Archipelago Beaver Island

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Archipelago Beaver Island CONSERVING THE Beaver Island Archipelago le ol k S ran y F to b Pho CONSERVATION RESOURCE ALLIANCE This report provides an overview of ecological restoration efforts throughout the Beaver Island archipelago from 2013 to 2015. During this period Conservation Resource Alliance (CRA) helped preserve and protect the truly exceptional habitats on these Great Lakes islands. With the support of many dedicated partners and funders, CRA boosted invasive plant control efforts while conducting survey work to better understand the rare island habitats and creatures that need them. Freshwater Refuge The Great Lakes Basin holds over 32,000 islands in its borders. This is the largest collection of freshwater islands in the world. Among these, the Beaver Island archipelago includes more than a dozen islands and stands out with its remarkably rich biological diversity. As global appreciation of Great Lakes biodiversity grows, these islands are increasingly recognized as a place of vital sanctuary. In Islands of Life: A Biodiversity and Conservation Atlas of the Great Lakes Islands (2010), a bi-national publication of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, Beaver Island ranks as one of the highest in biological diversity among the Lake Michigan islands. In just over 55 sq. miles, the island contains some of North America’s most interesting landscapes with Great Lakes dunes, marshes, bogs, fens, coniferous swamps, northern coniferous forests and mixed hardwood forests. Juxtaposed next to these extraordinary features are the risks associated with increasing traffic and development to the archipelago. Beaver Island ranks in the top 10 most threatened islands basin wide. Topping the list of threats to native ecosystems is the arrival and establishment of invasive species like non-native phragmites (Phragmites australis). Fortunately, lovers of nature both on and off the islands have been exceptionally proactive in building a collaborative conservation team. Conservation The archipelago is home Resource Alliance was proud to further to seven federally threatened their efforts through invasive species or endangered species monitoring and treatment while building on the knowledge of species diversity Michigan Monkey-Flower (Mimulus Michiganensis) and distribution. Special thanks to the Pitcher’s Thistle (Cirsium Pitcheri) National Fish & Wildlife Foundation’s Houghton’s Goldenrod (Solidago Houghtonii) Sustain Our Great Lakes Program, Dwarf Lake Iris (Iris Lacustris) Beaver Island Association, J.A. Woollam Piping Plover (Charadrius Melodus) Foundation, Little Traverse Bay Bands Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis Septentrionalis) of Odawa Indians and the Michigan Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly Department of Natural Resources for (Somatochlora Hineana) funding this important phase of work. i s k c n s a o n s w r o o a s l r P G a l P n il l o B l i d B B n a B B r T B B L T y L y b y b b o to o ot o ot h Ph Ph P Michigan Monkey-Flower Pitcher’s Thistle Dwarf Lake Iris Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly s Strategy for Success n o s r a P ill B B Treatment of invasive plants is a conservation priority because of B LT y b o the severe impacts they can have on native ecosystems including ot Ph the extinction of native plants and wildlife, dramatic changes in Nearly 60 different bird species were observed the water table and increased risk of soil erosion and fire. While during MNFI’s surveys including the bald eagle it is tempting to go out and treat infestations of invasive species (eaglet pictured), Northern flicker, Wilson’s immediately, this is one of the most common reasons for low snipe, common loon, Caspian tern and osprey. success rates. It is essential to ask the question where do we start and answer it with a sound science-based answer. t n e m To do this, CRA partnered with scientists from Michigan Natural e g a n a Features Inventory (MNFI) to better understand the extent and M d n a abundance of invasive species on selected nature preserves and e c r u o s conservation easements held by the Little Traverse Conservancy. In e R l a c i 2013, MNFI conducted floristic quality assessments and surveys of g lo o t e rp natural features, invasive plants and breeding birds. This information e H y b o ot helped prioritize the relative value of different lands in order to Ph determine appropriate treatments and where to apply them. Several amphibians and reptiles observed Once a conservation strategy is in place, the next question is, displayed rare physical characteristics. Notably, Eastern garter snakes were found with colors “how do we know if it’s working?” To answer this, scientists often ranging from bright orange, to bright yellow use bioindicators, living