A-Biodiversity-Conservation-Assessment-for-Lake-Superior-Vol-1-Final-Draft-Updated-March2015

Marys River Laurie Wood Environment Canada Katheryne O'Connor Environment Canada/ Canadian Wildlife Service Daryl Seip Environment Canada/ Canadian Wildlife Service Scott Millard Eme

Introduction

Objectives and Project Scope

For more than two decades, the Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) has led binational efforts to conserve and restore Lake Superior’s biodiversity Uniting over 20 organizations, LAMP provides a management framework to protect the lake’s physical, chemical, and biological integrity The Vision for Lake Superior articulates the community’s goal of a healthy, clean, and safe ecosystem where diverse life forms thrive in harmony, wild shorelines and islands are preserved, and development is well planned and biologically sound.

The Lake Superior LAMP has always had a very strong focus on biodiversity (LaMP 2006) Building on this experience, the objectives of the Lake Superior Biodiversity Conservation Assessment are:

1 To present, in a single document, relevant information and planning tools related to Lake

2 To provide a more in-depth assessment of the lake’s biodiversity status and challenges at both lakewide and regional geographical scales

3 To support a common approach to biodiversity conservation planning among the Great Lakes by following a concept similar to the biodiversity conservation plans for the other Great Lakes (Lake Ontario Biodiversity Strategy Working Group 2009; Franks Taylor et al 2010; Pearsall, Carton de Grammont, Cavalieri, Chu et al 2012; Pearsall, Carton de Grammont, Cavalieri, Doran et al

2012), while meeting the needs of the Lake Superior LAMP

This Lake Superior Biodiversity Conservation Assessment is the first phase of a larger project

Expert-reviewed information on biodiversity health, threats, and regional priorities collected during this phase will underpin the next phase, which will develop strategic actions This second phase is scheduled to begin immediately after the current phase concludes Together, these two phases will form a lakewide biodiversity conservation project, modeled on the successful strategies already implemented for the other Great Lakes.

The results of this project support several of the Annexes of the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) informs baseline and assessment data to guide future monitoring and ecosystem objectives, identify areas of high ecological value, and support the development of lake-wide habitat protection and species restoration strategies This document also underpins initiatives in the U.S Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and the Canada–Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, and the resulting strategy will be used to identify priority actions and priority areas.

The Lake Superior LAMP was established by the Lake Superior Binational Program, and in 2013 its name was officially changed from the Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) to the Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) when the amended Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) came into effect.

To foster binational action to conserve and restore the biodiversity of Lake Superior, this project encompasses the lake’s open waters up to the head of the St Marys River, its islands, coastal areas roughly two kilometers inland from the shoreline, and the watersheds of tributaries, with a focus on how these areas influence the lake’s biodiversity (Figure 1.5).

Figure 1.5: Project Scope – Lake Superior Basin with major watersheds

Approach and Methods

This report integrates the best available information on Lake Superior biodiversity and relies heavily on data developed by LAMP, including the Important Habitat Sites and Areas in the Lake Superior Basin It also incorporates supporting materials from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to deliver a comprehensive assessment of species diversity, habitats, and ecological processes shaping the Lake Superior ecosystem.

This report synthesizes Community Objectives for Lake Superior and the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC), and reviews Biodiversity Conservation Strategies developed for the other Great Lakes, including the Lake Ontario Biodiversity Strategy Working Group (2009) and subsequent studies by Franks Taylor et al (2010) and Pearsall et al (2012) A targeted literature search identified Lake Superior research in databases such as Web of Knowledge and JSTOR, with additional online sources compiled into an annotated bibliography Because Lake Superior was the last Great Lake to complete a Biodiversity Conservation Assessment, the project team contacted several project participants to capture lessons learned and recommended approaches for biodiversity conservation in the lake.

A project team from Lake Superior LAMP drafted an initial report after reviewing existing information, evaluating the health of biodiversity targets and ranking threats using the Conservation Action Planning (CAP) framework developed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC, 2007) CAP is a proven technique for planning, implementing, and measuring success in conservation projects, and it helps focus strategies on clearly defined biodiversity targets while linking threats to those targets Although this effort concentrates on identifying biodiversity targets and threats, CAP also guides the development of conservation strategies and adaptive management measures Details on how CAP was used to assess target viability and threat rank are provided in the corresponding sections of the report.

Figure 1.6: Conservation Action Planning Framework

Mapping and spatial analysis were grounded in available information whenever possible, with GIS analyses employed to fill gaps when data were missing or out of date Appendix A outlines the data catalogue and the spatial analysis methods used for this project In addition to a lakewide assessment, the project describes biodiversity conditions and issues within 20 regional units, which were developed by the project team based on quaternary watersheds and coastal environments/SOLEC coastal units, with input from the Aquatic Communities Committee and the Lake Superior Technical Committee Regional information is presented in Volume Two of this report.

The draft Biodiversity Conservation Assessment was shared with more than 400 Lake Superior experts for review, supported by webinars that introduced the project and covered biodiversity targets and regional summaries Feedback was collected via emails, comments during webinars, direct comments on the draft report, and a review form distributed with the draft, with more than 80 experts’ input ultimately incorporated into the final document To enhance credibility, the project team weighted responses from those with demonstrated or self-identified expertise on specific subjects or regions, following Burgman et al (2011) recommendations for expert elicitation.

Biodiversity Conservation Targets

Lake Superior supports a rich and diverse array of species, communities, and ecosystems across aquatic, terrestrial, and wetland biomes Guided by the Conservation Action Planning Framework, this project identified seven biodiversity conservation targets for Lake Superior (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Summary of Biodiversity Conservation Targets

Deepwater and Offshore Waters >80 m depth

Nearshore Zone and Reefs 15-80 m depth

Coastal Wetlands Wetlands within 2 km of the coast

Islands Natural and artificial islands

Coastal Terrestrial Habitats Natural habitats within 2 km of the coast

Tributaries and Watersheds Entire drainage area of Lake Superior including all tributaries and inland waters

Lake Superior’s biodiversity targets capture the full range of the lake’s biodiversity and are organized around its major habitat types Each target includes a suite of integrated and nested species and communities with shared conservation needs By protecting the major habitat types designated as biodiversity targets, these nested species and communities are conserved as well For example, safeguarding tributaries and watersheds supports the habitat and migratory needs of migratory fishes.

These biodiversity conservation targets were selected from established Great Lakes frameworks, including the Lake Ontario Biodiversity Strategy Working Group (2009) and related studies (Franks Taylor et al 2010; Pearsall, Carton de Grammont, Cavalieri, Chu et al 2012; Pearsall, Carton de Grammont, Cavalieri, Doran et al 2012) as well as the Lake Superior LaMP 2006 under the Lake Superior Binational Program This section provides information on these targets, their nested species and habitats, and their extent and health Where data exist, maps illustrate the distribution and health of the biodiversity targets and key nested features Appendix A summarizes the spatial data layers used for this mapping.

To evaluate the viability or health of each biodiversity target, we compiled all available indicators from the 2011 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) reports for Lake Superior and linked them to the biodiversity targets (Appendix B) Each linked SOLEC indicator was translated into a Conservation Action Planning (CAP) viability category (good, fair, or poor) based on the indicator’s current status and trends for Lake Superior The indicators were then scored and averaged using CAP methods to produce an overall assessment of each biodiversity target’s health (see Box 2.1) This approach aligns with the method used in the Great Lakes biodiversity conservation strategies for the other lakes.

Box 2.1: Aggregation Rules for Viability Assessment (TNC 2007)

A numeric value is given to each graded indicator:

The grade for the target is derived from the average of these numeric values using the following ranges:

Very Good Ecologically desirable status; requires little intervention for maintenance

Good Within acceptable range of variation; may require some intervention for maintenance

Fair Outside of the range of acceptable variation and requires management If unchecked, the biodiversity target may be vulnerable to serious degradation

Poor Allowing the biodiversity target to remain in this condition for an extended period will make restoration or preventing extirpation practically impossible

To gauge biodiversity targets, SOLEC weights indicators by their importance in the viability assessment Currently, 18 indicators represent overall conditions and trends of aquatic-dependent life in the Great Lakes, reflecting diverse food-web roles and locations The indicators include Lake Trout, prey fish, diporeia, phytoplankton, coastal wetland fish, Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens), and Walleye (Sander vitreus) Because this group directly reflects biotic health, these indicators are weighted double in the viability assessment.

SOLEC indicators for water quality, landscapes, natural processes, and pressures assess the habitat conditions that aquatic life depends on or is affected by, and these factors are fully weighed in the assessment Key examples include water chemistry, aquatic habitat connectivity, and non-native aquatic species Conversely, pressure indicators signal stresses or threats to biodiversity targets, and many of these indicators also act as inverse measures of ecosystem health (for example, hardened shorelines) and have been incorporated into biodiversity conservation strategies for the lakes.

Several SOLEC indicators were only half-weighted or excluded from the viability assessment In particular, SOLEC impact indicators—such as beach advisories, drinking water quality measures, and botulism outbreaks—received partial weighting in evaluating viability Although these indicators are crucial for understanding impaired human uses of the Great Lakes, their direct connection to biodiversity health is less strong than that of other SOLEC indicator groups.

The viability assessment did not include any SOLEC response indicators (e.g., treating waste water) as these indicators are not linked to target health

Several SOLEC indicators for Lake Superior that were still under development or undetermined have been updated with recent information to clarify their status For example, surface water temperature is now based on GLEAM (2012) data The indicators updated in this way include ice duration, land cover, terrestrial non-native species, surface water temperature, artificial coastal structures, and hardened shorelines See Appendix B for details on these indicators and their status.

4 Only CAP categories of good, fair or poor were assigned to SOLEC indicators

Beyond the existing SOLEC indicators, a small set of selected additional indicators was added for specific targets These published indicators may not have broad applicability across the entire Great Lakes and thus are not SOLEC indicators, but they provide meaningful measures of target health for Lake Superior Additional indicators were also introduced for targets with only a few applicable SOLEC indicators, such as islands.

Indicators” that were added to the viability assessment are:

1 Mysis relicta This freshwater shrimp supports nearshore and offshore fishes, and plays a pivotal role in the structure and function of the Lake Superior fish community (Isaac et al 2012)

2 Island Condition Class Based on the threats analysis for islands in Henson et al (2010) Mean island threat class was assigned to all ten coastal environments from Lake Superior This threat index is based on a number of factors including building density, land use, mining claims, boat launches and access for vehicles

3 Coastal Stress Index A condition index developed for this report based on artificial shores, building density and road density This index was applied to the coastal wetlands and coastal terrestrial habitats (see Figure 2.1b and Appendix F)

For each target, a confidence level was assigned to the overall viability assessment, based on the number and applicability of SOLEC indicators and other published information The following confidence categories were applied to characterize the strength of the evidence and reliability of the assessment.

SOLEC indicators are numerous and directly linked to target health, backed by a large amount of current information This wealth of up-to-date data strengthens the viability ranking, which is highly likely to reflect the overall health of the Lake Superior ecosystem.

SOLEC indicators that are directly linked to target health provide key insights into ecosystem status, and a substantial amount of current information is available The viability ranking has a strong likelihood of reflecting the target’s overall health in Lake Superior.

Across Lake Superior, only a small set of SOLEC indicators directly reflect the target's health, while data are frequently limited or outdated These information gaps introduce uncertainty into viability rankings and hinder reliable assessments of the target’s overall health.

Deepwater and Offshore Waters

This biodiversity target includes the offshore waters of

Lake Superior that are >80 m in depth and includes both benthic and pelagic (bottom and open water) habitats

Approximately 77% of Lake Superior comprises deep, cold waters, as shown in Figure 2.2 The deepest regions are located in the lake's central basin and along the coastline of the western basin. -**Sponsor**Need help making your article shine and comply with SEO rules? Let [Soku AI](https://pollinations.ai/redirect-nexad/xgVHv2gJ?user_id=229098989) rewrite it for you, extracting the most important sentences to form coherent paragraphs Soku AI, trained by Facebook advertising specialists and performance marketing experts, understands how to optimize content for engagement and search engines It can help you rewrite your article, focusing on the core meaning and structure, much like highlighting that 77% of Lake Superior is characterized by deep, cold waters, especially in its central and western basin areas.

The offshore waters of Lake Superior provide habitat for a number of native fishes, and the offshore fish community is predominantly composed of native species, including the siscowet lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush siscowet) and Cisco (Coregonus artedi).

(Coregonus artedi), Deepwater Sculpin (Myoxocephalus thompsonii), Kiyi (Coregonus kiyi) and Burbot (Lota lota), as well as Bloater (Coregonus hoyi) and Shortjaw Cisco

(Coregonus zenithicus) (Stockwell et al 2010b)

Lake Trout are a key species in both the commercial and recreational fisheries of Lake Superior A Minnesota Sea Grant study indicates that recreational fishing in Lake Superior contributes an estimated annual economic impact ranging from $12.67 million to $17.54 million for Minnesota alone.

Image: http://samcook.areavoices.com/samcook/images

Lake Trout are the apex predator of Lake Superior’s deepwater ecosystem, occupying nearly the entire lake and relying on offshore habitat to sustain their populations Historically, Lake Trout adapted to a broad depth range in Lake Superior, with Siscowet Lake Trout common across offshore waters and Humper Lake Trout inhabiting offshore shoals and banks embedded in deep water New evidence from Muir et al (2014) identifies a redfin morph in waters off Isle Royale In offshore fish communities, deepwater ciscoes (Kiyi and Bloater) and deepwater sculpin are the main prey for these deepwater Lake Trout, while Mysis shrimp support the offshore ecosystem Mysis perform diurnal vertical migrations to feed on zooplankton and avoid predation, and deepwater ciscoes track the Mysis, followed by Lake Trout, creating a vertical transfer of energy and nutrients between the benthic and pelagic zones of the ecosystem.

Deepwater ciscoes and Lake Trout reproduce slowly and grow slowly, yet they contribute a large portion of the energy and biomass in their ecosystem (Horns et al 2003) In offshore habitats, these species—along with sculpins and various deepwater Lake Trout forms—depend on nearly all of their spawning and feeding grounds, making the offshore zone central to their life history For several offshore fish species, including these, the life cycles and habitats remain largely unknown, highlighting gaps in our understanding of offshore ecology (Horns et al 2003).

