3 years ago

Niagara River Remedial Action Plan Stage 2 Update Report

Niagara River Remedial Action Plan Stage 2 Update Report

Golder Associates. 2005.

Golder Associates. 2005. Niagara River Area of Concern Contaminated Sediment Site Assessment: Phase III. Golder and Associates, Mississauga. Report to the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. 59 pp+appendices. Hebert, C.E., V. Glooshenko, G.D. Haffner, and R. Lazar. 1993. Organic Contaminants in Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) Populations from Southern Ontario, Canada. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. Vol. 24: 35-43. Hughes, K. 2006. Current Status, Trends and Distributions of Aquatic Wildlife in the Niagara (Ontario) Watershed. Can. Wildl. Serv. Tech. Rep. Ser. No. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Toronto. Kraft, D. 1998. From Panfish to Trophy Fish: A Profile of Fishing and Fish Consumption in the Toronto Area. Fish and Wildlife Nutrition Project. Health Canada, Great Lakes Health Effects. Lambert, Lauren. 1998. Impairment Assessment of Beneficial Uses: Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption. Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) Technical Report Series No. 2. 32 pp. + appendices. Sheeshka, Judy. 1998. Great River Resource: A Profile of Shoreline Fishing and Fish Consumption in the Niagara River Area. Fish and Wildlife Nutrition Project. Health Canada, Great Lakes Health Effects. 34 pp. + appendices. 154

Niagara river remedial action plan stage 2 update Appendix 14: Bird (or other animal) Deformities or Reproduction Problems Technical Review The following people comprised the technical review committee for this impairment: Shane de Solla, EC (lead) Laird Schutt, EC Kim Fernie, EC Cynthia Pekarik, EC Tana McDaniel, EC Pamela Martin, EC Robert Townsend, NYSDEC John Middleton, Brock University The committee’s feedback was provided in a written report which was used as the basis for writing this appendix. 1.0 Basis for Evaluating Impairment Status This BUI refers to rates and types of deformities and reproduction problems occurring in nonfish wildlife species, which are known or thought to be associated with exposure to contaminants. Furthermore, nonfish wildlife species of interest are those which are part of aquatic ecosystems, and for whom the primary route of exposure to contaminants would be dermal exposure, and/or through the consumption of fish or aquatic invertebrates. Finally, deformities/reproduction problems must be associated with contaminants which currently or historically have a source within the Ontario portion of the AOC to be considered impaired. The following are key factors in assessing the impairment: 1. Contaminant levels in indicator species, including temporal and spatial trends - Do contaminant body burdens in indicator populations living/feeding in the AOC exceed thresholds for known incidence of deformities/reproduction problems in indicator species of interest? 2. Types of deformities/reproduction problems - Are deformities or reproduction problems present in indicator populations of a type associated with exposure to contaminants? Are these types known or thought to affect an individual’s survival to life expectancy or ability to successfully reproduce? 3. Frequencies of deformities/reproduction problems - Are deformities/reproduction problems occurring at frequencies greater than established background levels or than at suitable non-AOC reference sites? 4. Individual health or population-level effects - Are individuals with deformities exhibiting health effects or do indicators show a shift in population characteristics consistent with increased mortality or reproduction problems? If contaminant levels in indicator species exceed levels of concern, and/or if they harbour deformities and/or reproduction problems which exceed frequencies of concern, and if these species demonstrate individual or population-level health effects, then an impairment status of impaired is recommended. If none of these conditions are present, then an impairment status of not impaired is recommended. If these conditions are present but sources or causes within the AOC are not implicated, or they are no worse that at reference sites, then an impairment status of impaired but not due to local sources or impaired but no more degraded than reference sites is recommended, as applicable. If important evidence is missing or results are inconclusive then an impairment status of requires further assessment is recommended. 155

Site Management Plan Stage 2 Major Remediation Works - Sydney ...
Annual Report, Year 2 (2006) - Pecos River WPP Implementation ...
Lower Welland River Characterization Report - Niagara Peninsula ...
Upper Welland River Watershed Plan - Niagara Peninsula ...
Niagara Water Strategy Update and Action Plan November 10, 2010
Site Management Plan Stage 2 Major Remediation Works, Appendix E
Welland River Eutrophication Study – November 2010
Proposed Remedial Action Plan for Site 5 Groundwater (OU 2 ...
FINAL Remedial Action Management Plan Work Plan
Remedial Action Plan - Main Report - Planning - NSW Government
Proposed Plan, Interim Remedial Action ... - Lockheed Martin
Environmental Remedial Action Plan -
Site Management Plan Stage 2 Major Remediation Works, Appendix D
ea engineering: report: remedial action engineering work plan for ...
Site Management Plan Stage 2 Major Remediation Works, Appendix B
Remedial Action Plan - Rochford Field - Newhall Remediation Project
Interim Remedial Action Monitoring Report ... - Lockheed Martin
2010 Remedial Action Progress Report - Lockheed Martin
2005 Remedial Action Progress Report - Lockheed Martin
Hazardous Materials Remedial Action Work Plan EBC -
submit Draft Interim Remedial Action Report for Area C Groundwater
Duck Creek Implementation Plan - River Action
Action Plan for the Klamath River Total Maximum Daily Loads
Interim Remedial Action Work Plan - Freedom Industries - VRP 15017 - 11-2015
remedy selection plan for j-2 range - Impact Area Groundwater ...
Draft LCP OU-2 Remedial Design Report - New York State ...
ITEM 3 Meals Service Improvement Action Plan FINAL (2).pdf