DOCSLIB.ORG

Cover 11-07-06.Pub

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cover 11-07-06.Pub Fisheries Management Section Special Publication No. 163 Fisheries Management Plan for the Minnesota Waters of Lake Superior September 2006 Division of Fish and Wildlife Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Special Publication 163, 2006 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE MINNESOTA WATERS OF LAKE SUPERIOR Prepared by Donald R. Schreiner Joseph J. Ostazeski Theodore N. Halpern Steven A. Geving Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Lake Superior Fisheries Area 5351 North Shore Drive Duluth, MN 55804 in cooperation with the MNDNR North Shore Management Group and the Lake Superior Advisory Group 2006 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Management Section North Shore Management Group Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Management Section Alan Anderson, Duluth Area Fisheries, French River Darryl Bathel, Cold Water Hatchery Coordinator, French River Mark Ebbers, Cold Water Program Coordinator, St. Paul Steve Geving, Lake Superior Area Fisheries, French River Tim Goeman, Northeast Regional Fisheries Manager, Grand Rapids Theodore Halpern, Lake Superior Area Fisheries, French River Deserae Hendrickson, Duluth Area Fisheries, French River John Lindgren, Duluth Area Fisheries, French River Mary Negus, Research Biologist, French River Joe Ostazeski, Lake Superior Area Fisheries, French River Steve Persons, Grand Marais Area Fisheries, Grand Marais Donald Schreiner, Lake Superior Area Fisheries, French River Fred Tureson, French River Hatchery, French River Lake Superior Advisory Group Organization Representative 1854 Authority Andrew Edwards Arrowhead Fly Fishers Doug Mroz Cook County Tourism George Wilkes Duluth Charter Fishing Guides Peter Dahl Fish Producers and Processors Stewart Siverson Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa Brian Borkholder Grand Portage Band of Chippewa Seth Moore Independent Angler John Eaton Izaak Walton League Bill Miner Kamloops Advocates Ross Pearson Lake County Recreation Association Lino Rauzi Lake Superior Steelhead Association Kevin Bovee North Shore Commercial Fishers Steve Dahl North Shore Charter Captains Association Barry Le Blanc North Shore Processors Harley Toftey Save Lake Superior Association LeRoger Lind Saint Louis River Citizens Action Committee J. Howard McCormick Trout Unlimited John Lenczewski Two Harbors Catch and Donate Forest Johnson United Northern Sportsmen Chuck Cieluch Western Lake Superior Trollers Dave Koneczny i TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................. iii Preface ....................................................................................................................................................x Chapter 1: Introduction......................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2: Fish Community Interactions...........................................................................................7 Chapter 3: Habitat............................................................................................................................17 Chapter 4: Prey ................................................................................................................................23 Chapter 5: Lake Trout......................................................................................................................35 Appendix 5.1: Proposed Seasons and Limits Lake Superior and Tributaries ...............47 Chapter 6: Chinook Salmon.............................................................................................................48 Appendix 6.1: Chinook Salmon Program Criteria ........................................................54 Chapter 7: Coho Salmon..................................................................................................................55 Chapter 8: Pink Salmon ...................................................................................................................58 Chapter 9: Rainbow Trout ...............................................................................................................61 Chapter 10: Brook Trout....................................................................................................................75 Chapter 11: Brown Trout...................................................................................................................81 Chapter 12: Walleye ..........................................................................................................................83 Chapter 13: Lake Sturgeon ................................................................................................................87 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY marized, reviewed, and considered for inclu- sion in the final draft. The final draft was The Lake Superior fish community thoroughly discussed within the Fisheries has undergone dramatic changes since the Management Section and represents the De- mid-1900s due to over-fishing, introduction of partment's position on how to best manage the non-native species, pollution, and land use Lake Superior fishery. changes in the watershed. Since the 1950s, the Lake Superior fish community has become much more complex, and is now composed of GENERAL PLAN OVERVIEW both native and non-native species. The most devastating introduction to the Lake Superior