organisms that help gauge the health and pale turquoise. of an ecosystem. Amphibians and reptiles are recognized as key bioindicators because they tend to be very sensitive to changes in the environment. CRA worked with Herpetological Resource and Management, LLC to conduct surveys of amphibians and reptiles, collectively known as herpetofauna, over a three-year period. This work established a baseline of what species were present both before and after treatment of invasive plant species as well as evaluated the availability of suitable habitat for herpetofauna. Inventories were conducted in the summers of 2013, 2014 and 2015. Surveyors found multiple age classes of turtles Sites throughout the archipelago were surveyed including Beaver indicating successful breeding is taking place Island, Garden Island, High Island, Hog Island, Trout Island and on the archipelago. Whiskey Island. In total, 20 species of herpetofauna were observed. While the diversity of species is similar to what you would find on the mainland, the abundance of animals observed s n o is comparable to densities that would have been found s r a P ill B B B 50+ years ago across much of Michigan. T L by o ot Ph Multiple new species were found on the outer islands including the Northern spring peeper on High Island and Eastern milk snake on Hog Island. Photo by Pam Grassmick Photo by Pam k ic m s s ra G m a P by o ot Ph Two small river systems run through Beaver Island In just over 55 sq. miles, Beaver Island – the Jordan River and Iron Ore Creek. Systems contains almost every type of habitat that connect the Great Lakes to inland waterways found on mainland. Truly a botanist’s provide important spawning ground for fish dream – one can see so many habitats in species like coaster brook trout. In 2010, CRA such a short distance and find a rainbow coordinated a road/stream crossing replacement of treasures like the dwarf lake iris. where Iron Ore Creek empties into Iron Ore Bay to allow more fish passage. d a e t s i s m n r o A s . r L a e l P rg il o B e B G B y T b L o by ot o h ot P Ph Conservation partners are working to enhance Four species of salamanders live in the bird habitat throughout the islands including archipelago – the red-backed salamander, the installation of chimney swift towers. These spotted salamander, blue-spotted enigmatic little birds spend almost their entire salamander and the Eastern newt. Unique life airborne – they are unable to perch – they among vertebrates, they are capable of instead cling to vertical walls inside chimneys regenerating lost limbs, as well as other or in hollow trees or caves. damaged parts of their bodies. Beaver Island is named after the tribal group known as the Amikwa, the name for the beaver in Anishinaabemowin. The archipelago continues to be very culturally significant to the Odawa as there is a rich history of fishing and agriculture on the islands as well as important ceremonial locations and spiritual areas. k k ic c i m m s s s s a a r r G G m m a a P P by by o to ot ho Ph P Piping plovers, a federally endangered bird species, To date, the Little Traverse Conservancy has six actively breeds on Beaver Island – shoreline public preserves on the archipelago totaling 471 preservation is paramount to their survival. acres. Places like Little Sand Bay are home to rare The “piping” part of the name is a description of species like the Lake Huron tansy. Between this its call, a sweet, soft whistle. preserve and the adjacent state land, they combine to protect nearly 1½ miles of contiguous shoreline. Foundation’s Sustain Our Great Lakes program. Real Results Wildlife & Wetland Solutions was contracted to conduct two field seasons of survey and Islands offer an opportunity to manage for treatment work. The scope of invasive plant “invasive species free zones.” Where eradication management was expanded beyond invasive of invasive plants is often impossible on the phragmites to include plants such as wild mainland due to continuous reintroduction, parsnip, marsh thistle and reed canary grass. In islands, when properly managed, can provide addition, not only was the Great Lakes shoreline important refuge from these invasions. treated but inland lakes, state-owned land, Little Traverse Conservancy property and additional Fortunately for the archipelago, the Beaver private lands where permission was given were Island Association and local townships have also treated. been and continue to be very proactive in protecting these unique island habitats. In 2007, the two townships on the island agreed to initiate an island-wide invasive Interested in how you can support land phragmites treatment program and passed an ordinance the following year to create a protection efforts in the archipelago? phragmites eradication zone along the entire Whether you want to maintain ownership, Lake Michigan shoreline.
