DOCSLIB.ORG

Worm Watch Worms Stations 3 Surveys/Year 10 Min/Sample/Station, Summer Or Fall Species Richness TBD Design for Public 1 Sample/Station C Outreach 1 Hr/Sample, P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Worm Watch Worms Stations 3 Surveys/Year 10 Min/Sample/Station, Summer Or Fall Species Richness TBD Design for Public 1 Sample/Station C Outreach 1 Hr/Sample, P The Porcupine River Watershed Remedial Action Plan Mark Clement Stage 1 Report Mattagami Region Conservation Authority Moving Forward Acknowledgements Porcupine River Watershed Remedial Action Plan Management Team The following people are members of the Porcupine River Watershed RAP Management Team, partner groups and stakeholders. Their hours of volunteer service, their input and ideas, as well as their endless patience have been invaluable. The outcome of the Porcupine River Watershed RAP reflects their commitment. Kees Pols Mattagami Region Conservation Authority Glen McFarlane Ministry of Natural Resources Randy Pickering Ministry of Natural Resources Aide Badilla Mattagami Region Conservation Authority Dean Touchette Ministry of Northern Development & Mines Charles Hendry Ministry of Natural Resources Dean Phoenix Ministry of Natural Resources James Naveau Mattagami First Nation Ed Snucins Ministry of the Environment Caroll Leith Ministry of the Environment Scott Tam City of Timmins David Yaschyschyn Glencore Richard Francoeur Goldcorp Jodie Russell Fur Council Dan Johnson Ministry of Natural Resources Fire Department Brian Atkinson Ministry of Northern Development & Mines Local Citizens Committee Ministry of Natural Resources District Office Ministry of the Environment Ontario Community Environmental Fund Table of Contents Acknowledgements Contents CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PORCUPINE RIVER WATERSHED ........................... 3 2.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE .................................................................................... 3 2.2 GEOGRAPHIC SETTING ........................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Geology & Physiography ........................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Surficial Geology ....................................................................................................... 6 2.2.3 Soil Characteristics .................................................................................................... 6 2.2.4 Climate ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE ................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Population Trends ...................................................................................................... 7 2.3.1.1 The Labour Force .................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2 Economic Activity ..................................................................................................... 9 2.3.2.1 Historic .................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.2.2 Industrial ................................................................................................................. 9 2.3.2.3 Fishing................................................................................................................... 10 2.3.2.4 Porcupine River Watershed Tourism .................................................................... 12 2.4 WATER RESOURCE USES IN THE PORCUPINE RIVER WATERSHED AREA OF CONCERN ................................................................................................................. 12 2.4.1 Drinking Water Supply ............................................................................................ 12 2.4.2 Wastewater Disposal ................................................................................................ 13 CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................... 19 3.0 THE PORCUPINE RIVER WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM PROBLEMS AND IMPAIRED BENEFICIAL USES .................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 4 ..................................................................................................................... 30 4.0 SCOPE OF THE PORCUPINE RIVER WATERSHED RAP STAGE 1 DOCUMENT .................................................................................................................... 30 4.1 PORCUPINE RIVER WATERSHED STAGE 1 RAP REQUIREMENTS .............. 30 CHAPTER 5 ..................................................................................................................... 31 5.0 THE PORCUPINE RIVER WATERSHED RAP DEVELOPMENT................... 31 5.1 PORCUPINE RIVER WATERSHED RAP PARTNERSHIP NETWORK .............. 31 5.1.1 Partnership Network Composition and Responsibilities ......................................... 31 5.1.2 Technical Program ................................................................................................... 31 5.1.2.1 Excessive Nutrient Enrichment ............................................................................. 32 5.1.2.2 Bacteriological Contamination ............................................................................. 32 5.1.2.3 Persistent Toxic Contaminants ............................................................................. 33 5.1.2.4 Habitat Destruction & Ecosystem Instability ....................................................... 33 5.1.3 Products.................................................................................................................... 33 5.2 PORCUPINE RIVER WATERSHED RAP PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE . 33 5.2.1 Committee Membership and Role ........................................................................... 33 5.2.2 Programs and Products ............................................................................................ 34 5.3 Porcupine River Watershed Stage 1 Consultation Process ......................................... 34 CHAPTER 6 ..................................................................................................................... 35 6.0 THE PORCUPINE RIVER WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM PROBLEMS, CAUSES, RESTORATION OBJECTIVE AND POTENTIAL SOLUTION ................. 35 6.1 DESTRUCTION OF HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM STABILITY ........................ 35 6.1.1 Habitat – Problems and Their Causes ...................................................................... 35 6.1.2 Habitat – Remediation to Date ................................................................................. 35 6.1.3 Habitat – Porcupine River Watershed RAP Goals and Objectives .......................... 36 6.1.4 Habitat – Potential Rehabilitation Measures............................................................ 37 6.2 NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT AND ECOSYSTEM INSTABILITY ......................... 37 6.2.1 Nutrient Enrichment – The Problems and Causes ................................................... 37 6.2.2 Nutrient Enrichment – Restoration Goals and Objectives ....................................... 38 6.2.3 Nutrient Enrichment – Potential Remedial Measures .............................................. 40 6.3 BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION ........................................................................... 41 6.3.1 Bacterial Contamination – Problems and Causes .................................................... 41 6.3.1.1 The Problems ........................................................................................................ 41 6.3.1.2 The Causes ............................................................................................................ 41 6.3.2 Bacterial Contamination – Remediation to Date ..................................................... 41 6.3.3 Bacterial Contamination – Restoration Goal and Objective .................................... 42 6.3.4 Bacterial Contamination – Required and Potential Remedial Measures ................. 42 6.3.4.1 Treatment of Sewage ............................................................................................ 42 6.3.4.2 Storm and Sanitary Sewer Systems ...................................................................... 42 6.3.5 Bacterial Contamination – Prevention ..................................................................... 42 6.4 PERSISTENT TOXIC CONTAMINANTS ............................................................... 43 6.4.1 Toxic Substances – Understanding the Problem ..................................................... 43 6.4.2 Persistent Toxic Contaminants in the Porcupine River Watershed ......................... 43 6.4.2.1 Persistent Toxic Contaminants in Drinking Water ............................................... 43 6.4.2.2 Persistent Toxic Contaminants in the Water Column ........................................... 43 6.4.2.3 Persistent Toxic Contaminants in the Sediment ................................................... 44 6.4.2.4 Persistent Toxic Contaminants in the Porcupine River Watershed Sport Fish ..... 44 6.4.3 Persistent Toxic Contaminants – Sources ................................................................ 45 6.4.4 Toxic Substances – Remediation to Date ........................................................... 46 6.4.5 Toxic Substances – Restoration Goals and Objectives ...........................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (De Beers, Or the Proponent) Has Identified a Diamond
    VICTOR DIAMOND PROJECT Comprehensive Study Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview and Background De Beers Canada Inc. (De Beers, or the Proponent) has identified a diamond resource, approximately 90 km west of the First Nation community of Attawapiskat, within the James Bay Lowlands of Ontario, (Figure 1-1). The resource consists of two kimberlite (diamond bearing ore) pipes, referred to as Victor Main and Victor Southwest. The proposed development is called the Victor Diamond Project. Appendix A is a corporate profile of De Beers, provided by the Proponent. Advanced exploration activities were carried out at the Victor site during 2000 and 2001, during which time approximately 10,000 tonnes of kimberlite were recovered from surface trenching and large diameter drilling, for on-site testing. An 80-person camp was established, along with a sample processing plant, and a winter airstrip to support the program. Desktop (2001), Prefeasibility (2002) and Feasibility (2003) engineering studies have been carried out, indicating to De Beers that the Victor Diamond Project (VDP) is technically feasible and economically viable. The resource is valued at 28.5 Mt, containing an estimated 6.5 million carats of diamonds. De Beers’ current mineral claims in the vicinity of the Victor site are shown on Figure 1-2. The Proponent’s project plan provides for the development of an open pit mine with on-site ore processing. Mining and processing will be carried out at an approximate ore throughput of 2.5 million tonnes/year (2.5 Mt/a), or about 7,000 tonnes/day. Associated project infrastructure linking the Victor site to Attawapiskat include the existing south winter road and a proposed 115 kV transmission line, and possibly a small barge landing area to be constructed in Attawapiskat for use during the project construction phase.