Fisheries management in Minnesota is community has been the sea lamprey, which virtually eliminated the lake trout in all but a the responsibility of the Minnesota Depart- few isolated areas of Lake Superior. Since the ment of Natural Resources (MNDNR), Fisher- 1960s, rehabilitation efforts, including sea ies Management Section. The long-term goal lamprey control, harvest regulations and for fisheries management in the Minnesota stocking programs, along with stricter pollu- waters of Lake Superior is: tion standards and best management practices for land use, have led to restoration of healthy To protect the Lake Superior fish stocks throughout much of Lake Superior. ecosystem, restore its watershed, This plan is a comprehensive guide on and manage for a diverse, stable, how to best manage Minnesota's portion of the self-sustaining fish community that Lake Superior fishery. The plan is written for provides recreational, commercial use by both the Minnesota Department of and tribal fishing opportunities. Natural Resources (MNDNR) Fisheries Man- agement Section and citizens interested in the The MNDNR uses an ecosystem- management of Minnesota's Lake Superior based management approach. In its mission to fishery resource. The plan is based on a fish protect the Lake Superior ecosystem and man- community approach to fisheries management. age the fishery based on ecological principals, The strategies and actions in this plan will fo- the plan recognizes that: cus on the work of the MNDNR Fisheries Management Section over the next decade. • Fish production in Lake Superior is finite, The goals and objectives are expected to re- and although users may desire more fish main relevant for 10 years, but the plan is from its waters, the lake simply may not written to be flexible, and modifications are have the capacity to produce higher levels. expected to occur during that time period. Additional stocking of trout and salmon Citizen participation was a critical cannot take place without considering im- aspect in the planning process. An advisory pacts on the forage base. group that represented fishing clubs, environ- mental groups, Indian bands, commercial fish- ing interests, county organizations, and • Lake Superior is the least productive but individual anglers was formed at the begin- most pristine of the Great Lakes, and has ning of the planning process. This group was demonstrated the capacity to support self- involved with initial discussion on all issues, sustaining fish populations through natural solicited input from their organizations, and reproduction. The plan emphasizes the reviewed and commented on the draft plan. In continued need for habitat protection, and addition, three "Open House" meetings were the desire for managing self-sustaining held to get feedback on the draft plan from fish populations that are best suited to the citizens not associated with a representative on lake’s environment. the advisory group. All comments were sum- iii • User groups on Lake Superior have di- BODY OF THE PLAN verse interests, and the Lake Superior Management Plan (LSMP) attempts to HABITAT balance resource protection, recreational opportunities, cultural beliefs and eco- Background: Lake Superior is the nomic development for the benefit of both most pristine of all of the Great Lakes, and present and future generations. Citizen habitat protection is a high priority. Unim- participation was the cornerstone of the paired habitat is critical for a productive, self- planning process, and will be an ongoing sustaining fish community. Throughout the process once implementation begins. Lake Superior basin, point source pollution has been greatly reduced in the last 20 years, • Lake Superior fishery management is an but nonpoint and atmospheric pollution con- expensive program when compared to tinues to cause problems with bioaccumulation other fisheries in the state, consuming ap- of mercury, PCBs and other toxins in fish and proximately 4.5% of the total fisheries wildlife. The St. Louis River is classified as budget. Although Lake Superior is a an area of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lake Superior South Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report
    Summary Monitoring and Assessment Lake Superior-South Watershed Why is it The undeveloped nature of the Lake Superior-South Watershed, along Minnesota’s North Shore within the Lake Superior Basin, is undoubtedly a key reason for the high important? water quality found in most parts of the watershed. This watershed covers 624 square miles of St. Louis and Lake counties, with nearly half of the land under state ownership (42%). Almost 90% is forested. The watershed is home to several small cities and supports diverse species of wildlife and fish populations. It contains 1,067 miles of streams of which 800 are designated as coldwater. Its immaculate waters produce some of the state’s highest-quality stream trout fisheries. The watershed is a valuable resource for drinking water, habitat for aquatic life, recreational opportunities and timber production. Key issues Overall, water quality conditions are good and can be attributed to the forest and wetlands that dominate the watershed’s land cover. Many stream segments have exceptional biological, chemical, and physical characteristics and should be considered for additional protections to preserve their high quality. The top five stream resources include: McCarthy Creek, Unnamed Creek (West Branch Little Knife River), Gooseberry River, Stewart River and Captain Jacobson Creek. Problem areas do occur but are typically limited to the lower reaches of streams where stressors from land use practices may accumulate. Impairments are likely a function of both natural and human-caused stressors. Historical and recent forest cover changes, along with urban/industrial development, draining of wetlands and damming of streams are likely stressors affecting biological communities within the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Arguments in Favor of the Ottawa and Georgian Bay Ship Canal
