Avian Risk Assessment (See Kerlinger and Guarnaccia 2007) Noted That Migrating Raptors Were Quite Numerous (Nine Species Recorded, About 450

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Avian Risk Assessment (See Kerlinger and Guarnaccia 2007) Noted That Migrating Raptors Were Quite Numerous (Nine Species Recorded, About 450 SPRING MIGRATION STUDY Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan DRAFT September 2008 Report Prepared for: Heritage Sustainable Energy Report Prepared by: John Guarnaccia and Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D.* Curry & Kerlinger, LLC P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569 [email protected] * Primary Contact Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project, Delta County, MI SPRING MIGRATION STUDY Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Executive Summary Heritage Sustainable Energy proposes a utility-scale wind-energy project for the Garden Peninsula, located in Delta County on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The number of wind turbines has not been determined, but a leasehold map provided to Curry & Kerlinger indicates that turbines would be erected on private lands in mainly agricultural areas on the western side of the peninsula, and possibly on Little Summer Island. For the purpose of analysis, we are assuming wind turbines with a nameplate capacity of approximately 2.0 MW. The turbine towers would likely be about 78.0 meters (256 feet) tall and have rotors of about 39.0 m (128 feet) long. With the rotor tip in the 12 o’clock position, the wind turbines would reach a maximum height of about 118.0 m (387 feet) above ground level (AGL). When in the 6 o’clock position, rotor tips would be about 38.0 m (125 feet) AGL. However, larger turbines with nameplate capacities (up to 2.5 MW and more) reaching to 152.5 m (500 feet) are being considered. To assess the Garden Peninsula’s importance to raptor and songbird migration, two studies were conducted in spring 2008 at the southern end of the peninsula. The flight from Door Peninsula to the Garden Peninsula can be achieved by island hopping with the maximum overwater crossing being slightly greater than about four miles (7+ km). These studies sought to quantify: 1) the volume of raptor migration from the Door Peninsula in Wisconsin along an island-hopping route to the Garden Peninsula, and 2) the abundance and diversity of night-migrating songbirds that stopover on the peninsula. For the Raptor Migration Study, two hawk watches were established at the southern end of the Garden Peninsula, one near Fairport and the other on Burnt Bluff. Two hours of observation were conducted at each site on 23 days from April 30 to May 31. Data collected included species, number of individuals, date and time of observation, direction of flight, flight type, and flight height. These data were also collected for landbird and waterbird migrants noted. Observational details are provided in the report. The spring study confirmed that a relatively small number of northbound raptors of thirteen species use the Garden Peninsula on a migration track that departs Wisconsin’s Door Peninsula. Raptor migration at Fairport (HW1) was measured at 7.3 birds/hour (335 birds in 46 hours), with about half of the raptors appearing to have used an island-hopping route from the Door Peninsula. At Burnt Bluff (HW2), raptor traffic was measured at 10.7 birds/hour (493 birds in 46 hours), with about one fifth of raptors apparently arriving over water from Wisconsin or other points. The greater raptor traffic rate at Burnt Bluff was probably attributable to resident Turkey Vultures, which were suspected to nest on the bluffs. Excluding vultures not judged to have Curry & Kerlinger, LLC – September 2008 © 1 Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project, Delta County, MI originated from Wisconsin, the traffic rates would be similar – 6.0 birds/hour at HW1 versus 6.5 birds/hour at HW2. Compared with Great Lakes raptor migration sites that are regularly monitored in spring, the migration rates recorded in the Garden Peninsula study were relatively low, about one tenth of that recorded at the Whitefish Point and Straits of Mackinaw hawk watches in Michigan. There are various reasons for this. The Garden Peninsula is not a spring migrant “trap” or “bottleneck” such as occurs at Whitefish Point and the Straits of Mackinaw. Both of these sites are at the southern shore of a large body of water as opposed to the Garden Peninsula, which is on a northern shore. It appears that only a small percentage of the raptors migrating across Wisconsin in spring are funneled into the Door Peninsula and cross to the Garden Peninsula. This study found that peak spring migration along Door-Garden Peninsula route occurred on southerly winds and involved mostly Broad-winged Hawks. There was also one instance of wind drift on northerly winds bringing Broad-wings to the Garden Peninsula possibly from the base of the Upper Peninsula. Regarding the fall raptor migration dynamic on the Garden Peninsula, a site visit conducted by Curry & Kerlinger on September 8-10, 2007, noted that