DOCSLIB.ORG

LAND by the LAKES Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LAND by the LAKES Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1996 Background Paper THE LAND BY THE LAKES Nearshore Terrestrial Ecosystems Ron Reid Bobolink Enterprises Washago, Ontario Canada Karen Holland U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chicago, Illinois U.S.A. October 1997 ISBN 0-662-26033-3 EPA 905-R-97-015c Cat. No. En40-11/35-3-1997E ii The Land by the Lakes—SOLEC 96 Table of Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................. v 1. Overview of the Land by the Lakes .................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................ 1 1.2 Report Structure ......................................................... 2 1.3 Conclusion ............................................................. 2 1.4 Key Observations ........................................................ 3 1.5 Moving Forward ......................................................... 5 2. The Ecoregional Context .......................................................... 6 2.1 Why Consider Ecoregional Context? .......................................... 6 2.2 Classification Systems for Great Lakes Ecoregions ............................... 7 3. Where Land and Water Meet ....................................................... 9 3.1 Changing Shapes and Structures ............................................. 9 3.1.1 Crustal Tilting ................................................. 10 3.1.2 Climate ....................................................... 10 3.1.3 Erosion ....................................................... 11 3.1.4 Lake-Level Fluctuations .......................................... 12 3.2 Relationship with Other Systems ............................................ 12 3.3 Classifying the Shoreline ................................................. 13 3.3.1 Physical Shoreline Types .......................................... 13 3.3.2 Classification of Vegetation Communities ............................. 15 4. Special Lakeshore Communities ................................................... 17 4.1 Sustaining Wildlife Populations ............................................ 18 4.2 The Rare and the Beautiful ................................................ 20 4.3 Special Ecological Communities ............................................ 21 4.3.1 Sand Beaches .................................................. 21 4.3.2 Sand Dunes .................................................... 22 4.3.3 Bedrock and Cobble Beaches ....................................... 24 4.3.4 Unconsolidated Shore Bluffs ....................................... 26 4.3.5 Coastal Gneissic Rocklands ........................................ 28 4.3.6 Limestone Cliffs and Talus Slopes ................................... 29 4.3.7 Lakeplain Prairies ............................................... 31 4.3.8 Sand Barrens .................................................. 33 4.3.9 Arctic-Alpine Disjunct Communities ................................. 34 4.3.10 Atlantic Coastal Plain Disjunct Communities .......................... 36 4.3.11 Shoreline Alvars ............................................... 37 4.5.12 Islands ...................................................... 38 SOLEC 96—The Land by the Lakes iii 5. Land under Stress .............................................................. 40 5.1 Direct Alteration of Habitat ............................................... 41 5.2 Alteration of Hydrology .................................................. 43 5.3 Alteration of Physical Processes ............................................ 43 5.4 Alteration of Biological Structure ........................................... 44 5.5 Alteration of Chemical Regime ............................................. 45 6. What Actions Are Needed? ....................................................... 46 6.1 Get the Facts .......................................................... 48 6.2 Plan for Protection and Recovery ........................................... 50 6.3 Preserve and Restore Large Tracts .......................................... 54 6.3.1 Shoreline Biodiversity Investment Areas .............................. 57 6.4 Involve Private Landowners ............................................... 63 6.5 Make Use of Legislation and Regulations ..................................... 65 6.6 Educate to Build Support ................................................. 67 7. How Will We Know What We’ve Achieved? .......................................... 69 7.1 Status of Ecosystem Health for Ecoregions .................................... 70 7.2 Status of Ecosystem Health for Special Great Lakes Ecological Communities .......... 78 7.3 Status of Overall Ecosystem Health for the Land by the Lakes ..................... 82 8. APPENDIX: Characteristics of Lakeplain Ecoregions ................................... 85 8.1 Thunder Bay–Quetico .................................................... 85 8.2 Lake Nipigon .......................................................... 86 8.3 Abitibi Plains .......................................................... 87 8.4 Lake Timiskaming Lowland ............................................... 89 8.5 Algonquin–Lake Nipissing ................................................ 90 8.6 Manitoulin–Lake Simcoe ................................................. 91 8.7 Lake Erie Lowland ...................................................... 94 8.8 Frontenac Axis ......................................................... 