    ldo6 Oeoigian i3ay canal. Arguments in ravor ox the Ottawa and G-eorgian i3ay siiip canal. Ctbranj KINGSTON, ONTARIO > K*>) }?.Uk ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY 1 » WAP SKIP O -<A- 3SJ" A X# 5 THE SHORTEST, SAFEST, AND CHEAPEST ROUTE TO THE OCEAN FROM THE GREAT WEST, THROUGH CANADIAN TEPtRITORY AND THE ONLY CI.KT.UN M*ANS OK REVIVING AND RESTORING THE TRADE OF UNITED CANADA. ^%jm* y >.. .. — OTTAWA CITY, CANADA WEST. - 1856. n PRINTED AT OFFICE OF THE OTTAWA CITIZEN *. » » a II r=- , « « * * ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OP THE OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY SHIP CANAIj; THE SHORTEST, SAFEST, AND CHEAPEST ROUTE TO THE OCEAN FROM THE GREAT WEST, THEOUGH CANADIAN TERRITORY; AND THE ONLY CERTAIN MEANS OF REVIVING AND RESTORING THE TRADE OF UNITED CANADA. OTTAWA CITY, CANADA WEST. ----- 1856. PRINTED AT OFFICE OF THE OTTAWA CITIZEN, YSo\^ At the first meeting of the Municipal Council of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, held for the present year, at the Court House in L'Orignal, a petition was presented and unanimously adopted : u That a memorial be immediately drawn up and signed by the Warden, to the three branches of the Government, in favour of the Ottawa and Georgian Bay Ship Canal, and that a sum be appropriated to bring the subject, in a pamphlet form, before the public, and that Chas. P. Treadwell, Esq., Sheriff of these United Countiea, be requested to compile the same." In compliance with the foregoing request, and while offering nothing new of my own, I have selected from various papers letters and leading articles bearing on this most important subject.
    [Show full text]
  • TOWNSHIP of GILLIES RR#I,1092 Hwy. 595, Kakabeka Falls, Ontario POT Lwo Tel: (807) 475-3185
    TOWNSHIP OF GILLIES RR#I,1092 Hwy. 595, Kakabeka Falls, Ontario POT lWO Tel: (807) 475-3185. Fax: (807) 473-0767 E~Mail: [email protected] • www.gilliestownship.ca Reeve: Rick Kleri Administration: Councillors: Rosalie A. Evans, Rudy Buitenhuis COPIEDTO: COUNCH... 0 DEPT HEAOSCJ Solicitor·Clerk, Deputy Treasurer Willlam Groenheide Nadia La Russa, Treasurer Karen O'Gorman Shara Lavallee, Deputy Clerk Wendy Wright February 10, 201 5 AC110tt ~l£Dcc ~ Rc:: oEPTH~SD Transmitted by email: REFERRED TO: '\. l .. I ,...c:; All Municipal Clerks For Municipalities in Northern Ontario (North of the French River) Re: Resolution of the Council of The Corporation ofthe TOWlShip of Gilties th Passed on February 9 , 2015, relating to the Chicken Farmers of Ontario Exempt Flock Limit Dear Mr. or Madam Cleric Please be ad vised that the Council of The Corporation of the Township of Gillies passed the fol lowing resolution (moved by Councillor O'Gorman and seconded by Councillor Groenheide) at its regular meeting held February 4th, 2015: WHEREAS the current exempt flock limit of 300 broiler birds from the quota system of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario is too low to allow a viable business model for small scale producers; AND WHEREAS other Provinces have higher exemption levels, which allow for local small agri-business economic development; AND WHEREAS Premier Wynne promotes increased agricultural production in Ontario to enhance the local food movement; AND WHEREAS Northern Ontario's economy is an excellent setting for agricultural production as diversification
    [Show full text]
  • What the “Trail Eyes” Pros Taught Us About the SHT P H
    A publication oF the Superior Hiking TrAil AssoCiation SUmmEr 2019 What the “Trail Eyes” Pros Taught Us About the SHT P H o im Malzhan iS the trail operations director T o for our sister trail organization the ice Age B y Fr Trail Alliance in Wisconsin. Doing business as esh T “Trail Eyes,” Tim was one of four entities the SHTA Tr hired in the fall of 2018 to evaluate and recom- ac mend renewal strategies for what we have dubbed k S mE D “The Big Bad Five,” those sections of the SHT most damaged from heavy use and old age (or both). i A Though all four evaluators—malzhan, Critical Connections Ecological Services (Jason and Amy Husveth), the north Country Trail Association, and (Continued on page 2) What the “Trail Eyes” Taught Us About the SHT (continued from cover) Great Lakes Trail Builders (Wil- lie Bittner)—did what we asked (provide specific prescriptions for the Big Bad Five), their ex- pert observations gave us much more: they shed light on the en- tire Superior Hiking Trail. In other words, what they saw on the Split Rock River loop, or the sections from Britton Peak to Oberg Mountain and Oberg to the Lutsen ski complex, or the proposed reroute of the SHT north of Gooseberry Falls State Park, were microcosms of bigger, more systemic issues with the SHT. ❚ “keep people on the Trail and water off of it.” This suc- cinct wisdom comes from Matt no bridge is not the only problem at the Split rock river loop.