migrating raptors were quite numerous (nine species recorded, about 450 individuals recorded in three days), especially toward the southern part of the peninsula and on Little Summer Island. The most numerous raptors were Broad-winged Hawk and Sharp-shinned Hawk. Interestingly, most of the raptors (and also many hundreds of Blue Jays, another daytime migrant) did not attempt crossing water to the Door Peninsula. Instead, they turned around at the southern end of the peninsula and headed back north along the peninsula’s western side, a phenomenon that has also been recorded at other peninsulas, particularly Cape May, New Jersey, and Whitefish Point, Michigan. Therefore, hawk migration occurs along the Garden Peninsula in both the spring and fall seasons. But, the traffic is probably greater in fall, indicated by the fact that hawk watches along the western shore of Lake Michigan only operate in that season. This is similar to large flights of hawks along the north shore of several Great Lakes during fall. Flight height of raptors reaching the Garden Peninsula in spring was generally high (i.e., above the rotor-sweep area [RSA]). Given the low migration volume and the predominantly high flight altitude, collision risk to migrating raptors in spring would appear to be low. Regarding special-status species, the Michigan-threatened Bald Eagle was the third most abundant raptor recorded in the spring study (at about one bird/hour), after Turkey Vulture and Broad-winged Hawk. Given that only 35% of Bald Eagles recorded at Fairport were judged to have migrated from Wisconsin, it appears likely that some of the records were of resident birds recorded more than once or wandering individuals. Most Bald Eagles were recorded in the high- height zone, especially at Fairport. Regarding other special-status raptors, the 16 records of Michigan-threatened Merlin at Burnt Bluff (HW2) may have resulted from a pair nesting on the bluffs. Merlin height use at both observation points was predominantly low (below the RSA) and birds may have been hunting as opposed to migrating. The Michigan-endangered Peregrine Falcon was more frequent at HW1 Curry & Kerlinger, LLC – September 2008 © 2 Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project, Delta County, MI (6 records) than at HW2 (one record). At HW1, five of the six Peregrines appeared to have originated from Wisconsin, indicating they were migrants. One-half (50%) of these birds were in the high altitude category, whereas 33% were in the middle category (i.e., in the RSA), and 17% were low. Other listed raptors (Michigan-threatened Osprey and special-concern Northern Harrier, Cooper’s Hawk) and Northern Goshawk were infrequent, and their flight behavior did not suggest particular risk from wind farm operation. For landbirds and waterbirds in spring, abundance and flight height did not suggest heightened risk of collision. Blue Jay was by far the most abundant landbird migrant, favoring an island- hopping route through Fairport (HW1). Blue Jay traffic at Burnt Bluff (HW2) was a third that at Fairport. Flight eight of Blue Jays and other landbirds was predominantly low. Waterbird diversity was greater at Fairport, where more birds were observed resting or foraging on the water, but migration traffic was about equal between sites. For the Stopover Ecology Study, six point counts were established within two miles (3.2 km) of the tip of the Garden Peninsula, with three in the vicinity of Fairport and three in the vicinity of Burnt Bluff. In each area, point counts sampled habitat use in forest, forest edge, and grassland. Point-count circles extended to the limit of visibility, as the goal of the study was to determine whether or not birds were making stopovers and, if so, in what numbers and habitats. Each circle was sampled for 15 minutes on 23 days from April 30 to May 31, beginning after dawn as soon as light allowed for bird identification. For each observation, the following data were collected: point-count number, date, time, bird species (using standard four-letter codes), number of individuals, and behavior (coded either F, in flight, or P, perched). Stopover of Neotropical migrants and related species was found to be minimal on the Garden Peninsula in spring. When all habitats were pooled, the highest daily diversity was 16 species, and the highest daily abundance was 19.2 birds/hour. On most days, these values were much lower. A published weather-surveillance radar study indicates that most of the migration occurs to the west of the peninsula. In fall, however, significant stopover may be expected, because the migration direction is perpendicular to the peninsula and headed over Lake Michigan. At dawn, birds over Lake Michigan in the vicinity of the Garden Peninsula apparently reorient themselves toward the peninsula. A September 2007 site visit conducted by Curry & Kerlinger qualitatively confirmed greater stopover on the Garden Peninsula in fall, as well as “morning flight,” – essentially a continuation of the migration after dawn – with many songbirds flying above the treetops on what appeared to be a reverse migration to the north within the peninsula.
Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Phase I Avian Risk Assessment
    PHASE I AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Report Prepared for: Heritage Sustainable Energy October 2007 Report Prepared by: Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D. John Guarnaccia Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569 [email protected] [email protected] Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project, Delta County, MI Phase I Avian Risk Assessment Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Executive Summary Heritage Sustainable Energy is proposing a utility-scale wind-power project of moderate size for the Garden Peninsula on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in Delta County. This peninsula separates northern Lake Michigan from Big Bay de Noc. The number of wind turbines is as yet undetermined, but a leasehold map provided to Curry & Kerlinger indicates that turbines would be constructed on private lands (i.e., not in the Lake Superior State Forest) in mainly agricultural areas on the western side of the peninsula, and possibly on Little Summer Island. For the purpose of analysis, we are assuming wind turbines with a nameplate capacity of 2.0 MW. The turbine towers would likely be about 78.0 meters (256 feet) tall and have rotors of about 39.0 m (128 feet) long. With the rotor tip in the 12 o’clock position, the wind turbines would reach a maximum height of about 118.0 m (387 feet) above ground level (AGL). When in the 6 o’clock position, rotor tips would be about 38.0 m (125 feet) AGL. However, larger turbines with nameplate capacities (up to 2.5 MW and more) reaching to 152.5 m (500 feet) are may be used.
    [Show full text]
  • Beaver Island 2003-06 June Beacon
    June 2003 $2.50 Beaver Beacon T h e I s l a n d M o n t h l y S i n c e 1 9 5 5 Beaver Island Wildlife Club creates new Walleye Pond Groundbreaking: Construction Begins on the new Health Center McDonough’s Market 70th Anniversary; Island Airways Hanger Party CMU / BIHS Summer Nature Walk Series; Planning for Museum Week Beaver Island News, Events, Photography, History, People, Art, and lots more... Contents 3. McDonough's Market Since 1933 On America's Beautiful "Emerald Isle" 38240 Michigan Avenue Beaver Island, MI 49782 (231) 448-2733 Full line of groceries. Custom-cut meat. Fresh Beaver Beacon the Island Monthly since 1955 produce, Beer, Wine, Liquor, Block & cube Published by ice. Movie rentals. Post cards. Beaver Island Paradise Bay Press clothing, Hardware, Toys, Public Telephone. Rural Arts & Culture Grant Update ..14. Beaver Beacon Small & major appliances, Greeting cards, Mary Gets a New Gallery .................15. P.O. Box 254 Roasting Jerry ..................................16. Beaver Island, MI 49782 Notary service. Michigan lottery. Fax, Money PABI Summer Solstice .................... 16. phone: (231) 448-2476 Fresh bakery items daily, espresso, cappuccino, deli salads, orders & transfers, Island maps. McDonough’s Market - 70 Years ..... 4. The Class Play: A Class Act ..............17. email: [email protected] sandwiches, pizza, ice cream, soft drinks, and much more! Don’t fix it if it’s not Baroque ........... 4. Lighthouse School News ................. 17. web: www.beaverbeacon.com Eat in or take out. (231) 448-2736. www.mcdonoughsmarket.com Graduation Time ............................. 5. News from the Townships ................18. Editors / Owners th Plans for the 4 of July ...................
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Coastal Program Strategic Plan
    U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE The Coastal Program ~ Strategic Plan ~ Stewardship of Fish and Wildlife Through Voluntary Conservation Regional Step-Down Plan Region 3 - “Great Lakes -Big Rivers” Part 2 of 3 FY 2007-2011 Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................1 II. Regional Overview..................................................................................................................... 3 Wetland Habitat Types............................................................................................................... 3 Coastal Upland Habitat Types ................................................................................................... 4 Stream/Riparian Habitat Types.................................................................................................. 5 Issues and Risks ......................................................................................................................... 6 Cooperative Conservation.......................................................................................................... 6 III. Goal One: Conserving Habitat................................................................................................. 7 Regional Objectives ................................................................................................................... 7 Key Strategic Activities ............................................................................................................