97 8.9 Erie and Ontario Lake Plain ............................................... 98 8.10 Southern Lower Michigan ............................................... 101 8.11 South Central Great Lakes .............................................. 104 8.12 Southwestern Great Lakes Morainal ....................................... 105 8.13 Northern Lacustrine-Influenced Lower Michigan .............................. 106 8.14 Southeastern Wisconsin Savanna ......................................... 110 8.15 Northern Lacustrine-Influenced Upper Michigan and Wisconsin .................. 111 8.16 Northern Continental Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota ...................... 116 8.17 Northern Minnesota ................................................... 119 9. Glossary .................................................................... 121 10. References ................................................................. 129 11. Additional Reading ........................................................... 139 iv The Land by the Lakes—SOLEC 96 12. List of Figures, Tables, and Case Studies .......................................... 141 Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge the contribution of the following people who provided information or participated in the reviewing and writing of this paper. Dennis Albert, Michigan Natural Features Inventory John Bacone, Indiana Department of Natural Resources Wasyl Bakowsky, Natural Heritage Information Centre Tom Beechey, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Sandra Benanno, The Nature Conservancy, New York Hans Blokpoel, Canadian Wildlife Service Lee Botts, Environmental Consultant Dieter Busch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mary-Louise Byrne, Wilfred Laurier University Pat Collins, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Mark Conti, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Bill Crins, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Sue Crispin, The Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Office Bob Davidson, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Don DeBlasio, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Dale Engquist, National Park Service George Francis, University of Waterloo Duane Heaton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ron Hiebert, National Park Service Gail Jackson, Parks Canada Ian Jarvis, Agriculture Canada Patrick Lawrence, University of Waterloo Kevin Kavanagh, World Wildlife Fund Canada Phil Kor, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Bruce MacDonald, Agriculture Canada Brian McHattie, Canadian Wildlife Service Susanne Masi, Chicago Botanic Garden Ralph Moulton, Canadian Centre for Inland Waters Noel Pavlovich, National Biological Service Brian Potter, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Christian Pupp, Environment Canada David Rankin, Great Lakes Protection Fund Cheri Recchia, World Wildlife Fund Canada David Reid, NOAA/Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory Paul Smith, Ontario Heritage Foundation Judy Sullivan, Metro Toronto and Region Conservation SOLEC 96—The Land by the Lakes v Joseph Thomas, Indiana Department of Environmental Management Tom Trudeau, Illinois Department of Natural Resources Peter Uhlig, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Tony Wagner, Waterfront Regeneration Trust Susan Wil-Wolf, University of Wisconsin, Madison Jennifer Windus, Ohio Division of Natural Areas and Preserves John Young, Wildlife Habitat Council vi The Land by the Lakes—SOLEC 96 Notice To Readers This Background Paper is one of a series of such papers that were prepared to provide a concise overview of the status of the nearshore conditions in the Great Lakes. The information they present has been selected as representative of the much greater volume of data. They therefore do not present all research or monitoring information available. The Papers were prepared with input from many individuals representing diverse sectors of society. The Papers provided the basis for discussions at SOLEC 96. Participants were encouraged to provide specific information and references for use in preparing the final post-conference versions of the Papers. Together with the information provided
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Forests in Michigan
    OriqiMI from Digitized by Go gle UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NATIONAL FORESTS IN MICHIGAN UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE NORTH CENTRAL REGION • MILWAUKEE, WIS. ON THE COVER. —Great Conglomerate Falls on the Black River. p-3e«M ERRATA Page Line 5 3 97,000,000 should be 45,000,000. 7 4 Porcupine should not be listed vvilh fur bearers. 17 7 Si.o'jld read "the red pine by its ClUoLC"G Cf t»Vj". 44 2-3 Should read "4 rniies east of Munising". UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1941 sEr^ •*«$• . AU TRAIN FALLS ON THE HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST. Drama of Michigan Forests DRAMA of the forests of Michigan has been written in several acts THEeach with its colorful pageantry. The action has concerned the magni ficent woodlands of the redman, the rapid depletion of those forests in the last century, and their slow but sure rebuilding in the present. The elusive "northwest passage" to China, Indian furs and Indian souls, iron and land and copper brought the white men to Michigan. In 1621, only 1 year after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, young Etienne Brule, protege of Champlain, reached Lake Superior and was disappointed to find its waters fresh. Thirteen years later, Jean Nicolet, another protege of the French governor of Canada, entered the unknown Lake Michigan through the Straits of Mackinac. Though he never found the longed-for route to the Orient, Nicolet did initiate the French fur trade with the Indians in this territory. Heroic followers of Brule and Nicolet were the Jesuit fathers Jogues and Raymbault, who preached to the Ojibwas in 1641 at Sault Ste.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Islands: Biodiversity Elements And