    [Show full text]
  • Iroquois Falls Forest Independent Forest Audit 2005-2010 Audit Report
    349 Mooney Avenue Thunder Bay, Ontario Canada P7B 5L5 Bus: 807-345- 5445 www.kbm.on.ca © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2011 Iroquois Falls Forest – Independent Forest Audit 2005-2010 Audit Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... ii 2.0 Table of Recommendations and Best Practices ............................................................... 1 3.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................. ... 3 3.1 Audit Process ...................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Management Unit Description............................................................................................... 4 3.3 Current Issues ..................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Summary of Consultation and Input to Audit .......................................................................... 6 4.0 Audit Findings .................................................................................................................. 6 4.1 Commitment.................................................................................................................... ... 6 4.2 Public Consultation and Aboriginal Involvement ...................................................................... 7 4.3 Forest Management Planning ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Basin of Moose River and Adjacent Country Belonging To
    REPORT ON THE BASIN OF MOOSE RIVER AND ADJACENT COUNTRY BELONGING TO THE PROVI1TGE QIF OI^TTj^JRXO. By E. B. BORRON, Esq. Stipendiary Magistrate. PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. TORONTO: PRINTED BY WARWICK & SONS, 68 AND 70 FRONT STREET WEST. 1890. RE POTT ON THE BASIN OF MOOSE RIVER AND ADJACENT COUNTRY BELONGING TO THE PRCVI1TOE OW OHTABIO. By E. B. BORRO N, Esq.. Stipendiary Magistrate PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. TORONTO : PRINTED BY WARWICK & SONS, 68 AND 70 FRONT STREET WEST 1890. , — CONTENTS PAGE. Introductory remarks 3 Boundaries and area of Provincial Territory north of the water-parting on the Height-of-Land Plateau 3,4,5 Topography. Naturally divided into three belts 5 ] st, the Southerly or Height-of-Land Plateau 5 2nd, the Intermediate Plateau or Belt 5 3rd, the Northerly or Coast-Belt 5 The fundamental rocks in each 5 Explanations of possible discrepancies in the statements contained in reports for different years in regard of the same or of different sections of the territory 5 Routes followed in lb79 6 Extracts from Report or 1879. Description of the Height-of-Land Flateau from repoit for that year 6 The Northerly or Flat Coast Belt 7 The Intermediate Plateau or Belt 7 James' Bay exceedingly shallow 7 The Albany River and Abittibi, Mattagami and Missinaibi branches of Moose River navigable by boats for some distance in spring 7 Few if any mountains in the two northerly divisions 8 Shallowness of rivers, and slight depth below the general surface of the country 8 Ice jams at or near the mouths of Moose and Albany Rivers 8 Moose Factory, the principal trading post and settlement in the territory 8 Extracts from Reports of 1880.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of the Groundwater Resources of Northern Ontario
    Hydrogeology of Ontario Series (Report 2) AN ASSESSMENT OF THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES OF NORTHERN ONTARIO AREAS DRAINING INTO HUDSON BAY, JAMES BAY AND UPPER OTTAWA RIVER BY S. N. SINGER AND C. K. CHENG ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND REPORTING BRANCH MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT TORONTO ONTARIO 2002 KK PREFACE This report provides a regional assessment of the groundwater resources of areas draining into Hudson Bay, James Bay, and the Upper Ottawa River in northern Ontario in terms of the geologic conditions under which the groundwater flow systems operate. A hydrologic budget approach was used to assess precipitation, streamflow, baseflow, and potential and actual evapotranspiration in seven major basins in the study area on a monthly, annual and long-term basis. The report is intended to provide basic information that can be used for the wise management of the groundwater resources in the study area. Toronto, July 2002. DISCLAIMER The Ontario Ministry of the Environment does not make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the ministry. KKK TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. INTRODUCTION 7 2.1 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA 7 2.2 IMPORTANCE OF SCALE IN HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDIES 7 2.