Dying trumpeter swans in Judson Lake, British Columbia

Petition

Judson Lake Trumpeter Swan Mortality Petition

Attention: Johanne Gélinas

January 13, 2004

Introduction

My name is Kevin Sinclair. My wife and I co-own our family farm in south Abbotsford B.C. which borders the United States. The farm has been in our family since 1937. Situated on our property is trans-boundary Judson Lake. The entire Canadian portion (26 acres) of Judson Lake is located on the land we own while the larger US portion (70+ acres) is situated in Whatcom County and is owned by the state of Washington.

For decades hunters have enjoyed their sport on Judson Lake leaving the lakebed horrifically contaminated with millions of lead shotgun pellets. Judson Lake is also one of the favorite roosting sites of the majestic trumpeter swan. Each year thousands of these beautiful creatures migrate from Alaska and the Northwest Territories to winter both locally and further south in the US.

In 1992 we had what the Canadian Wildlife Service calls "The Judson Lake Incident" where 32 swans died here of lead poison¹. In 1998 the CWS published a study which states that lead shot were detected in every core sample taken from Judson Lake and that there was an average of 95 pellets/m3 in the lake bottom². This statistic is staggering as the US Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that a waterfowl which ingests 1-2 lead shot will die 21 days post exposure.³

Historically Judson Lake used to be several feet deep and teeming with fish. In more recent years due to high water usage and the natural infilling process Judson Lake has become extremely shallow, and can no longer support significant fish populations. With the exception of a pool dug in 2001, Judson Lake completely dries up each summer and fall. Tragically, because of the receding water levels (the swans are now closer to the lead shot), what was once an isolated incident in 1992 has become a common occurrence as for the past five consecutive years (and counting) Judson Lake and its surrounding area is littered with scores of dead and dying swans. The unsuspecting swans are ingesting the lead shot thinking it is gravel or "grit" which they need to aid in digesting their food. The result is a prolonged and painful death. The "dying season" lasts for over four months. It is a most grievous and senseless tragedy.

Please visit our informative website at www.savetheswans.com for more details.

Background Information

In 1998 our family approached the Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks with the concept of deepening Judson Lake to:

a) Save the remaining fish that have been decimated by the continually receding water levels.

b) Enhance the habitat for fish and other wildlife.

On the advice of MELP we spent tens of thousands of dollars retaining qualified professionals and their firms to conduct hydro geological studies, perform wildlife assessments and prepare an environmental assessment and operational plan to satisfy any concerns that could possibly arise in regards to undertaking such a project. This process took two years to complete.

The annual die-offs began in 1999 and continue to this day.

In 2001 DFO shut down our proposed project stating that: "Given the uncertainty of the possible effects of dredging the lake, on current water levels in the lake and potentially negative impacts to the fisheries resources in the lake this Department objects to the works as presently proposed." Ironically had we not been successful in creating a pool for the fish just prior to being shut down, the very fish that DFO are sworn to protect would now be completely wiped out. It is also worth noting that the pool which was created in 2001 is solid physical evidence that the DFO reasoning for shutting the restoration project down is not supportable.

After pleading our case to DFO we later received a letter from them (August 20, 2003) stating clear parameters that must be followed in order to be issued a permit for any type of restoration works.

Realizing (because of the horrific annual swan mortalities) that the entire lake must be restored, we laid down our project proposal (which could have only restored the Canadian side) and have begged DFO, CWS and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to work with us to stop the needless significant trumpeter swan mortalities and restore Judson Lake.

To give an idea of just how serious this situation is, by April 2004, over 1,000 Trumpeter Swans will have died in our area over the past five years. According to CWS the death rate works out to about 10 per cent of the birds on average each year^.4 Many bald eagles and other predators continue to die from secondary lead poison as a result of scavenging on the dead swan carcasses.

We have cried out to the Honorable David Anderson, DFO, CWS, US Fish and Wildlife Service, North American Bird Conservation Initiative, North American Waterfowl Conservation Council, Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection, Ducks Unlimited Canada, US based Trumpeter Swan Society and Defenders of Wildlife, Wetlands International, countless conservation organizations...⁵

The mysterious never ending swan mortality story continues to be told in or on: BCTV and CTV News, KING 5 and KOMO News, Maclean's magazine, the Vancouver Sun and Province, The Abbotsford News and Times, The Bellingham Herald, The Lynden Times...