    GREAT LAKES ISLANDS: BIODIVERSITY ELEMENTS AND THREATS A FINAL REPORT TO THE GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AUGUST 6, 2007 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for this project has been provided by the Great Lakes Program Office (GLNPO) of the Environmental Protection Agency (Grant No. Gl-96521901: Framework for the Binational Conservation of Great Lakes Islands). We especially appreciated the support of our project officer, K. Rodriquez, and G. Gulezian, director of the GLNPO. Project team members were F. Cuthbert (University of Minnesota), D. Ewert (The Nature Conservancy), R. Greenwood (U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service), D. Kraus (The Nature Conservancy of Canada), M. Seymour (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service), K. Vigmostad (Principal Investigator, formerly of Northeast-Midwest Institute), and L. Wires (University of Minnesota). Team members for the Ontario portion of the project included W. Bakowsky (NHIC), B. Crins (Ontario Parks), J. Mackenzie (NHIC) and M. McMurtry (NHIC). GIS and technical support for this project has been provided by T. Krahn (Provincial Geomatics Service Centre, OMNR), J. Slatts (The Nature Conservancy), and G. White (The Nature Conservancy of Canada). Many others have provided scientific and policy support for this project. We particularly want to recognize M. DePhillips (The Nature Conservancy), G. Jackson (Parks Canada), B. Manny (Great Lakes Science Center), and C. Vasarhelyi (policy consultant). Cover photograph: A Bay on Gibraltar Island (Lake Erie) ©2005 Karen E. Vigmostad 2 Contents
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Visitors and Recreation Impacts: Baseline Data Available for Twentieth Century Conditions
    United States Department of Agriculture Wilderness Visitors and Forest Service Recreation Impacts: Baseline Rocky Mountain Research Station Data Available for Twentieth General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-117 Century Conditions September 2003 David N. Cole Vita Wright Abstract __________________________________________ Cole, David N.; Wright, Vita. 2003. Wilderness visitors and recreation impacts: baseline data available for twentieth century conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p. This report provides an assessment and compilation of recreation-related monitoring data sources across the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Telephone interviews with managers of all units of the NWPS and a literature search were conducted to locate studies that provide campsite impact data, trail impact data, and information about visitor characteristics. Of the 628 wildernesses that comprised the NWPS in January 2000, 51 percent had baseline campsite data, 9 percent had trail condition data and 24 percent had data on visitor characteristics. Wildernesses managed by the Forest Service and National Park Service were much more likely to have data than wildernesses managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. Both unpublished data collected by the management agencies and data published in reports are included. Extensive appendices provide detailed information about available data for every study that we located. These have been organized by wilderness so that it is easy to locate all the information available for each wilderness in the NWPS. Keywords: campsite condition, monitoring, National Wilderness Preservation System, trail condition, visitor characteristics The Authors _______________________________________ David N.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 to 2023 Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement
    2016 TO 2023 INUIT IMPACT AND BENEFIT AGREEMENT FOR NATIONAL WILDLIFE AREAS AND MIGRATORY BIRD SANCTUARIES IN THE NUNAVUT SETTLEMENT AREA 2016–2023 ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᖅᑖᕈᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕈᑏᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᓂᕐᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑎᑭᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ ᑎᖕᒥᐊᓂᑦ ᓴᐳᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᕙᑖᓂᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᖓᕕᒃ ᑎᒥᖓ, ᕿᑎᕐᒥᐅᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ, ᑭᕙᓪᓕᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑯᐃᓐ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᖅᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓄᑦ BETWEEN The Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area represented by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. The Kitikmeot Inuit Association The Kivalliq Inuit Association The Qikiqtani Inuit Association AND Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of the Environment Table of Contents 2016 INUIT IMPACT AND BENEFIT AGREEMENT FOR NATIONAL WILDLIFE AREAS AND MIGRATORY BIRD SANCTUARIES IN THE NUNAVUT SETTLEMENT AREA . 03 ARTICLE 1 — Definitions . 04 ARTICLE 2 — General Provisions . 08 ARTICLE 3 — Co-Management . 14 ARTICLE 4 — Inuit Owned Lands . 23 ARTICLE 5 — Inuit Rights And Uses Of NWAs And MBSs . 27 ARTICLE 6 — Information, Materials And Facilities . 30 ARTICLE 7 — Tourism And Other Business Benefits . 35 ARTICLE 8 — Inuit Contracting And Business Opportunities . 37 ARTICLE 9 — Education And Employment . 40 ARTICLE 10 — Research . 43 ARTICLE 11 — Cultural And Heritage Resources . 46 ARTICLE 12 — Wildlife Resources . 48 ARTICLE 13 — Changes To MBSs And NWAs . 51 ARTICLE 14 — Visitor Access And Use . 55 ARTICLE 15 — Implementation, Review And Renegotiation . 57 ARTICLE 16 — Dispute Resolution
