DOCSLIB.ORG

Sea Lamprey Control in the Great Lakes 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sea Lamprey Control in the Great Lakes 2017 SEA LAMPREY CONTROL IN THE GREAT LAKES 2017 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION Paul Sullivan Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Canada Katherine Mullett U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Marquette, Michigan United States GLFC Annual Meeting Toronto, Ontario May 9-10, 2018 Cover: Steelhead with Sea Lamprey at the Old Mill Dam, Humber River, Toronto, ON. Photo: Anne De Haas. Construction crews working on the rehabilitation of Denny’s Dam, an important Sea Lamprey barrier on the Saugeen River, near Southampton, ON. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is undertaking this project, which began during 2017, in collaboration with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Photo: Chris Freiburger, GLFC. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 8 FISH-COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 8 Lake Superior .................................................................................................................................... 9 Lake Michigan .................................................................................................................................. 9 Lake Huron ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Lake Erie ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Lake Ontario ................................................................................................................................... 11 LAMPRICIDE CONTROL ......................................................................................................................... 12 Lake Superior .................................................................................................................................. 15 Lake Michigan ................................................................................................................................ 18 Lake Huron ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Lake Erie ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Lake Ontario ................................................................................................................................... 25 ALTERNATIVE CONTROL ...................................................................................................................... 27 Barriers .................................................................................................................................................. 27 Lake Superior .................................................................................................................................. 29 Lake Michigan ................................................................................................................................ 31 Lake Huron ..................................................................................................................................... 33 Lake Erie ......................................................................................................................................... 35 Lake Ontario ................................................................................................................................... 37 Juvenile Trapping .................................................................................................................................. 38 ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 39 Larval Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 40 Lake Superior .................................................................................................................................. 40 Lake Michigan ................................................................................................................................ 49 Lake Huron ..................................................................................................................................... 55 Lake Erie ......................................................................................................................................... 62 Lake Ontario ................................................................................................................................... 64 Juvenile Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 68 Lake Superior .................................................................................................................................. 68 Lake Michigan ................................................................................................................................ 69 Lake Huron ..................................................................................................................................... 69 Lake Erie ......................................................................................................................................... 71 Lake Ontario ................................................................................................................................... 72 Adult Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 73 Lake Superior .................................................................................................................................. 73 Lake Michigan ................................................................................................................................ 76 Lake Huron ..................................................................................................................................... 77 Lake Erie ......................................................................................................................................... 80 Lake Ontario ................................................................................................................................... 82 TASK FORCE REPORTS ........................................................................................................................... 