Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region: Impacts on Our Communities and Ecosystems
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Volcanology and Mineral Deposits
THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT Your use of this Ontario Geological Survey document (the “Content”) is governed by the terms set out on this page (“Terms of Use”). By downloading this Content, you (the “User”) have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use. Content: This Content is offered by the Province of Ontario’s Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) as a public service, on an “as-is” basis. Recommendations and statements of opinion expressed in the Content are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. MNDM does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable. MNDM is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the Content. MNDM assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the Content whatsoever. Links to Other Web Sites: This Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by MNDM. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. MNDM neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the “Owner”). -
The Lake Michigan Natural Division Characteristics
The Lake Michigan Natural Division Characteristics Lake Michigan is a dynamic deepwater oligotrophic ecosystem that supports a diverse mix of native and non-native species. Although the watershed, wetlands, and tributaries that drain into the open waters are comprised of a wide variety of habitat types critical to supporting its diverse biological community this section will focus on the open water component of this system. Watershed, wetland, and tributaries issues will be addressed in the Northeastern Morainal Natural Division section. Species diversity, as well as their abundance and distribution, are influenced by a combination of biotic and abiotic factors that define a variety of open water habitat types. Key abiotic factors are depth, temperature, currents, and substrate. Biotic activities, such as increased water clarity associated with zebra mussel filtering activity, also are critical components. Nearshore areas support a diverse fish fauna in which yellow perch, rockbass and smallmouth bass are the more commonly found species in Illinois waters. Largemouth bass, rockbass, and yellow perch are commonly found within boat harbors. A predator-prey complex consisting of five salmonid species and primarily alewives populate the pelagic zone while bloater chubs, sculpin species, and burbot populate the deepwater benthic zone. Challenges Invasive species, substrate loss, and changes in current flow patterns are factors that affect open water habitat. Construction of revetments, groins, and landfills has significantly altered the Illinois shoreline resulting in an immeasurable loss of spawning and nursery habitat. Sea lampreys and alewives were significant factors leading to the demise of lake trout and other native species by the early 1960s. -
Extending the Late Holocene White River Ash Distribution, Northwestern Canada STEPHEN D
ARCTIC VOL. 54, NO. 2 (JUNE 2001) P. 157– 161 Extending the Late Holocene White River Ash Distribution, Northwestern Canada STEPHEN D. ROBINSON1 (Received 30 May 2000; accepted in revised form 25 September 2000) ABSTRACT. Peatlands are a particularly good medium for trapping and preserving tephra, as their surfaces are wet and well vegetated. The extent of tephra-depositing events can often be greatly expanded through the observation of ash in peatlands. This paper uses the presence of the White River tephra layer (1200 B.P.) in peatlands to extend the known distribution of this late Holocene tephra into the Mackenzie Valley, northwestern Canada. The ash has been noted almost to the western shore of Great Slave Lake, over 1300 km from the source in southeastern Alaska. This new distribution covers approximately 540000 km2 with a tephra volume of 27 km3. The short time span and constrained timing of volcanic ash deposition, combined with unique physical and chemical parameters, make tephra layers ideal for use as chronostratigraphic markers. Key words: chronostratigraphy, Mackenzie Valley, peatlands, White River ash RÉSUMÉ. Les tourbières constituent un milieu particulièrement approprié au piégeage et à la conservation de téphra, en raison de l’humidité et de l’abondance de végétation qui règnent en surface. L’observation des cendres contenues dans les tourbières permet souvent d’élargir notablement les limites spatiales connues des épisodes de dépôts de téphra. Cet article recourt à la présence de la couche de téphra de la rivière White (1200 BP) dans les tourbières pour agrandir la distribution connue de ce téphra datant de l’Holocène supérieur dans la vallée du Mackenzie, située dans le Nord-Ouest canadien. -
Great Lakes Pine Barrens