    [Show full text]
  • More Than Just a Lake! TOPIC Great Lake Drainage Basins AUDIENCE Grades 1-6; 10-30 Students
    More Than Just a Lake! TOPIC Great Lake drainage basins AUDIENCE Grades 1-6; 10-30 students SETTING By creating a map of the rivers flowing into your Great Lake, Large, open indoor space is learn how rivers form a watershed. required GOAL To understand the concept of a drainage basin or watershed, and how that concept relates to the BACKGROUND around the lake as gravity pulls water local Great Lake watershed. All lakes and rivers have a set area to the lowest point. Water draining of land that water drains into them to the lowest common point is the OBJECTIVES • Students will understand the from, called the “watershed” or simplest definition of a watershed. defining role that rivers have “drainage basin.” Drainage basins are in watershed activity important environmentally because 2. Introduction to the model • Students will be able to state whether they live inside or whatever happens within the basin of watershed outside the drainage basin of the lake can happen to the lake itself. Students gather around the “shore” their Great Lake Toxic substances spilled or placed of the lake. Explain that the blue • Older students will be able to identify the river drainage on the land or in watershed rivers yarn represents rivers. With younger basin in which they live can end up in the lake. See the Great students, demonstrate how one river Lakes Watershed Fact Sheets for ad- might look on the map as it flows MATERIALS ditional information about your local into your Great Lake. • Large floor map of your Great Lake (or an outline on the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Ontario Fishing Regulations Summary
    FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10 ZONE 10 50 Recreational Fishing Regulations 2018 ZONE 10 SEASONS AND LIMITS • Dates are inclusive; all dates including the first and last dates stated in the summary are open or closed SPECIES OPEN SEASONS LIMITS SPECIES OPEN SEASONS LIMITS Walleye & Jan. 1 to Mar. 31 S - 4; not more than 1 greater than 46 Brook Trout* Jan. 1 to Sept. 30 S - 5 Sauger or any & 3rd Sat. in May cm (18.1 in.) C - 2 combination to Dec. 31 C - 2; not more than 1 greater than 46 Brown Trout* 4th Sat. in Apr. to S - 5 cm (18.1 in.) Sept. 30 C - 2 Largemouth & 3rd Saturday in S - 6 Rainbow Trout* Open all year S - 2 Smallmouth June - November C - 2 C - 1 Bass or any 30 combination Lake Trout* Jan. 1 to S - 2, not more than 1 greater than Labour Day 40 cm (15.7 in.) Northern Pike Open all year S - 6; not more than 2 greater than 61 C - 1 cm (24 in.), of which not more than 1 is greater than 86 cm (33.9 in.) Splake* Open all year S - 5 C - 2; not more than 1 greater than 61 cm C - 2 (24 in.), none greater than Pacific Salmon* Open all year S - 5 86 cm (33.9 in.) C - 2 Muskellunge 3rd Sat. in June to S - 1; must be greater than 91 cm (36 in.) Atlantic Salmon* Jan. 1 to Sept. 30 S - 1 Dec. 15 C - 0 C - 0 Yellow Perch Open all year S - 50 Lake Whitefish Open all year S - 12 C - 25 C - 6 Crappie Open all year S - 30 Lake Sturgeon Closed all year C - 10 Channel Catfish Open all year S - 12 Sunfish Open all year S - 50 C - 6 C - 25 * Aggregate limits apply to these species.