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY 8 2.4 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES 8 2.5 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 9 2.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 13 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List US Populations of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser Fulvescens)
    Petition to List U.S. Populations of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act May 14, 2018 NOTICE OF PETITION Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 14, 2018: Gary Frazer, USFWS Assistant Director, [email protected] Charles Traxler, Assistant Regional Director, Region 3, [email protected] Georgia Parham, Endangered Species, Region 3, [email protected] Mike Oetker, Deputy Regional Director, Region 4, [email protected] Allan Brown, Assistant Regional Director, Region 4, [email protected] Wendi Weber, Regional Director, Region 5, [email protected] Deborah Rocque, Deputy Regional Director, Region 5, [email protected] Noreen Walsh, Regional Director, Region 6, [email protected] Matt Hogan, Deputy Regional Director, Region 6, [email protected] Petitioner Center for Biological Diversity formally requests that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) list the lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the United States as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544. Alternatively, the Center requests that the USFWS define and list distinct population segments of lake sturgeon in the U.S. as threatened or endangered. Lake sturgeon populations in Minnesota, Lake Superior, Missouri River, Ohio River, Arkansas-White River and lower Mississippi River may warrant endangered status. Lake sturgeon populations in Lake Michigan and the upper Mississippi River basin may warrant threatened status. Lake sturgeon in the central and eastern Great Lakes (Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River basin) seem to be part of a larger population that is more widespread.
    [Show full text]
  • 10.0 Description of Operating Plans
    Description of Operating Plans 10.0 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATING PLANS 10.1 Introduction This chapter presents the new operating plans for each facility on the Abitibi River, the end result of the Water Management Plan. For each facility, the operating regime is provided, listing the benefits, conflicts and Outstanding Information Gaps. Also provided is a target curve for each operating regime to graphically represent the operating plan. These operating plans are legally enforceable under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (LRIA). Abitibi River Water Management Plan September 2004 10 - 1 Description of Operating Plans Abitibi River Water Management Plan September 2004 10 - 2 Description of Operating Plans 1.0 Watabeag Lake Dam (OPGI) Planning Team Consensus PAC Consensus Steering Committee Concurrence Selected Operating Option Operating Range: 319.00 – 321.70 m Absolute Range: 319.00 – 322.31 m Energy Emergency: None Summer Band: 320.57 – 320.82 m Victoria Day weekend to Thanksgiving weekend (new) Winter Drawdown: 319.00 m but target 319.62 m (new) Flood Allowance: 321.70 – 322.31 m Maximum Discharge: Maximum discharge limited to 17 cms at all times. Minimum Discharge: None Fisheries Constraint: None (new) Natural water level regime: N/A Others: Educate the public. Benefits: • This operating regime maintains appropriate Lake Trout habitat and the revised drawdown strategy will reduce the impact to Lake Trout. The existing drawdown limit of of 0.45 m from October to mid February was removed and replaced with a target to limit the drawdown to a minimum elevation 319.62 m. Although the minimum elevation of 319.00 m remains the absolute minimum to be used if necessary, the new drawdown target will generally result in higher water levels drawdown minimum.