Rapid Assessment Reference Condition Model The Rapid Assessment is a component of the LANDFIRE project. Reference condition models for the Rapid Assessment were created through a series of expert workshops and a peer-review process in 2004 and 2005. For more information, please visit www.landfire.gov. Please direct questions to [email protected]. Potential Natural Vegetation Group (PNVG) R6JAPIop Great Lakes Pine Barrens General Information Contributors (additional contributors may be listed under "Model Evolution and Comments") Modelers Reviewers Joshua Cohen [email protected] Vegetation Type General Model Sources Rapid AssessmentModel Zones Woodland Literature California Pacific Northwest Local Data Great Basin South Central Dominant Species* Expert Estimate Great Lakes Southeast Northeast S. Appalachians PIBA2 VAAN LANDFIRE Mapping Zones ANGE Northern Plains Southwest CAPE6 51 40 PIRE N-Cent.Rockies QUEL 50 SCSC 41 Geographic Range System occurs in northern Lower Michigan, northern Wisconsin, northern Minnesota, and eastern Ontario, north of the climatic tension zone (Curtis 1959 and is concentrated in the High Plains Subsection in northern Lower Michigan and in central Wisconsin (Vora 1993). Also occurs in several locations in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and is associated with the upper Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers in Minnesota and Wisconsin (Comer 1996). Biophysical Site Description The Great Lakes pine barrens system is endemic to very dry, nutrient-impoverished landscape ecosystems. These ecosystems occur in landforms deposited by high-energy glacial melt waters, principally outwash plains and glacial lakebeds, underlain by well-sorted, coarse-textured sandy soils with low water retaining capacity. They also occur in bedrock-controlled landforms with shallow soils of limited moisture storage capacity (Cleland et al. -
Lake Mendota
wendot2gounty2rk pox qovF2xelson hr2reights gherokee tte2rk gonservtion ry fluff r S yx vke i2 rk vx f 5 xs e xq2yyh2 e 2 i 5 5 r g x e w wendot w y T 5 riivi2hF g qovernor9s sslnd gonttD2pility2nd2eess 5 uiX ht2evised2PHHQ F h 2 E2smproved2fot2vunhD2rking2vot v y y r g E2fot2vunhD2xo2rking2vot rner2rk 5 E2grryEsn2gnoeGmll2fot2ite 5 E2lkEsn2pishing2eess Q E2pishing2ier 5 hunn9s2fr E2eessile2pishing2ier R 5 U E2eessile2fot2vunh wple2fluff E2esonl2estroom 5 5 feh 5 E2tte2rk2ermit2equired V E2vunh2pee2equired furrows2rk E2uli2hone E2gmping wrshll2rk 5 B2por22detiled2desription2of2eh E2feh 229hore2pishing2votion9Y2refer2to 224hore2pishing2on2the2wdison 5 x 22ere2vkesF42evilleD2free2of E2wrin 22hrge2from2the2hr2pishing 5 22glu282hne2gounty2rksF 5 P R E2hore2pishing2votionB 5 i i rieex gevi fexgr 2 vke2wendot I42a2QDSHH9 peies i 5 u wendot e of2pish v WVRP2eres wxF2hepth2VP9 H9 IDPSH9 QDSHH9 eundnt gommon resent wuskie xF2ike 5 lleye 5 IH enney2rk wonon 5 vFwF2fss I 5 5 ingr FwF2fss W 5 nfish igle rout 5 5 reights syv 5 ues e 5 g vke2wps2re2not2intended 5 for2nvigtion2purposesF 5 5 frerly 5 ht2is22pish2gric tF2frs uegons ood2llets 5 gement2floks 5 5 5 @ll2nded2togetherA toney qiddings2rk oint por2pish2gri2votions2plese2ontt gommodore 5 the2isonsin2heprtment2of2xturl fr vke2fottom2ymolsX esoures2pish2wngerX ini 2222222222222222@THVA2PUQESWRT tmes2wdison F et frF fedrok pring prutshi oint FF2wemoril2 nion wkF wuk fF foulders pring2rror rror wuenn eond rk gF gly tumps282ngs feh oint oint erreGroofers2entls idgewter wF wrl hngerous2xvigtion -
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary
www.thunderbay.noaa.gov (989) 356-8805 Alpena, MI49707 500 WestFletcherStreet Heritage Center Great LakesMaritime Contact Information N T ATIONAL ATIONAL HUNDER 83°30'W 83°15'W 83°00'W New Presque Isle Lighthouse Park M North Bay ARINE Wreck 82°45'W Old Presque Isle Lighthouse Park B S ANCTUARY North Albany Point Cornelia B. AY Windiate Albany • Types ofVesselsLostatThunderBay South Albany Point Sail Powered • • • Scows Ships, Brigs, Schooners Barks Lake Esau Grand Norman Island Wreck Point Presque Isle Lotus Lake Typo Lake of the Florida • Woods Steam Powered Brown • • Island Sidewheelers Propellers John J. Grand Audubon LAKE Lake iver R ll e B HURON Whiskey False Presque Isle Point • Other • • Unpowered Combustion Motor Powered 45°15'N 45°15'N Bell Czar Bolton Point Besser State Besser Bell Natural Area Wreck Defiance (by quantityoflossforallwrecks) Cargoes LostatThunderBay • • • • Iron ore Grain Coal Lumber products Ferron Point Mackinaw State Forest Dump Scow Rockport • • • • 23 Middle Island Sinkhole Fish Salt Package freight Stone Long Portsmouth Lake Middle Island Middle Island Lighthouse Middle Lake • • • Copper ore Passengers Steel Monaghan Point New Orleans 220 Long Lake Creek Morris D.M. Wilson Bay William A. Young South Ninemile Point Explore theThunderBayNationalMarineSanctuary Fall Creek Salvage Barge &Bathymetry Topography Lincoln Bay Nordmeer Contours inmeters Grass Lake Mackinaw State Forest Huron Bay 0 Maid of the Mist Roberts Cove N Stoneycroft Point or we gi an El Cajon Bay Ogarita t 23 Cre Fourmile Mackinaw State -
GLRI Fact Sheet