    [Show full text]
  • Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas in New York
    R L NS Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas in New York State Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin MLRA Explorer Custom Report L - Lake State Fruit, Truck Crop, and Dairy Region 101 - Ontario-Erie Plain and Finger Lakes Region M - Central Feed Grains and Livestock Region 111E - Indiana and Ohio Till Plain, Eastern Part 111B - Indiana and Ohio Till Plain, Northeastern Part R - Northeastern Forage and Forest Region 144B - New England and Eastern New York Upland, Northern Part 144A - New England and Eastern New York Upland, Southern Part 143 - Northeastern Mountains 142 - St. Lawrence-Champlain Plain 141 - Tughill Plateau 140 - Glaciated Allegheny Plateau and Catskill Mountains 139 - Lake Erie Glaciated Plateau Major Land Resource Regions Custom Report Page 1 Data Source: USDA Agriculture Handbook 296 (2006) 03/26/08 http://soils.usda.gov/MLRAExplorer L - Lake State Fruit, Truck Crop, and Dairy Region Figure L-1: Location of Land Resource Region L LRR Overview This region (shown in fig. L-1) is in Michigan (59 percent), New York (22 percent), Ohio (10 percent), Indiana (8 percent), and Illinois (1 percent). A very small part is in Pennsylvania. The region makes up 45,715 square miles (118,460 square kilometers). Typically, the land surface is a nearly level to gently sloping glaciated plain (fig. L-2). The average annual precipitation is typically 30 to 41 inches (760 to 1,040 millimeters), but it is 61 inches (1,550 millimeters) in the part of the region east of Lake Erie.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Community Surveys for Potential Landscape Units
    Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units Prepared by: Joshua G. Cohen Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division September 30, 2009 Report Number 2009-14 Suggested Citation: Cohen, J.G.. 2009. Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2009-14, Lansing, MI. 14 pp. Copyright 2009 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, or family status. Cover photo: High-quality mesic northern forest within the McCormick - Rocking Chair NMF Potential Landscape Unit (all photographs by Joshua G. Cohen). IX.1 Rock Lake NMF Conducted surveys with assistance from Otto Jacob during one of the days. Surveys focused on dry-mesic northern forest and granitic features within the forested matrix. Documented high-quality dry-mesic northern forest, granite bedrock glade, granite cliff, poor fen, northern wet meadow, and submergent marsh. The juxtaposition of high-quality bedrock features adjacent to high-quality wetlands was notable. In addition, the following natural communities were identified as inclusions or zones within these communities or were noted in passing during the course of surveys: rich conifer swamp, muskeg, and northern shrub thicket. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen Submergent marsh, Rock Lake NMF Granite cliff, Rock Lake NMF Groveland Minds Conducted surveys with Otto Jacob. Surveys focused on dry-mesic northern forest and granitic features within the forested matrix. Documented high-quality dry-mesic northern forest, granite cliff, and northern wet meadow.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1. Natural History
    CHAPTER 1. NATURAL HISTORY CHAPTER 1. NATURAL HISTORY —THE WILDERNESS THAT GREETED THE FIRST SETTLERS The land one sees today traveling through northern Ohio took gone. Thus, some 14,000 years ago as the last glacier receded millions of years to form. We can see evidence of tropical sea into the Lake Erie basin, the first Native Americans arrived and reefs on the Lake Erie Islands and deep ocean sediments here in began to utilize the natural resources that these natural processes the cliffs of the Black River. Ohio was just south of the equator had produced. at that time, some 350 million years ago, and over the millennia The natural history of Sheffield encompasses all those natural has migrated northward to its present position. Mountain features and processes of the environment that greeted the Native building to the east eventually raised the sea floor from under Americans, and later the pioneers, when they first arrived in the waves and erosion by streams, and later glacial ice, began Sheffield. To be sure, the landscape was a magnificent wilderness to sculpture the land. At the same time plants and animals were to the settlers, but it needed to be “tamed” in order to support evolving and began to populate the new land once the ice was the newcomers. Ice formation on the shale bluff of the Black River north of Garfield Bridge (2005). 1 BICENTENNIAL HISTORY OF SHEFFIELD TOPOGRAPHY Regional Physiography The topography of an area is the configuration of the land Physiography refers to the physical features or landforms of surface, including its relief [vertical differences in elevation of a region.