Conservation organizations (international and local), industry and the general public not only strongly support the ecological restoration of this terribly contaminated lake but have written letters to CWS and USFWS voicing their grave concern and asking if they could volunteer their time, labor and expertise in a tangible way.⁶

Ducks Unlimited Canada has said that they would draw a restoration design but only if the following criteria are met:

1) The partners (stakeholder agencies) on the project agree that Judson Lake is an important site to take action on.

2) The partners on the project agree on the main concept of what should be done.

3) The partners/landowners would like to have DUC involved.

Discussion

This petition addresses our grave concerns regarding the inaction of the CWS to implement a practical solution to stop the significant mortalities of migrating trumpeter swans that die annually in and around Judson Lake in horrific numbers and seeks to understand their fierce opposition to restoring the ecological integrity of this terribly contaminated lake. It also asks why DFO isn't more involved in helping provide a solution (as they are the permit granting agency) and why they seem so content to allow the fish populations that they are sworn to protect continue to be decimated.

There is an extraordinary amount of physical evidence suggesting that trans-boundary Judson Lake is a "primary source" of contamination responsible for hundreds of trumpeter swan mortalities year after year in both Canada and the United States. The following quotes provide a summary of the supporting documentation attached* for your perusal. Unless otherwise noted, the following quotes were published by either CWS or USFWS.⁷

• Lead shot were detected in all of the sediment samples collected from Judson Lake. The number of pellets/m3 ranged from 37 to 177, with an average of 95.

• Based on the partially eroded condition of some of the shot in their gizzards, the trumpeter swans probably did not ingest the shot prior to arriving in the area.

• Of the 237 swans examined and found to contain shot in 2001-2002, an average of 36 shot was found in each gizzard.

• The US Fish and Wildlife Service estimate that a waterfowl which has ingested 1-2 shot would die approximately 21 days post exposure.

• Preliminary results suggest the sources of lead shot responsible for the swan mortalities in the Whatcom County and Sumas Prairie area are likely local. The main sources of lead shot may be either in Whatcom County or the Sumas Prairie, possibly near the border.

• Locating the sources of lead was complicated because most (89%) poisoned swans were retrieved from night roost sites away from foraging areas. Shot was detected in only one of the 12 forage fields examined. A total of two shot were found, which equated to a density of 33,280 shot/acre.

• I had heard about Judson Lake, but had not realized the significance of this particular site, in relationship to all the places where dead swans are being found (Ruth Shea, Executive Director, The Trumpeter Swan Society).⁸

• Dear Bert,
  Attached* you can find an e-mail thread that relates to die-offs of Trumpeter Swans at Judson Lake, on the Border between Canada and the USA. I believe there would be merit in you, as the Executive Secretary of the African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement, sending a message to support action on this issue. North America has been looked at as pioneers in the reduction of lead poisoning through shooting, and it would be a bad example if a clear case like this would not be picked up ( Ward Hagemeijer, Program Head, Wetland Species Conservation, Wetlands International).⁹

• Dear Rick (CWS), Laurie (CWS) and Cindy (USFWS),
  The Swan Specialist Groups' attention was drawn to the heavy die-off of Trumpeter Swans at Judson Lake each autumn, caused by lead poisoning. We understand that this situation persists over several years now, that a lake restoration proposal is pending, but that no action has been taken so far. We would like to be informed from your side as to:

- what the current situation is;
- what causes the mortality;
- what the source is of the presumed lead-poisoning;
- which authorities are responsible to take action;
- why no measures are being taken to clean up the source (and restore Lake Judson);
- which steps need to be taken to create a break-through within short time (technically, financially, governmental etc).

Also, we would like to know if there is any way in which the Swan Specialist Group, Wetlands International or IUCN could help to solve the problem (Jan H. Beekman, Chair, Swan Specialist Group, Wetlands International/IUCN Species Program).¹⁰