WISCONSIN PROJECTS FOR 2010-2011 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Federal funds support critical restoration and protection work on Wisconsinʼs Great Lakes Wisconsinʼs agencies and Priorities for the Great Lakes. GLRI funds will help Wisconsin address Great Lakes Drainage Basins in Wisconsin organizations received almost $30 these priorities on Lake Michigan and Lake Superior million in grants for the first year of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative – a Lake Superior. federal basin-wide effort to restore and Economic Benefits of Restoration protect the Great Lakes. Restoring the Great Lakes will bring great benefits to our state. Work done A Vital Economic Asset under the GLRI will create jobs, The Great Lakes have had profound stimulate economic development, and Lake effects on our environment, culture, Michigan improve freshwater resources and ! and quality of life. They have fueled shoreline communities. A study our economic growth in the past and – conducted by the Brookings Institution if properly restored and protected – will Map Scale: found that fully implementing the 1 inch = 39.46 miles help us revitalize our economy in the regional collaboration strategy will future. generate $80-$100 billion in short and Lake Superior and Lake Michigan are affected by the actions of people throughout their watersheds. Lake Lake Michigan and Lake Superior long term benefits, including: Superior’s watershed drains 1,975,902 acres and provide: • $6.5-$11.8 billion in benefits supports 123,000 people. Lake Michigan’s watershed from tourism, fishing and drains 9,105,558 acres and supports 2,352,417 • Sport fishing opportunities for people. more than 250,000 anglers, recreation. -
Status and Extent of Aquatic Protected Areas in the Great Lakes
Status and Extent of Aquatic Protected Areas in the Great Lakes Scott R. Parker, Nicholas E. Mandrak, Jeff D. Truscott, Patrick L. Lawrence, Dan Kraus, Graham Bryan, and Mike Molnar Introduction The Laurentian Great Lakes are immensely important to the environmental, economic, and social well-being of both Canada and the United States (US). They form the largest surface freshwater system in the world. At over 30,000 km long, their mainland and island coastline is comparable in length to that of the contiguous US marine coastline (Government of Canada and USEPA 1995; Gronewold et al. 2013). With thousands of native species, including many endemics, the lakes are rich in biodiversity (Pearsall 2013). However, over the last century the Great Lakes have experienced profound human-caused changes, includ- ing those associated with land use changes, contaminants, invasive species, climate change, over-fishing, and habitat loss (e.g., Bunnell et al. 2014; Smith et al. 2015). It is a challenging context in terms of conservation, especially within protected areas established to safeguard species and their habitat. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a protected area is “a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associat- ed ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley 2008). Depending on the management goals, protected areas can span the spectrum of IUCN categories from highly protected no- take reserves to multiple-use areas (Table 1). The potential values and benefits of protected areas are well established, including conserving biodiversity; protecting ecosystem structures and functions; being a focal point and context for public engagement, education, and good governance; supporting nature-based recreation and tourism; acting as a control or reference site for scientific research; providing a positive spill-over effect for fisheries; and helping to mitigate and adapt to climate change (e.g., Lemieux et al. -
Heat Transfer and Melting in Subglacial Basaltic Volcanic Eruptions: Implications for Volcanic Deposit Morphology and Meltwater Volumes
Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 26, 2021 Heat transfer and melting in subglacial basaltic volcanic eruptions: implications for volcanic deposit morphology and meltwater volumes LIONEL WILSON 1'2 & JAMES W. HEAD, III 2 1 Department of Environmental Science, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK (e-mail: L. [email protected]) 2 Department of Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA Abstract: Subglacial volcanic eruptions can generate large volumes of meltwater that is stored and transported beneath glaciers and released catastrophically in j6kulhlaups. At typical basaltic dyke propagation speeds, the high strain rate at a dyke tip causes ice to behave as a brittle solid; dykes can overshoot a rock-ice interface to intrude through 20-30% of the thickness of the overlying ice. The very large surface area of the dyke sides causes rapid melting of ice and subsequent collapse of the dyke to form a basal rubble pile. Magma can also be intruded at the substrate-ice interface as a sill, spreading sideways more efficiently than a subaerial flow, and also producing efficient and widespread heat transfer. Both intrusion mechanisms may lead to the early abundance of meltwater sometimes observed in Icelandic subglacial eruptions. If meltwater is retained above a sill, continuous melting of adjacent and overlying ice by hot convecting meltwater occurs. At typical sill pressures under more than 300 m ice thickness, magmatic CO2 gas bubbles form c. 25 vol% of the pressurized magma. If water drains and contact with the atmosphere is established, the pressure decreases dramatically unless the overlying ice subsides rapidly into the vacated space. -
