|
|
|
|
INVASIVE SPECIES |
What Are Invasive Species?
Invasive species are plants, animals, fish and insects from other parts of the world that have found a home in Canada. These foreign species have no natural preditors in Canada and so they multiply easily and quickly. As they do, they destroy habitat and consume the resources our native species rely on. In this section I have included the decommissioning of the CNR tracks within Algonquin Park, as in a sense this is an invasive species because of the environmental impacts it has on the park ecology.
|
No live bait - fish (including crayfish) are permitted in Algonquin Park. The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
co-ordinates and manages aquatic invasive species programs and projects to
prevent the introduction and spread of these non-native species into Ontario
waters.
Invasive species are those alien species whose introduction and spread threatens the environment, the economy or society, including human health.Invasive species are recognized as a serious problem that threatens global biodiversity and human health worldwide. They are one of the leading causes of native species becoming rare, threatened or endangered.In the Great Lakes Basin alone, nearly 200 species from around the world have been introduced, including such well known species as the sea lamprey, zebra mussel, round goby, waterfleas and purple loosestrife.The Following are examples of aquatic Invasive Species Rudd , Carp , Round goby , Ruffe , Fishhook water flea , Spiny water flea , Rusty crayfish , Zebra mussel , Eurasian water milfoil , European frog-bit , Flowering rush , Purple loosestrife Rusty Crayfish are more aggressive than the native freshwater crayfish. They can consume the eggs and young of surrounding fish. They are also quite devastating to native aquatic plant life, on which they feed. Rusty crayfish will displace and/or hybridize with native crayfish. Asian Carp Asian carp will compete for food with indigenous species and prey on their larvae. They can also cause significant habitat damage and ecological disruption. Moreover, Asian Silver carp tend to jump out of the water and endanger recreational boaters and water skiers. Asian carp have become a serious problem in US waterways, and have the potential to invade Canadian freshwaters. With the support of DFO, proactive efforts are underway to reduce the likelihood of Asian carp species becoming established in Canada. Fishers are urged to keep a watch for Asian carp in Canadian waters! Carp are members of the minnow family and can grow to very large sizes under the right conditions. There are currently five species of Asian carp in North America that are of concern and they include: common carp (Cyprinus carpio), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), and black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus). Common carp have been in North America since the late 1800s and are now so widely distributed that they are thought of as a native species in most areas. Asian carp are considered injurious in many areas and in May 2004, the Ontario government placed a ban on buying and selling live bighead, black, silver and grass carp, this was taken further in 2005, with a provincial ban on the possession of live Asian Carp. The ban does not extend to Common Carp which are a popular sportfish for recreational anglers. Similar bans have also been implemented in the United States in many individual states.
Mounting concern over introduced species from other ecosystems led to the creation of 2 new signs that may now be seen at launching sites and access points in and around Algonquin Park. These signs (see below), which are the result of a “partnership” among Algonquin Eco Watch, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and Ontario Parks, warn of the dangers of species introductions into the Algonquin Ecosystem. The inadvertent or intentional introduction of fish species such as bass, smelt and pike, in addition to the transfer via boats and trailers of such pests as the zebra mussel and the spiny water flea, could cause the collapse of Algonquin’s predominantly cold-water trout fisheries. Plankton tows, conducted in conjunction with the “Algonquin Ecosystem Headwater-Lichen Study” (see update this issue), so far indicate that the spiny water flea is not present in Algonquin waters. Hopefully these new signs will act as a visible reminder for us all, to help protect the waters of the Algonquin Ecosystem. In response to the introduction of
“unwanted” fish species to Algonquin waters Algonquin Eco Watch has
dedicated one of its Highway 60 sign sites to this problem. Our new sign may
be seen on the highway, when approaching from the west.
It can be extremely difficult and costly to remove introduced species once they are established. Control measures are usually very expensive and may be harmful to the environment. Preventing the introduction of invasive species is the key to avoiding long-term harm to our ecosystems.
