Nottawasaga Bay, part of Georgian Bay of Lake The f story o how we arrived at our current Huron, has been occupied intermittently since understanding of Petun history involves the Ice Age. It was occupied historically by the documenting the contributions of many several Iroquoian tribes that were collectively individuals. It is presented here mostly in nicknamed “Petun” by the French.1 The Petun chronological order, while acknowledging thematic were present for only about 70 years (ca. AD trends. Owing to the long-lasting nature of the 1580–1650) but left abundant evidence of their workf o certain researchers, the story at times presence, their role in the fur trade and of the jumps ahead or returns to the work of earlier destructive diseases of the period. Because of the researchers. This history also indicates in the absence of large-scale archaeology, not one Petun footnotes the current locations of many of the house, let alone a village, has been completely notes and collections discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossing the Nottawasaga Was Easy and Not Particularly Worth Noting
    CROSSING THE NOTT AWASAGA Charles Garrad February 1997 Abstract Ho\lv and where the Huron and Petun Indians crossed the Noffawasaga River were not recorded. Three possible crossing places are suggested. Troisendroits possibles des traverseesde la riviere Nottawasaga par les Indiens Huron et Petun sont examines. Introduction Before the Dispersal of 1650, the Hurons lived to the east of the lower Nottawasaga River drainage, and the Petuns to the west. A land journey from one to the other necessarily included crossing the river. The French recorded a number of remarks about the difficulty of travelling in winter on the trails, but none about crossing rivers. Samuel de Champlain, Fathers Joseph Ie Caron, Joseph de la Roche Daillon, Jean de Brebeuf, Isaac Jogues, Charles Garnier, Pierre Pijart, Leonard Garreau, Noel Chabanel and Adrien Greslon, all crossed the river at least once, but none mentioned how or where the crossing was made. This may imply that crossing the Nottawasaga was easy and not particularly worth noting. It was not that somehow the travellers were unaware of the river. Maps drawn by three of them (Champlain, Brebeuf(?) and Bressani), show the river, sometimes in detail. It was not until the repor1 of the death of Father Noel Chabanel, in December 1649, on his way from the Petun to the Huron country, that the first and only mention occurs of a river that was to be crossed (JR35:149). A number of statements were also made concerning the distances from points in the Huron country to the Petun. To use these to locate the Petun it is necessary to know where the river was crossed, because an inconveniently placed crossi ng may have added to the length of the jou rney.
    [Show full text]
  • Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Resource Assessment
    Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of The Everett Secondary Plan and Master Services Class EA Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Simcoe County ORGINAL REPORT Prepared for: Township of Adjala-Tosorontio 7855 Sideroad 30, R.R. #1 Alliston, Ontario L9R 1V1 T: 705-434-5055 F: 705-434-5051 Archaeological Licence #P047 (Bruce Welsh) Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport PIF# P047-374-2012 ASI File 12TS-125 25 September, 2012 Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of The Everett Secondary Plan and Master Services Class EA Township of Adjala-Tosorontio Simcoe County EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Archaeological Services Inc. was contracted by the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, Ontario to undertake a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment of the Everett Secondary Plan and Master Services Class EA, located in the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, Simcoe County. The study area is approximately 660 hectares. The study area is generally bordered by Forest Hill Drive to the north, Dekker Street to the south, Concession Road 4 to the west and Concession Road 6 to the east. The study area encompasses an area that includes both urban and rural residential areas, active farm land, wetlands, watercourses, forested lands, municipal parks and active commercial lands. The background research determined that one archaeological site has been registered within the study area and that no other archaeological sites have been registered within a one kilometre radius. Nineteenth century mapping of the study area illustrated the historical settlement centre of Everett, the Hamilton and North Western Railway and a single dwelling. A review of the general physiographic setting of the study area determined that it is located in both the Simcoe Lowlands and the Peterborough Drumlin Field physiographic regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Influencing Water Quality in a Large Riverine System
    FACTORS INFLUENCING WATER QUALITY IN A LARGE RIVERINE SYSTEM A LANDSCAPE APPROACH TO EVALUATE SOURCES OF NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT TO THE NOTTAWASAGA RIVER, A TRIBUTARY OF GEORGIAN BAY, LAKE HURON By JULIA RUTLEDGE, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.Sc. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science McMaster University © Copyright by Julia Rutledge, April 2016 MASTER OF SCIENCE (2016) McMaster University Department of Biology Hamilton, Ontario, Canada TITLE: A landscape approach to evaluate sources of nutrient and sediment to the Nottawasaga River, a tributary of Georgian Bay, Lake Huron AUTHOR: Julia Rutledge, B.Sc. (Hons.), B.Sc. (McMaster University) SUPERVISOR: Professor P. Chow-Fraser NUMBER OF PAGES: xxiv, 143 ii LAY ABSTRACT Eutrophication from agricultural runoff is a global problem, often resulting in formation of anoxic zones. The Nottawasaga River Watershed is dominated by agricultural land-use, and is a major source of nutrients and sediment to Georgian Bay, Lake Huron. The objective of our study was to develop a holistic understanding of sources and processes that influence spatial variation of water quality across the Nottawasaga River. We found that landscape features (drainage area, pasture, wetland), tributary inputs, and in-stream processes (riffles, substrate) significantly influence water quality. Our results will enhance restoration initiatives to improve health of riverine systems at a watershed scale. iii GENERAL ABSTRACT Eutrophication from agricultural runoff is a global problem, often resulting in formation of anoxic zones in receiving water bodies. The Nottawasaga River Watershed (2,900 km2) is dominated by agricultural land-use, and is a major source of nutrients and sediment to Nottawasaga Bay, Georgian Bay (Lake Huron).