89 Lampricide Control Task Force ............................................................................................................. 89 Barrier Task Force ................................................................................................................................. 91 Larval Assessment Task Force .............................................................................................................. 93 Trapping Task Force.............................................................................................................................. 96 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH .............................................................................................................. 99 PERMANENT EMPLOYEES OF THE SEA LAMPREY CONTROL PROGRAM ............................... 100 1 Tables Table 1. Summary of lampricide applications in tributaries of the Great Lakes in 2017. ............ 12 Table 2. Details on the application of lampricides to tributaries and lentic areas of Lake Superior during 2017 (letter in parentheses corresponds to location of stream in Figure 2). ....................... 16 Table 3. Details on the application of lampricides to tributaries and lentic areas of Lake Michigan during 2017 (letter in parentheses corresponds to location of stream in Figure 2). ...... 19 Table 4. Details on the application of lampricides to tributaries and lentic areas of Lake Huron during 2017 (letter in parentheses corresponds to location of stream in Figure 2). ....................... 22 Table 5. Details on the application of lampricides to tributaries and lentic areas of Lake Erie during 2017 (letter in parentheses corresponds to location of stream in Figure 2). ....................... 24 Table 6. Details on the application of lampricides to tributaries of Lake Ontario during 2017 (letter in parentheses corresponds to location of stream in Figure 2). ........................................... 26 Table 7. Status of concurrence requests for barrier removals, replacements, or fish passage projects in Lake Superior tributaries during 2017. ........................................................................ 30 Table 8. Status of concurrence requests for barrier removals, replacements, or fish passage projects in Lake Michigan tributaries during 2017. ....................................................................... 32 Table 9. Status of concurrence requests for barrier removals, replacements, or fish passage projects in Lake Huron tributaries during 2017. ............................................................................ 34 Table 10. Status of concurrence requests for barrier removals, replacements,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BAD RIVER BAND of LAKE SUPERIOR TRIBE of CHIPPEWA INDIANS CHIEF BLACKBIRD CENTER Box 39 ● Odanah, Wisconsin 54861
    BAD RIVER BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS CHIEF BLACKBIRD CENTER Box 39 ● Odanah, Wisconsin 54861 July 11, 2020 Ben Callan, WDNR Division of External Services PO Box 7921 Madison, WI 53708-7921 [email protected] RE: Comments Concerning the Enbridge Energy, LLC Line 5 Relocation around the Bad River Reservation regarding the WDNR Wetland and Water Crossing Permits and the EIS Scoping Dear Mr. Callan, As a sovereign nation with regulatory authority over downstream waters within the Bad River Watershed, on-Reservation air quality, and an interest in the use and enjoyment of the sacred waters of Anishinaabeg-Gichigami, or Lake Superior, pursuant to treaties we signed with the United States, we submit our comments related to the potential Line 5 Reroute around the Bad River Reservation proposed by Enbridge Energy, LLC (henceforth, “company” or “applicant”). The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians (henceforth, “Tribe”) is a federally-recognized Indian Tribe centered on the northern shores of Wisconsin and Madeline Island, where the Bad River Indian Reservation is located, but the Tribe also retains interest in ceded lands in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota. These lands were ceded to the United States government in the Treaties of 18371, 18422, and 18543. The proposed Line 5 Reroute falls within these ceded lands where the Tribe has retained usufructuary rights to use treaty resources. In addition, it threatens the water quality of the Tribe’s waters downstream, over which the Tribe has regulatory authority as a sovereign nation and as delegated by the federal government under the Clean Water Act.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 14-Bad-Montreal BCA Regional Unit Background Chapter
    14. Bad-Montreal HEALTHY WATERS REPORT CARD OFFSHORE NA ISLANDS A NEARSHORE C COASTAL WETLANDS B EMBAYMENTS & C COASTAL TERRESTRIAL A+ INSHORE TRIBUTARIES & C OVERALL B WATERSHEDS Report card denotes general condition/health of each biodiversity target in the region based on condition/stress indices. See introduction to the regional summaries. A Ecologically desirable status; requires little intervention for Very maintenance Good B Within acceptable range of variation; may require some Good intervention for maintenance. C Outside of the range of acceptable variation and requires Fair management. If unchecked, the biodiversity target may be vulnerable to serious degradation. D Allowing the biodiversity target to remain in this condition for Poor an extended period will make restoration or preventing extirpation practically impossible. Unknown Insufficient information. Summary/ Description The Bad River Kakagon Slough complex. Photo The Bad-Montreal region is located along the southern supplied by Ryan O’Connor, WDNR. Photo taken by shore of Lake Superior, and is 3,764 km2 in size, including Christina Isenring, WDNR. the associated nearshore waters. The regional unit extends along the shore from just east of Ashland to the mouth of the Montreal River, and the state boundary line between Wisconsin and Michigan. In this Biodiversity Conservation Assessment the Beartrap Creek subwatershed is considered part of the Lower Bad River subwatershed and the Bad-Montreal regional unit. This regional unit delineation reflects local management boundaries as adopted and managed by the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (N. Tillison, pers. comm., April 26 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • 22 AUG 2021 Index Acadia Rock 14967