Phragmites australis( the common or Giant Reed ) The Phragmites australis( the common or Giant Reed ) has established itself in large impeneterable colinies along highways and road allowances due in part to it's salt tolerance. Much more aggressive than a similar native species, this tall wetland invasive forms dence monocultural stands crowding out native species including, eventually even muskrats who depend on food plants overwhelmed by this European plant originally planted as an ornamental Click on image to enlarge
Butomus Umbellatus Butomus Umbellatus is very rapidly colonizing river and lake margins after also escaping from the gardens and backyards where it was planted as an ornamental water garden plant. Garden centres still sell Butomus as a water garden favourite. Invasives like this and the better known Purple Loosestrife spread rampantly since few if any natural predators exist here. The bright umbels of pink flowers and contrasting dark green narrow leaves are attractive but the plant spreads rapidly and is displacing native plants along river margins where many native species already are at risk. click on images below to enlarge
Flowering Rush - Butomus umbellatus Blooms July to Septmber in or
around stream or river banks. (Click on pictures to enlarge them)
The Asian long horned beetle The Asian long horned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) (ALB) is native to China and other areas of eastern Asia, where it causes widespread mortality of poplar, willow, elm, and maple trees. While the Asian longhorned beetle can fly for distances of 400 yards (400 m) or more in search of a host tree, they tend to lay eggs in the same tree from which they emerged as adults, migrating only when population density becomes too high. During the summer months, a mated adult ALB female chews 35 to 90 individual depressions into the host tree's bark and lays an egg in each of the pits. The eggs hatch in 10-15 days and the white, caterpillar-like larvae tunnel into the tree's phloem and cambium layers beneath the tree bark. After several weeks, the larvae tunnel deeper in the tree's heartwood where they mature into pupae. The pupae hatch into adults inside the tree over the winter months. The full-grown adult ALBs chew their way out of the tree the next spring and summer, as early as May and as late as October or November, depending on climate. In the process, they leave perfectly round exit holes that are approximately 1 cm (3/8") in diameter. One means of spreading to new areas is the transporting of firewood or other wood products from infected areas.
C.N.R. Decommissioning In Algonquin Park
In May 2001 Algonquin Eco Watch, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, and the Wildlands League under Petition: No. 27A to the Canadian National Railroad. The petitioners alleged that the decommissioning of the Canadian National (CN) main railway line through Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, was not carried out in an environmentally responsible or timely manner. Many of the problems identified in the petition stem from the construction of a right-of-way to facilitate the removal of tracks and ties. Bulldozing caused ballast from the roadbed to spill into nearby creeks and lakes, thereby damaging fish habitat and posing a danger to birds and mammals in the park. The petitioners directed specific questions to three federal departments. These questions dealt with fish habitat, water quality, wildlife protection, and whether there is a specific federal protocol for railway decommissioning in Canada. Ownership of the CNR right-of way remains disputed, with the Canadian National Railways contending that ownership reverted to the Province after abandonment and Ontario Parks refusing ownership pending environmental clean-up. As a result of a further site inspection and collection of slag samples from the roadbed, the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) of Environment Canada is conducting heavy metals tests to compare with results obtained by Algonquin Eco Watch, in an effort to determine the harmful effects on birds of ingesting slag. Railway decommissioning in Algonquin Provincial Park, OntarioPetition: No. 27A Issue(s): Biological diversity, transport, and water Petitioner(s): Algonquin Eco Watch, Federation of Ontario Naturalists, and the Wildlands League Date Received: 28 May 2001 Status: Completed Summary: The petitioners alleged that the decommissioning of the Canadian National (CN) main railway line through Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, was not carried out in an environmentally responsible or timely manner. Many of the problems identified in the petition stem from the construction of a right-of-way to facilitate the removal of tracks and ties. Bulldozing caused ballast from the roadbed to spill into nearby creeks and lakes, thereby damaging fish habitat and posing a danger to birds and mammals in the park. The petitioners directed specific questions to three federal departments. These questions dealt with fish habitat, water quality, wildlife protection, and whether there is a specific federal protocol for railway decommissioning in Canada (see related petitions No. 27B and No. 27C). Federal Departments Responsible for Reply: Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada PetitionMay 28, 2001
Attached please find background material* outlining concerns expressed by Algonquin Eco Watch, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, and the Wildlands League, relating to the above subject. Please consider this to constitute a petition under s. 22 of the Auditor General Act. Also enclosed are three separate sheets addressed to Transport Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada, respectively. It is my understanding that you will forward copies of this material to those three Federal Departments, so that they may respond directly to the questions posed. I trust that this may be acceptable as a submission of a petition on behalf of our three organizations and look forward to timely responses. Please advise if there is further material that you may require. Yours very truly,
Mike L. Wilton *[attachments not available] May 28, 2001. To: Transport Canada. Re: Submission of a Petition, Relating to the Decommissioning of the Canadian National Railways Main Line through Algonquin Provincial Park.