    [Show full text]
  • Map 2, Lake Superior State Water Trail from Knife River to Split Rock
    ROUTE DESCRIPTION - River miles 26 to 60 (34 miles) (0.0 at Minnesota Entrance – Duluth Lift Bridge). 48.0 Private resort. [47° 07.135' N / 91° 30.265' W] 57.7 Little Two Harbors at Split Rock Lighthouse State Park. Access to park and lighthouse, a MAP 2 - Knife River to Split Rock Lighthouse State Park 51.0 Gooseberry Falls State Park and Gooseberry Minnesota Historic Site. Trailer access, parking, River. Carry-in access, parking, campground, 2 campground, picnic area and trails. 26.5 Knife River Marina. Access at launch area. watercraft campsites (available on a first-come, [47° 11.865' N / 91° 22.620' W] Parking, toilets. [46° 56.705' N / 91° 46.950' W] first-served basis), picnic area and trails. [47° 08.560' N / 91° 27.500' W] 59.0 Gold Rock Point. Wreck of the Madeira, driven 26.6 Knife River Beach. Carry-in access, rest area, ashore in 1905, lies scattered on the bottom in parking, toilet. Sand and pebble beach. 53.0 Thompson Beach. Four watercraft campsites 10 to 100' of water with portions clearly visible [46° 56.785' N / 91° 46.845' W] and rest area, toilet. No fires. First-come, in calm water. A popular recreational diving site, first-served. [47° 09.480' N / 91° 26.230' W] please be alert to divers in the water. Rest area 30.2 Private resort. Rocky Beach. on small beach nearby. No facilities. [46° 59.025' N / 91° 44.170' W] 53.8 Twin Points. Rest area, trailer access, parking. [47° 12.410' N / 91° 21.520' W] No camping permitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Information Ontario Data Description OTN Trailhead
    Unclassified Land Information Ontario Data Description OTN Trailhead Disclaimer This technical documentation has been prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources (the “Ministry”), representing Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario. Although every effort has been made to verify the information, this document is presented as is, and the Ministry makes no guarantees, representations or warranties with respect to the information contained within this document, either express or implied, arising by law or otherwise, including but not limited to, effectiveness, completeness, accuracy, or fitness for purpose. The Ministry is not liable or responsible for any loss or harm of any kind arising from use of this information. For an accessible version of this document, please contact Land Information Ontario at (705) 755 1878 or [email protected] ©Queens Printer for Ontario, 2012 LIO Class Catalogue OTN Trailhead Class Short Name: OTNTHD Version Number: 1 Class Description: The point at which the trail starts. A trailhead exists for each trail. A trail may consist of one or more trail segments. Abstract Class Name: SPSPNT Abstract Class Description: Spatial Single-Point: An object is represented by ONE and ONLY ONE point. Examples: A cabin, bird nest, tower. Tables in LIO Class: OTN Trailhead OTN_TRAILHEAD_FT The point at which the trail starts. A trailhead exists for each trail. A trail may consist of one or more trail segments. Column Name Column Mandatory Short Name Valid Values Type OGF_ID NUMBER Yes OGF_ID (13,0) A unique numeric provincial identifier assigned to each object. TRAIL_NAME VARCHAR2 Yes TRAIL_NAME (200) The name that the trail is most commonly known as.