Nested Species and Habitat Targets

Overall, the deepwater and offshore ecosystem is currently healthy, rated as good, but nearing the threshold for fair Several indicators are fair or even poor (see Table 2.5) The viability assessment is driven by the robust health of Lake Trout and lower food‑chain species such as Diporeia, Mysis, and phytoplankton Of greatest concern are decreasing ice cover, rising air and water temperatures, and the presence of toxic chemicals that could impact the ecosystem A high level of confidence was assigned to the viability assessment because most indicators are available Regional variability is ranked as lower since the offshore ecosystem is highly connected.

Table 2.4 Overall Viability Assessment of Deepwater and Offshore Waters

Number of Indicators/ Total Score 17/75

Number of Lake Superior Indicators Used 1

Number of Potential SOLEC Indicators in Development 3

Among Lake Superior’s aquatic habitats, the offshore zone is reported as the least impacted, yet it has been altered by human activities From early European settlement through the 1960s, deepwater fish populations declined, with the 1960s described as the period of maximum degradation Commercial fishing for Lake Trout, Lake Sturgeon, Cisco, Lake Whitefish, and deepwater Ciscoes contributed to the rarity of several species The introduction of non-native species further disrupted offshore fish distributions and food webs Sea Lamprey significantly affected Lake Trout populations, while Rainbow Smelt colonized the lake and by the 1950s had largely displaced Cisco and whitefish as the major prey of Lake Trout Smelt tended to stay in nearshore areas, causing offshore predators to lose a substantial portion of their prey and to shift their behavior and distribution.

Over the last few decades, the Lake Superior fish community has recovered and is now closer to its preferred composition, highlighted by the rebound of Lake Trout and ciscoes An offshore fish community with Lake Trout as the dominant top predator has been identified in the Lake Superior Fish-Community Objectives The deepwater and offshore zones likely contain enough high-quality habitat to meet these fish community objectives, provided Sea Lamprey control can continue effectively (Horns et al 2003).

This habitat zone has received less attention than some other zones, largely due to the fact that a relatively small amount of data was available until recently (Stockwell et al 2010a)

Table 2.5: Ecosystem Indicators for the Health of Deepwater and Offshore Waters

SOLEC Status and Trends for Lake Superior Indicators

Atmospheric Deposition (x1) Fair/ Improving (for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], organochlorine pesticides, dioxins and furans) / Unchanging or slightly improving (for polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs] and mercury) Overall assessment only

Benthos (Freshwater Oligochaete) Diversity and Abundance (x2)

Contaminants in Whole fish (x1) Fair/ Deteriorating

Fish Habitat (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

See2006 LaMP report This indicator is being developed with the support of the Great Lakes

Ice Duration (x1) Poor/ In preparation

Overall, the spatial extent of Great Lakes ice cover has decreased by 71% in the past 40 years These changes have been significant on Lake Superior (Wang et al 2012)

Land Cover (x1) Good/ In preparation

Land cover in the Lake Superior basin is dominated by natural cover

Major Ions (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Lake Superior indicator (see Appendix B)

Nutrients in Lakes (x1) Good/ Unchanging

Sediment Coastal Nourishment (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Surface Water Temperature (x1) Fair/ Undetermined

Increasing Toxic Chemicals in Offshore Waters (x1) Fair/ Undetermined

Water Chemistry (x1) Specific Conductance: Increasing

Total Chloride: No Change pH: No Change

Total Alkalinity: No Change Turbidity: Increasing

Water Clarity (x1) Good /Undetermined/ Mostly improving

Viability Rankings of SOLEC Indicators

Figure 2.2: Deepwater and Offshore Waters shows a depth map of Lake Superior, with blue shading denoting water depths greater than 80 metres to highlight the deepwater offshore regions, and grey shading indicating depths less than 80 metres to mark shallower nearshore zones This color‑coded depiction communicates the spatial distribution of deepwater versus shallow-water areas across Lake Superior for navigation, research, and habitat assessment.

Lake Superior Biodiversity Conservation Target

Nearshore Zone and Reefs

The nearshore zone is defined by a water depth of 15 to

80 metres including the lakebed and water column Reefs may have more shallow waters (See Figure 2.3)

Nearshore habitat is most extensive at the east and west ends of Lake Superior (Lake Superior Binational Program

[LSBP] 2000) The waters surrounding islands, such as Isle

Royale and Michipicoten Island, are another important location of nearshore habitat Areas of shallow water in the offshore also provide nearshore habitat including the

Superior Shoal and the Caribou Island Reef Complex (LSBP

2000) The nearshore zone accounts for approximately

16% of Lake Superior’s surface area Lake Superior’s major sport and commercial fisheries are located in the nearshore zone (Horns et al 2003)

The Pygmy Whitefish (Prosopium coulterii) occurs in northwestern North America and Siberia, with a unique disjunct population in Lake Superior This fish reaches a size of only

16 cm and occurs primarily in nearshore waters at depths of 18-89 m in Lake Superior (NatureServe 2013)

Image: http://www.seattle.gov/util/Environment Conservation/

Although smaller than the offshore zone, nearshore waters are highly important to Lake Superior’s ecosystem These warmer waters offer a greater diversity of substrates and host aquatic vegetation that occurs only in nearshore and inshore habitats (LSBP 2000) The nearshore zone is highly productive and provides essential waterfowl staging and feeding areas Most of Lake Superior’s fishes use the nearshore during some part of their life cycle (LSBP 2000), including as critical spawning habitat for lean Lake Trout and Cisco.

Whitefish, described by Horns et al (2003), are part of the Lake Superior ecosystem, where Lean Lake Trout and siscowet Lake Trout are the dominant predators in the nearshore community and in shallow offshore reefs (Horns et al 2003) A distinct Lake Trout morph, the redfin, has been reported off Isle Royale, but its overall distribution within Lake Superior remains to be determined (Muir et al 2014) Some nearshore fish species, including Lake Sturgeon and Walleye, spend portions of their lives in tributaries (Horns et al 2003).

 Spawning habitat for deepwater fishes (e.g., deepwater ciscoes and sculpins)

Overall, the nearshore and reef ecosystem remains in good health, though the assessment is approaching the threshold for fair, with several indicators rated fair or poor (see Table 2.7) The viability of this ecosystem is driven by the strong health of Lake Trout and key lower trophic species—Diporeia, Mysis, and phytoplankton—and by the condition of adjacent coastal areas and watersheds The indicators of greatest concern include decreasing ice cover and the spread of aquatic invasive species, which could impact ecosystem integrity Both confidence levels and regional variability are categorized as medium Approximately 50% of indicators are not currently available, and conditions may vary across nearshore areas.

Table 2.6: Overall Viability Assessment of Nearshore Zone and Reefs

Number of Indicators/ Total Score 27/103.25

Although generally in good health, the nearshore zone of Lake Superior experiences more stressors than the offshore zone due to its proximity to shore and to human populations Rainbow Smelt became abundant in Lake Superior from the 1930s through the 1950s and became the main component of the nearshore prey community until a significant decline occurred in the early 1980s (Horns et al 2003) They remain a large portion of the nearshore food web despite lower numbers.

Many nearshore fish species have been impacted by a decrease in habitat quality Brook Trout

Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) were easily caught by sport anglers in nearshore waters, contributing to their early and rapid decline, while Lean Lake Trout were nearly wiped out by the combination of fishing pressure and the aquatic invasive Sea Lamprey Nearshore populations of Lake Sturgeon, Walleye, and Brook Trout remain below historical levels, though some areas show progress toward rehabilitation For example, Lake Sturgeon abundance may be increasing in parts of the south shore of Lake Superior, indicating localized recovery.

Although the nearshore habitat of Lake Superior is likely sufficient to meet lakewide fish community objectives, in some regions the remaining suitable habitat is not adequate (Horns et al 2003) Protecting and rehabilitating the nearshore zone is recognized as a key objective for preserving the diversity of Lake Superior’s fish species (Horns et al 2003).

Table 2.7: Ecosystem Indicators for the Health of Nearshore Zone and Reefs

Aquatic Non-Native Species (x1) Poor/ Deteriorating

Atmospheric Deposition (x1) Fair/ Improving (for PAHs, organochlorine pesticides, dioxins and furans) /

Unchanging or slightly improving (for PCBs and mercury) Overall assessment only

Bacterial Loadings from Tributaries To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Bald Eagles (x2) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Botulism Outbreaks (x0.5) Undetermined/ No Change

Contaminants in Waterbirds (x1) Good/ Improving

Contamination in Sediment (x1) Good/ Unchanging

Endocrine Disruption (x0.5) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Fish Consumption Restrictions (x0.5) Fair/ Undetermined

Fish Disease Occurrences (x0.5) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

See2006 LaMP report This indicator is being developed with the support of the Great Lakes Basin Fish

Forest Cover (x1) Component 1: Percent of forested lands within a watershed

Good/ Improving Component 2: Percent of forested lands within riparian zones Good/ TDB

Groundwater Quality (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Harmful Algal Blooms (x0.5) Good/ Undetermined

Overall, the spatial extent of Great Lakes ice cover has decreased by 71% in the past 40 years These changes have been significant on Lake Superior (Wang et al

Industrial Loadings (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Land cover in the Lake Superior basin is dominated by natural cover Major Ions (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Municipal Wastewater Loadings (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Lake Superior indicator (see Appendix B) Nutrients in Lakes (x1) Good/ Unchanging

Surface Water Temperature (x1) Undetermined/ Increasing

Threatened Species (x2) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Tributary Flashiness (x1) St Louis River (Lake Superior Basin)

Water Clarity (x1) Good/Undetermined/ Mostly improving

In preparation – status of fair assigned based on average basin-wide index of 63/100

Figure 2.3: Nearshore Zone and Reefs Blue shades depict regions of Lake Superior of the nearshore zone, with water depths of 15 to 80 metres Several reef locations are also identified

Figure 2.4 highlights the spawning areas of lake trout and lake whitefish, with shaded regions indicating both current and historic spawning sites for these species, while the plotted point data provide more precise locations for where spawning currently occurs.

Embayments and Inshore

Embayments and the inshore zone extend from the shoreline to depths of 0 to 15 metres, creating sheltered coastal environments that shape local habitats and circulation Although connected to Lake Superior, these embayments exhibit unique physical properties because their landward protection reduces exposure to some of the lake’s broader dynamic processes.

Inshore areas and embayments account for approximately 7% of the area of Lake

Superior Major embayments include Black

Bay, Nipigon Bay, Thunder Bay, Batchawana

Bay, Keweenaw Bay and Chequamegon Bay

Nipigon Bay lies along the northern coast of Lake Superior Embayments in this area are warmer and shallower than most of the lake, making them more susceptible to pollution As a result, most of Lake Superior’s Areas of Concern are located in these embayments.

Image: http://www.northshorerap.ca/

Embayments, including natural bays, harbours, and estuaries, play a crucial role in Lake Superior’s fish abundance and diversity by providing spawning and nursery habitats for many nearshore and offshore species Although the combined size of inshore areas and embayments is small relative to the lake’s overall area, these habitats are essential for sustaining fish populations across the lake Inshore areas are warmer, more productive, and more diverse than other lake zones, with zooplankton concentrations peaking there, especially in major embayments, which also host communities of submerged aquatic plants The fish communities in embayments are highly diverse, encompassing both warm-water and cool-water species, including Walleye, Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieu), Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens), Rock Bass (Ambloplites rupestris), Northern Pike (Esox lucius), Trout-perch, Lake Sturgeon, Brook Trout, Ninespine Stickleback, Johnny Darter (Etheostoma nigrum), Emerald Shiner (Notropis atherinoides), Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), Sand Shiner (Notropis stramineus), Black Bullhead (Ameiurus melas), and Shorthead Redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum).

Silver Redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum) is among the species noted in inshore habitats (Horns et al 2003) Notably, fish such as Longnose Dace, Rock Bass, and Smallmouth Bass use inshore habitats for all life stages (Gorman et al 2010b; Pratt et al 2010) Recent assessments of the inshore zone indicate that these fish communities are dominated by stable populations of native species (Gorman et al 2010a).

 Spawning habitat for some deepwater and nearshore fishes (e.g., Lake Whitefish and Lake Trout)

Overall, the embayment and inshore ecosystem maintain a “good” health status, though this assessment is approaching the threshold for “fair” as several indicators remain fair or poor (see Table 2.9) The viability of the system is driven by the robust health of Lake Trout spawning habitat and the stability of lower trophic levels, along with favorable conditions in adjacent coastal areas and watersheds The indicators of greatest concern are decreasing ice cover and the spread of aquatic invasive species, which could threaten ecosystem integrity Confidence in the overall viability is high because two-thirds of the indicators are available for assessment Regional variability is rated medium, reflecting differences between inshore and embayment conditions largely driven by nearby land use.

Table 2.8: Overall Viability Assessment of Embayment and Inshore

Embayments, wetlands, and tributaries have historically presented the greatest habitat concerns because of their proximity to human populations and numerous stressors Inshore zones have suffered environmental pressures that have altered fish communities, such as the removal of aquatic vegetation from Batchawana Bay affecting Yellow Perch, Smallmouth Bass, and cyprinids, and mercury contamination from a pulp mill in Peninsula Harbor impacting multiple species The loss of coastal wetlands in many bays has negatively affected species like Yellow Perch, Walleye, and Northern Pike Several Areas of Concern (AOCs) in Lake Superior are located in embayments, highlighting the vulnerability of these habitats to ongoing threats.

Habitat loss continues to affect embayment areas, while the larger nearshore zone likely retains enough habitat to meet fish community objectives; however, embayment targets may lack sufficient suitable habitat (Horns et al 2003) Lake Superior's embayment habitats are further threatened by dredging, break walls, discharges from vessels and industry, and wetland filling, which collectively degrade these critical habitats (Horns et al 2003).