Although we may never know the true motive as to why the CWS opposes restoring the ecological integrity of Judson Lake, what they have stated publicly and therefore officially are the following:

a) "There is no evidence that the trumpeter swans are eating lead shot at Judson Lake, because, in fact, it is a roosting site, not a feeding site. All the scientific evidence proves otherwise (Abbotsford News, December 20, 2003)."¹¹

b) "If the swan use is changed and the birds move off into other roost areas that may potentially be worse we may actually be causing more harm to the swans (To see first hand go to our website and click on CTV News footage)."¹²

c) "It could be disastrous to break "the mud seal" at the bottom of the lake which would allow the (lead-contaminated) seepage to get into the general water table (Abbotsford News, December 20, 2003)."¹³

d) "Why would we want to destroy this precious marshy wetland and eliminate a roosting site for the trumpeter swans (Abbotsford News, Dec. 20, 2003)?"¹⁴

My response to each of these statements is as follows:

a) One need only look at the video footage (that is two years old) on our website to see first hand that the swans do indeed forage in Judson Lake. We also have new footage taken in 2003 of the swans voraciously foraging, pulling up wads of aquatic vegetation and eating it. This fact (that swans do forage in Judson Lake) was confirmed before all present at the September 3^rd Trumpeter Swan Monitoring Project Meeting in La Conner WA by CWS staff, a full 3 months prior to the Abbotsford News article.

b) Neighboring Laxton Lake was dredged roughly a decade ago with no consideration whatsoever given to how swans or any other waterfowl might be impacted. The trumpeter swans frequent Laxton Lake by the hundreds every year and on many occasions outnumber the swans frequenting Judson Lake. CWS continues to monitor Laxton Lake and is fully aware of this fact.

c) There is no "mud seal." The following is a quote taken from the conclusion of a hydrological study of Judson Lake conducted by Aqua Terra Consultants Ltd. In 1998: "Laboratory analysis has determined the water in Judson Lake to be extremely similar in nature to the underlying groundwater. Analysis of blended samples comprised of lake and groundwater did not reveal any divergence or indications of potential problems. This in itself is not extraordinary as the physical evidence indicates the two water systems to be in communication."¹⁵

d) The last point borders on defamation of character. It has been made abundantly clear to CWS that the primary objective is to restore the ecological integrity of Judson Lake. CWS is also fully aware that we asked Ducks Unlimited if they would be willing to draw a restoration design. We approached Ducks Unlimited because they are "Canada's Conservation Company" and they utilize the most advanced technology to ensure that the highest standards in wetland conservation are upheld in everything they do. Together with their sister company Ducks Unlimited Inc. in the US, they have the connections and expertise to restore Judson Lake in it's entirety and not just the Canadian portion. Ducks Unlimited does not destroy wetlands. They restore them. It's what they do!

As landowners we have exhausted every known diplomatic means of persuading the federal government to get their head out of the sand and honor their mandate and moral obligation to help stop the significant mortalities of migrating trumpeter swans that needlessly occur year after year after year at Judson Lake. Despite the fact that no federal funding would be necessary, CWS stands firmly opposed to any practical solution until they have pinpointed the "primary source" of lead shot that is killing all these swans. The problem is that they may never find the primary source, especially if they continue in their refusal to acknowledge that Judson Lake could indeed be the source.

We are now in the middle of the fifth consecutive "dying season." Five straight years of death with no end in sight. FIVE! I have attached* photos of a few of the latest mortalities to give an idea of what we suffer through day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.

The fact that CWS opposes the restoration of Judson Lake when they themselves published the government study, which can not be altered, stating that Judson Lake has an average of 95 shot/m3 in the lake floor simply defies logic. We have fully co-operated with CWS and will continue to do so. We can not however sit passively by any longer. I therefore humbly submit the following Questions:

Questions regarding CWS

1. CWS says, "roosting spots in the Fraser Valley and Whatcom County were found to have from 33,280 to 153,753 lead shot/acre".¹⁶ If a total of two shot equates to 33,280 shot/acre (trumpeter swan mortality monitoring summary¹⁷), then how much does 95 shot/m3 (in Judson Lake) equate to in shot/acre? Where does Judson Lake fit into their figures? Did they forget to factor Judson Lake into their equation?

2. How can CWS say that the main sources of lead shot may be possibly near the border¹⁸ when they themselves published the study (which can not be altered) stating that Judson Lake has an average of 95 lead shot/m3 in it's bottom?¹⁹

3. How can CWS say that the swans do not forage in Judson Lake²⁰ when they know full well that physical evidence proves otherwise?

4. How can CWS say that if Judson Lake is restored that the swans likely won't return²¹ when they are fully aware of the scientific evidence proving otherwise?