2012 St. Louis River Summit Proceedings
St. Louis River Estuary Science Summit 2012 March 8 & 9 University of Wisconsin - Superior Yellowjacket Union St. Louis River Estuary Summit (March 2012) Page 2 Acknowledgments Thanks are owed to many people and organizations for support of this very grass-roots event. Special thanks to the following organizations who provided funding and in-kind contributions: Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve University of Wisconsin Extension University of Wisconsin – Superior Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Barr Engineering Company US Environmental Protection Agency – Mid-Continent Ecology Division Enbridge Engineering Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Wisconsin Sea Grant West Wisconsin Land Trust Limnotech Minnesota Sea Grant Organizing committee: Shon Schooler, Lake Superior NERR Sarah Johnson, Northland College John Jereczek, MN DNR Nick Danz, UW Superior Pat Collins, US FWS David Bolgrien, US EPA Rick Gitar, Fond du Lac Reservation Editors: Shon Schooler, Seth Bliss, Ralph Garono, and Patrick Collins Published by The Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve, Superior, WI LSNERR Document number: 2012-R-1002 Cover photo by Sue OHalloran Interior Photos by Michel Anderson (www.singingcanoe.smugmug.com) St. Louis River Estuary Summit (March 2012) Page 3 Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................6 Abstracts for Oral Presentations ..................................................................................................7 -
Great Lakes/Big Rivers Fisheries Operational Plan Accomplishment
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Fisheries Operational Plan Accomplishment Report for Fiscal Year 2004 March 2003 Region 3 - Great Lakes/Big Rivers Partnerships and Accountability Aquatic Habitat Conservation and Management Workforce Management Aquatic Species Conservation and Aquatic Invasive Species Management Cooperation with Native Public Use Leadership in Science Americans and Technology To view monthly issues of “Fish Lines”, see our Regional website at: (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/) 2 Fisheries Accomplishment Report - FY2004 Great Lakes - Big Rivers Region Message from the Assistant Regional Director for Fisheries The Fisheries Program in Region 3 (Great Lakes – Big Rivers) is committed to the conservation of our diverse aquatic resources and the maintenance of healthy, sustainable populations of fish that can be enjoyed by millions of recreational anglers. To that end, we are working with the States, Tribes, other Federal agencies and our many partners in the private sector to identify, prioritize and focus our efforts in a manner that is most complementary to their efforts, consistent with the mission of our agency, and within the funding resources available. At the very heart of our efforts is the desire to be transparent and accountable and, to that end, we present this Region 3 Annual Fisheries Accomplishment Report for Fiscal Year 2004. This report captures our commitments from the Region 3 Fisheries Program Operational Plan, Fiscal Years 2004 & 2005. This document cannot possibly capture the myriad of activities that are carried out by any one station in any one year, by all of the dedicated employees in the Fisheries Program, but, hopefully, it provides a clear indication of where our energy is focused. -
Great Lakes Region and Outlook February 2016
El Niño Impacts Great Lakes Region and Outlook February 2016 Winter 2015/16 El Niño Update What is El Niño? Winter 2015/16 To Date An El Niño develops when sea surface temperatures are warmer than While the weather pattern this winter so far does share some similarities average in the equatorial Pacific for an extended period of time. This with the typical El Niño winter pattern, there are some differences as is important to North America because El Niño has an impact on our well. As predicted, temperatures have been above normal and in fact, weather patterns, most predominantly in the winter. December 2015 is now the warmest December on record for many locations across the Great Lakes basin (since records began in 1895). Typical El Niño Winter Pattern Snowfall has been significantly below normal across a majority of the Although each El Niño basin. As of January 31, ice cover extent on the Great Lakes is 8%, is different, there are which is significantly below normal for this time of year. In addition, ice some general patterns accumulation began late this year towards the end of December. On the that are predictable. other hand, overall precipitation has differed from the typical El Niño For instance, the polar winter pattern and conditions have been very wet. The reason for some jet stream is typically of the discrepencies from the typical pattern is that each El Niño episode farther north than can be different, and strong events in the past have brought varying usual, while the Pacific conditions to the basin.