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphological Studies of the Sedimentary Cuddapah Basin, Andhra Pradesh, South India
    SSRG International Journal of Geoinformatics and Geological Science (SSRG-IJGGS) – Volume 7 Issue 2 – May – Aug 2020 Geomorphological studies of the Sedimentary Cuddapah Basin, Andhra Pradesh, South India Maheswararao. R1, Srinivasa Gowd. S1*, Harish Vijay. G1, Krupavathi. C1, Pradeep Kumar. B1 Dept. of Geology, Yogi Vemana University, Kadapa-516005, Andhra Pradesh, India Abstract: The crescent shaped Cuddapah basin located Annamalai Surface - at an altitude of over 8000’ (2424 mainly in the southern part of Andhra Pradesh and a m), ii. Ootacamund Surface – at 6500’-7500’ (1969- little in the Telangana State is one of the Purana 2272 m) on the west and at 3500’ (1060m) on the east basins. Extensive work was carried out on the as noticed in Tirumala hills, iii. Karnataka Surface - stratigraphy of the basin, but there is very little 2700’-3000’ (Vaidynathan, 1964). 2700-3300 reference (Vaidynathan,1964) on the geomorphology of (Subramanian, 1973) 2400-3000 (Radhakrishna, 1976), the basin. Hence, an attempt is made to present the iv. Hyderabad Surface – at 1600’ – 2000’v. Coastal geomorphology of the unique basin. The Major Surface – well developed east of the basin.vi. Fossil Geomorphic units correspond to geological units. The surface: The unconformity between the sediments of the important Physiographic units of the Cuddapah basin Cuddapah basin and the granitic basement is similar to are Palakonda hill range, Seshachalam hill range, ‘Fossil Surface’. Gandikota hill range, Velikonda hill range, Nagari hills, Pullampet valley and Kundair valley. In the Cuddapah Basin there are two major river systems Key words: Topography, Land forms, Denudational, namely, the Penna river system and the Krishna river Pediment zone, Fluvial.
    [Show full text]
  • Wiikwedong Dazhi-Ojibwe
    WIIKWEDONG DAZHI-OJIBWE The Keweenaw Bay Ojibwe Waabigwani Giizis – Flower Moon - May 2019 Issue 178 KBIC TRIBAL VETERANS WIIKWEDONG OGICHIDAA SOCIETY Tribal Council Members: HONOR GUARD PROUDLY ACCEPTS THE GIFT OF TWO SCOOTERS Warren C. Swartz, Jr., President Gary F. Loonsfoot, Jr., Vice-President Susan J. LaFernier, Secretary Toni J. Minton, Asst. Secretary Doreen G. Blaker, Treasurer Robert R.D. Curtis, Jr. Dale Goodreau Randall R. Haataja Kim Klopstein Michael F. LaFernier, Sr. Rodney Loonsfoot Elizabeth D. Mayo SPECIAL POINTS OF INTEREST Wiikwedong Ogichidaa Society Veterans gifted scooters KBOCSS visits local schools (Left to right) Proudly displaying the organizations new scooters are KBIC Tribal Veterans Wiikwedong with Easter Bunny Ogichidaa Society Honor Guard Members: Allen Gauthier, Joseph Eckerberg, Rodney Loonsfoot, and Joseph Dowd. Spring Quarterly Council Meet- ing held The KBIC Tribal Veterans Wiikwe- Bringing Easter Joy in our Schools dong Ogichidaa Society Honor Guard KBIC attends NMU Powwow proudly displayed two new scooters KBIC AIS Program Activities they received on Saturday, April 13, 2019. The Veterans’ scooters were KBIC Health Systems Updates made possible through the Wounded Criminal Report Warriors Family Support Network wwfs.org. (Left) Khloe Loonsfoot shares a stroll down Rodney Loonsfoot, Tribal Council/ Baraga Elementary School hall with the Veteran Service Representative, began school’s surprise visitor, Easter Bunny! the process last year through applica- tion. The Tribe had to have an accred- KBIC Office of Child Support Ser- ited service officer who is recognized vices Outreach visited the Baraga by the Veterans Administration. KBIC and L’Anse schools on April 18, met all the eligibility requirements and 2019, along with the Easter Bunny.