As outlined in the attached material,* our organizations, Algonquin Eco Watch, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Wildlands League, are concerned regarding the apparent lack of commitment on the part of Canadian National Railways to complete the above-mentioned decommissioning in an environmentally responsible and timely manner. Since railways are a responsibility of the Department of Transport, I am therefore addressing the following questions/request directly to you.
I look forward to your timely response. Yours very truly, [Original signed by Mike Wilton] Mike L. Wilton *[attachments not available] May 28, 2001.
Re: Submission of a Petition, Relating to the Decommissioning of the Canadian National Railways Main Line through Algonquin Provincial Park. Dear Sir/Madam : As outlined in the attached material,* our organizations, Algonquin Eco Watch, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Wildlands League, are concerned regarding the apparent lack of commitment on the part of Canadian National Railways to complete the above-mentioned decommissioning in an environmentally responsible and timely manner. Since fisheries habitat is a responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I am therefore addressing the following questions/request directly to you.
I look forward to your timely response. Yours very truly, [Original signed by Mike Wilton] Mike L. Wilton *[attachments not available] May 28, 2001.
Re: Submission of a Petition, Relating to the Decommissioning of the Canadian National Railways Main Line through Algonquin Provincial Park.
As outlined in the attached material,* our organizations, Algonquin Eco Watch, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Wildlands League, are concerned regarding the apparent lack of commitment on the part of Canadian National Railways to complete the above-mentioned decommissioning in an environmentally responsible and timely manner. Since under the provisions of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, many species of birds fall within your jurisdiction, and since one of your scientists stated that "I would not feed that material to my chickens", in response to my question regarding the ingestion of heavy-metal laden slag to assist in crop/gizzard function, I am therefore addressing the following questions directly to you.
Mike L. Wilton *[attachments not available] Minister's Response: Environment Canada16 October 2001 Mr. Mike Wilton Dear Mr. Wilton: I am responding to your letter of May 28 to the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada, concerning the decommissioning of the existing Canadian National Railway (CNR) line through Algonquin Park. That letter was one of three attached to your petition under section 22 of the Auditor General Act, addressed to Ms. Johanne Gélinas, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. First, let me address very briefly your general concern regarding the "apparent lack of commitment of Canadian National Railways to complete the above-mentioned decommissioning in an environmentally responsible and timely manner." Although your petition does not object to the decommissioning of the rail line through Algonquin Park, it raises environmental concerns over the manner in which decommissioning work is undertaken and the potential implications of the mobilization and bioavailability of heavy metals associated with the deposits of slag which were used in the construction of the rail bed. It is my understanding that the conduct of the decommissioning field work was raised with the relevant provincial authorities and the Park Superintendent. Subsequently, measures were taken by CNR to improve its operations and environmental practices and to rectify some environmental disturbances at particular locations. Staff of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources monitored operations to ensure that the work was conducted properly and with greater environmental sensitivity. In my capacity as the Minister responsible for the administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, I am responding to your specific concerns about the potential harm to those species of migratory bird that may ingest slag particles as grit in order to meet the requirements of their digestive system. In addition, I will respond to further concerns you have raised with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in a separate letter under this same petition. Specifically, these concerns relate to the deposit of deterious substances into waters frequented by fish and the applicable provisions under the Fisheries Act fall under my administration. Please be assured that your petition and the background material have been thoroughly considered. Before addressing the three specific questions posed in your petition to the Canadian Wildlife Service, I would like to emphasize that, based on available information, there is no reason to conclude that migratory birds are at risk in this situation.
I am not aware of any studies that have explicitly examined metal poisoning of birds from the ingestion of slag particles from mining residues or other mineral grit particles that contained elevated levels of heavy metals. There are some results from related but not directly comparable studies. Toxicity in birds (especially tundra swans) from the ingestion of metal-contaminated particles (soils/sediments) has been extensively documented in the wetlands of the lateral lakes system of the Coeur d'Alene River basin (CDARB). Sediments of the CDARB have been heavily contaminated by mining wastes, and frequently contain hundreds or even thousands of parts per million of lead. These contaminated sediments, adhering to aquatic tubers and other food items, are ingested incidentally by swans and other waterfowl, resulting in lead poisoning in a proportion of the exposed individuals.