    [Show full text]
  • Hiking in Ontario Ulysses Travel Guides in of All Ontario’S Regions, with an Overview of Their Many Natural and Cultural Digital PDF Format Treasures
    Anytime, Anywhere in Hiking The most complete guide the World! with descriptions of some 400 trails in in Ontario 70 parks and conservation areas. In-depth coverage Hiking in Ontario in Hiking Ulysses Travel Guides in of all Ontario’s regions, with an overview of their many natural and cultural Digital PDF Format treasures. Practical information www.ulyssesguides.com from trail diffi culty ratings to trailheads and services, to enable you to carefully plan your hiking adventure. Handy trail lists including our favourite hikes, wheelchair accessible paths, trails with scenic views, historical journeys and animal lover walks. Clear maps and directions to keep you on the right track and help you get the most out of your walks. Take a hike... in Ontario! $ 24.95 CAD ISBN: 978-289464-827-8 This guide is also available in digital format (PDF). Travel better, enjoy more Extrait de la publication See the trail lists on p.287-288 A. Southern Ontario D. Eastern Ontario B. Greater Toronto and the Niagara Peninsula E. Northeastern Ontario Hiking in Ontario C. Central Ontario F. Northwestern Ontario Sudbury Sturgeon 0 150 300 km ntario Warren Falls North Bay Mattawa Rolphton NorthernSee Inset O 17 Whitefish 17 Deux l Lake Nipissing Callander Rivières rai Ottawa a T Deep River Trans Canad Espanola Killarney 69 Massey Waltham 6 Prov. Park 11 Petawawa QUÉBEC National Whitefish French River River 18 Falls Algonquin Campbell's Bay Gatineau North Channel Trail Port Loring Pembroke Plantagenet Little Current Provincial Park 17 Park Gore Bay Sundridge Shawville
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Trends at Minnesota Milestone Sites
    Water Quality Trends for Minnesota Rivers and Streams at Milestone Sites Five of seven pollutants better, two getting worse June 2014 Author The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs by using the Internet to distribute reports and David Christopherson information to wider audience. Visit our website for more information. MPCA reports are printed on 100% post- consumer recycled content paper manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | www.pca.state.mn.us | 651-296-6300 Toll free 800-657-3864 | TTY 651-282-5332 This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us . Document number: wq-s1-71 1 Summary Long-term trend analysis of seven different water pollutants measured at 80 locations across Minnesota for more than 30 years shows consistent reductions in five pollutants, but consistent increases in two pollutants. Concentrations of total suspended solids, phosphorus, ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand, and bacteria have significantly decreased, but nitrate and chloride concentrations have risen, according to data from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) “Milestone” monitoring network. Recent, shorter-term trends are consistent with this pattern, but are less pronounced. Pollutant concentrations show distinct regional differences, with a general pattern across the state of lower levels in the northeast to higher levels in the southwest. These trends reflect both the successes of cleaning up municipal and industrial pollutant discharges during this period, and the continuing challenge of controlling the more diffuse “nonpoint” polluted runoff sources and the impacts of increased water volumes from artificial drainage practices.
    [Show full text]
  • LAND USE and WATER RESOURCES in the MINNESOTA NORTH SHORE DRAINAGE BASIN Carol A. Johnston, Brian Allen, John Bonde, Jim Sal6s
    LAND USE AND WATER RESOURCES IN THE MINNESOTA NORTH SHORE DRAINAGE BASIN Carol A. Johnston, Brian Allen, John Bonde, Jim Sal6s, and Paul Meysembourg Natural Resources GIS Laboratory (NRGIS) NRRI Technical Report NRRI/TR-91/07 July 1991 Research funded by the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources INTRODUCTION Rivers and streams are an important feature of the Minnesota North Shore. A dozen state parks and waysides lie at the mouths of rivers that cascade down the steep slopes of Minnesota’s northern highlands into Lake Superior,-carving beautiful waterfalls out the basalt bedrock. But the rivers that drain the 5778 km2 North Shore drainage basin provide more than scenic beauty, delivering nutrients and other materials to Lake Superior. Lake Superior’s tributaries provide about half of its annual water input (Bennett 1978), more than 90% of its total dissolved solids, and 68% of its phosphorus (Upper Lakes Reference Group 1977). Moreover, the water from these tributaries is delivered to the nearshore zone, in which Lake Superior’s biological communities are concentrated (Rao 1978, Munawar and Munawar 1978, Watson and Wilson 1978). Since these communities of bacteria, algae, and zooplankton form the basis of the food web, the productivity and integrity of Lake Superior’s waters are heavily dependent on water supplied by the North Shore drainage basin. While some of the materials delivered by rivers and streams are essential to aquatic life, excessive inputs of sediment and nutrients can cause nonpoint source pollution, the flow of pollutants from land to water in stormwater runoff or from seepage through the soil.
    [Show full text]
  • State Park CONTENTS 1
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp 7/22/91 State Park CONTENTS 1 I. Introduction -----------------------------------------------------------2 Park Description---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ·---------------------2 Advisory Committee---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 The Law -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 II. Regional Analysis ---------------------------------------------------7 The Surrounding A:re,a ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 Supply and Demand of Recreational Facilities -------------------------------------------------------------10 ID. Park Resources----------------------------------------------------11 Resource Mariagement Objectives --------------------------------------------------------------------------11 Climate -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 Geology ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 Soils---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 Vegetation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18
    [Show full text]