Browsing by Subject "Taking Stock - Research Needs"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Public Comment Form about Mining in the Lake Superior Basin
    (2013-12) Lake Superior Binational Program
    This is a 291-page raw data summary of comments downloaded from Survey Monkey, and published on the LSBF website. The pdf is undated. The LSBF website contains a short article about the survey, noting that the survey was open for public commentary from March 15 to July 31 2013, and that nearly 1,600 individuals provided comments. There were 45 questions posed to respondents. Some key findings relevant to mining and water resources are extracted and reproduced below. “When asked if there should be specific criteria to prohibit mining activities in environmentally or culturally sensitive areas, 64.9 % said yes, 18.8% said mining should not be restricted in any areas. “When asked ‘Which of the following statements best describes your opinion about mining operations in the Lake Superior basin?’ the most picked response was ‘I do not support any new mines in the Lake Superior basin,’ (38.8% response rate) followed by ‘I support mining operations that can be done using proven responsible management practices that minimize environmental damages’ (25.8% response rate). “When asked is there should there be a moratorium on new mining activity in the Lake Superior basin until it can be proven that new mines won’t pollute surface and groundwater, 63.4% said yes, and 31.8% said no.” Among other results, 68% felt that mining should be restricted in areas where culturally significant food is harvested or grown. 76% felt that mining should be restricted where wetlands have international significance or in locations with endangered plants or animals. 70% felt that mining should be restricted in areas with historic importance. 96% disagreed that taxpayers should pay for clean-up and restoration of damages; while 95% felt that mining companies should pay for these costs. 91% felt that open public meetings should be held to inform the public about mining company compliance. 89% want disclosure of chemicals used in the mining process.”
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Regional, Watershed, and Site-Specific Environmental Influences on Fish Assemblage Structure and Function in Western Lake Superior Tributaries
    (2005) Brazner, John; Tanner, Danny K; Detenbeck, Naomi E; Batterman, Sharon L; Stark, Stacey L; Jagger, Leslie A; Snarski, Virginia M
    This report assesses the impact of human activities and forest fragmentation on fish communities in the western Lake Superior basin. Human-induced activities noted in the report included temperature changes, siltation, erosion, forest cover and forest manipulation, and invasive species. Specific results are reproduced below. “The relative importance of regional, watershed, and in-stream environmental factors on fish assemblage structure and function was investigated in western Lake Superior tributaries. We selected 48 second- and third-order watersheds from two hydrogeomorphic regions to examine fish assemblage response to differences in forest fragmentation, watershed storage, and a number of other watershed, riparian, and in-stream habitat conditions. Although a variety of regional, fragmentation, and storage-related factors had significant influences on the fish assemblages, water temperature appeared to be the single most important environmental factor. We found lower water temperatures and trout–sculpin assemblages at lower fragmentation sites and higher temperatures and minnow–sucker–darter assemblages as storage increased. Factors related to riparian shading and flow separated brook trout streams from brown trout (Salmo trutta) – rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) streams. Functionally, fish assemblages at lower fragmentation sites were dominated by cold-water fishes that had low silt tolerance and preferred moderate current speeds, while fishes with higher silt tolerances, warmer temperature preferences, and weaker sustained swimming capabilities were most common at higher storage sites. Our results suggest that site-specific environmental conditions are highly dependent on regional- and watershed-scale characters and that a combination of these factors operates in concert to influence the structure and function of stream fish assemblages. Key points: This study was completed within 160 km of Duluth, Minnesota, in the Northern Lakes and Forests Ecoregion and within two ecological units, the North Shore Highlands (north shore streams) and the Lake Superior Clay Plain (south shore streams)which provided excellent contrast in hydrogeomorphic types. Functionally, south shore fishes tended to be silt-dwelling, trophic generalists with slow current preferences and a tendency towards nest-guarding spawning behavior. North shore fishes tended to be single-bout spawners with fast current preferences. From a management perspective, our results suggest that both timber management and wetland restoration or degradation decisions will need to be considered by resource managers when fish community health is a concern. For example, increasing percentages of mature forest cover should allow for salmonid–sculpin assemblages to become more prevalent in streams with the potential for cool or cold waters. Similarly, increased wetland cover should allow for a greater predominance of healthy warmwater fish assemblages assuming that other landscape features are not too badly degraded. By understanding the species structure and functional character of an assemblage and its relationship to landscape features, managers should be able to make at least a rough assessment of watershed condition. Lacking fish data, it might be easier to simply characterize forest cover and storage as a first step in identifying which watersheds likely contain streams that are degraded. Our results suggest that although in-stream habitat rehabilitation should continue to be used an important tool to improve biological conditions in streams, restoration efforts will have greater success if the potential interactions with landscape conditions are factored into the decision-making process. In some situations, manipulation of forest cover or watershed storage may have a greater impact on fish assemblage integrity than in-stream habitat improvements.”