5. What scientific studies has CWS conducted to substantiate their position that:
   a)Judson Lake has a "mud seal" separating it from the water table.²²
   b)penetrating this "mud seal" could prove disastrous.²³

6. If CWS and USFWS are serious about the fourth (and most practical) component of their joint Strategic Action Plan for 2003-2004, entitled Remediation of Contamination or Removal of Threat²⁴, then why won't either agency give us the courtesy of officially responding to the viable and logical solution proposal we submitted to them on September 30, 2003?²⁵

7. How many more thousands of tax payers' dollars must be spent, and how many more swans must die before a practical solution is implemented?

Questions Regarding DFO

1. If the contamination of Judson Lake were not an issue, would Judson Lake be a prime candidate for restoration based on the fact that the lake can no longer support abundant fish populations (had we not intervened by digging a pool in 2001 there would no longer be any surviving fish here)?

2. Does DFO have a responsibility here (as the permit granting agency) to help provide a solution as the fish they are sworn to protect are in grave danger of eventually being completely wiped out if no intervention is taken?

Conclusion

It would be a tremendous relief for all concerned to see this situation resolved swiftly. What is most despairing is that there is a practical solution. Regardless of whether Judson Lake is the "primary source" or whether it is the secondary source or otherwise, the fact remains that it is horrifically contaminated and huge numbers of swans continue to die in and around it on an annual basis. The most important question that begs to be answered here is, if there is a practical solution available, and no funds from the government would be needed, why then does CWS oppose restoring Judson Lake? On behalf of my family and a global contingency of very concerned supporters, I thank you in advance for looking into this matter.

Sincerely Yours,

[Original signed by Kevin Sinclair]

Kevin Sinclair
71 Clearbrook Road,
Abbotsford, BC
V2T 5X1

---

¹Laurie K. Wilson, J.Elliot, K.Langelier, A.Scheuhammer, V.Bowes 1998 Lead Poisoning Of Trumpeter Swans, Cygnus buccinator, in British Columbia, 1976-1994 Canadian Field Naturalist 112(2): 204-211.

²see Appendix A*

³Laurie K. Wilson, M. Davison, D. Kraege Summary of Monitoring Project in 2001-02 and 2002-03 entitled "Lead Poisoning of Trumpeter and Tundra Swans by Ingestion of Lead Shot in Whatcom County, Washington and Sumas Prairie, British Columbia, Canada".

⁴see Appendix C*

⁵see Appendix H*

⁶see Appendix D*

⁷see Appendices A* and B*

⁸see Appendix E*

⁹see Appendix D*

¹⁰ibid.

¹¹see Appendix C*

¹²www.savetheswans.com

¹³see Appendix C*

¹⁴ibid.

¹⁵see Appendix F*

¹⁶see Appendix C*

¹⁷ see Appendix B*

¹⁸see Appendix B*

¹⁹see Appendix A*

²⁰see Appendix C*

²¹see CTV footage at www.savetheswans.com

²²see Appendix C*

²³ibid.

²⁴see Appendix G*

²⁵ibid.

*[attachments not posted]

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Environment Canada

May 18, 2004

Mr. Kevin Sinclair
71 Clearbrook Road
Abbotsford BC
V2T 5X1

Dear Mr. Sinclair:

I am writing to provide Environment Canada's response to your environmental petition no. 99 to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, concerning the contamination of Judson Lake with lead shot. Your petition was received in the Department on January 30.

Please find enclosed responses to the seven questions regarding the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS).

I hope that you will find this information useful.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by David Anderson, Minister of the Environment]

David Anderson, P.C., M.P.

---

ENVIRONMENT CANADA

RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL PETITION NO. 99

UNDER THE AUDITOR GENERAL ACT

SUBMITTED BY MR. KEVIN SINCLAIR

The CWS has never stated that Judson Lake contains 95 shot/m3. According to page 4 of the petition, you obtained the density from Wilson et al. (1998, Canadian Field-Naturalist 112: 204-211), which states "Lead shot were detected in all of the sediment samples collected from Judson Lake, Laxton Lake, and the Pitt Lake area. The number of pellets/m3 ranged from 37 to 177, with an average of 95."