    19 SEP 2021 Index 543 Au Sable Point 14863 �� � � � � 324, 331 Belle Isle 14976 � � � � � � � � � 493 Au Sable Point 14962, 14963 �� � � � 468 Belle Isle, MI 14853, 14848 � � � � � 290 Index Au Sable River 14863 � � � � � � � 331 Belle River 14850� � � � � � � � � 301 Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Res- Belle River 14852, 14853� � � � � � 308 cue System (AMVER)� � � � � 13 Bellevue Island 14882 �� � � � � � � 346 Automatic Identification System (AIS) Aids Bellow Island 14913 � � � � � � � 363 A to Navigation � � � � � � � � 12 Belmont Harbor 14926, 14928 � � � 407 Au Train Bay 14963 � � � � � � � � 469 Benson Landing 14784 � � � � � � 500 Acadia Rock 14967, 14968 � � � � � 491 Au Train Island 14963 � � � � � � � 469 Benton Harbor, MI 14930 � � � � � 381 Adams Point 14864, 14880 �� � � � � 336 Au Train Point 14969 � � � � � � � 469 Bete Grise Bay 14964 � � � � � � � 475 Agate Bay 14966 �� � � � � � � � � 488 Avon Point 14826� � � � � � � � � 259 Betsie Lake 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agate Harbor 14964� � � � � � � � 476 Betsie River 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agriculture, Department of� � � � 24, 536 B Biddle Point 14881 �� � � � � � � � 344 Ahnapee River 14910 � � � � � � � 423 Biddle Point 14911 �� � � � � � � � 444 Aids to navigation � � � � � � � � � 10 Big Bay 14932 �� � � � � � � � � � 379 Baby Point 14852� � � � � � � � � 306 Air Almanac � � � � � � � � � � � 533 Big Bay 14963, 14964 �� � � � � � � 471 Bad River 14863, 14867 � � � � � � 327 Alabaster, MI 14863 � � � � � � � � 330 Big Bay 14967 �� � � � � � � � � � 490 Baileys
    [Show full text]
  • Population in Goulais Bay, Lake Superior
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264864682 Identification of a robust Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens Rafinesque, 1917) population in Goulais Bay, Lake Superior Article in Journal of Applied Ichthyology · August 2014 DOI: 10.1111/jai.12566 CITATIONS READS 0 33 5 authors, including: Thomas C. Pratt Jennie Pearce Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pearce & Associates Ecological Research 49 PUBLICATIONS 489 CITATIONS 42 PUBLICATIONS 3,610 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas C. Pratt on 08 April 2016. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. Journal of Applied Ichthyology J. Appl. Ichthyol. (2014), 1–7 Received: December 6, 2013 © 2014 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada Accepted: February 24, 2014 Journal of Applied Ichthyology © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH doi: 10.1111/jai.12566 ISSN 0175–8659 Identification of a robust Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens Rafinesque, 1917) population in Goulais Bay, Lake Superior By T. C. Pratt1, W. M. Gardner1, J. Pearce2, S. Greenwood3 and S. C. Chong3 1Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Sault Ste Marie, ON, Canada; 2Pearce & Associates Ecological Research, Sault Ste Marie, ON, Canada; 3Upper Great Lakes Management Unit, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sault Ste Marie, ON, Canada Summary anthropogenic activities due to specific life history character- Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens Rafinesque, 1917) in istics, including slow growth and late maturation, intermit- Lake Superior are greatly depressed from their historic abun- tent spawning intervals, and habitat requirements such as dance, and few populations meet the rehabilitation goals specific temperature, flow velocities and substrate require- identified by management agencies.
    [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]
  • Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) 2015-2019
    Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan 2015 - 2019 The Lake Superior Partnership September 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was made possible by the many individuals and organizations working to restore and protect the Lake Superior ecosystem. The document builds upon many relevant local, tribal, state provincial, national and binational plans. Special thanks to all those involved in preparing A Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Lake Superior (LSBP, 2015); to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Lake Superior Technical Committee; to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Lakewide Management Annex (Annex 2) Subcommittee; to the numerous stakeholder groups that helped to refine the document through their review and comments at various stages of development; and to all the individuals of the Lake Superior Partnership who contributed to the LAMP’s development and who will be collaborating during the implementation of this plan. This document was prepared by the Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan Writing Team, co-chaired by Rob Hyde of Environment and Climate Change Canada (formerly Environment Canada) and Liz LaPlante of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Writing Team members included: Jen Ballinger (GLIFWC), Marilee Chase (MNRF), Faith Fitzpatrick (USGS), John Jereczek (MNDNR), Ann McCammon-Soltis (GLIFWC), Michelle McChristie (MOECC), Henry Quinlan (USFWS), Mike Ripley (CORA), Lisa Sealock (ECCC), Stephanie Swart (MDEQ), Brent Schleck (NOAA), Amy Thomas (Battelle), Michele Wheeler (WDNR) and Laurie
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Wetland Gems