    [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]
  • CORA Code – Great Lakes Fishing Regulations
    CHIPPEWA OTTAWA RESOURCE AUTHORITY COMMERCIAL, SUBSISTENCE, AND RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE 1836 TREATY CEDED WATERS OF LAKES SUPERIOR, HURON, AND MICHIGAN Adopted August 31, 2000 Effective September 7, 2000 Revised March 4, 2019 CHIPPEWA OTTAWA RESOURCE AUTHORITY COMMERCIAL, SUBSISTENCE, AND RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE 1836 TREATY CEDED WATERS OF LAKES SUPERIOR, HURON, AND MICHIGAN CONTENTS PART ONE: GENERAL MATTERS PART FIVE: NON-COMMERCIAL FISHING I. Purpose……………………………………1 XVII. Recreational Fishing……………………….…28 II. Scope and Application……………………1 XVIII. Tribal Charter Boat Operations………………28 III. Definitions……………………………...1-4 XIX. Subsistence Fishing……………………….28-30 PART TWO: ZONES PART SIX: LICENSES AND INFORMATION IV. Commercial Fishing Zones………………4 XX. License and Registration Definitions and Regulations…………………………………...30 V. Tribal Zones………………………........4-8 XXI. License Regulations……………………....31-32 VI. Intertribal Zones………………………8-10 XXII. Harvest Reporting and Sampling………....32-34 VII. Trap Net Zones…………………........10-12 XXIII. Assessment Fishing……………………… 34-35 VIII. Closed or Limited Fishing Zones……12-14 PART THREE: GEAR PART SEVEN: REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT IX. Gear Restrictions……….…………......14-17 XXIV. Tribal Regulations……………………………35 X. State-Funded Trap Net Conversion Operations……………………………17-18 XXV. Orders of the Director…………………..........35 XXVI. Jurisdiction and Enforcement…………….35-37 PART FOUR: SPECIES XXVII. Criminal Provisions………………………….37 XI. Lake Trout…………………………...18-19 XII. Salmon……………………………….19-21 PART EIGHT: ACCESS XIII. Walleye…………………………….…21-23 XXVIII. Use of Access Sites……………………..37-38 XIV. Yellow Perch………………………...23-26 XV. Other Species………………………...26-27 XVI. Prohibited Species……………………… 27 CHIPPEWA OTTAWA RESOURCE AUTHORITY COMMERCIAL, SUBSISTENCE, AND RECREATIONAL FISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE 1836 TREATY CEDED WATERS OF LAKES SUPERIOR, HURON, AND MICHIGAN PART ONE: GENERAL MATTERS SECTION I.
    [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]
  • Dredging in Door County EA
    ~:NV .L RON~J J>N'l'AL ANALYS I S ON DREDGI NG lN f>OOK COUNTY 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EJS) Den~ltlllenl ol Natural Rosourcos (DNA) Fom>\600·1 Rev. 6·2001 Region or Bureau Northeast Type list Designation NOTE TO REVIEWERS: This document is a DNA envlrO<lmental Contact Psts<;Hl! analysis that evaluates probabfo Gnvironmental effects and deci<fes on the need for an EIS. The at.tach.cd analysis includes a descrlptlon ol llle Carrie Webb proposal and the affected environment. Tho DNA has roViewed Lhe attaohmenl$ ond, upon Certification, accepts rosponsiblUty for their scope and contsnt to fulfill requirements Ins. NR 150.22, Wis. Adm. Code. Tille: Water Management Specialist A<.'dress: 2984 Shawano Ave. Green Bay, WI 54313 Number: 920·662·5453 DREDGING IN DOOR COUNTY Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Purpose of the Environmental Analysis Authorities and Approvals Study Design Proposed Physical Changes Affected Environment Physical Environment Biological Environment Cultural Environment Environmental Consequences Physical Biological Cultural Summary of Adverse Impacts That Can Not Be Avoided DNA Evaluation of Project Significance Alternatives References Comments from the Public List of Figures & Tables Figure 1 - Map of study area and substrate type ~:tWTRONl1llNT11L 1\Nl\LYS!S ON ORF.flGINC IN DOOR (;QUN'l'Y 2 Figure 2- Aerial photo of 4 application proposals Figures 3 & 4 - Aerial photos of dredged channels Figure 5- Aerial photo of plume from dredging Table 1 -Summary of study results Appendices A - Application Plans B - List of Threatened and Endangered species C1 - Dredging study C2 - Dredging study attachments EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1999 and 2000 there was a dramatic increase in dredging applications on Green Bay and lake Michigan In Door County due to low water levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Progress Report for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment
    Restoration Progress Report for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment Fox River/Green Bay Natural Resource Trustees February 2013 Prepared by: Stratus Consulting The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a mission to work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. http://www.fws.gov/ The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is dedicated to the preservation, protection, effective management, and maintenance of Wisconsin’s natural resources. It is the one agency charged with full responsibility for coordinating the many disciplines and programs necessary to provide a clean environment and a full range of outdoor recreational opportunities for Wisconsin citizens and visitors. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/ The Oneida Indian Tribe’s Environmental Health and Safety Division protects and improves the health of the human and natural environment consistent with the Oneida Tribe’s culture and vision. They provide the highest level of environmental, health, and safety excellence to the Oneida Tribe. https://oneida-nsn.gov/ The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin’s Environmental Services Department aims to serve the Menominee Nation by defending the environmental integrity of the land, air, and water base which makes up the cultural and earth resources of the Menominee People. The protection of these resources will help to assure they are sustained for future generations of Menominee. http://www.menominee-nsn.gov/ Restoration Progress Report for the Lower Fox River and Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment Fox River/Green Bay Natural Resource Trustees February 2013 Prepared by: Stratus Consulting i Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Door Peninsula and Its Geomorphology