I am not aware of any documentation, beyond the studies that have been conducted in the CDARB, of health effects in birds as a result of ingestion of metal-contaminated soil or sediment particles. Studies of lead poisoning of migratory birds from sediment ingestion in the CDARB, including investigations of the pathways of exposure and toxicity of the CDARB sediments when fed to waterfowl under controlled conditions, are published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In addition, at least one study has estimated the percent of soil/sediment in the digesta of several species of wild birds and mammals. This study showed that wildlife species ingest varying amounts of soil depending on their feeding habits. Ingestion rates for most species are in the range of 3-10 per cent of the diet by weight. Unfortunately, no estimates of soil ingestion rates are available for those species (forest songbirds, for example) that are most relevant to the current railway decommissioning issue. Some of the major publications which discuss lead poisoning from ingestion of contaminated sediments, and rates of sediment ingestion in wildlife, are given below.
The presence of high concentrations of heavy metals in the slag used as ballast from the CNR right-of-way in Algonquin Park is unlikely to pose a significant hazard to migratory birds who are ingesting the very small particles as grit. Birds use grit to aid in the digestion of hard food material, typically plant seeds and insects. Grit usually consists of small stones or pieces of rock of varying coarseness which are consumed and stored in the gizzard, where they are used to grind up food. In pristine ecosystems, birds would obtain grit from natural sources such as soil, rock outcrops and alluvial deposits. Mean grit size selected by birds increases with body size; a bird the size of a robin would consume grit in the 1.0 mm size range, while a bird the size of a crow would select 1.5 mm grit. Gionfriddo and Best (1996) report that, among the 90 species surveyed, the maximum mean grit size found in bird crops was 3 mm. Birds meet their grit requirements from within their home range. Only those birds whose home ranges abut the rail line or who fly from territories not abutting the rail line, but close enough to allow energy expenditures that are not too costly, would potentially use the rail bed material as a grit source. The waste material used in the construction of the rail bed in Algonquin Park is typically 30 mm in diameter and larger; too large to be consumed as grit by birds. Any existing particles less than 3 mm in size, and suitable for ingestion, would most likely have settled into the rail bed over the years and would be unavailable to foraging birds. Accordingly, birds that reside adjacent or close to the rail right-of-way would likely use grit obtained from natural sources, thereby avoiding exposure to potentially elevated levels of metals in ballast originating from mine waste. In the event that the rail bed material is used in the construction of adjacent road beds, it is possible that small grit-sized particles may be brought to the surface, where they would be available to foraging birds as an alternative to existing natural sources of grit. However, with the passage of time and use by heavy vehicles, these particles would move down into the spaces among the larger size pieces and out of the reach of birds. In this scenario, the risk to birds from consuming metal-contaminated grit would be a transient one, lasting only as long as the small particles were at the surface and available for consumption. A further consideration is that the surface area of contaminated ballast in the park, relative to the surface area of the park itself, is quite small and the number of birds whose feeding ranges abut the railroad right-of-way is very limited. Therefore, it is likely that the number of birds in Algonquin Park that would potentially be affected by consuming heavy metal-contaminated grit from the railroad bed surface, if it were available, is also very small. In the event that the rail bed has been disturbed, smaller-sized particles may become available, if only temporarily. In that case, to assess the risk posed to birds from consuming railroad bed ballast consisting of mine waste, the following information must be gathered: the size of the ballast particles and their distribution along the rail bed; and the chemical composition of the mine waste used in the ballast. To obtain this information, a survey of disturbed and undisturbed areas of the rail bed, as well as associated service corridors in Algonquin Park, could be conducted to document surface particle size. If there is evidence that there is surficial ballast material in the size range consumed by birds, further studies could be carried out to determine the chemical composition of the material. This information would then be used to characterize the health risks to birds resulting from ingestion of grit-sized ballast originating from mine waste. As noted above, you have also raised a question in the letter to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that relates to the administration of section 36 of the Fisheries Act and the deposit of deleterious substances?