Table 2.9: Ecosystem Indicators for the Health of Embayments and Inshore

Artificial Coastal Structures (x1) Good/ To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Lake Superior has relatively few artificial coastal structures

Atmospheric Deposition (x1) Fair/ Improving (for PAHs, organochlorine pesticides, dioxins and furans) /

Unchanging or slightly improving (for PCBs and mercury) Overall assessment only

Bacterial Loadings from Tributaries (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Beach Advisories (x0.5) Good/ U.S.: Unchanging, Canada: Deteriorating

Benthos (Freshwater Oligochaete) Diversity and Abundance (x2)

Botulism Outbreaks (x0.5) Undetermined/ No Change

Contamination in Sediment (x1) Good/ Unchanging

Endocrine Disruption (x0.5) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Fish Consumption Restrictions (x0.5) Fair/ Undetermined

Fish Disease Occurrences (x0.5) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

See2006 LaMP report This indicator is being developed with the support of the Great Lakes Basin

Forest Disturbance (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

>90% of Lake Superior’s shorelines are natural

Harmful Algal Blooms (x0.5) Good/ Undetermined

Overall, the spatial extent of Great Lakes ice cover has decreased by 71% in the past 40 years These changes have been significant on Lake Superior (Wang et al 2012)

Industrial Loadings (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Major Ions (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Municipal Wastewater Loadings (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Nutrients in Lakes (x1) Good/ Unchanging

Water Clarity (x1) Undetermined/ Mostly improving

Water Levels (x1) The level of Lake Superior has been below average on an annual basis since

TBD Watershed Stressor Index (x1) Fair

In preparation – status of fair assigned based on average basin-wide index of 63/100 Zooplankton Biomass (x2) Good/ Unchanging

Figure 2.5: Embayments and Inshore Light blue shading depicts areas of inshore waters, with depths of

0 to 15 metres The locations of several embayments are also shown Whitefish Bay (MI/ON) refers to the shallow waters along the southern coast of Lake Superior

Coastal Wetlands

Coastal wetlands are wetlands located within approximately two kilometres of Lake Superior’s coastline, with particular emphasis on those that maintain historic and current hydrologic connectivity to the lake These lake-connected wetlands are directly influenced by Lake Superior’s hydrology, making them critical components of the lake’s coastal ecosystem and important for understanding regional hydrological dynamics.

Coastal wetlands form a critical interface between land and lake, delivering essential ecological services such as water purification and providing habitat for waterfowl and fishes These ecosystems support biodiversity, improve water quality, and sustain local fisheries by filtering pollutants and supporting productive habitats Documented coastal wetlands cover 26,626 hectares, highlighting their extensive reach and the importance of conserving these vital ecosystems.

Lake Superior and they occur along approximately 10% of the coast (Ingram et al

2004) 7 (Figure 2.6) Mapping and estimates of the extent of coastal wetlands is incomplete in some areas (Rodriguez and Holmes 2009)

The Kakagon-Bad River Sloughs, located just east of Ashland, Wisconsin, have been described as the Everglades of the North Spanning over 4,000 hectares, this wetland is owned by the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians In 2012, the Kakagon-Bad River Sloughs were designated a Ramsar Wetland of International Significance, underscoring its global ecological importance and international recognition.

Coastal wetlands in Lake Superior host relatively unique vegetation types compared with wetlands in the other Great Lakes, due to its higher latitude and the lake’s distinctive physical characteristics (Sass et al 2011) The dominant form of wetlands in Lake Superior is barrier-protected wetlands, covering more than 10,000 ha Other coastal wetland types in Lake Superior include drowned rivermouths, protected embayments, deltas, and open embayments (Ingram et al 2004).

Coastal wetlands provide habitat for many fish, amphibian and reptile species at various life stages Many bird species use coastal wetlands during breeding and migration (LSBP 2006a) For Lake Superior, the status and trend for the wetland amphibians and wetland birds indicators are currently undetermined, as the coverage for these indicators is too sparse for analysis (Tozer 2011a; Tozer 2011b) Coastal wetlands also provide important ecological services for local communities These functions include protecting shorelines from erosion, storage and cycling of nutrients entering the lake from tributaries, groundwater recharge and biological productivity (LSBP 2006a; Rodriguez and Holmes 2009)

An estimated 10,790 hectares of coastal wetlands occur in the St Marys River, with about 670 hectares located within the project area While not all of the river’s coastal wetlands fall under the project’s scope, those wetlands that are accessible to native fish can contribute to Lake Superior’s health by providing essential spawning and nursery habitat Barriers to fish movement in the river, including rapids and compensating gates, limit the availability of these wetlands for native fish species.

Table 2.10: Overall Viability Assessment of Coastal Wetlands

Coastal wetlands of Lake Superior are generally in good health, with viability supported by the absence of artificial shorelines and structures, the limited presence of terrestrial invasive species (including Common Reed, Phragmites australis), and substantial forest cover, along with relatively low watershed development in many wetlands However, some indicators perform less well, notably rising water temperatures and declining lake levels, which are constraining wetland area and function Because many indicators are still under development, confidence in targets is moderate, and regional variability is rated medium given documented differences across areas, even though drivers like lake level and temperature likely affect all coastal wetlands While coastal wetland plant communities are typically in good condition, degradation occurs around major urban areas, making wetlands among the more impacted zones of Lake Superior, particularly near cities.

A study ranking 15 Lake Superior coastal wetlands using a water quality index derived from 12 water quality parameters produced an overall "good" classification (Seilheimer and Chow-Fraser 2007, p 159) Individually, the wetlands varied in condition, with rankings extending to moderately degraded—the lowest ranking observed among the Lake Superior coastal wetland sites.

The assessment used a water quality index that ranged from Superior to Excellent, with Excellent being the highest ranking awarded to a Lake Superior wetland and the highest possible rating None of the 15 Lake Superior coastal wetlands evaluated were classified as highly degraded or very degraded by this index (Seilheimer and Chow-Fraser 2007).

Coastal wetlands are inextricably linked to watersheds, tributaries, embayments, and the inshore zone, and their health is affected by multiple stressors that drive loss and degradation, including shoreline modification, invasive species, adjacent land use, and excessive sediment and nutrient flow from watersheds Climate change is expected to further erode coastal wetland habitat In western Lake Superior, healthy, densely vegetated coastal wetlands offer native fishes a refuge from competition with the non-native Ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernua), and degradation of these wetlands could allow Ruffe to increase in the region.

Numerous initiatives are under way to monitor, protect, and restore Wisconsin’s coastal wetlands and inland wetland communities along Lake Superior The Lake Superior Coastal Wetland Initiative has protected and restored more than 5,000 acres of coastal and inland wetlands in Wisconsin, strengthening habitat for coastal ecosystems In addition, the Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium and the Great Lakes Environmental Indicators (GLEI) project have established a long-term coastal wetland monitoring program and developed indicators of ecological condition and degradation causes for Lake Superior’s coastal and wetland habitats.

(Gorman et al 2010b; Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Consortium 2008)

Table 2.11: Ecosystem Indicators for the Health of Coastal Wetlands

Developed for this report Coastal Wetland Amphibians (x2) Undetermined/ Undetermined

Coastal Wetland Fish Communities (x2) Not assessed/ Undetermined

Coastal Wetland Invertebrates (x2) Not assessed

Undetermined Coastal Wetland Landscape Extent and

To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Coastal Wetland Plants (x2) Mixed/ Undetermined

See 2006 LaMP report (LSBP 2006a) This indicator is being developed with the support of the Great Lakes Basin Fish

Terrestrial Non-Native Species (x1) Good

Undetermined/Undetermined Lake Superior coastal areas have relatively few invasive plants, including Common Reed

Good/ Improving Water Levels (x1) The level of Lake Superior has been below average on an annual basis since 1998

TBD Watershed Stressor Index (x1) Fair

Figure 2.6 illustrates the coastal wetlands around Lake Superior, using color shading to indicate proximity to the shore: purple highlights wetlands that intersect the shoreline, pink marks wetlands within 2 kilometres of the shore, and green designates wetlands more than 2 kilometres from the shore This visualization helps readers understand the spatial distribution of Lake Superior’s coastal wetlands by distance from the shoreline.

Islands

Islands include all land masses within Lake

Superior that are surrounded by water, including both natural and artificial islands

There are 2,591 documented islands from Lake

Superior (Figure 2.7) with a total coastline of over 2,400 kilometres Most islands are less than one hectare The three largest islands

(Isle Royale, St Ignace Island, and Michipicoten

Island) comprise more than half the total island area (LSBP 2006a; Henson et al 2010) Lake

Superior has many of the largest and most isolated islands on the Great Lakes Several offshore islands support unique plant and animal communities

Caribou Island sits in the eastern part of Lake Superior and is the most isolated freshwater island in the world Historically, some early maps called it the Isle of the Golden Sands.

Across Lake Superior’s northern shore, Precambrian islands are largely composed of basalt and granite, while the southern shore hosts Precambrian and Cambrian sandstones (Henson et al 2010) Shifting islands of unconsolidated sediments form as cobbles accumulate on reefs, creating dynamic habitats in the lake (Henson et al 2010) Some Lake Superior islands offer unique opportunities to study population and predator-prey dynamics, including Isle Royale’s long-running Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) and Moose (Alces americanus) study begun in 1958, and the documented Woodland Caribou population crashes on several northern islands.

Lake Superior’s islands provide habitats distinct from mainland sites and contribute to basinwide biodiversity, particularly for colonial nesting waterbirds The numbers and composition of some waterbird colonies are shifting due to rising gull populations linked to land-use changes, while declines in other colonies are associated with increased predation by Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Beyond birds, many islands are important for fish spawning and nursery areas and host Arctic and alpine disjuncts, neotropical migrant songbirds, and endemic plants More than 60 islands and island complexes have been identified as significant for biodiversity conservation, including Pie Island, St Ignace Island, Île Parisienne, Patterson Island, and Isle Royale.

 Migratory birds and stopover habitat

 Arctic-alpine disjunct communities and plants

 Aerial migrants (e.g., migratory insects, bats)

 Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis)

 Unique plant and animal communities (e.g., populations of Beaver (Castor canadensis) and Woodland Caribou in predator-free environments)

Table 2.12: Overall Viability Assessment of Islands

The overall health of Lake Superior islands is good (see Tables 2.12 and 2.13), consistent with Henson et al (2010), who report that most islands remain in natural cover with few threats Changes in ice cover and rising air temperatures could be affecting some island species and habitats, but the confidence in this assessment is high Although only a few SOLEC indicators were used, Henson et al (2010) evaluated every island and island complex in Lake Superior and found an overall good condition, with regional variability rated as medium While the general condition is favorable, some islands are more developed than others.

According to the threat assessment by Henson et al (2010), many of Lake Superior’s islands—especially those along the north shore—had no documented threats When threats were present, they were typically limited to modest development for recreation, such as cottages and hunting and fishing cabins, and the presence of lighthouses Among the islands, Madeline Island (part of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore) and Barker Island and Hog Island near Duluth are the most developed in Lake Superior.

Several of the large islands along Lake Superior’s north coast are protected by various parks and protected area designations These include islands within the Lake Superior National Marine

Key protected areas in the region include the Conservation Area, Isle Royale National Park, Michipicoten Island Provincial Park, Slate Islands Provincial Park, and Sleeping Giant Provincial Park (Henson et al., 2010) The Apostle Islands National Lakeshore protects 21 islands along the south shore of Lake Superior (National Parks Service, 2013).

Table 2.13: Ecosystem Indicators for the Health of Islands

Overall, the spatial extent of Great Lakes ice cover has decreased by 71% in the past

40 years These changes have been significant on Lake Superior (Wang et al 2012) Island Condition Class (x2) Good

Terrestrial Non-Native Species (x1) Good

Undetermined/Undetermined Lake Superior coastal areas have relatively few invasive plants, including Common Reed

Figure 2.7 Lake Superior Islands The orange shading depicts islands and island complexes from Lake

Superior (from Henson et al 2010)

Figure 2.8: Colonial Nesting Waterbirds The yellow dots depict colonial waterbird nesting sites Data from Environment Canada and Linda Wires (University of Minnesota)

Figure 2.9 presents islands with higher biodiversity values, with red shading identifying priority islands and orange shading representing other islands, as shown in Henson et al 2010 Priority islands are the islands or island complexes identified through an ecologically-based analysis as the highest priority for conservation action.

Coastal Terrestrial Habitats

Coastal terrestrial habitats extend from the shoreline up to 2 kilometres inland or to the extent of the delineated Great Lake coastal communities

Lake Superior’s coast is dominated by rocky shores and cliffs (50%) with cobble beaches (14%) and sand beaches (10%)

Figure 2.10 highlights coastal terrestrial habitats that include sand dunes, raised cobble beaches, and coastal forests The vast size of Lake Superior creates a distinctive microclimate that directly influences the conditions of this coastal area, shaping its habitats and the species that inhabit them.

Lake Superior offers a remarkable diversity of coastal types—from sandy beaches to shoreline cliffs—highlighted by Lake Superior Provincial Park in Ontario This habitat diversity is reflected in the region's wildlife, and the southern and northwestern shores of Lake Superior have some of the highest species richness in North America for breeding birds (LSBP 2006a).

Image: Courtesy Ethan Meleg, with permission

The coastal band of Lake Superior hosts globally rare ecosystems, including endemic and disjunct species that contribute to high regional biodiversity Notable coastal terrestrial features include arctic-alpine disjuncts and unique coastal forests, shaped by proximity to cold lake waters, persistent winds, and microclimate conditions Some communities form stunted krummholz forests and stands with a high abundance of mosses and lichens These coastal forests support migrating songbirds and a coastal population of Woodland Caribou A summary of documented coastal terrestrial species and habitats is provided in Appendix C.

A substantial number of migratory birds follow both the eastern and western shores during migration, with migratory raptors preferring to route around Lake Superior rather than crossing over water and concentrating in coastal areas The Keweenaw Peninsula is especially favored by migrating species, while on the south shore nine sites have been identified as potential Important Bird Areas largely for their migration staging and stopover value, though almost any coastal area can provide high-quality stopover habitat It is also believed that large numbers of migratory bats use the coast as a migratory route, though bat movements in the Lake Superior region are still poorly understood.