Recommended publications
  • Lake Michigan Stocking Report 2010
    Lake Michigan Committee Meeting Ypsilanti, Michigan March 23-24, 2011 Salmonid Stocking Totals for Lake Michigan 1976-2010 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Green Bay National Fish & Wildlife Conservation Office 2661 Scott Tower Drive New Franken, WI 54229 The Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s fish stocking database is designed to summarize federal, provincial, state, and tribal fish stocking events. This database contains agency provided records dating back to the 1950’s and is available online at: (http://www.glfc.org/fishstocking/). The purpose of this report is to briefly summarize the information in the GLFC database for Lake Michigan federal lake trout stocking and stocking rates of all salmonids within state waters of Lake Michigan (Table 1). A summary of lake trout stocking locations, described by priority area in A Fisheries Management Implementation Strategy for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Michigan (Dexter et al. 2011), is also included (Figure 1, Table 2). Total numbers of Service stocked lake trout are shown by statistical district for the time series 1976 – 2010 in Table 3 while salmonid stocking totals for each state are described in Tables 4-7 (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, respectively). 2 Figure 1. Map showing the first and second priority stocking areas contained in the new lake trout restoration guide and implementation strategy. Figure 1. First and 2nd priority areas as described in A Fisheries Management Implementation Strategy for the Rehabilitation of Lake Trout in Lake Michigan (Dexter et al. 2011). 3 2010 stocking overview: 12.3 million salmonids (combined species) were stocked in Lake Michigan in 2010, (Table 1).
    [Show full text]
  • This Keyword List Contains Indian Ocean Place Names of Coral Reefs, Islands, Bays and Other Geographic Features in a Hierarchical Structure
    CoRIS Place Keyword Thesaurus by Ocean - 8/9/2016 Indian Ocean This keyword list contains Indian Ocean place names of coral reefs, islands, bays and other geographic features in a hierarchical structure. For example, the first name on the list - Bird Islet - is part of the Addu Atoll, which is in the Indian Ocean. The leading label - OCEAN BASIN - indicates this list is organized according to ocean, sea, and geographic names rather than country place names. The list is sorted alphabetically. The same names are available from “Place Keywords by Country/Territory - Indian Ocean” but sorted by country and territory name. Each place name is followed by a unique identifier enclosed in parentheses. The identifier is made up of the latitude and longitude in whole degrees of the place location, followed by a four digit number. The number is used to uniquely identify multiple places that are located at the same latitude and longitude. For example, the first place name “Bird Islet” has a unique identifier of “00S073E0013”. From that we see that Bird Islet is located at 00 degrees south (S) and 073 degrees east (E). It is place number 0013 at that latitude and longitude. (Note: some long lines wrapped, placing the unique identifier on the following line.) This is a reformatted version of a list that was obtained from ReefBase. OCEAN BASIN > Indian Ocean OCEAN BASIN > Indian Ocean > Addu Atoll > Bird Islet (00S073E0013) OCEAN BASIN > Indian Ocean > Addu Atoll > Bushy Islet (00S073E0014) OCEAN BASIN > Indian Ocean > Addu Atoll > Fedu Island (00S073E0008)
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Islands: Biodiversity Elements And
    GREAT LAKES ISLANDS: BIODIVERSITY ELEMENTS AND THREATS A FINAL REPORT TO THE GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AUGUST 6, 2007 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for this project has been provided by the Great Lakes Program Office (GLNPO) of the Environmental Protection Agency (Grant No. Gl-96521901: Framework for the Binational Conservation of Great Lakes Islands). We especially appreciated the support of our project officer, K. Rodriquez, and G. Gulezian, director of the GLNPO. Project team members were F. Cuthbert (University of Minnesota), D. Ewert (The Nature Conservancy), R. Greenwood (U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service), D. Kraus (The Nature Conservancy of Canada), M. Seymour (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service), K. Vigmostad (Principal Investigator, formerly