The slag used historically for the rail line construction is a residual waste derived from the base metal smelting sector. Slag is generally composed of iron and silicate, with smaller amounts of sulphur, chlorine, and various metals. The composition of slag will depend on the feed materials and the processes used. Base metals smelting has been of interest to Environment Canada since 1988 when a number of substances relevant to the sector were deemed toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Since then various federal and industrial initiatives have been undertaken to assess and reduce metal releases to the environment, including a consideration of practices associated with the management of solid residues from base metals smelting. Any impacts associated with heavy metal leaching from the historic slag deposits in the Algonquin rail bed would be related to the chemical makeup of the slag and the natural chemistry and dilution potential of the receiving aquatic environment. Also, the hydration properties of slag cause it to cement readily which restricts leaching. Environment Canada is not aware of any studies that document metal impacts along the rail corridor but given the age of the rail line, it is anticipated that any significant leaching would have occurred in the early years of construction and consolidation of the rail bed. While the more recent decommissioning activities and disturbance of the rail bed material would expose the surfaces of slag particles and possibly enhance the potential of further leaching of particles that may enter water courses, the incidental release of any heavy metals and impacts would be negligible in this setting. Clearly, this is not intended to diminish the need to apply appropriate field management practices to mitigate environmental disruption in all circumstances when conducting works in and around surface waters. Such practices have been the subject of earlier communications between provincial park authorities and the CNR. My colleague, the Honourable Herb Dhaliwal, has indicated that he will send officials from his department to undertake a site visit of the decommissioned rail line area. I shall ensure that a research biologist from the Canadian Wildlife Service and an environmental protection officer participate in this site visit in order to verify the main assumptions of this assessment and, if required, to adjust it accordingly. I appreciate your bringing this matter to my attention. Yours sincerely, [Original signed by David Anderson, Minister of the Environment] David Anderson, P.C., M.P.
Minister's Response: Fisheries and Oceans Canada15 November 2001 Mr. Mike L. Wilton Dear Mr. Wilton: This is in response to your petition of May 28, 2001, regarding the abandonment/ decommissioning of the existing Canadian National Railway (CNR) line adjacent to and within Algonquin Provincial Park. The petition was also forwarded to my office by Ms. Johanne Gélinas, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on June 29, 2001. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has the responsibility to manage the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act pertaining to the harmful alteration, disturbance and destruction of fish habitat (i.e. s. 35(1) and 35(2). Environment Canada (EC) administers section 36 of the Fisheries Act that deals with the deposit and discharge of deleterious substances and will respond directly to you regarding your concerns on this matter. In your letter, you asked if DFO has investigated allegations of the deposition of deleterious substances in or on fish habitat in Algonquin Park in 1997. DFO had not been involved in meetings or discussions on this issue. Prior to September 1997, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) reviewed projects for fish habitat concerns under subsection 35(1) of the Fisheries Act on behalf of the DFO under an interim agreement. As of September 18, 1997, DFO resumed responsibility for the direct delivery of the Habitat Management Program in Ontario. Subsequent to your petition, DFO has conducted inquiries into the circumstances surrounding this issue. Pursuant to these inquiries, Algonquin Provincial Park staff advised us that they were made aware of the situation in the summer of 1997 via correspondence from the Algonquin Eco Watch group (AEW). Park staff and OMNR Conservation Officers undertook site inspections that summer with the AEW. It was noted during those field investigations that several minor impacts to fish habitat, resulting from the deposition of slag materials onto lake trout and brook trout spawning habitat had occurred as a result of the CNR decommissioning activities. This was the result of bulldozing the bedding material to create a smooth travel surface. Barriers had also been created when slag rail bed material was allowed to enter watercourses at the downstream inverts of several culverts. DFO understands that Algonquin Park staff and AEW members discussed solutions and agreed that the specific situations were not serious and could be remedied by CNR. Park Biologist and Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) staff agreed that the slag materials in question, given their age, had been sufficiently leached and posed an insignificant threat to water quality. DFO was informed of these issues by Park staff. In 1997, Park Superintendent John Winters wrote to CNR detailing the site investigation results and suggested that the impacts could be remedied by a) removing the slag deposits by hand and shovel, and b) increasing environmental awareness and protection for the remaining decommissioning works. In our most recent conversation with Mr. Winters, he expressed the view that CNR and their contractors had made every practical attempt to address the concerns related to fish habitat, as outlined in his 1997 letter. This included hand removal of slag material from watercourses. Mr. Winters also indicated that this was done to the satisfaction of OMNR. Your second question concerned the status of Fisheries Act enforcement in Ontario. Subsequent to the withdrawal of OMNR from reviewing and