 Wide-ranging mammals (e.g., Lynx [Lynx canadensis])

 Endemic coastal insects and migratory insects

Table 2.14: Overall Viability Assessment of Coastal Terrestrial Habitats

Overall viability of the Coastal Terrestrial Habitats target is rated as good (Table 2.14, Table 2.15) All indicators are ranked as good except for air temperature, and a medium level of confidence is assigned to this target Although many SOLEC indicators are unavailable, the Coastal Stress Index analysis for this project indicates coastal conditions are generally good across most regions of the lake, with higher regional variability While the overall health of the coastal terrestrial target is good, the Coastal Stress Index identifies localized impacts in certain areas, such as the coastal zones of Thunder Bay and Duluth, and also affects areas like Isle Royale and the Black Bay Peninsula.

Michipicoten Island and Pukaskwa National Park area are the least disturbed coastal areas in Lake Superior, and probably represent the last remaining true wilderness coasts on the Great Lakes

Approximately 26.8% of Lake Superior’s coast is protected, including many high quality ecosystems and habitat types For example, high quality occurrences of the Great Lakes forested dunes, barrens and swales vegetation communities are protected in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Effective management plans are needed to help identify and mitigate threats to coastal terrestrial habitats in protected areas (Kraus and White 2009)

Table 2.15: Ecosystem Indicators for the Health of Coastal Terrestrial Habitats

Developed for this report Forest Cover (x1) Component 1: Percent of forested lands within a watershed

Piping Plover (x2) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Good Undetermined/Undetermined Lake Superior coastal areas have relatively few invasive plants, including Common Reed Threatened Species (x2) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Figure 2.10: Major Coastal Terrestrial Systems The shading depicts different major coastal types

Purple shading represents sand beaches, orange shading represents coarse beaches and green shading represents rocky shores or bluffs

Figure 2.11a-b presents Migratory Birds, emphasizing that coastal areas are vital habitats for migrating landbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl; specifically, Figure 2.11a depicts Important Bird Areas (IBAs) within the basin, while noting that no IBAs have been identified on the Ontario coast of Lake Superior.

Figure 2.11b shows the habitat suitability for landbird stopover sites along Lake Superior, with this partial analysis indicating how suitable the habitat is for migratory landbirds to rest and refuel Red shading marks very high suitability, and the color fades to dark green as suitability declines, based on a model developed by Dave Ewert of The Nature Conservancy Although full basin-wide mapping isn’t yet complete, higher habitat suitability consistently aligns with coastal areas that retain natural cover, highlighting key stopover habitats for conservation planning and migration corridor management.

Tributaries and Watersheds

Tributaries include all rivers, streams and inland lakes that flow into Lake Superior and their associated watersheds (Figure 2.12)

There are 25 tertiary (HUC-6) and 1,546 quaternary (HUC-8) watersheds in the Lake

Superior basin Lakes, rivers and streams in the basin are influenced by land use, which can affect water quality in Lake Superior Native Lake

Superior fishes that migrate to and depend on tributaries as part of their natural life cycle are nested targets of the tributary and watershed target

Lake Superior supports Brook Trout These unique fishes migrate between the nearshore waters and tributaries of Lake Superior

Image: http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/Fisheries

Tributaries and watersheds are essential to Lake Superior’s aquatic ecosystem, providing important habitats for fish and wildlife and delivering nutrients and sediments to embayments and the nearshore Lake Superior is fed by more than 1,500 tributaries, ranging from large rivers such as the Nipigon, St Louis, Kaministiquia, and Pic to numerous intermittent streams, collectively offering about 3,300 kilometers of tributary habitat for migratory fishes The tertiary watersheds draining into the lake cover a total area of over 209,000 square kilometers.

Migratory fishes are a key component of the Lake Superior ecosystem, with many species using tributaries for part of their life cycle—primarily for spawning, but also for foraging or refugia from thermal stress and predation Although most migratory fishes spawn almost exclusively in rivers, some species spawn in both lake and river habitats, including Lake Trout and Lake Whitefish on occasion The principal migratory fishes in Lake Superior and its tributaries include Lake Sturgeon, Walleye, Brook Trout, suckers, and numerous minnows (Horns et al 2003) Figure 2.13 illustrates historic and current riverine spawning habitats used by Lake Sturgeon.

Table 2.16: Overall Viability Assessment of Tributaries and Watersheds

The overall viability of the Tributaries and Watersheds target is assessed as fair Confidence in this target is higher due to the larger number of SOLEC indicators and their applicability across its range (including Walleye) The Watershed Stress Index (GLEI 2013) provides a regional snapshot of Lake Superior watershed conditions, showing that the northern part of the basin generally experiences fewer stresses while other regions face higher stress levels, and regional variability is categorized as higher because of clear differences in watershed health.

Tributaries stand as the most vulnerable part of the Lake Superior’s aquatic ecosystem (LSBP 2006a) A broad set of pressures threaten tributary habitats, including hydroelectric facilities, barrier dams, water crossings, loss of wetlands, unsustainable land-use practices, invasive species, poorly managed timber harvesting, mining, agricultural practices, urban development, industrial discharges, and sedimentation (LSBP 2006a) Historically, tributary degradation arose from woody debris from sawmill operations and dams that disrupted or redirected flows, while logging intensified erosion and sedimentation and led to more variable stream flows Agriculture and mining also contributed to degradation in some tributary streams (Horns et al 2003).

(2003) noted that habitat protection and restoration in Lake Superior is especially needed in tributary, embayment and nearshore habitats

Fishes that rely on tributaries are more likely to be limited by habitat quantity and quality, as shown by Horns et al (2003) and Gorman et al (2010b) Brook Trout historically inhabited at least 118 tributaries of Lake Superior, but today only a few remote streams still support viable populations, including those on Isle Royale (Horns et al.).

Historical records show that 21 tributaries once hosted Lake Sturgeon spawning, but due to pollution, direct and indirect fishing mortality, hydroelectric dams, industrial development and other factors, Lake Sturgeon now occur in only half of these historic sites, and few populations in Lake Superior are self-sustaining, as indicated by the Lake Superior Lake Sturgeon Work Group (2012, unpublished data) and the Lake Sturgeon Rehabilitation Plan for Lake Superior (Auer 2003) Habitat degradation and fishing-induced mortality have also affected Walleye in every major bay and tributary of Lake Superior, continuing to impede goals for Walleye populations (Horns et al 2003) Similarly, Brook Trout recovery depends on the restoration and protection of tributary habitat (Horns et al 2003) Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus), once present in Lake Superior’s tributaries, is now extirpated from the entire watershed (Horns et al 2003).

Tributary habitat management is further complicated by several non-native salmon and trout populations that rely on these streams for reproduction and development These naturalized species are managed for sustainability only when they remain compatible with the objectives of the native fish community (Horns et al 2003).

Table 2.17: Ecosystem Indicators for the Health of Tributaries and Watersheds

Aquatic Habitat Connectivity (x1) Fair/ Improving

Baseflow due to Groundwater Discharge

Fair/ Undetermined Overall assessment only

Coastal Wetland Fish Communities (x2) Not assessed/ Undetermined

See2006 LaMP report (LSBP 2006a) This indicator is being developed with the support of the Great Lakes Basin

Inland Water Quality Index (x1) Good/ Undetermined

Lake Sturgeon (x2) Fair/ Improving or Undetermined

Nutrients in Tributaries (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Pesticides in Tributaries (x1) To be developed for SOLEC 2016

Terrestrial Non-Native Species (x1) Good/ Undetermined/Undetermined

Lake Superior coastal areas have relatively few invasive plants, including Common Reed

Figure 2.12: Tributaries Depicts the rivers, streams and lakes of the Lake Superior watershed

Figure 2.13: Lake Sturgeon Spawning Rivers The shaded circles depict the population information for

Lake Sturgeon population status is shown on the left half of the circle, with population trajectory displayed on the right half There is uncertainty whether the Harmony and Stokely Rivers ever supported spawning sturgeon, as both rivers are shallow and flashy This identification may have been perpetuated in the literature, and a labeling error in the chart may have contributed by calling the Chippewa River the Harmony The map also incorporates new information on Lake Sturgeon populations from the Lake Superior Lake Sturgeon Work Group and the Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre (Ecclestone 2013).

Issues Impacting the Health of Lake Superior

Threats to Lake Superior were assessed for their potential impact on biodiversity targets over the ten-year period ahead A draft list of threats was developed from earlier biodiversity conservation strategies, drawing on sources such as the Lake Ontario Biodiversity Strategy Working Group (2009); Franks Taylor et al (2010); Pearsall, Carton de Grammont, Cavalieri, Chu et al (2012); and Pearsall, Carton de Grammont, Cavalieri, Doran et al.

In 2012, regional and local plans, along with reports from SOLEC and the Lake Superior LAMP, informed the initial threat ranking The project Steering Committee reviewed this ranking and updated it based on expert review comments.

Assessments were conducted using the CAP process and entered into Miradi, which calculates threat ratings with a rule-based system that combines scope, severity, and irreversibility criteria It then outputs an overall threat-to-target rank and provides threat ratings for threats across all targets as well as the overall threat ratings for each target This same method was used to rank threats in recent biodiversity conservation strategies for the other Great Lakes.

Lake Superior has a high overall threat rank (Table 3.1), driven primarily by climate change, aquatic invasive species, and dams and barriers These threats top the ranking because they affect numerous targets across a wide region and are often difficult to reverse The elevated threat ratings reflect poor and declining SOLEC pressure indicators, including climate change as evidenced by ice duration and the spread of aquatic invasive species Climate change and aquatic invasive species are linked to projected future impacts, while dams and barriers reflect a current condition likely to persist into the future, albeit with considerable uncertainty about their exact scope and severity.

Among biodiversity conservation targets, those with the highest threat ratings are nearshore zones and reefs, inshore areas and embayments, and coastal wetlands with their tributaries and watersheds These systems generally face the most threats, including invasive species, climate change, and dams and barriers The remaining biodiversity conservation targets have medium threat ratings All high- and medium-threat threats are detailed in this section, with Appendix E providing further detail on threat rankings and explaining how scope, severity, and irreversibility were applied to each target.

Box 3.1: Direct threats rating criteria used in the CAP process

Scope is most commonly defined spatially as the proportion of the target that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within ten years, assuming that current circumstances and trends continue This spatial definition helps quantify potential exposure and informs risk assessment, planning, and mitigation by indicating how widely a threat could impact the target area or population over the horizon.

For ecosystems and ecological communities, measured as the proportion of the target's occurrence

For species, measured as the proportion of the target's population

 Very High: The threat is likely to be pervasive in its scope, affecting the target across all or most (71-100%) of its occurrence/population

 High: The threat is likely to be widespread in its scope, affecting the target across much (31-70%) of its occurrence/population

 Medium: The threat is likely to be restricted in its scope, affecting the target across some (11-30%) of its occurrence/population

 Low: The threat is likely to be very narrow in its scope, affecting the target across a small proportion (1-10%) of its occurrence/population

Severity - Within the scope, the level of damage to the target from the threat that can reasonably be expected given the continuation of current circumstances and trends

For ecosystems and ecological communities, typically measured as the degree of destruction or degradation of the target within the scope

For species, usually measured as the degree of reduction of the target population within the scope

 Very High: Within the scope, the threat is likely to destroy or eliminate the target, or reduce its population by 71-100% within ten years or three generations

 High: Within the scope, the threat is likely to seriously degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 31-70% within ten years or three generations

 Medium: Within the scope, the threat is likely to moderately degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 11-30% within ten years or three generations

 Low: Within the scope, the threat is likely to only slightly degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 1-10% within ten years or three generations

Irreversibility (Permanence) - The degree to which the effects of a threat can be reversed and the target affected by the threat restored

Very High risk: The effects of the threat are irreversible, and restoration of the target is very unlikely In many cases, it would take more than 100 years to achieve recovery, as illustrated by wetlands converted to a shopping center.

High-risk threats can technically be reversed and ecosystems restored, yet practical constraints render restoration unaffordable and time-consuming, often requiring 21 to 100 years For example, wetlands converted to agricultural land demand extensive, costly interventions and long-term commitment before the ecosystem returns to its natural state.

 Medium: The effects of the threat can be reversed and the target restored with a reasonable commitment of resources and/or within 6-20 years (e.g., ditching and draining of wetland)

Low threat: The effects are easily reversible, and restoration of the impacted area is achievable at relatively low cost and usually within 0-5 years (e.g., off-road vehicles trespassing in wetlands).

Table 3.1 Summary of Biodiversity Conservation Threat Rankings for Lake Superior

Threats \ Targets Embayments and Inshore

Islands Deepwater and Offshore Waters

High High High High High High

Climate Change High Medium High Medium High Medium High High

High High Low High High

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Mining Medium Medium Low Low High Low Medium

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Medium Low Low Low Low Low

Low Low Low Low Low

High High Medium Medium High High Medium High

Very High The threat is likely to destroy or eliminate the biodiversity target

High The threat is likely to seriously degrade the biodiversity target

Medium The threat is likely to moderately degrade the biodiversity target

Low The threat is likely to only slightly impair the biodiversity target

Lake Superior Threats to Biodiversity Heath

Aquatic Invasive Species

 Deepwater and Offshore Waters (High)

 Nearshore Zone and Reefs (High)

Aquatic invasive species (AIS) pose a high threat to Lake Superior's biodiversity because they impact many targets across most of their range and can markedly degrade habitats Once AIS are established and abundant, reversing their effects becomes difficult, and ecosystems are likely to experience instability and unpredictability This situation commonly leads to a loss of biotic community diversity (Horns et al 2003).

Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and quagga mussels (Dreissena bugensis) are currently detected only in select areas of Lake Superior, notably in the harbors of Duluth and Thunder Bay Ongoing monitoring indicates a risk that aquatic invasive species could spread to additional embayments around the lake, highlighting the importance of prevention and rapid response to protect native ecosystems.