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT on CONDITIONS in GEORGIAN BAY Prepared for Environment and Climate Change Canada
    REPORT ON CONDITIONS IN GEORGIAN BAY Prepared for Environment and Climate Change Canada Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Chemical Contaminants .............................................................................................................................. 1 Open Water ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Air ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Sediments ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Whole Fish ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Edible Portions of Fish .............................................................................................................................. 2 Herring Gull Eggs...................................................................................................................................... 3 Nutrients and Bacterial Pollution ................................................................................................................ 3 Loss of Habitat and Species ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Organochlorine and Heavy Metals Residues
    ORGANOCHLORINE AND HEAVY METALS RESIDUES IN THE NEARSHORE BIOTA OF THE CANADIAN LOWER GREAT LAKES Task Group D (Canadian Section) Activity 3.3 International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pol 1 ution from Land Use Activities International Joint Commission K.Suns, C.Curry, J.Fitzsimons, G.Rees, B.Loescher Ontario Ministry of the Environment Box 213, Resources Road, Rexdale, M9W 5L1 May 1978 PCB Z DDT MIREX TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY ....................................................... i 1976 Oakville Creek and Grand River Studies ........... i 1977 Study ............................................ i INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1 AREAS OF STUDY ................................................ 3 Grand River ........................................... 3 Oakville Creek ........................................ 3 Other Watersheds ...................................... 3 SAMPLING METHODS AND PROCEDURES. .............................. 4 Water ................................................. 4 Suspended Solids ...................................... 4 Plankton .............................................. 6 Benthos ............................................... 6 Fish. ................................................. 7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ....................................... 8 1976 Surveys .......................................... 8 Water .............................................. a Suspended Solids ................................... 8 Plankton ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2017-2021 Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) Was Developed by Member Agencies of the Lake Huron Partnership
    LAKE HURON LAKEWIDE ACTION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN 2017-2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Recommended Citation: Environment and Climate Change Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2017-2021. Cat. No. En164-56/2018E-PDF ISBN 978-0-660-25841-6 The 2017-2021 Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) was developed by member agencies of the Lake Huron Partnership. We gratefully acknowledge the efforts of the core Writing Team, led by Greg Mayne (ECCC), Jamie Schardt (USEPA), Liz LaPlante (USEPA), Ted Briggs (MOECC), Bretton Joldersma (MDEQ), and Amy Thomas (Battelle), who ensured that the LAMP reflects the knowledge of many resource management agencies, conservation authorities, scientists, and non-governmental organizations committed to restoring and protecting Lake Huron and its watershed. The LAMP also builds on relevant information from The Sweetwater Sea: An International Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Lake Huron (Franks Taylor et al., 2010), the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Lake Huron Technical Committee technical reports, State of Lake Huron Proceedings (LimnoTech, 2015), State of the Great Lakes Indicator Reports (SOGL, 2016), and many other documents and plans. The contributions of photographers are also greatly appreciated. Special thanks to the following dedicated ECCC Co-Op students: Michelle T. Nguyen, Ellen Perschbacher, and David Zilkey for their important writing, designing, and reviewing contributions at various stages of development of the LAMP.
    [Show full text]