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Responsible Mining in the Lake Superior Basin
    (2013) Lake Superior Binational Program
    The Lake Superior Binational Forum drafted a statement on responsible mining, with recommendations for future mining projects, which are summarized in this document. The statement aims at a “zero discharge” principle. The Forum held three public meetings to gather input for the statement. Key excerpts are reproduced below: “Responsible Mining Should: A. Meet or exceed the provisions of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 2012 between Canada and the United States in: 1. Adopting the goal of zero discharge and zero emission of persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances in the basin, thereby preventing further degradation of the ecosystem. 2. Anticipating and preventing pollution and other threats to water quality in the Great Lakes to reduce overall risks to the environment and human health. 3. Incorporating the precautionary approach, as set forth in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, that “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” 4. Incorporating the “polluter pays” principle, as set forth in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, “that the polluter should bear the cost of pollution.” 5. Applying innovation – considering and applying advanced and environmentally-friendly ideas, methods and efforts to prevent environmental problems. 6. Considering social, economic and environmental factors, including assessment of full life cycle costs and benefits, and incorporating a multi-generational standard of care. B. Be clear and transparent with regulatory agencies, affected communities, and the public, while fostering cooperation with relevant agencies and the greater public. C. Carry out rigorous environmental assessment of all aspects and phases of the mining and milling process, including potential future expansion of mining activities. Public opinion and advice should be incorporated where possible, and the assessment process should explain why other public proposals were not incorporated into the final decision. D. Recognize that short-term mining operations can have long-term legacies, so approved plans should secure funding for staffing, monitoring, prevention, and repair of mining sites after closure. E. Contribute to the local, regional, and national economy through a fair wage, salary, and benefit structure, and in paying all taxes assessed by government agencies in each jurisdiction in which it operates F. Respect private and other land rights and where applicable compensate land owners for losses of value, and land users for losses of opportunity.” The document also contains nine recommendations for future mining operations, briefly summarized as follows: 1. Develop a common set of criteria for use by governments, NGOs and industry to guide the permitting process. Currently public agencies use different criteria in each state. 2. Avoid mining in places with high environmental or social/cultural value. 3. Improve public participation by stakeholders in the environmental assessment process through the collection of adequate baseline data; consideration of potential worst-case scenarios; and independent third-party review processes. 4. Water quality objectives that are consistent with the LAMP should be developed. 5. Overburden and tailings should be discharged into water bodies or wetlands; acid-generating materials should be segregated; and hazardous materials plans should be made public. 6. Companies should make atmospheric emission reports. Environmental assessments should consider greenhouse gas emissions from mining operations. 7. Companies should set aside financial resources for the exploration phase to cover clean-ups, reclamation and long-term monitoring. The public should have the right to comment on the adequacy of these resources and reclamation activities. 8. The public should have the right to access monitoring and periodic technical reports during the life of the mining operation; and to do independent third-party review of the process. 9. Companies should have a reclamation plan with resources set aside for each operation. Mined areas should be re-contoured and stabilized. 10. Citizen participation and oversight are important elements listed under “social impacts and decision making,” including the engagement of Tribal Nations, First Nations and Metis. 11. Research is needed on the cumulative and indirect effects of mining; climate change and mining impacts; and human health research, including impacts on people, fish and wild rice.