Image: http://www.portofthunderbay.com

In the Lake Superior watershed, 97 non-native aquatic species have been found, including fish species, aquatic invertebrates, diseases and parasites, algae and plants (Minnesota Sea Grant 2012a) A further

53 species have been identified as “watch-list species” for the Great Lakes basin (United States

Geological Survey [USGS] 2012) (see Appendix D) Of the five Great Lakes, Lake Superior has the highest ratio of non-native to native fish species (Environment Canada [EC] and the U.S Environmental

Lake Superior shows a ratio of 20 non-native species to 68 native species, illustrating the composition of its aquatic communities (Minnesota Sea Grant 2012b) When non-native species establish themselves and spread, and cause harm to the ecosystem, they are considered invasive (Lake Superior Work Group 2010) The lake’s low temperature and productivity slow the reproduction and spread of non-native species, so they do not proliferate as rapidly as in other Great Lakes As a result, Lake Superior has the fewest aquatic invasive species of any of the Great Lakes (Dupre 2011).

Introduction pathways for aquatic invasive species are diverse, as outlined by the Lake Superior Work Group (2010) The majority of non-native species arrive through unintended releases or ballast water discharged from ships (Horns et al., 2003; LSBP, 2006a) Lake Superior experiences a disproportionately high volume of deballasting activities, which can enhance the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species.

Grigorovich et al (2003) describe how salmon and some trout species were introduced for sport fishing and to help control Rainbow Smelt (Horns et al 2003; Minnesota Sea Grant 2012b) In some cases, the introduction mechanisms for non-native species are not entirely clear, a concern highlighted in discussions of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS).

Novihabdovirus sp.) is believed to have been introduced by commercial ships or recreational boats from the lower Great Lakes (Lake Superior Work Group 2010)

Lake Superior is the only lake with a dedicated aquatic invasive species prevention plan, underscoring proactive efforts to reduce introductions into the Great Lakes These actions have contributed to lowering invasion rates, and no new aquatic invasive species have been recorded since 2006 However, future impacts may arise from existing invasive species moving to new locations, with climate change potentially accelerating spread through warmer water temperatures and increased recreational use.

Sea Lampreys are one of the most serious aquatic invasive species established in Lake Superior, having significantly altered the fish community and driving suppression costs and fishery impacts totaling hundreds of millions of dollars (Horns et al., 2003) In the basin, Sea Lampreys are currently managed through lampricide applications in key spawning rivers, while existing dams and barriers prevent access to some spawning areas The ecosystem effects of more recently introduced species, including Ruffe and Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus), are not yet fully understood Among several non-native fishes, including Ruffe, Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and Fourspine Stickleback (Apeltes quadracus), population trends from 2001 to 2005 were stable or declining (Pratt et al., 2010).

Asian carps—Bighead Carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis), Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), and Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus)—are identified as among the most serious potential invaders threatening the Great Lakes ecosystem A risk assessment shows the invasion and establishment of Asian carp in Lake Superior to be rated as moderate over the next decade, according to Cudmore et al.

Modeling predicts that if Asian carp enter the Great Lakes via the Chicago canal, only a small number would reach Lake Superior within 20 years Those that do would likely establish populations in northern embayments such as Black Bay, Thunder Bay, and the St Louis estuary If live-fish releases allow Asian carp to become established in western Lake Superior, they would remain primarily in the estuary but would also begin moving into nearshore and inshore waters around Black Bay, Thunder Bay, and the Keweenaw Peninsula.

Climate Change

 Deepwater and Offshore Waters (Medium)

 Nearshore Zone and Reefs (Medium)

Climate change is a high threat to the biodiversity of Lake Superior over the next decade, as it impacts every conservation target across their full range, is likely to cause moderate impacts, and the resulting effects are irreversible.

While water temperatures are increasing across the Great Lakes, Lake Superior may be the most impacted (GLEAM

Image: http://www.greatlakesmapping.org

The Lake Superior Ecosystem Climate Change Adaptation Draft Plan (LSECCAP Draft) identifies several projected climate changes and their potential ecological effects for the region By the end of the 21st century, air temperatures are expected to increase by 3 to 4.5°C, annual precipitation may rise slightly with seasonal shifts, and annual average water temperatures could climb 5 to 7°C The plan also anticipates a continued decrease in ice cover, higher wind speeds, and a likely decline in water levels similar to declines seen over the past two decades, along with an earlier onset of spring and summer and a longer growing season There is early evidence that some changes are already occurring, including higher open-water summer temperatures, altered lake stratification, and reduced winter ice cover.

The projected changes to climate are expected to alter the physical, chemical and biological aspects of

Climate change threatens Lake Superior by shrinking coastal wetlands and altering fish and wildlife habitat; lower water levels could promote the invasive common reed, while higher temperatures may favor aquatic invaders such as sea lamprey Warmer air temperatures and changed precipitation patterns could push deciduous forests northward, spread forest pests, and reduce habitat for disjunct and boreal species that depend on cooler microclimates Shorelines may become more vulnerable to erosion due to lower water levels and higher wave energy Warmer waters could disrupt the food web by altering plankton communities and creating conditions unfavourable for cold-water fish, while increased precipitation and rising temperatures may raise toxin concentrations or expose submerged toxic sediments Climate change could also cause lower dissolved oxygen, longer summer stratification, and more algal blooms, ultimately affecting water quality and potential human uses of the lake.

Longer shipping and boating seasons could increase the risk for introduction of aquatic invasive species

Dams and Barriers

 Nearshore Zone and Reefs (High)

Dams and barriers represent a high threat to Lake Superior's biodiversity, affecting many aquatic targets across most of their range and severely degrading migratory fish habitats Fortunately, the impacts of these structures can be reasonably reversed through targeted mitigation, habitat restoration, dam removal when appropriate, and measures that restore and improve fish passage.

Options to improve fish passage at the Camp 43 dam on the Black Sturgeon River are currently being explored by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Image: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Dams and barriers disrupt connectivity for aquatic, and sometimes terrestrial, organisms and impede the movement of woody debris, sediment and nutrients essential to healthy river ecosystems They include structures such as dams, weirs, and poorly installed road-stream crossings When culverts and other crossings are improperly installed, they can become barriers to movement, hindering fish passage, disrupting sediment transport and nutrient flow, and causing habitat fragmentation.

“perched”, resulting in a barrier to fish moving upstream This is more common in headwater areas with smaller streams Over 23,600 dams and potential barriers have been documented from the Lake

Superior watershed (Januchowski-Hartley et al 2013) (Figure 3.1)

Dams are a major stressor to Lake Superior’s aquatic habitat, because they block migratory fishes from reaching spawning grounds in tributary streams and impede the fish community objective for tributary-spawning Lake Sturgeon (Horns et al.).

2003) Dams are major contributing factors to population collapses of some Lake Superior fish stocks For example, the Black Sturgeon Dam on the Black Sturgeon River is thought to be partially responsible for the Black Bay Walleye population collapse in 1966, and for the inability of this population to recover Although the spawning and nursery habitat still exists, it is inaccessible (Gorman et al 2010b)

Many dams in the basin are more than 50 years old and deteriorating, reflecting aging infrastructure and increasing emphasis on habitat restoration funding As a result, the removal of dams and barriers has been rising (Kraus 2011), though in some cases dam impacts can be reduced without complete removal The Nipigon River Water Management Plan has achieved a more natural cycle of river flow in the Nipigon River watershed (LSBP 2008).

Most new dams are expected to have fewer impacts than existing, legacy dams In Ontario, land uses on Crown land, including hydropower, are governed by land use designations When these designations permit hydropower development, proposals for development are considered on a site-specific basis through environmental assessment processes These processes are designed to assess potential environmental effects, including impacts on aquatic species and habitat, and to identify appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures.

Dam removal in the Great Lakes is a complex issue that demands balancing ecological restoration with practical management Dams prevent migratory fishes from accessing tributary habitats, reducing connectivity and ecosystem productivity They also block Sea Lamprey from reaching their spawning areas, influencing the dynamics of native fish populations At the same time, some dams and barriers may be kept as management tools to limit the spread of aquatic invasive species Therefore, decisions about dam removal should weigh the ecological benefits of restoration against the protective role barriers can play in invasive species control.

Figure 3.1: Dams & barriers in the Lake Superior Basin Red dots depict documented dam locations

Smaller dots indicate road-stream crossings on the map, and some of these crossings can act as barriers to migratory fishes, particularly at sites with perched culverts Because the barrier potential varies by crossing, each crossing should be assessed on a case-by-case basis These insights are supported by data from Januchowski-Hartley et al (2013).

Atmospheric Deposition

 Deepwater and Offshore Waters (Medium)

Atmospheric deposition poses a medium threat to Lake Superior's biodiversity by impacting many aquatic targets across the ecosystem While emission reductions must occur at a broader scale than the basin, recent studies show that aquatic ecosystems can recover rapidly once pollutants such as mercury are reduced.

Coal-fired power plants are a major source of mercury deposition In 2013, Canada and the U.S signed the Minamata Convention on Mercury to reduce emissions

Image: http://sierraclubgreatlakes.blogspot.ca

Atmospheric deposition is the primary means by which persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals enter the Lake Superior basin It is identified as a principal stressor to Lake Superior’s aquatic community, causing degradation across all habitat zones The contaminants from atmospheric deposition affect the lake in offshore waters, sediments, and in the tissues of fish and waterbirds.

Mercury is one of the most serious chemicals that enters the lake through atmospheric deposition Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury air emissions (Integrated Atmospheric

Although atmospheric mercury and other persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals in the air are at their lowest over Lake Superior, the lake’s vast surface area makes atmospheric deposition a substantial source of chemical input (IADN Steering Committee 2011) The Lake Superior ecosystem also features distinctive physical, thermal, and biological characteristics that promote contaminant retention, including cold waters with long retention times and a unique microbial food web (LSBP 2012b; Guildford et al 2008).

Although there has been a decline in the release of several chemical contaminants over the past 30 years, a consistent decrease in these substances within Lake Superior sediments has not been observed Since the first measurements of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), and mercury were taken in the 1960s, their levels have declined only slightly (Gewurtz et al 2008 as cited in LSBP 2012b) Even with an approximately 80% reduction in mercury discharges and emissions in the Lake Superior basin, sediment concentrations have not shown a clear, sustained downward trend.

1990 to 2010, mercury levels in fish are increasing and are higher than in any other Great Lake (LSBP 2012b), resulting in some advisories against fish consumption (LSBP 2012b, IADN Steering Committee

Atmospheric deposition of nutrients, especially nitrogen, can alter the productivity of some ecosystems and may be linked to the spread of Common Reed, as noted by Rickey and colleagues (2011).

Anderson (2004) notes that atmospheric deposition of chemicals of emerging concern has emerged as an additional potential stressor for the Great Lakes Ongoing efforts to identify and characterize these chemicals are under way, with brominated flame retardants appearing as a key group of concern The IADN Steering Committee highlights the importance of monitoring these emerging contaminants in atmospheric deposition to better understand their potential impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem and inform management decisions.

Coastal Development

Coastal development is recognized as a moderate threat to Lake Superior’s biodiversity, impacting numerous coastal and aquatic targets within a limited geographic range When such incompatible development occurs, it can cause substantial habitat degradation and is often difficult to mitigate or reverse.

Coastal development and shoreline changes can remove and fragment habitats and disrupt coastal processes

Coastal development—including roads, residential, commercial and industrial growth, and shoreline structures such as rip rap, bulkheads, jetties, groins, piers, gabions, and seawalls—directly destroys habitats by removing coastal forests and beaches and by filling wetlands This habitat loss and fragmentation reduces the ability of coastal species to migrate along the shoreline, and the loss of wetlands around Lake Superior has negatively affected Yellow Perch, with Walleye, Northern Pike, and other species also impacted in some locations (Horns et al 2003) In addition, shoreline modifications can facilitate invasions by aquatic invasive species by disrupting populations of native species (Meadows et al 2005).

Shoreline hardening and protective structures constrain how coastal habitats can shift in response to changing lake levels, while also altering sediment transport along the coast and impacting beaches and wetlands These defenses, built to protect shoreline property, can trap sand and disrupt littoral drift, contributing to beach loss in areas such as Lake Superior where jetties and breakwaters have been installed Artificial shorelines replace natural coastal wetlands and are often found near large river mouths in urban areas (LSBP 2006a; Kraus and White 2009).

Less than five percent of Lake Superior’s shoreline is covered by artificial structures, leaving the shoreline largely natural compared with other Great Lakes (Figure 3.2, LSBP 2006a) However, despite substantial areas of public ownership and protected lands along long stretches of shoreline, development along Lake Superior’s coast is increasing (LSBP 2006a) Areas of human habitation are concentrated in estuaries and embayments (Figure 3.3).

In urban communities, reclaiming former industrial lands for public waterfront access and restoring green space along the shoreline represents a positive trend in shoreline development This strategy enhances urban livability, expands recreational opportunities, and supports sustainable urban planning by transforming brownfields into accessible, nature-friendly coastal spaces As industrial demand for shoreline declines, this trend is likely to continue, driving more waterfront redevelopment and conservation of green space (LSBP 2006a).

Figure 3.2: Artificial Shoreline Red areas depict artificial shoreline

Figure 3.3: Housing density along the Lake Superior coast Concentrations of red (dots) denote areas with higher levels of coastal development

Incompatible Forestry

Incompatible forestry was identified as a medium threat to the biodiversity of

Lake Superior because it impacts coastal habitats and watersheds in part of their range and can moderately degrade these habitats However, it is possible to reverse the impacts.

Most of Lake Superior’s forests are managed sustainably

Incompatible forestry can result in habitat loss and degradation to tributaries

Forestry is one of the three principal industries of the Lake Superior basin, alongside mining and tourism, and sustainable forestry practices are essential to protect water quality Incompatible forestry comprises activities that significantly expose or compact soil, leading to increased sedimentation and runoff into tributaries, which can degrade fish spawning grounds and raise nutrients in nearshore waters (see Section 3.8) Examples of incompatible forestry include large clearcuts, extensive forest clearing in or near riparian areas, excessive soil disturbance from heavy equipment operation or dragging of logs on slopes or in riparian areas, and poorly designed stream crossings.

Historically, several forestry practices have been incompatible with preserving healthy fish habitat, leading to degradation across Ontario’s Lake Superior watersheds In particular, log drives, logging of stream banks, and erosion at stream crossings have been identified as persistent problems affecting fish habitat throughout all major Lake Superior watersheds in Ontario (LSBP 2006a).