The data for the 1998 manuscript was collected by a contractor and summarized in a report entitled "The Assessment of sediments in Five Fraser Valley water bodies for the presence of lead shot" (Shaun Freeman, 1992). The report states that:

The CWS conducted additional core sampling in 2001-2002. On the Canadian side of Judson Lake, 89 cores were collected; nine of those had shot. A total of 11 shot were recovered, 10 of which were lead. Therefore, the average lead shot density at Judson Lake, for the area sampled, can be estimated at 0.11 shot/core (cores were cylindrical with a diameter of 10 cm and a 15 cm length, volume of 1241cm3). Extrapolation of shot to shot/acre is statistically inappropriate and misleading at this level of sampling.

Put in the larger context, an assessment of shot density in 'high swan use' areas of Sumas Prairie and Whatcom County conducted in 2001-2002 showed three sites with higher average densities of lead shot than Judson Lake, a temporary roost site with 0.58 shot/core (23 shot in 40 cores), and two roosting sites, one with 0.29 shot/core (42 shot in 143 cores) and the other with 0.13 shot/core (4 shot in 30 cores). The forage field which had 2 shot found in the 30 cores equates to 0.07 shot/core.

Reference 18 in the petition states "Preliminary results suggest the sources of lead shot responsible for the swan mortalities in Whatcom County and Sumas Prairie are likely local. The main sources of lead shot may be either in Whatcom County or the Sumas Prairie, possibly near the border."

The majority of swans (84 percent, n=57) trapped shortly after arriving to their wintering grounds in Whatcom County and Sumas Prairie had low blood lead levels reflective of natural background exposure, suggesting that the sources of lead are likely local, versus breeding grounds or staging areas.

Preliminary analysis of the telemetry and survey data identified several potential sources of lead shot. Shot density estimates of areas frequented by swans also identified possible sources. Several of these sites are located near the border, therefore, the sources of lead shot may possibly be near the border.

The CWS is not aware that there is physical evidence that "proves otherwise". However, the CWS is aware of two of your video clips that show swans 'tipping up' at Judson Lake (page 5 of petition). In these videos, it is not possible to determine what the swans were actually doing underwater or, more precisely, if the activity was even related to foraging. The vast majority of swans visit Judson Lake during the night when it is dark, thus it is very difficult to document their behavioural activities.

Research on the habitat use behaviour of Trumpeter Swans at Comox, British Columbia showed that feeding was the dominant activity in daylight and sleeping predominated during the night (McKelvey & Verbeek, 1988, Canadian Field-Naturalist 102:434-441). Similar behaviour patterns would be expected of the same species of swans in the Sumas Prairie area because the habitats are similar.

Your reference to "scientific evidence proving otherwise", presented on page 5 of the petition, states "Neighbouring Laxton Lake was dredged roughly a decade ago with no consideration whatsoever given to how swans or any other waterfowl might be impacted. The trumpeter swans frequent Laxton Lake by the hundreds every year and on many occasions outnumber the swans frequenting Judson Lake. CWS continues to monitor Laxton Lake and is fully aware of this fact".

The CWS is not aware of any assessment of swan use at Laxton Lake prior to and after dredging. Therefore, there are no "scientific" data on the impact of dredging on swan use of the lake.

CWS researchers have observed swans at Laxton Lake while conducting radio-telemetry surveys and monitoring the site for sick and dead swans. They do not have data to indicate that hundreds of swans frequent Laxton Lake every year and that on many occasions they outnumber the swans frequenting Judson Lake. CWS researchers have suggested that there may be a correlation between the swans using Laxton Lake and hunting activity on Judson Lake. Their notion is that when hunting occurs on Judson Lake, the swans leave and move to the next nearest water body which is Laxton Lake.

Reference 21 of the petition is a CTV-BC news report (15-Dec-03) during which Ms. L. Wilson, CWS Biologist, was quoted as saying "If by chance the area is dredged and its use by swans is changed and the birds move off into other roost areas that may potentially be worse, we may actually be causing more harm to the swans".

You provided Ms. L. Wilson with a copy of a letter you received from Fisheries and Oceans Canada in August 2003, which provided some details of the proposed "Application to Excavate Bed Material from Judson Lake". The letter implied that after an initial pilot project, the excavation process would continue over a nine-year period. The impact caused by the disruption of the roosting site for multiple years is uncertain, but it is scientifically reasonable to infer that the swans would try to find alternative habitats during that time. Therefore, the CWS remains concerned that the number of swans using Judson Lake as a roosting site may decline as a result of remediation.