    [Show full text]
  • FRESHWATER FISH in ONTARIO's BOREAL: STATUS, CONSERVATION and POTENTIAL IMPACTS of Development David R
    WCS CANADA CONSERVATION REPORT NO. 2 | AUGUST 2007 FRESHWATER FISH IN ONTARIO'S BOREAL: STATUS, CONSERVATION AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF dEVELOPMENT David R. Browne WCS CANADA CONSERVATION REPORT #2 AUGUST 2007 FRESHWATER FISH IN ONTARIO'S BOREAL: STATUS, CONSERVATION AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT David R. Browne WCS Canada Conservation Reports: ISSN 1719-8941 Conservation Report (Print) ISSN 1719-8968 Conservation Report (Online) ISBN 978-0-9784461-1-6 Conservation Report (Print) ISBN 978-0-9784461-2-3 Conservation Report (Online) Copies of WCSC Conservation Reports are available at: www.wcscanada.org/publications Suggested citation: Browne, D.R. 2007. Freshwater fish in Ontario's bore- al: Status, conservation and potential impacts of development. Wildlife Conservation Society Canada Conservation Report No. 2. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Cover photographs: Fish from top: northern pike – Engbretson Underwater Photography; stur- geon – Rob Criswell; brook trout – Mary Edwards; lake whitefish – © Shedd Aquarium, photo by Edward G. Lines; walleye – Engbretson Underwater Photography. Front cover landscape: Justina Ray; back cover: Carrie Sadowski, OMNR Copyright: The contents of this paper are the sole property of the authors and cannot be reproduced without permission of the authors. About Wildlife Conservation Society Canada (WCS Canada) WCS Canada's mission is to save wildlife and wildlands by improving our understanding of — and seeking solutions to — critical issues that threaten key species and large wild ecosystems throughout Canada. It both implements and supports comprehensive field studies that gather information on wildlife needs and seeks to resolve key conservation problems by working with a broad array of stakeholders, including local community members, conservation groups, reg- ulatory agencies, and commercial interests.
    [Show full text]
  • 115 Kv Transmission Line Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments April 27, 2012
    115 kV Transmission Line Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments April 27, 2012 DRAFT Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments 115 kV Transmission Line Geo. Townships of Glackmeyer, Clute and Calder District of Cochrane, Ontario Prepared for Hatch Ltd. 4342 Queen Street, Suite 500 Niagara Falls ON, L2E 7J7 Tel: (905) 374-0701 ext. 5313 Fax: (905) 374-1157 & The Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture By Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. 154 Otonabee Drive Kitchener, ON N2C 1L7 Tel: (519) 804-2291 Fax: (519) 954-4797 Licenced under P.J. Racher, M.A., CAHP MTC Licence #P007 Project #P007-378 PIF #P007-378-2011 28/11/2011 Original Report Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessments,115kV Transmission Line Project, District of Cochrane i _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Under a contract awarded by Hatch Ltd. in June 2011, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. carried out Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessments of lands with the potential to be impacted by a proposed 115 kV Transmission Line project in the District of Cochrane, Ontario. This project report documents the background research and fieldwork involved in this assessment, and presents conclusions and recommendations pertaining to archaeological concerns within the project lands. The Stage 1 and 2 archaeological assessments were conducted in November 2011 under Ministry of Tourism and Culture licence #P007, PIF #P007-378-2011, and were governed by the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (MTC 2011). The assessments were completed in advance of a Renewable Energy Approval application, in compliance with the requirements set out in Section 22 of Ontario Regulation 359/09 made under the Environmental Protection Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Report Ivanhoe River
    Draft Environmental Report Ivanhoe River - The Chute and Third Falls Hydroelectric Generating Station Projects Revised May 2013 The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 Insert “Foreword” i The Chute and Third Falls Draft Environmental Report May 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Waterpower in Ontario ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Introduction to Project .................................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Zone of Influence .................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Overview of the Environmental Screening Process ........................................................ 4 1.4 Approach to the Environmental Screening Process ........................................................ 5 1.4.1 Legal Framework ................................................................................................... 6 1.4.2 Characterize Local Environment of Proposed Development ................................... 7 1.4.3 Identify Potential Environmental Effects ................................................................. 8 1.4.4 Identify Required Mitigation, Monitoring or Additional Investigations ................... 8 1.4.5 Agency and Public Consultation and Aboriginal Communities Engagement ............ 8 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F Environmental Features