Within the Lake Superior basin, forestry management differs across the border: in Ontario, about 75% of land is Crown Land and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) oversees forestry, using sustainable forest licenses to ensure responsible harvesting and reduce incompatible practices (LSBP 2006a); in the U.S portion, roughly 47% of forests are owned by government entities, with increasing public involvement in planning at federal, state, and local levels, and a growing share of both public and private lands certified for sustainable forestry (LSBP 2006a) Under these sustainable practices, timber harvesting is designed to mimic natural disturbances while preserving wildlife habitat features and protecting riparian areas.

Recent analysis of land-use change in the basin reveals a decline in coniferous forest cover and an accompanying increase in deciduous and mixed forests, a trend likely driven by forestry practices (Hollenhorst et al., 2011) Fire suppression in the basin may also influence nutrient flows into Lake Superior (S Greenwood, pers comm., 2013).

Mining

Mining is identified as a moderate threat to the biodiversity of Lake Superior because it affects many targets within a relatively small portion of their range, yet it can cause major, potentially irreversible impacts Although new mines are unlikely to be as severe as historic operations due to improved environmental regulations, the number of mining applications in the basin is growing rapidly, signaling increasing pressure on the lake’s ecosystems.

The 15 km 2 Hull-Rust Mahoning Iron Mine near Hibbing MN at the headwaters of the St Louis River

Image: http://www.superiorforum.org

Mining is a dominant land use in the Lake Superior basin, with rising interest in mineral exploration and development (LSBP 2006a) Across the basin, mining has produced a diverse range of commodities—gold, silver, copper, platinum, palladium, nickel, zinc, diamond, lead, iron ore, and taconite—along with quarried brownstone (LSBP 2006a; Kerfoot et al 2009) A significant portion of these mining operations are conducted as open-pit mines (Kerfoot et al 2009).

Mines in the Lake Superior basin have historically led global silver and copper production, with the Keweenaw Peninsula in Michigan becoming the second-largest copper producer for more than 75 years, and Minnesota continuing to supply about 75% of the iron ore mined in the United States Beyond these existing mines, there has been a recent rise in exploration activity and mineral claims in the basin A map produced by the Lake Superior Ad Hoc Mining Committee in 2011 documents the locations of operating mines, mineral exploration sites, and areas of mineral leases and mining claims (Figure 3.4) Proposed aggregate quarries along the Ontario coast and increased mining in Ontario’s northern Ring of Fire could raise the number of smelting and shipping facilities on Lake Superior Across many Lake Superior watersheds, mining activity is evident, with mineral leases and mining claims extending into coastal areas (Figure 3.4).

Mining activities can degrade water quality and harm coastal habitats, especially in nearshore zones, embayments, and tributaries In Minnesota and Michigan, nearshore areas have locally deteriorated due to the discharge of mine chemicals and tailings (Horns et al 2003) Sediments from mining in nearshore areas, embayments, and river mouths may cover and degrade spawning habitats (Chiriboga and Mattes 2008; Kerfoot et al 2012) Additionally, mining can cause direct habitat impacts to coastal species and habitats, contributing to the degradation of tributaries.

Early mining operations on the Keweenaw Peninsula discharged tailings directly into Lake Superior Evidence from Keweenaw Bay indicates that metal concentrations are declining and ecological recovery is occurring, but the ongoing erosion of tailing piles continues to release metals into the nearshore areas of Lake Superior.

Mine wastes from historical iron mining in the Lake Superior basin have remained potential sources for contaminants and environmental impairments, decades after the closure of mine operations (LSBF

2011) Some Lake Superior Areas of Concern (AOCs), including Deer Lake (MI) (delisted as an AOC in

2014) and Torch Lake (MI), were listed as AOCs due to the negative effects of mining activities (LSBP

Despite the closure of several mines more than fifty years ago, adverse environmental effects remain evident, underscoring long-term pollution concerns It is estimated that it may take up to 800 years for copper concentrations in Torch Lake’s water and sediments to return to background conditions (Kerfoot et al 2009).

Although total mercury emissions declined from 333 kg/year in 2005 to 261 kg/year in 2010, mining and metals production still accounted for 63% of the emissions Taconite mining alone accounted for 98.5% of mercury emissions from mining Existing taconite mining and any new or expanded mining are identified as emission sources that present significant reduction challenges Minnesota's statewide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) goals for mercury emissions cannot be achieved without substantial reductions from the mining sector.

Canada’s Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions (LSBP 2008) identifies that certain mining sectors contribute to harmful air emissions, and the historical releases from these activities continue to affect regions within the basin In Wawa, iron ore processing from 1939 to 1998 released a plume rich in sulfur and arsenic that deforested an area about 40 km away and was visible on satellite surveys (Kerfoot et al 2009) Importantly, mine closures have led to reductions in chemical outputs; between 1990 and 2000, nine chemicals targeted by the Zero Discharge Demonstration Program (ZDDP) declined largely due to the closure of two mining facilities in Michigan and Ontario (LSBP 2006b).

Figure 3.4: Mining in the Lake Superior Basin

Non-point Source Pollution

Non-point source pollution was identified as a medium threat to the biodiversity of Lake

Superior because it impacts four of the targets in part of their range, and can have moderate impacts that can be reversed with reasonable commitment

Heavy rains in June 2012 resulted in significant run-off into the western part of Lake Superior

Image: NOAA; http://www.seagrant.umn.edu

Nonpoint source pollution occurs when rainwater and snowmelt move across the landscape, picking up nutrients, sediments, and other contaminants and delivering them into surface waters such as tributaries and Lake Superior This diffuse runoff cannot be traced to a single discharge point and reflects pollutants that exceed natural baseline levels, degrading water quality and harming aquatic communities Human activities like agriculture, urban development, and forestry increase runoff and pollutant loads, making phosphorus and sediments the most significant nonpoint pollutants affecting Lake Superior, especially in embayments with developed watersheds Phosphorus runoff is a major driver of eutrophication and nuisance algae because phosphorus often limits algal growth in freshwater ecosystems Sediments exported from rivers raise turbidity, which can impede aquatic plant growth, disrupt predator-prey interactions that rely on sight, and alter benthic habitat conditions.

Non-point source pollution from atmospheric deposition is treated separately in this report

Terrestrial Invasive Species

Terrestrial invasive species have been identified as a medium threat to Lake Superior's biodiversity They affect terrestrial and wetland targets across portions of their range, with impacts ranging from moderate to severe, but these effects can be reversed with a reasonable commitment to management.

Common reed is spreading across the southern Great Lakes, with scattered populations along the Lake Superior coast, including Bayview Beach–Sioux River Slough in Wisconsin and Batchawana Bay in Ontario.

Image: http://www.torontozoo.com/

Terrestrial invasive species threaten coastal habitats by displacing native species and altering ecosystem composition and function In the Lake Superior basin, these invasives are rare compared with the other Great Lakes (Appendix D), presenting an opportunity for early detection and eradication before they become problematic.

Common reed is one of the most serious coastal invaders in the Great Lakes region, with a sporadic distribution along the southern shore of Lake Superior and on Isle Royale, as documented by the Michigan Tech Research Institute (MTRI, no date) and the Midwest Invasive Species Information Network (MISIN, 2013).

Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is identified as a high-impact invasive species in the Lake Superior basin, now established in Ontario and in numerous locations across Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan, including the coastal marshes of Batchawana Island Other terrestrial invaders include Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.), and Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) Exotic buckthorns such as Common Buckthorn and Glossy False Buckthorn (Frangula alnus) are established in Duluth (MN), Michigan, and Wisconsin but not in the Ontario portion of the basin Tatarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) is established in Duluth, MN, Michigan, and near settlements in Ontario Garlic Mustard is known to occur in the Lake Superior basin and has been verified in Wisconsin and several counties in Michigan Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) is widespread in the basin but limited to roadsides and disturbed sites Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii) has been reported from Isle Royale and Grand Sable Dunes in Michigan and northern Wisconsin, with additional reports on the east side of the Lake Superior basin in Ontario Other non-native species affecting Lake Superior watersheds include the Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar) and the Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis), found in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and Sault Ste Marie, Ontario Recent reported locations of invasive species in the U.S portion of the Lake Superior basin can be viewed through the Midwest Invasive Species Information Network.

8 Common Reed is also treated as an aquatic invasive species (AIS) by some agencies and in some reports because it often occurs in wetlands

Species Information Network mapping tool (MISIN 2013) Figure 3.5 depicts the location of some invasive species along the coast

According to the Lake Superior Aquatic Invasive Species Complete Prevention Plan, the prevention methods recommended to stop the spread of aquatic invasive species are also applicable tools for preventing the spread of terrestrial invasive species, a principle noted by the Lake Superior Work Group in 2010.

Figure 3.5 shows coastal terrestrial invasive species, with red dots marking tracked invasives from various state and provincial databases and Common Reed highlighted in orange Although these databases provide essential data, they are not complete, and ongoing projects are working to improve tracking and mapping of terrestrial invasive species around Lake Superior Note that the Ontario database includes aquatic species as well, reflecting locations in the lake.

Other Threats and Emerging Issues

Several lower-ranking threats were identified in the assessment, generally having limited scope and/or severity, though some information indicates their intensity could increase in the future While these threats may reflect important regional issues, they typically have limited lakewide impacts on biodiversity compared with the other threats identified.

Point-source industrial effluents and waste have long been major habitat stressors in Lake Superior, and this legacy pollution still affects biodiversity in certain areas Remediation of these polluted sites in the Great Lakes remains a central focus of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement In Lake Superior, eight Areas of Concern (AOCs) have been identified: Thunder Bay, Nipigon Bay, Jackfish Bay (Area of Concern in Recovery), Peninsula Harbour, St Marys River, Deer Lake (delisted in 2014), Torch Lake, and the lower St Louis River Ongoing cleanup and restoration efforts aim to restore ecological health and biodiversity within these AOCs.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment uses 37 streams to monitor and assess the impacts of point source pollution, including the mouths of major tributaries (LSBP 2006a)

Figure 3.6: Lake Superior Areas of Concern

Oil Spills from Shipping and Refining

Although oil spills are generally considered a low threat from a lake-wide viewpoint, predicting the scope and severity of potential spills remains challenging Several new proposals could raise the volume of oil refined and transported within the Lake Superior basin, including more oil moved through existing pipelines crossing the basin, greater rail shipments of oil, and a planned refinery expansion in Superior, Wisconsin that would load up to 13 million barrels of crude oil per year onto barges destined for other refineries in the lower Great Lakes While refinery and docking expansions may have regional effects, the shipment of crude oil on Lake Superior poses risks that could significantly affect coastal, inshore, and nearshore species and habitats in the event of a spill.

Figure 3.7 identifies the regions around Lake Superior that are most sensitive to marine oil spills, enabling targeted protection and response planning for vulnerable coastal and nearshore areas The illustration also marks road and rail stream crossings and pipeline routes, showing where accidents could impact tributaries or nearshore ecosystems.

Figure 3.7: Oil and Gas Infrastructure and Shoreline Sensitivity

Effective fisheries management has restored populations of many Lake Superior fishes, and current harvest rates are sustainable There has been recent discussion about establishing a regulated fishery for siscowet Lake Trout to harvest omega-3 fatty acids However, some biologists are concerned that Lake Superior may not be able to support a commercial harvest without impacting the ecosystem.

Future changes to stocking programs or catch limits could influence fish populations The rehabilitation of lean Lake Trout and Lake Whitefish in the nearshore waters at the east end of the lake has not advanced as much as in other areas Maintaining sustainable levels of unregulated harvests will protect populations and create the opportunity to resume cooperative rehabilitative stocking efforts.

Wind farms have been established on and near the eastern shore of Lake Superior in Ontario, with Minnesota’s north shore also under active exploration for development The Lake Superior coastal region offers high wind power potential and benefits from access to existing regional grids originally built for hydroelectric power However, wind energy development can fragment coastal habitats and, if siting is not properly planned, may impact migrating birds and bats.

Regional Summaries

In order to support place-based conservation in Lake Superior, the basin and waters were divided into

Twenty regional units (Table 4.1) were defined based on quaternary watershed boundaries grouped by coastal environments identified around Lake Superior Each unit encompasses the watershed and the associated coast, along with the inshore and nearshore waters, and in some regions offshore waters were added to include islands; one unit even covers all Lake Superior offshore waters Maintaining the open waters as a single unit was recommended by the Aquatic Community Committee and the Lake Superior Technical Committee The regional units are illustrated in Figure 4.1.

Volume Two provides summaries for each regional unit based on a thorough literature review and expert input Spatial information for this project was calculated using data sources listed in the data catalogue (Appendix A) We recognize that many regions contain additional biodiversity data and threat mapping that could not be fully reflected in this report Where possible, the text includes regional and local data and spatial information on biodiversity targets and threats to strengthen understanding and guide decision-making.

These summaries provide regional-scale scoring of biodiversity target viability and condition based on stress and condition indices (see Section 2) The grades shown in the report card and the conditions and trend table indicate the relative health and stresses for each biodiversity target in the region, derived from available indices These grades help identify targets that are likely in better or worse health than the lakewide average and inform priority discussions for conservation and restoration The automated regional health assessment of biodiversity targets underwent expert review, and when experts judged that a grade did not reflect actual conditions, the results were overridden by expert input.

To summarize regional performance, we calculated a regional average of all stress and condition indices by averaging the individual scores of each sub-unit within the region, as described in Appendix F This approach yields a single, comparable metric for each regional unit, reflecting the overall condition based on the combined sub-unit scores For example, in Regional Unit 1, the regional average is derived from the mean of its sub-unit scores, enabling direct comparison across regional units.

In Goulais, 92 quaternary watersheds each carry a watershed stress index value, ranging from 0 to 0.754 (with a maximum of 1) The regional score is computed as the average of these sub-units, yielding a single, region-wide measure of watershed stress This approach enables comparison across the area, highlights zones of higher stress, and informs watershed management and conservation planning.