    [Show full text]
  • ACTIVITY 7 – MARKING GUIDELINE: 1. a – Cuesta B – Homoclinal Ridge C
    ACTIVITY 7 – MARKING GUIDELINE: 1. A – Cuesta B – Homoclinal ridge C – Hogsback 2. Sedimentary 3. Inclined rocks with different resistance to erosion. Soft rock erodes away more quickly than hard rock. 4. The dip slope is 10–25° to the horizontal. Folding can result in cuesta basins and cuesta domes. 5. Farming can take place on dip slopes. Roads and railways can be built parallel to these landscapes. Gaps or poorts between homoclinal ridges can be good sites to build dams. Cuesta basins yield artesian water. Cuesta domes may contain oil and natural gas (fracking). Fertile valleys and plains between cuestas are suitable for human settlements. These ridges are used for forestry, tourism, recreation and nature conservation. These ridges can be used for defence purposes. (Accept any relevant answer) ACTIVITY 8 – MARKING GUIDELINE: 1. It occurs when strata are subjected to stress (compression, tension, volcanic intrusion, or tectonic movement) and they become tilted relative to their original (horizontal) position. Faulting or folding causes the strata to be tilted. The beds may be inclined in any direction with the angle of the dip slope between 0º to 90º. 2. Cuesta dome 3. The scarp slope faces inward, and dip slopes faces outward. 4. HOMOCLINICAL RIDGE: HOGSBACK: 5. HOMOCLINICAL RIDGE: HOGSBACK: • The angle of the dip slope lies 25º – 45º; • The angle of the dip slope is more than 45º; • Rivers cut poorts through the ridges; • There is very little difference in the gradient of the scarp and dip slopes ACTIVITY 9 – MARKING GUIDELINE: 1. A ridge that develop in tilted sedimentary rock characterised by a gentle slope and a steep slope 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendices June 2010
    Little Qualicum River Estuary Regional Conservation Area 2010-2019 Management Plan Appendices June 2010 Guardian of the Estuary Little Qualicum River Estuary Regional Conservation Area ______________________________________________2010-2019 Management Plan Table of Contents Page Appendix A User Survey Results and Other Feedback ........................ A3 Appendix B Estuary History ..................................................................... A23 Appendix C Estuary Conservation ........................................................... A25 Appendix D Bibliography ........................................................................... A32 Table of Figures and Map Figure C1 Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory (SEI) of the Little Qualicum River Estuary (2004) .................... A25 Figure C2 Terrestrial Ecosystem Map (TEM) of the Little Qualicum River Estuary (2008) ................................ A25 Figure C3 Rare Ecological Plant Communities Posibly at the Little Qualicum Estuary, Showing those Almost Certainly Present at the Estuary ........................... A26 Figure C4 Rare Animals Documented at the Little Qualicum Estuary and Possibly Using the LQRERCA ..................... A28 Figure C5 Rare Plants Documented at the Little Qualicum Estuary and Possibly Found at the LQRERCA ............... A30 Map C1 Little Qualicum River Watershed ........................................ A31 Cover photo: R. Guthrie and M. Henigman A2 Little Qualicum River Estuary Regional Conservation Area ______________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms
    Title 430 – National Soil Survey Handbook Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms Subpart A – General Information 629.0 Definition and Purpose This glossary provides the NCSS soil survey program, soil scientists, and natural resource specialists with landform, geologic, and related terms and their definitions to— (1) Improve soil landscape description with a standard, single source landform and geologic glossary. (2) Enhance geomorphic content and clarity of soil map unit descriptions by use of accurate, defined terms. (3) Establish consistent geomorphic term usage in soil science and the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). (4) Provide standard geomorphic definitions for databases and soil survey technical publications. (5) Train soil scientists and related professionals in soils as landscape and geomorphic entities. 629.1 Responsibilities This glossary serves as the official NCSS reference for landform, geologic, and related terms. The staff of the National Soil Survey Center, located in Lincoln, NE, is responsible for maintaining and updating this glossary. Soil Science Division staff and NCSS participants are encouraged to propose additions and changes to the glossary for use in pedon descriptions, soil map unit descriptions, and soil survey publications. The Glossary of Geology (GG, 2005) serves as a major source for many glossary terms. The American Geologic Institute (AGI) granted the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) permission (in letters dated September 11, 1985, and September 22, 1993) to use existing definitions. Sources of, and modifications to, original definitions are explained immediately below. 629.2 Definitions A. Reference Codes Sources from which definitions were taken, whole or in part, are identified by a code (e.g., GG) following each definition.
    [Show full text]