    Appendix F Environmental Features YELLOW FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT APPENDIX F Note Prior to the release of the Draft EA, the Project was referred to as the Island Falls Hydroelectric Project. Following release of a draft environmental assessment report for review by First Nations, agencies, and members of the public, numerous comments were received. As a direct result of agency and public consultation, YFP made a decision to relocate the Project two kilometres upstream of Island Falls to Yellow Falls. Accordingly, the Project name has changed to the “Yellow Falls Hydroelectric Project” and the Project nameplate capacity has changed from 20 MW to 16 MW. The following Environmental Features report details existing natural and socioeconomic conditions and was prepared for the Island Falls location. Project relocation has not appreciably altered descriptions of existing natural and socioeconomic conditions. The Yellow Falls Project location has been provided on figures to indicate how the revised location corresponds with existing natural and socioeconomic environmental features. Appendix F1 Environmental Features Report ISLAND FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT APPENDIX F1 – ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES File No. 160960168 Prepared for: Yellow Falls Power Limited Partnership c/o 500, 1324 – 17th Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2T 5S8 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 70 Southgate Drive, Suite 1 Guelph ON N1G 4P5 February 2009 ISLAND FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT APPENDIX F1 – ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser Fulvescens) As Endangered Or Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act
    Petition to List U.S. Populations of Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act May 14, 2018 NOTICE OF PETITION Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 14, 2018: Gary Frazer, USFWS Assistant Director, [email protected] Charles Traxler, Assistant Regional Director, Region 3, [email protected] Georgia Parham, Endangered Species, Region 3, [email protected] Mike Oetker, Deputy Regional Director, Region 4, [email protected] Allan Brown, Assistant Regional Director, Region 4, [email protected] Wendi Weber, Regional Director, Region 5, [email protected] Deborah Rocque, Deputy Regional Director, Region 5, [email protected] Noreen Walsh, Regional Director, Region 6, [email protected] Matt Hogan, Deputy Regional Director, Region 6, [email protected] Petitioner Center for Biological Diversity formally requests that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) list the lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the United States as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544. Alternatively, the Center requests that the USFWS define and list distinct population segments of lake sturgeon in the U.S. as threatened or endangered. Lake sturgeon populations in Minnesota, Lake Superior, Missouri River, Ohio River, Arkansas-White River and lower Mississippi River may warrant endangered status. Lake sturgeon populations in Lake Michigan and the upper Mississippi River basin may warrant threatened status. Lake sturgeon in the central and eastern Great Lakes (Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River basin) seem to be part of a larger population that is more widespread.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2011 Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2011
    Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2011 Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2011 Edited by: T.A. Scarr1, K.L. Ryall2, and P. Hodge3 1 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forests Branch, Forest Health & Silviculture Section, Sault Ste. Marie, ON 2 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre, Sault Ste. Marie, ON 3 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Science and Information Branch, Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment Section, Sault Ste. Marie, ON © 2012, Queen’s Printer for Ontario For more information on forest health in Ontario visit the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources website: www.ontario.ca/foresthealth You can also visit the Canadian Forest Service website: www.glfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca Telephone inquiries can be directed to the Natural Resources Information Centre: English/Français: 1-800-667-1940 Email: [email protected] 52095 ISSN 1913-6164 (print) ISBN 978-1-4435-8489-0 (2011 ed., print) ISSN 1913-617X (online) ISBN 978-1-4435-8490-6 (2011 ed., pdf) Front Cover Photos: Circular photos top to bottom – Diplodia tip blight (W. Byman), Snow damage (S. Young), Emerald ash borer galleries (P.Hodge), Spruce budworm (W. Byman), Forestry workshop in Algonquin Park (P.Hodge). Background: Severe defoliation caused by forest tent caterpillar in Bancroft District (P. Hodge). Banner: Hardwood forest in autumn (P.Hodge). Forest Health Conditions in Ontario, 2011 Dedication We are proud to dedicate this report to the memory of our friend, colleague, and mentor, Dr. Peter de Groot, 1954-2010. Peter was a long-time supporter of forest health, forest entomology, and forest management in Ontario and Canada.
    [Show full text]