To assess regional biodiversity, the analysis uses the Watershed Stress Index and Great Lakes Cumulative Stress, with regional averages normalized by subtracting them from 1 The Coastal Condition Index is standardized by subtracting its regional average from the maximum possible score These regional averages are then applied to biodiversity targets In some targets, only a single index is used—for example, the watershed stress index average is applied to both tributary and watershed targets For other targets, signals from multiple indices are combined, such as embayment health, where the average of several indices is applied (see Table F.1 in Appendix F) The final score or grade is the average of the scores across all targets.

Conservation priorities around Lake Superior are based on 264 important habitat areas mapped by the Lake Superior LAMP (LSBP Habitat Committee 2006) These areas come from the important habitat map, updated most recently in 2006, recognizing that restoring and maintaining the ecosystem requires special attention to key biological features Box 4.1 outlines the criteria used to select these sites Conserving or restoring these system components is the highest priority for maintaining Lake Superior biodiversity, while acknowledging that other important habitats exist—particularly in remote stretches of the east and north shores where habitats remain largely undisturbed.

15 Black-Presque Isle and Ontonagon

19 Tahquamenon, Waiska and St Marys

Box 4.1: Criteria for the Identification of Biodiversity Features in the Lake Superior Watershed

1 Large, relatively unfragmented areas most representative of the Lake Superior basin ecosystem that support natural community assemblages where ecosystem dynamics are intact or can be restored

2 Nationally significant ecosystems Areas that have wildlife and plant habitat values that go beyond local values in that they provide substantial benefits that extend beyond the basin

3 Old Growth Forest Tracts of varying size supporting native old growth forest Tracts that with restoration and proper management could support high quality, native old growth forest

4 Coastal shore or coastal wetland ecosystems Sites that have, or with restoration could develop, high quality, diverse ecosystems that are representative of the interacting communities unique to the Lake Superior shoreline

5 Areas that support high biological and ecological diversity Sites that support, or with restoration could support the compositional, functional, and structural elements associated with diverse ecosystems

6 Habitats that contribute to, or with restoration could contribute to maintaining ecosystem integrity on a landscape scale These areas could include buffering communities around currently protected ecosystems, core areas within a managed area, or may be connecting corridors between important habitat sites

1 Rare communities Communities that are of high quality, or have high restoration potential, or are critically endangered Examples include: calcareous fens, beach dunes, interdunal wetlands, red clay wetland complexes, bedrock beaches and cliffs

2 Plant and wildlife habitats that are rare in the Lake Superior basin, or are rare globally

3 Plant and wildlife habitats that occur only in the Great Lakes basin

4 Communities that are, or that with restoration could be, outstanding representatives of the natural (i.e., pre- settlement) ecosystem

1 Sites (large or small) that serve as habitat for vulnerable, endangered, threatened or special concern species (or candidate species) during any stage of their life cycle Currently occupied habitats and sites with potential for future colonization or reintroduction are included Prioritization of potential sites depends on status of the species (i.e., rarity at global, sub-national, and basin scales), likelihood of occupation and the quality (or restoration potential) of the site

2 Sites that serve, or with restoration may serve, vital functions in the life cycle of species named in appropriate planning documents (e.g., Lake Superior Ecosystem Objectives, Fish-Community Objectives for Lake Superior, Tribal resource plans, etc.)

3 Habitats required for the conservation of migratory wildlife (e.g., neotropical migrant birds, migratory fish, etc.), including staging areas, migration corridors and routes

4 Spawning and nursery grounds for reptiles, amphibians, fish, or aquatic invertebrates Colonial water bird nesting sites

5 Habitats that can contribute to the conservation of species most likely to be at risk from human activity

6 Habitats that support species that provides important ecological functions (e.g., nutrient cycling or chemical detoxification.)

Next Steps

The Biodiversity Conservation Assessment represents the first step in a process to develop a strategy for the long-term conservation and restoration of Lake Superior By assembling, synthesizing, and reviewing key information, it creates a platform to link conservation strategies with the current health of biodiversity targets and the most critical threats facing the lake This report also provides baseline information on biodiversity targets and threats to help set lakewide ecosystem objectives and inform future SOLEC reporting.

Phase one of the Lake Superior Biodiversity Conservation Strategy concentrates on collecting and presenting regional data from across the basin, built on input from participants in earlier strategies While lakewide actions are necessary, many of the best opportunities for conservation and restoration will occur at the local community level, and the regional information provided here helps connect local actions to a broader lakewide context, informing regional ecosystem objectives and metrics Although Areas of Concern and Remedial Action Planning have offered a proven model for restoring degraded areas in the Great Lakes, the regional information can also shape practical implementation plans that protect high‑quality waters, coasts, and watersheds The regional summaries also showcase successful local conservation efforts that can serve as best practices and inspiration for preserving and restoring Lake Superior.

Adams, M.D., and K Zaniewski 2012 Effects of recreational rock climbing and environmental variation on a sandstone cliff-face lichen community Botany, 90(4): 253-259 DOI: 10.1139/B11-109

Albert, D.A., and D.J Sass (2011) prepared the draft indicator report "State of the Great Lakes 2012 – Draft Indicator Report: Coastal Wetland Plants and Coastal Wetland Plant Communities" for the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) 2011 This SOLEC 2011 document, identified as item #4862, analyzes coastal wetland flora and plant communities and was made publicly available online at the SOLEC registration site (http://www.solecregistration.ca/documents/Coastal%20Wetland%20Plant%20Communities%20DRAFT%20Oct2011.pdf), with access recorded on 11 November 2012.

Albert, D.A., D.A Wilcox, J.W Ingram, and T.A Thompson 2005 Hydrogeomorphic classification for Great Lakes coastal wetlands Journal of Great Lakes Research 31(1):129-146 DOI: 10.1016/S0380-1330(05)70294-X

Albert, D.A., J Ingram, T Thompson, and D Wilcox 2003 Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands Classification: First Revision Great

Lakes Coastal Wetland Consortium http://glc.org/wetlands/pdf/wetlands-class_rev1.pdf

Allan, J.D., P.B McIntyre, S.D.P Smith, B.S Halpern, G.L Boyer, A Buchsbaum, G.A Burton Jr., L.M Campbell, W.L Chadderton,

J.J.H Ciborowski, P.J Doran, T Eder, D.M Infante, L.B Johnson, C.A Joseph, A.L Marino, A Prusevich, J.G Read, J.B Rose, E.S Rutherford, S.P Sowa, and A.D Steinman 2013 Joint analysis of stressors and ecosystem services to enhance restoration effectiveness Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 110(1): 372-377 DOI:10.1073/pnas.1213841110

Angel, J.R., and K.E Kunkel 2010 The response of Great Lakes water levels to future climate scenarios with an emphasis on

Lake Michigan-Huron Journal of Great Lakes Research 36:51-58 DOI: 10.1016/j.jglr.2009.09.00

Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management Society (AEHMS) 2011 Ecology of Lake Superior Aquatic Ecosystem Health &

Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management Society (AEHMS) 2004 Emerging issues in Lake Superior Research Aquat Ecosyst

The Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee 2012 FY 2012 Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework Available from http://asiancarp.us/documents/2012Framework.pdf Accessed 27 October 2012

Auer, N.A [Ed.] 2003 A lake sturgeon rehabilitation plan for Lake Superior Great Lakes Fish Comm Misc Publ 2003-

02.Available at http://www.glfc.org/pubs/pub.htm Accessed 10 May 2012

Austin, J.A., and J Allen 2011 Sensitivity of summer Lake Superior thermal structure to meteorological forcing Limnol

Austin, J.A., and S.M Colman 2008 A century of temperature variability in Lake Superior Limnology and Oceanography

53:2724-2730 Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40058359

Austin, J.A., and S.M Colman 2007 Lake Superior summer water temperatures are increasing more rapidly than regional air temperatures: A positive ice-albedo feedback Geophysical Research Letters 34:L06604, DOI:

Austin, J.C., S Anderson, P.N Courant, and R.E Litan 2007 America’s North Coast A Benefit Cost Analysis of a Program to

Protect and Restore the Great Lakes Brookings Institution

Bakowsky, W 1998b Rare Communities of Ontario: Great Lakes Arctic-Alpine Basic Bedrock Shoreline NHIC Newsletter:

Baldwin, N A., R W Saalfeld, M R Dochoda, H J Buettner, and R.L Eshenroder 2009 Commercial Fish Production in the Great

Lakes 1867-2006 Available from http://www.glfc.org/databases/commercial/commerc.php Accessed 28 October

Barbiero, R.P., K Schmude, B.M Lesht, C.M Reising, G.J Reising, and M.L Tuchman 2010 Trends in Diporeia populations across the Laurentian Great Lakes, 1997-2009 Journal of Great Lakes Research 37(1): 9-17 DOI:

Blann, K.L., J.L Anderson, G.R Sands, and B Vondracek 2009 Effects of Agricultural Drainage on Aquatic Ecosystems: A

Review Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 39(11): 909-1001

Brazner, J.C., D.K Tanner, N.E Detenbeck, S.L Batterman, S.L Stark, L.A Jagger, and V.M Snarski 2005 Landscape character and fish assemblage structure and function in Western Lake Superior streams: general relationships and identification of thresholds Environmental Management 33:855–875

Brazner, J.C., M.E Sierszen, J.R Keough, and D.K Tanner 2000 Assessing the ecological importance of coastal wetlands in a large lake context Verh Internat Verein Limnol 27:1950-1961

Brazner, J.C., D.K Tanner, D.A Jense, and A Lemke 1998 Relative abundance and distribution of ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) in a Lake Superior coastal wetland fish assemblage J Great Lakes Res 24(2):293-303

Briski, E., C.J Wiley, and S.A Bailey 2012 Role of domestic shipping in the introduction or secondary spread of nonindigenous species: biological invasions within the Laurentian Great Lakes Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(5): 1124-1130 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02186.x

Bronte, C.R., M.P Ebener, J.X He, B.F Lantry, J.L Markham, and S.P Sitar 2011 State of the Great Lakes 2012 – Draft – Lake trout State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) 2011 Available at: http://www.solecregistration.ca/ documents/Lake%20Trout%20DRAFT%20Oct2011.pdf Accessed 29 October 2012

Bronte, C.R., M.H Hoff, O T Gorman, W.E Thogmartin, P.J Schneeberger, and T.N Todd 2010 Decline of the short jaw cisco in

Lake Superior: the role of overfishing and risk of extinction Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139: 735-

Bronte, C.R., and S.P Sitar 2008 Harvest and relative abundance of siscowet lake trout in Michigan waters of Lake Superior,

1929-61 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137: 916-926

This article cites two influential studies: Bronte et al (2003) analyze fish community change in Lake Superior from 1970–2000, published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (60:1552–1574); and Burgman et al (2011) redefine expertise and discuss improving ecological judgment, published in Conservation Letters (4(2):81–87).

Burtner, A.M., P.B McIntyre, J.D Allan, and D.R Kashian 2011 The influence of land use and potamodromous fish on ecosystem function in Lake Superior tributaries Journal of Great Lakes Research 37(3): 521-527 DOI:

Cadman, M.D., P.F.J Eagles, and F.M Helleiner (eds) 1987 Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario Federation of Ontario

Naturalists and the Long Point Bird Observatory, University of Waterloo Press

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) issued the Emerald Ash Borer Infested Places Order in 2012 to regulate areas affected by emerald ash borer and protect Canada’s forests; the order was modified on May 5, 2012, and the version was accessed on February 8, 2013, with full details available at http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-protection/insects/emerald-ash-borer/infested-places-order/eng/1337705116683/1337705207346.

Casey, S., D Forsyth, R Held, S Katich, D Nelson, and C Shattuck 2010 Appendix C: Climate Ready Great Lakes University of

Michigan School of Natural Resources, Ann Arbor, MI Available at http://www.regions.noaa.gov/great-lakes/wp- content/uploads/2012/09/04c-AnnotatedBibliography.pdf Accessed 2 November 2012

Caspar, G.S 2002 A review of the amphibians and reptiles of the Lake Superior watershed Technical Report to the Terrestrial

Wildlife Community Committee for the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL

Chiriboga, E.D., and W.P Mattes 2008 Buffalo Reef and Stamp Sand Substrate Mapping Project Administrative Report 08-04

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission

Christensen, J.H., B Hewitson, A Busuioc, A Chen, X Gao, I Held, R Jones, R.K Kolli, W.-T Kwon, R Laprise, V Magaủa Rueda,

L Mearns, C.G Menộndez, J Rọisọnen, A Rinke, A Sarr and P Whetton, 2007: Regional Climate Projections Chapter

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis is the contribution of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report, presenting the core scientific evidence on climate change Edited by Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H.L (eds.), the volume was published by Cambridge University Press in Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York.

NY, USA Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter11.pdf Accessed 29 October 2012

Cudmore, B., N.E Mandrak, J Dettmers, D.C Chapman, and C.S Kolar 2012 Binational Ecological Risk Assessment of

Bigheaded Carps (Hypophthalmichthys spp.) for the Great Lakes Basin DFO Can Sci Advis Sec Res Doc 2011/114 vi + 57 p

Cuthbert, F.J., D.N Ewert, D Kraus, M.M Seymour, K.E Vigmostad and L.R Wires 2008 Area, Quality and Protection of Special

Lakeshore Communities – Islands State of the Great Lakes 2009 Indicator #8129 (Islands) Available at: http://www.epa.gov/solec/sogl2009/8129islands.pdf Accessed 27 November 2012

Danz, N.P., G.J Niemi, R.R Regal, T Hollenhorst, L.B Johnson, J.M Hanowski, R.P Axler, J.J.H Ciborowski, T Hrabik, V.J Brady,

J.F Kelly, J.A Morrice, J.C Brazner, R.W Howe, C.A Johnston, & G.E Host 2007 Integrated Measures of

Anthropogenic Stress in the U.S Great Lakes Basin Environ Manage 39:631-647

Dawson, H A., and M L Jones 2009 Factors affecting recruitment dynamics of Great Lakes sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) populations Journal of Great Lakes Research 35(3): 353-360 DOI: 10.1016/j.jglr.2009.03.003

Desai, A R., J A Austin, V Bennington, and G A McKinley 2009 Stronger winds over a large lake in response to weakening air-to-lake temperature gradient Nature Geoscience (2): 855-858 DOI: 10.1038/ngeo1693

Key references include Dorr Jr., J A., and D F Eschman's Geology of Michigan (1970), a 488-page volume published by the University of Michigan Press in Ann Arbor that provides a foundational overview of Michigan's geology; and S Dupre's 2011 work An Assessment of Early Detection Monitoring and Risk Assessments for Aquatic Invasive Species in the Great, which discusses approaches to detecting and assessing the risks posed by aquatic invasive species.