of Northeast-Midwest Institute), and L. Wires (University of Minnesota). Team members for the Ontario portion of the project included W. Bakowsky (NHIC), B. Crins (Ontario Parks), J. Mackenzie (NHIC) and M. McMurtry (NHIC). GIS and technical support for this project has been provided by T. Krahn (Provincial Geomatics Service Centre, OMNR), J. Slatts (The Nature Conservancy), and G. White (The Nature Conservancy of Canada). Many others have provided scientific and policy support for this project. We particularly want to recognize M. DePhillips (The Nature Conservancy), G. Jackson (Parks Canada), B. Manny (Great Lakes Science Center), and C. Vasarhelyi (policy consultant). Cover photograph: A Bay on Gibraltar Island (Lake Erie) ©2005 Karen E. Vigmostad 2 Contents
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Natural Resources
    DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION SPECIAL LOCAL WATERCRAFT CONTROLS (By authority conferred on the department of natural resources by sections 80113 and 80121 of 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.80113 and MCL 324.80121) Regulation No. 0, General provisions. R 281.700.1 Definitions. Rule 1. The words and phrases defined in Act No. 303 of the Public Acts of 1967, being SS281.1001 to 281.1199 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, have the same meaning when used in the rules prescribing special local watercraft controls, whether such rules were promulgated before or after this rule becomes effective. History: 1979 AC. R 281.700.2 "Airboat" defined. Rule 2. As used in these rules, "airboat" means a vessel or contrivance, other than a conventional seaplane, helicopter, or autogiro, that makes use of motor-powered propeller, air vane, or other aerostatic force to support or propel, or both to support and propel, the vessel on or over the surface of the water. History: 1979 AC. R 281.700.3 High-speed boating and water skiing prohibited; time. Rule 3. (1) On the waters of this state where special local watercraft controls have been established prohibiting high-speed boating and water skiing from 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. of the following day, the hours shall be 7:30 p.m. to 11:00 a.m. of the following day when and where eastern daylight saving time is in effect. (2) "Daylight saving time" means the advancing of the standard time by 1 hour, commencing at 2 o'clock antemeridian on the second Sunday of March of each year and ending at 2 o'clock antemeridian on the first Sunday of November of each year in conformity with the federal uniform time act of 1966, as amended by the energy policy act of 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Range Expansion of the Whitenose Shark, Nasolamia Velox, and Migratory Movements to the Oceanic Revillagigedo Archipelago
    Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, page 1 of 5. # Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 2017 doi:10.1017/S0025315417000108 Range expansion of the whitenose shark, Nasolamia velox, and migratory movements to the oceanic Revillagigedo Archipelago (west Mexico) frida lara-lizardi1,2, mauricio hoyos-padilla2,3, james t. ketchum2,4 and felipe galva’ n-magan~a1 1Instituto Polite´cnico Nacional, Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas, Av. IPN s/n. C.P. 23096. La Paz, B.C.S, Mexico, 2Pelagios-Kakunja´ A. C. 1540 Sinaloa, C.P. 23070, La Paz, B.C.S., Mexico, 3Fins Attached, 19675 Still Glen Way, Colorado Springs, CO 80908, USA, 4Centro de Investigaciones Biolo´gicas del Noroeste, Playa Palo de Santa Rita Sur, 23096 La Paz, B.C.S, Mexico Current literature considers that Nasolamia velox has a limited distribution along the coastline of the Eastern Pacific with sporadic sightings in the Galapagos Archipelago. This study provides evidence of the occurrence of this species at the Revillagigedo Archipelago (18899′186′′N 112808′44′′W), Mexico, using acoustic telemetry and videos taken from 2014 to 2016. We report here movements from a coastal location (National Park Cabo Pulmo) to a group of oceanic islands (Revillagigedo Archipelago) by one single individual, supporting the idea of the potential connectivity of sharks between the Gulf of California and the Revillagigedo Archipelago. This report extends the known distribution of N. velox to 400 km off the mainland coast of the Americas, thereby increasing the knowledge of the distribution of a species commonly reported in fishery landings of the Eastern Pacific.