    WISCONSIN'S DOOR PENINSULA AND ITS GEOMORPHOLOGY Howard De II er AGS Collection, UW-Mllwaukee and Paul Stoelting University of Wisconsin-La Crosse The Door Peninsula of Wisconsin is one of the premier tourist regions of the American r~iddle West. According to a recent geography of Wisconsin (Vogeler et al 1986,8) , the region is best known for its picturesque sea­ scape, New England-style architecture, fish boils, and cherry orchards. Among geomorphologists, however, the region is known for the great variety of land­ form types and for the complex and changing geomorphological processes which have operated in the peninsula. Towering bluffs, sand dunes, lake terraces, abandoned beach ridges, swampy lowlands, and drumlin fields are only some of the many types of landforms to be found in the peninsula. Indeed, the region can be viewed as a unique geomorphological laboratory and an excellent example for classroom study. In this short paper an attempt is made to describe and analyze some of the more prominent landform features of the peninsula and the processes which have influenced their formation. LOCATION AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The Door Peninsula, located In northeastern Wisconsin. is part of the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands province of the state. The peninsula extends in a northeasterly direction into Lake Michigan to separate Green Bay on the west from the main body of Lake Michigan on the east. The peninsula is approximately 64 miles long and about 26 miles wide on its southern end, between the mouth of the Fox River and the city of Kewaunee on Lake Michigan (Map I).
    [Show full text]
  • Walleye Management Strategy for Little Bay De Noc, Lake Michigan
    Walleye management strategy for Little Bay de Noc, Lake Michigan Michigan DNR Fisheries Division Marquette Fisheries Research Station and Northern Lake Michigan Management Unit July 2012 Summary The purpose of this document it to provide a brief overview of: 1) the historical background of walleye stocks and fisheries in the Michigan waters of Green Bay; 2) recent changes in habitat conditions pertinent to walleye management; and 3) the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) current understanding of reproduction of Green Bay walleye stocks. This information provides the basis for the walleye management objectives for northern Green Bay and Little Bay de Noc (LBDN), and development of decision criteria specific to walleye management in LBDN. This approach can provide a template for walleye management decision-making in other areas of northern Green Bay, such as Big Bay de Noc (BBDN). Background on walleye stocks in the Michigan waters of Green Bay Walleye have provided commercial and sport fisheries in the Michigan waters of Green Bay for many years. Historical commercial harvest of walleyes for Lake Michigan came almost exclusively from northern Green Bay (Michigan Water Resources Commission 1963). For Michigan waters of Green Bay, walleye yields appeared to be highest in LBDN, followed by BBDN, and then the southern ports of Cedar River, Ingallston, and Menominee. The exact location of where walleyes were taken from cannot be pin-pointed from this information since commercial fishing licenses at this time stipulated that fish landed at ports could be taken from waters within 50 miles of the port. Nevertheless, available information suggests that walleye abundance was higher in LBDN than BBDN.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: a Second Iteration
    Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: A Second Iteration (Revised September 2000) Prepared by The Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program 8 South Michigan Avenue Suite 2301 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 759-8017 Copyright 2000 Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Toward A New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes In 1996, The Nature Conservancy’s Great Lakes Program launched a collaborative initiative to identify high priority biodiversity conservation sites in the Great Lakes region. This initiative was precipitated by the Conservancy broadening its focus beyond just rare and endangered species and natural communities. The Conservancy recognized that to effectively protect the full range of biodiversity, conservation efforts must include those species and natural communities that are more common and representative as well as those that are declining or vulnerable. Taking an Ecoregional Perspective To address this shift in focus, the Conservancy oriented its work based on ecoregions—large areas defined by the influences of shared climate and geology, the main factors that determine the broad-scale distribution of plants and animals.1 The Great Lakes ecoregion—which includes major portions of Canada and the United States—is one of 64 ecologically distinct regions of the continental United States. For each of these ecoregions, the Conservancy is developing a detailed plan that identifies the places that need to be protected to conserve native biodiversity for the long term. At many of these places, local communities, private landowners and an array of public and private entities are already leading important conservation efforts. The Great Lakes ecoregional planning initiative is a systematic approach that identifies all native species, natural communities and aquatic systems characteristic of the Great Lakes region and then determines how many of and where these elements of biodiversity need to be protected over the long term.
    [Show full text]