    100 WISCONSIN WETLAND GEMS ® Southeast Coastal Region NE-10 Peshtigo River Delta o r SC-1 Chiwaukee Prairie NE-11 Point Beach & Dunes e i SC-2 Des Plaines River NE-12 Rushes Lake MINNESOTA k e r a p Floodplain & Marshes NE-13 Shivering Sands & L u SC-3 Germantown Swamp Connected Wetlands S SC-4 Renak-Polak Woods NE-14 West Shore Green Bay SU-6 SU-9 SC-5 Root River Riverine Forest Wetlands SU-8 SU-11 SC-6 Warnimont Bluff Fens NE-15 Wolf River Bottoms SU-1 SU-12 SU-3 SU-7 Southeast Region North Central Region SU-10 SE-1 Beulah Bog NC-1 Atkins Lake & Hiles Swamp SU-5 NW-4 SU-4 SE-2 Cedarburg Bog NC-2 Bear Lake Sedge Meadow NW-2 NW-8 MICHIGAN SE-3 Cherokee Marsh NC-3 Bogus Swamp NW-1 NW-5 SU-2 SE-4 Horicon Marsh NC-4 Flambeau River State Forest NW-7 SE-5 Huiras Lake NC-11 NC-12 NC-5 Grandma Lake NC-9 SE-6 Lulu Lake NC-6 Hunting River Alders NW-10 NC-13 SE-7 Milwaukee River NC-7 Jump-Mondeaux NC-8 Floodplain Forest River Floodplain NW-6 NC-10 SE-8 Nichols Creek NC-8 Kissick Alkaline Bog NW-3 NC-5 NW-9 SE-9 Rush Lake NC-9 Rice Creek NC-4 NC-1 SE-10 Scuppernong River Area NC-10 Savage-Robago Lakes NC-2 NE-7 SE-11 Spruce Lake Bog NC-11 Spider Lake SE-12 Sugar River NC-12 Toy Lake Swamp NC-6 NC-7 Floodplain Forest NC-13 Turtle-Flambeau- NC-3 NE-6 SE-13 Waubesa Wetlands Manitowish Peatlands W-7 NE-9 WISCONSIN’S WETLAND GEMS SE-14 White River Marsh NE-2 Northwest Region NE-8 Central Region NE-10 NE-4 NW-1 Belden Swamp W-5 NE-12 WH-5 Mink River Estuary—Clint Farlinger C-1 Bass Lake Fen & Lunch NW-2 Black Lake Bog NE-13 NE-14 ® Creek Sedge Meadow NW-3 Blomberg Lake C-4 WHAT ARE WETLAND GEMS ? C-2 Bear Bluff Bog NW-4 Blueberry Swamp WH-2WH-7 C-6 NE-15 NE-1 Wetland Gems® are high quality habitats that represent the wetland riches—marshes, swamps, bogs, fens and more— C-3 Black River NW-5 Brule Glacial Spillway W-1 WH-2 that historically made up nearly a quarter of Wisconsin’s landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • A Journey to the Wetlands of the Penokee Hills, Caroline Lake, and the Kakagon/Bad River Sloughs
    A Journey to the Wetlands of the Penokee Hills, Caroline Lake, and the Kakagon/Bad River Sloughs Join Wisconsin Wetlands Association’s Executive Director Tracy Hames and the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa on this 2-day journey to one of Wisconsin’s highest quality and most threatened watersheds. This top-to-bottom tour will introduce you to the wetland resources of the Bad River Watershed. We will explore headwater wetlands in the Penokee Hills at the site of a proposed iron mine, and visit the tribe’s extensive wild rice beds in the internationally-recognized Kakagon/Bad River Sloughs estuary along the shores of Lake Superior. We will discuss the role these wetlands play regulating the water throughout the watershed, the importance of these wetlands and rice beds to the Bad River People, and the potential impacts to these resources of a proposed iron mine. Choose from three tours: Tour 1 July 17-18, 2014 Tour 2 July 23-24, 2014 Tour 3 September 18-19, 2014 Tour Guides: Tracy Hames, Executive Director, Wisconsin Wetlands Association (all three tours) Mike Wiggins, Jr., Tribal Chairman, Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (first tour) Naomi Tillison, Water Program Director, Bad River Tribal Natural Resources (2nd & 3rd tour) Cinnamon fern in upper watershed wetland (photo by Tracy Hames) Itinerary (subject to adjustment as needed) We’ll be traveling to the Penokee Hills the morning of first day of each tour and visiting the upper watershed in the afternoon. That evening we’ll have dinner at the Deepwater Grille in Ashland.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 179/Tuesday, September 15, 2020
    Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Notices 57231 of Federal Claims, the land from which Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Michigan State University is the Native American human remains Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red responsible for notifying The Tribes, were removed is the aboriginal land of Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, The Consulted Tribes and Groups, and the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian The Invited Tribes that this notice has Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie been published. River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Dated: August 14, 2020. Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Indian Community, Michigan; Melanie O’Brien, Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians Manager, National NAGPRA Program. Boy’s Reservation, Montana (previously of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Band of Chippewa Indians of North [FR Doc. 2020–20295 Filed 9–14–20; 8:45 am] Rocky Boy’s Reservation, Montana); Dakota. BILLING CODE 4312–52–P Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may Chippewa Indians, Michigan; DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, be to the Bad River Band of the Lake Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of National Park Service Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Wisconsin; Lac du
    [Show 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 ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Resources Investigations in Wisconsin, 2004
    Water-Resources Investigations in Wisconsin, 2004 Open-File Report 2004–1403 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations in Wisconsin, 2004 Compiled by Jennifer L. Bruce, Michelle M. Greenwood, and Susan Z. Jones Open-File Report 2004–1403 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Contents iii Contents Basic Mission and Projects ...................................................................................................................vii Wisconsin District Organizational Chart ...............................................................................................ix Cooperators ................................................................................................................................................x Summary of Hydrologic Conditions .......................................................................................................xi Surface-Water and Sediment Studies Team ...........................................................................................1
    [Show full text]