    [Show full text]
  • South of Hanko Peninsula
    2013 5 CT JE RO SEA P C I T BAL Oceana proposal for a Marine Protected Area South of Hanko Peninsula INTRODUCTION Hanko Peninsula, located at the entrance to the Gulf of Finland, is the southern-most part of the Finnish mainland and boasts an archipelago and long sandy beaches. Salinity is relatively low, ranging from 5.5 to 7.5 psu, and the waters in the shallower coastal areas are limnic1. Upwellings, a common occurrence in the area wherein nutrient-rich sediments are brought up to the surface, cause a rapid increase in the salinity in areas at 35 meters, and a small increase in salinity in the surface water2. The inner waters of the archipelago freeze every year, while the more open waters freeze regularly, but not every winter3. Parts of the coastal area are protected under EU Natura 2000 network, and the area is classified as a sea area requiring specific protection measures. Wetland areas are also included in the Ramsar network. Because of the special characteristics of the area (changing salinity, archipelagos, wetlands), there are a lot of different zones that are able to host a wide variety of different species and communities4. Oceana conducted in the spring of 2011 and 2012 information from the area with ROV (Remotely Operated Vehicle), bottom samples and scuba dives. 1 5 South of Hanko Peninsula DesCRipTION OF The AREA Low salinity limits the amount of marine species in the area. Species composition changes completely from the open waters to the coast; with marine species being more common further from the coast and limnic species getting more common closer to the shore.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Wetland Assessment for Michigan: Section 1 Biological
    RAPID WETLAND ASSESSMENT FOR MICHIGAN SECTION 1: BIOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK Prepared by: Dennis A. Albert, Paul Adamus, David Campbell, John Christy, Joshua G. Cohen, Theadore Cook, Helen Enander, Linda Hardison, Michael A. Kost, Katie Mitchell, Jennifer Sackinger, and Bradford S. Slaughter Of: Michigan Natural Features Inventory Oregon State University, and Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc. For: Michigan Department of Transportation September 2008 Report Number 2008-06 Cover image taken by: D. Albert Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Literature Review........................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Field Sampling ............................................................................................................................................ 2 4.0 Plant Community Classification and Distribution Map Development ........................................................ 4 5.0 Quantitative Metrics for Wetland Quality, Function, and Value ................................................................. 5 6.0 Hydrologic Metric - Relationship to Plant Communities and Species ........................................................ 5 7.0 Characteristic Plant Species for Each Wetland Type ................................................................................ 10 8.0 Photos and Diagrams of Plant
    [Show full text]
  • 22 AUG 2021 Index Acadia Rock 14967
    19 SEP 2021 Index 543 Au Sable Point 14863 �� � � � � 324, 331 Belle Isle 14976 � � � � � � � � � 493 Au Sable Point 14962, 14963 �� � � � 468 Belle Isle, MI 14853, 14848 � � � � � 290 Index Au Sable River 14863 � � � � � � � 331 Belle River 14850� � � � � � � � � 301 Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Res- Belle River 14852, 14853� � � � � � 308 cue System (AMVER)� � � � � 13 Bellevue Island 14882 �� � � � � � � 346 Automatic Identification System (AIS) Aids Bellow Island 14913 � � � � � � � 363 A to Navigation � � � � � � � � 12 Belmont Harbor 14926, 14928 � � � 407 Au Train Bay 14963 � � � � � � � � 469 Benson Landing 14784 � � � � � � 500 Acadia Rock 14967, 14968 � � � � � 491 Au Train Island 14963 � � � � � � � 469 Benton Harbor, MI 14930 � � � � � 381 Adams Point 14864, 14880 �� � � � � 336 Au Train Point 14969 � � � � � � � 469 Bete Grise Bay 14964 � � � � � � � 475 Agate Bay 14966 �� � � � � � � � � 488 Avon Point 14826� � � � � � � � � 259 Betsie Lake 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agate Harbor 14964� � � � � � � � 476 Betsie River 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agriculture, Department of� � � � 24, 536 B Biddle Point 14881 �� � � � � � � � 344 Ahnapee River 14910 � � � � � � � 423 Biddle Point 14911 �� � � � � � � � 444 Aids to navigation � � � � � � � � � 10 Big Bay 14932 �� � � � � � � � � � 379 Baby Point 14852� � � � � � � � � 306 Air Almanac � � � � � � � � � � � 533 Big Bay 14963, 14964 �� � � � � � � 471 Bad River 14863, 14867 � � � � � � 327 Alabaster, MI 14863 � � � � � � � � 330 Big Bay 14967 �� � � � � � � � � � 490 Baileys
    [Show full text]
  • Mackinac County
    MACKINAC COUNTY S o y C h r t o u Rock r u BETTY B DORGANS w C t d 8 Mile R D n 6 mlet h o i C d t H o y G r e e Island LANDING 4 CROSSING B u N a Y o d Rd R R R 4 e 8 Mile e y 4 1 k t R k d n 2 ix d t S 14 7 r i Advance n p n 17 d i m Unknow d o e a F u 5 C 123 t e T 7 x k d y O l a o s e i R i R 1 Ibo Rd 1 r r e r Sugar d C M o d Island R a e d R 4 p y f e D c E e S l e n N e i 4 C r a R E R o Y d R L 221 e v a i l 7 R h d A i w x d N i C n S a e w r d g d p e n s u d p 5 a c o r R a r t e B U d d T Island in t g G i e e a n r i g l R R n i o R a d e e R r Rd d o C C o e d d 9 Mile e c 4 r r g k P r h d a L M e n M t h R v B W R R e s e 2 r R C R O s n p N s l k n RACO ea l e u l 28 o ROSEDALE n i R C C d 1 y C l i ree a e le Rd e k a U d e v i 9 Mi e o S y r S a re e d i n g C R R Seney k t ek N e r h C Shingle Bay o U e i u C s R D r e U essea S Sugar B d e F s h k c n c i MCPHEES R L n o e f a a r s t P x h B y e d ut a k 3 So i r k i f u R e t o 0 n h a O t t 1 3 R r R d r r A h l R LANDING 3 M le 7 7 s i T o 1 E d 0 M n i 1 C w a S t U i w e a o s a kn ECKERMAN t R R r v k C o n I Twp r C B U i s Superior e e Island h d d e b Mile Rd r d d Mile Rd 10 e a S f 10 o e i r r q l n s k i W c h n d C u F 3 Columbus u T l McMillan Twp ens M g C g a h r t E a h r 5 Mo reek R n E T 9 H H q m REXFORD c e i u a DAFTER n R W r a l k 5 o M r v Twp Y m r h m L e e C p e i e Twp F s e STRONGS d i Dafter Twp H ty Road 462 East R t d e a Coun P n e e S n e r e v o v o s l d C i R m s n d T o Twp h R t Chippewa l p R C r e NEWBERRY U o e R a n A
    [Show full text]
  • COASTAL WONDERS of NORWAY, the FAROE ISLANDS and ICELAND Current Route: Oslo, Norway to Reykjavik, Iceland
    COASTAL WONDERS OF NORWAY, THE FAROE ISLANDS AND ICELAND Current route: Oslo, Norway to Reykjavik, Iceland 17 Days National Geographic Resolution 126 Guests Expeditions in: Jun From $22,470 to $44,280 * Call us at 1.800.397.3348 or call your Travel Agent. In Australia, call 1300.361.012 • www.expeditions.com DAY 1: Oslo, Norway padding Arrive in Oslo and check into the Hotel Bristol (or 2022 Departure Dates: similar) in the heart of the city. On an afternoon tour, stroll amid the city’s famed Vigeland 6 Jun sculptures—hundreds of life-size human figures Advance Payment: set in terraced Frogner Park. Visit the Fram Museum, showcasing the polar ship Fram and $3,000 dedicated to the explorers and wooden vessels that navigated the Arctic Sea in the late 1800s and Sample Airfares: early 1900s. The evening is free to explore Oslo Economy: from $900 on your own. (L) Business: from $2,700 Charter(Oslo/Tromso): from $490 DAY 2: Oslo / Tromsø / Embark Airfares are subject to change padding Take a charter flight to Tromsø, known as the Cost Includes: “gateway to the Arctic” due to the large number of Arctic expeditions that originated here. Visit the One hotel night in Oslo; accommodations; Arctic Cathedral, where the unique architecture meals indicated; alcoholic beverages evokes icebergs; and peruse the Polar Museum, (except premium brands); excursions; which showcases the ships, equipment, and services of Lindblad Expeditions’ Leader, seafaring traditions of early Arctic settlers. Embark Naturalist staff and expert guides; use of our ship this afternoon. (B,L,D) kayaks; entrance fees; all port charges and service taxes; gratuities to ship’s crew.