The CWS has no jurisdiction or expertise on matters relating to hydrology and has not conducted scientific studies on the water table or the 'mud seal' of Judson Lake. However, the CWS has been in contact with a regional hydrologist, at the British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (BCWALP), to better understand the Ministry's concerns about the proposed dredging of Judson Lake. In doing so, CWS officials have been made aware of a potential threat to the water table under Judson Lake if the 'mud seal' at the bottom of the Lake were to be ruptured and the Lake water mixed with the underlying ground water. The hydrologist reports that the Ministry has concerns about the Water Quality Study conducted by Aqua Terra Consultants (on behalf of [name withheld]) and, therefore, a BCWALP Water Act License (required to conduct works in or about B.C. waters) has not been issued.

On November 4, 2003, Ms. L. Wilson responded to an e-mail you sent to Mr. Rick McKelvey, Manager of the Pacific Wildlife Research Centre. The response acknowledged your proposal and stated "If research currently being conducted determined that Judson Lake is the major source and remediation is recommended, then Canadian Wildlife Service staff will work with you to consider your proposal in the remediation strategy". The CWS is not in a position to know why you have not received any response to questions you may have posed to the USFWS.

The first bullet under "Actions needed (by priority)" in the fourth component of the Strategic Action Plan is to (a) continue to identify high priority areas based on swan use data and subsequent soil sampling. CWS researchers are currently working on that component of the project.

The CWS is working collaboratively with many partners, both in Canada and the United States, to ensure the most effective and timely solution with all due consideration to the cost to the Canadian taxpayer. Component studies include trapping and blood sampling of individual swans to determine blood lead residue levels, outfitting swans with radio-collars, monitoring locations of radio-collared swans during the day and night throughout the winter, swan population and distribution surveys, retrieval of sick and dead swans, post-mortem examination and testing of swan carcasses, identification of shot from gizzards, and estimating shot densities in areas of concern. During the 2003/2004 season, approximately 36 people were involved in this endeavour in Canada alone.

The most scientifically effective and responsible way to solving the Trumpeter Swan issue is to accurately determine the primary source(s) of the lead shot before moving on to remediation efforts, such as dredging or soil removal. If Judson Lake were to be "remediated" before the primary source(s) were pinpointed, it could change the birds' movement patterns and compromise efforts to determine the prime sources.

A practical solution can be implemented only once the sources of lead contamination are clearly identified. Although determining the primary sources of lead responsible for Trumpeter Swan mortality and resolving this ongoing wildlife tragedy has proven a difficult proposition, we are working diligently towards a definitive solution.

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

May 11, 2004

Mr. Kevin Sinclair
71 Clearbrook Road
Abbotsford, British Columbia
V2T 5X1

Dear Mr. Sinclair:

I am responding to the petition that you have submitted to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD) concerning the Lead Poisoning of Trumpeter Swans on Judson Lake. The Commissioner forwarded your petition to me as Petition No. 99. I am responding with respect to those matters raised in your petition, which fall within the mandate of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). I understand that my colleague the Minister of the Environment will be responding separately to those portions of your petition which pertain to matters falling within the mandate of his department.

DFO has a mandate to protect fish and fish habitat under the Federal Fisheries Act from any projects that may result in a harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (HADD). DFO policy for managing fish habitat is to avoid or mitigate as many of the potential impacts to fish and fish habitat as possible at the project planning stage through location, design and construction mitigation. Works, which result in a loss of fish habitat, which can be compensated for, require Authorization under 35(2) of the Federal Fisheries Act and must be reviewed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) to ensure that the project does not result in any significant adverse environmental effects. This involves a multiagency environmental review of the project. It is our opinion that the proposed works at Judson Lake will result in a HADD of fish habitat. Therefore, approval of the works will require fish habitat compensation, and a Section 35(2) Authorization under the Federal Fisheries Act, and review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

DFO supports your enhancement initiatives to ensure the long-term health and productivity of Judson Lake habitat. In a letter dated August 20, 2003, DFO provided you with suggestions that a scaled down version of your proposal may have the same benefits for fisheries resources and wildlife, and not pose as many of the other potential risks. We await your final project proposal prior to completing our environmental assessment.

I thank you for expressing your concerns.

Yours truly,

[Original signed by Geoff Regan, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Geoff Regan