enforcing matters under section 35 of the Fisheries Act in September, 1997, DFO has undertaken to staff Fisheries Officers in Ontario. This staffing is ongoing and it is expected to have a full complement of 25 Fisheries officers and enforcement staff in place by 2002. Further, in 1999 DFO collaborated with Parks Canada, Environment Canada, OMNR and MOE to develop a compliance protocol. The intention of this protocol is to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each organization with respect to the legislation that it administers. Through this protocol, OMNR retained the enforcement of the habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act, with the exception of section 35. In response to your questions 3 and 4, DFO has initiated an investigation into the allegations raised in this petition by speaking with OMNR, MOE, CNR and Algonquin Provincial Park staff. Staff from DFO and Environment Canada visited the site on October 15, 2001. DFO concluded that at the time of this review any impacts on fish habitat resulting from the slag material were minimal, and are not considered to constitute a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, pursuant to s.35(1) of the Fisheries Act. EC may be continuing their investigation as contaminated sites and water quality issues appeared to be present. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention and for your continuing efforts to protect fish and fish habitat. Yours sincerely,
The Honourable Herb Dhaliwal, P.C., M.P. Attachment* *[attachments not available]
Minister's Response: Transport Canada[Response no. 1] 28 September 2001 Mr. Mike L. Wilton Dear Mr. Wilton: With regard to your letter dated May 28, 2001 concerning the decommissioning of the Canadian National Railways main line through Algonquin Provincial Park, the railways, as owners of abandoned right of way properties are fully responsible for their disposal subject to applicable provincial and municipal laws. Once operation of a rail line is discontinued in compliance with the Canada Transportation Act process, the property is no longer under federal jurisdiction and is subject to the same provincial land use and environmental laws, as well as, local by-laws and ordinances as adjacent properties. The rail line in question is the CN Beachburg subdivision. The abandonment application (made pursuant to subsection 160(5) of the National Transportation Act (NTA) 1987) was received by the National Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) on December 12, 1995. No opposition (under Section 161) or offer to purchase (under Section 174) was received by the Agency within the period set out in section 161 of the NTA, therefore it was ordered abandoned pursuant to section 162 by Agency Order No. 1996-R-152. The line was abandoned May 18, 1996. Order No. 1996-R-152, dated April 18, 1996, stated that pursuant to section 162 of the NTA, the applicant shall abandon the operation of the segment of the Beachburg Subdivision from Pembroke (mileage 89.20) to Nipissing (mileage 215.36), a total distance of 126.16 miles, in the province of Ontario, thirty (30) days from the date of the Order. You may want to work with the province and the municipality to ensure that the interests of the adjacent landowners are protected. In addition, you may wish to contact the Canadian National Railway Company and the Superintendent of Algonquin Provincial Park directly as follows: Mr. William J. Fox Mr. John Winters Yours sincerely, [Original signed by David Collenette, Minister of Transport] Hon. David M. Collenette, P.C., M.P. [Response no. 2] January 19, 2002 Mr. Mike L. Wilton Dear Mr. Wilton: As per the request of Ms. Joanne Gélinas, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, I am writing to clarify my reply to your correspondence of May 28, 2001, regarding the decommissioning of the main Canadian National (CN) line through Algonquin Provincial Park. I have also recently received your letter of January 5, 2002, with enclosures. With respect to your first question, the decommissioning of the line occurred at the time it was abandoned on May 18, 1996. The National Transportation Agency, now the Canadian Transportation Agency, ordered the abandonment of the line, pursuant to a statutory process set out in the National Transportation Act, 1987. As such, after the decommissioning date, the line no longer fell under federal jurisdiction. Consequently, provincial and municipal laws applied to the removal of track assets and subsequent land use of the abandoned rail right-of-way. In this case, CN and Algonquin Provincial Park authorities agreed to the terms and conditions relating to the removal of track assets and restoration of the roadbed in compliance with provincial and municipal laws. Therefore, those authorities would be best placed to address any questions regarding the future of the line and the surrounding land. It was for this reason that I provided contacts for CN and Algonquin Provincial Park in my previous reply of September 28, 2001. With regard to the three remaining questions on a protocol for the decommissioning of railways, the abandonment of the operation of the rail line through Algonquin Park was subject to a process for rail line abandonment under the National Transportation Act, 1987 (NTA, 1987). When the Canada Transportation Act (CTA) replaced the NTA, 1987, on July 1, 1996, a revised process for the rail line discontinuance was implemented. Neither statute contains provisions relating to the removal of track assets from the abandoned right-of-way lands or to its future uses. I have enclosed a copy of the relevant NTA, 1987 provisions that were in effect at the time of the abandonment of the line, as well as the CTA provisions for your reference.* I trust that the foregoing has helped to clarify Transport Canada's position on this matter. Yours sincerely, [Original signed by David M. Collenette, Minister of Transport] Hon. David M. Collenette, P.C., M.P. *[not available]
Please direct any comments or inquiries to: Chief Richard Zohr Webmaster ( Garry Waito )
Site best viewed with 1024 x 768 resolution
 |
|
|