Lakes-St Lawrence Basin Prepared for the International Joint Commission (IJC) Work Group on Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid Response Available at http://meeting.ijc.org/sites/default/files/workgroups/

Dykstra, C R., W T Route, M W Meyer, and P W Rasmussen 2010 Contaminant concentrations in bald eagles nesting on

Lake Superior, the upper Mississippi River, and the St Croix River Journal of Great Lakes Research 36(3): 561-569 DOI: 10.1016/j.jglr.2010.06.00

Eagle, A.C., E.M Hay-Chmielewski, K.T Cleveland, A.L Derosier, M.E Herbert, and R.A Rustem,

82 eds 2005 Michigan's Wildlife Action Plan Michigan Department of Natural Resources Lansing, Michigan 1592 pp http://www.michigan.gov/dnrwildlifeactionplan

Ecclestone, A 2013 Lake Sturgeon Population Characteristics and Habitat Utilization in the White River, Ontario, from 2011 to

2012 Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre, North Bay, Ontario

Environment Canada 2010 Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) Available at https://www.ec.gc.ca/rs- mn/default.asp?lang=En&nE9D3A3-1 Accessed 3 December 2012 Annotation: Describes IADN

Environment Canada 2003 Canada’s RAP Progress Report 2003 Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas/D91BD30F-DDC9-

4009-ABE0-B3B560EF5324/RAP_ReportE.pdf Accessed 29 October 2012

Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2003 The Ontario Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Atlas: A

Summary of Information (1983-1987) Ontario, Canada

Environment Canada and US Environmental Protection Agency (EC and USEPA) 2011 State of the Great Lakes 2011 – Draft

Indicator Reports Available at: http://www.solecregistration.ca/en/indicator_reports.asp Accessed 5 November

Environment Canada and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2011 Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan

Annual Report U.S Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada

Environment Canada and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2009 Nearshore Areas of the Great Lakes 2009

Available at http://binational.net/solec/sogl2009/SOGL_2009_nearshore_en.pdf Accessed 7 November 2012 Environment Canada (EC) and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2005 State of the Great Lakes 2005 Indicator

Summary Series: Lake Superior Available at http://binational.net/solec/pub_e.html Accessed 24 June 2013

Epstein, E.J., E.J Judziewicz, and W.A Smith 1997 Wisconsin’s Lake Superior Coastal Wetlands Evaluation Including Other

Selected Natural Features of the Lake Superior Basin is a report to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s Great Lakes National Program Office that documents the principal natural features of the Lake Superior Basin; the PDF is hosted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources at http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wetlands/cw/pdfs/superior/superior_text.pdf and was accessed on 29 November 2012.

Faber-Langendoen, D., ed 2001 Plant Communities of the Midwest: Classification in an Ecological Context Association for

Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA 61 pp + appendix Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/library/michigansubset.pdf Accessed 12 November 2012

Ficke, A.D., C.A Myrick, and L.J Hansen 2007 Potential impacts of global climate change on freshwater fisheries Reviews in

Fish Biology and Fisheries 17(4):581-613 DOI: 10.1007/s11160-007-9059-5

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) released a binational ecological risk assessment of the bigheaded carps (Hypophthalmichthys spp.) for the Great Lakes basin in 2012, documented as Can Sci Advis Sec Sci Advis Rep 2011/071 The report is available online at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2011/2011_071-eng.pdf and was accessed on 29 October 2012.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada DFO 2011-03-07 Aquatic Invasive Species Available at http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/science/enviro/ais-eae/index-eng.htm Accessed 18 November 2012

Forest Cover 20120 State of the Great Lakes 2012 – Draft Indicator Report – Forest Cover #8500, 8503 State of the Lakes

Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) 2011 Available at http://www.solecregistration.ca/documents/

Forest%20Cover%20DRAFT%20Oct2011.pdf Accessed 12 November 2012

Franks Taylor, Rachael, Amy Derosier, Keely Dinse, Patrick Doran, Dave Ewert, Kim Hall, Matt Herbert, Mary Khoury, Dan Kraus,

Audrey Lapenna, Greg Mayne, Doug Pearsall, Jen Read, and Brandon Schroeder authored The Sweetwater Sea: An International Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Lake Huron, a 2010 technical report This publication was a joint effort among The Nature Conservancy, Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment, the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan Sea Grant, and The Nature Conservancy of Canada.

Fusaro, A.J and K.T Holeck 2011 State of the Great Lakes 2012 – Draft - Aquatic Nonnative Species State of the Lakes

Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) 2011 Available from http://www.solecregistration.ca/documents/Aquatic%20Non- Native%20Species%20DRAFT%20Oct2011.pdf Accessed 29 October 2012

Galarowicz, T 2003 Conservation Assessment for Lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region

Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/ca- overview/docs/Lake%20Sturgeon%20Conservation%20Assessment.pdf Accessed 6 February 2013

Gamble, A E., T R Hrabik, J D Stockwell, and D L Yule 2011a Trophic connections in Lake Superior Part I: The offshore fish community Journal of Great Lakes Research 37(3): 541-549 DOI: 10.1016/j.jglr.2011.06.003

Gamble, A E., T R Hrabik, D L Yule, and J D Stockwell 2011b Trophic connections in Lake Superior Part II: The nearshore fish community Journal of Great Lakes Research 37(3): 550-560 DOI: 10.1016/j.jglr.2011.06.008

Gewurtz, S.B., L Shen, P.A Helm, J Waltho, E.J Reiner, S Painter, I.D Brindle, C.H Marvin 2008 Spatial distribution of legacy contaminants in sediments of Lakes Huron and Superior Journal of Great Lakes Research 34:153-168

Restoring the Great Lakes’ Coastal Future: Technical Guidance for the Design and Implementation of Climate-Smart Restoration Projects (Glick, Hoffman, Koslow, Kane, and Inkley, 2011) is a National Wildlife Federation publication that provides practical, climate-smart strategies for coastal restoration around the Great Lakes The document offers design and implementation guidelines aimed at increasing ecosystem resilience to climate change by integrating up-to-date science, adaptive management, and stakeholder collaboration It emphasizes selecting restoration approaches that improve habitat connectivity, protect shorelines, and support resilient coastal communities, while allowing for iterative evaluation and adjustment Practitioners, policymakers, and stakeholders can use this technical guidance as a blueprint for planning, funding, and executing restoration projects that secure long-term ecological and economic benefits in the Great Lakes region.

Available at http://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Climate-Smart-Conservation/

NWF_Restoring_the_Great_Lakes_Coastal_Future_090211.ashx Accessed 2 November 2012

Goodier, J.L 1984 The Nineteenth-Century Fisheries Of The Hudson's Bay Company Trading Posts On Lake Superior: A

Biogeographical Study Canadian Geographer, XXVIII, 4

Gorman, Owen T 2012 Successional change in the Lake Superior fish community: Population trends in ciscoes, rainbow smelt, and lake trout, 1958–2008 Fundamental and Applied Limnology Special Issues Advances in Limnology 63: p 337–

Gorman, Yule, and Stockwell (2012) investigate how fishes in Lake Superior use habitat across the diel cycle, focusing on nearshore and offshore waters of the Apostle Islands region The study reveals daily and depth-related shifts in habitat occupancy, comparing nearshore versus offshore patterns to show how temporal and spatial factors shape fish distribution and movement By linking habitat use to environmental conditions, the work offers insights for ecosystem management and the conservation of Lake Superior fish communities, contributing to the goals of Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management.

Gorman, O.T., Yule, D.L., and Stockwell, J.D (2012b) explore habitat use by fishes of Lake Superior, focusing on diel (daily) habitat preferences and the resulting spatial dynamics of fish populations They examine the consequences of diel habitat use for habitat linkages and habitat coupling between nearshore and offshore waters, highlighting how daily movements create connectivity across Lake Superior's aquatic environments Published in Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, the study emphasizes the importance of diel habitat shifts for understanding ecosystem connectivity and informs management strategies aimed at sustaining nearshore–offshore habitat linkages.

Gorman, O.T., M.P Ebener, and M.R Vinson [EDS.] 2010a The state of Lake Superior in 2005 Great Lakes Fish Comm Spec

Pub 10-01 Available at: http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/downloads/SOL2005.pdf Accessed 29 October 2012

Gorman, O.T., J.C Brazner, C Lohse-Hanson, and T.C Pratt 2010b Habitat In The State of Lake Superior in 2005 Edited by O.T

Gorman, M.P Ebener, and M.R Vinson Great Lakes Fish Comm Spec Pub 10-01 Available at http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/downloads/SOL2005.pdf Accessed 11 November 2012

Gorski, P.R., L.B Cleckner, J.P Hurley, M.E Sierszen, and D.E Armstrong 2003 Factors affecting enhanced mercury bioaccumulation in inland lakes of Isle Royale National Park, USA Sci Total Environ 304:327-348

Government of Canada - Toronto, Ontario and United States Environmental Protection Agency - Great Lakes National Program

Office 1995 The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book Third Edition, Chicago, Illinois Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/atlas/index.html Accessed 3 November 2012

Tiêu đề	Lake Superior Biodiversity Conservation Assessment
Tác giả	Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) - Superior Work Group
Trường học	Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Chuyên ngành	Biodiversity Conservation
Thể loại	Biodiversity Conservation Assessment
Năm xuất bản	2013
Thành phố	Ontario

Định dạng
Số trang	137
Dung lượng	7,65 MB

Tài liệu tham khảo	Loại	Chi tiết
Environment Canada and US Environmental Protection Agency (EC and USEPA). 2011. State of the Great Lakes 2011 – Draft Indicator Reports. Available at: http://www.solecregistration.ca/en/indicator_reports.asp. Accessed 5 November 2012.Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan Annual Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada.Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Nearshore Areas of the Great Lakes 2009.Available at http://binational.net/solec/sogl2009/SOGL_2009_nearshore_en.pdf. Accessed 7 November 2012	Link
Government of Canada - Toronto, Ontario and United States Environmental Protection Agency - Great Lakes National Program Office. 1995. The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and Resource Book. Third Edition, Chicago, Illinois. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/atlas/index.html. Accessed 3 November 2012	Link
Great Lakes Environmental Indicators (GLEI). 2013. Great Lakes Environmental Indicators Project Homepage. Available at http://glei.nrri.umn.edu/default/default.htm Modified 5 June 2006. Accessed 23 June 2013.Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). 2011. Strategic Vision of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission 2011–2020. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Available at http://www.glfc.org/pubs/SpecialPubs/StrategicVision2012.pdf. Accessed 29 October 2012	Link
Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/GLKN/NRTR–2008/128. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado Available at http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/GLKN/reports/Kruger_and_Peterson_Bat_Inventory_Report.pdf. Accessed 29 November 2012	Link
Lake Ontario Biodiversity Strategy Working Group. 2009. The beautiful lake: a binational biodiversity conservation strategy for Lake Ontario. Developed in co-operation with the U.S.—Canada Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/lakeont/reports/lo_biodiversity.pdf. Accessed 29 October 2012	Link
Lake Superior Ad Hoc Mining Committee. 2011. Mines, Mineral Exploration and Mineral Leasing in the Lake Superior Watershed [Map]. Available at http://www.superiorforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Mining-Activity-Lake-Superior-2011.pdf. Accessed 19 December 2012	Link
The Lake Superior Binational Forum. 2012. The Lake Superior Binational Homepage. Available at http://www.superiorforum.org/. Accessed 3 November 2012.Lake Superior Binational Forum. 2011. Letter to Governor Walker and Wisconsin Legislature regarding LRB 2035 and proposed changes to Wisconsin Mining Law. Available at http://www.superiorforum.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/Wisconsin-Mining-Law-Letter.pdf. Accessed 19 December 2011.Lake Superior Binational Program (LSBP). May 2012 DRAFT. Lake Superior Ecosystem Climate Change Adaptation Plan. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakesuperior/index.html.Lake Superior Binational Program (LSBP). 2012. Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan: 1990-2010 Critical Chemical Reduction Milestones. Prepared by the Superior Work Group – Chemical Committee. 104 pages. Toronto and Chicago.Available at: http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/lakesuperior/2010/2010-lamp.pdf. Accessed 14 November 2012.Lake Superior Binational Program (LSBP). 2008. Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) 2008. Available at:http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lamp/ ls_2008/index.html. Accessed 26 October 2012	Link
2006/index.html. Accessed 3 February 2013. Lake Superior Binational Program (LSBP). 2006b. Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan: 1990-2005 Critical Chemical Reduction Milestones. Prepared by the Superior Work Group – Chemical Committee. 209 pages. Toronto and Chicago.Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakesuperior/2006/lschemmiles.pdf. Accessed 25 October 2012	Link
Lake Superior Binational Program (LSBP) 2004. Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) 2004. Environment Canada, Toronto. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakesuperior/2004/index.html. Accessed 14 November 2012.Lake Superior Binational Program (LSBP) 2000. Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) 2000. Environment Canada, Toronto. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakesuperior/lamp2000/index.html. Accessed 14 November 2012	Link
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. 2010 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Summary of Proposed Programs and Projects. Available at http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/glri/. Accessed 25 October 2012	Link
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012b. Great Lakes Monitoring, Air Indicators, Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Pollutants. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glindicators/air/airb.html. Updated 26 June 2012.Accessed 3 December 2012	Link
10.1016/j.jglr.2009.03.004 Personal CommunicationsCaroffino, D. (Michigan Department of Natural Resources). March 20 2013. Personal communication.Greenwood, S. (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). May 23 2013. Personal communication.Greenwood, S. (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources). May 31 2013. Personal communication.Johnson, L. (Natural Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota). March 25 2013. Personal communication.Lake Superior Lake Sturgeon Work Group 2012, unpublished data	Khác