    [Show full text]
  • The Finnish Archipelago Coast from AD 500 to 1550 – a Zone of Interaction
    The Finnish Archipelago Coast from AD 500 to 1550 – a Zone of Interaction Tapani Tuovinen [email protected], [email protected] Abstract New archaeological, historical, paleoecological and onomastic evidence indicates Iron Age settle- ment on the archipelago coast of Uusimaa, a region which traditionally has been perceived as deso- lated during the Iron Age. This view, which has pertained to large parts of the archipelago coast, can be traced back to the early period of field archaeology, when an initial conception of the archipelago as an unsettled and insignificant territory took form. Over time, the idea has been rendered possible by the unbalance between the archaeological evidence and the written sources, the predominant trend of archaeology towards the mainland (the terrestrical paradigm), and the history culture of wilderness. Wilderness was an important platform for the nationalistic constructions of early Finnishness. The thesis about the Iron Age archipelago as an untouched no-man’s land was a history politically convenient tacit agreement between the Finnish- and the Swedish-minded scholars. It can be seen as a part of the post-war demand for a common view of history. A geographical model of the present-day archaeological, historical and palaeoecological evi- dence of the archipelago coast is suggested. Keywords: Finland, Iron Age, Middle Ages, archipelago, settlement studies, nationalism, history, culture, wilderness, borderlands. 1. The coastal Uusimaa revisited er the country had inhabitants at all during the Bronze Age (Aspelin 1875: 58). This drastic The early Finnish settlement archaeologists of- interpretation developed into a long-term re- ten treated the question of whether the country search tradition that contains the idea of easily was settled at all during the prehistory: were perishable human communities and abandoned people in some sense active there, or was the regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity of Michigan's Great Lakes Islands
    FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE Biodiversity of Michigan’s Great Lakes Islands Knowledge, Threats and Protection Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist April 5, 1993 Report for: Land and Water Management Division (CZM Contract 14C-309-3) Prepared by: Michigan Natural Features Inventory Stevens T. Mason Building P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 3734552 1993-10 F A report of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. 309-3 BIODWERSITY OF MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS Knowledge, Threats and Protection by Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist Prepared by Michigan Natural Features Inventory Fifth floor, Mason Building P.O. Box 30023 Lansing, Michigan 48909 April 5, 1993 for Michigan Department of Natural Resources Land and Water Management Division Coastal Zone Management Program Contract # 14C-309-3 CL] = CD C] t2 CL] C] CL] CD = C = CZJ C] C] C] C] C] C] .TABLE Of CONThNTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORY AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES 4 Geology and post-glacial history 4 Size, isolation, and climate 6 Human history 7 BIODWERSITY OF THE ISLANDS 8 Rare animals 8 Waterfowl values 8 Other birds and fish 9 Unique plants 10 Shoreline natural communities 10 Threatened, endangered, and exemplary natural features 10 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS 13 Island research values 13 Examples of biological research on islands 13 Moose 13 Wolves 14 Deer 14 Colonial nesting waterbirds 14 Island biogeography studies 15 Predator-prey
    [Show full text]