DOCSLIB.ORG

Park Point Small Area Plan Are Contained in Appendix a 2 Park Point Small Area Plan TABLE of CONTENTS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Park Point Small Area Plan Are Contained in Appendix a 2 Park Point Small Area Plan TABLE of CONTENTS P P OINT ARK SMALL AREA PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mayor City Planning Division Staff Don Ness Keith Hamre, Director John Judd, Senior Planner City Council John Kelley, Planner II Zack Filipovich Steven Robertson, AICP, Senior Planner Jay Fosle Kyle Deming, Planner II Sharla Gardner Jenn Reed Moses, AICP, Planner II Howie Hanson Jennifer Julsrud Small Area Plan Committee Linda Krug Sharla Gardner, City Council Emily Larson Heather Rand, City Planning Commission Barb Russ Thomas Beery, City Parks and Recreation Commission Joel Sipress John Goldfine, Business Representative Jan Karon, Resident Planning Commission Sally Raushenfels, Resident Marc Beeman Dawn Buck, Resident Terry Guggenbuehl Deb Kellner, Resident Janet Kennedy Kinnan Stauber, Resident Tim Meyer Garner Moffat Heather Rand Luke Sydow Michael Schraepfer Zandra Zwiebel City Council Resolutions for the Park Point Small Area Plan are contained in Appendix A 2 Park Point Small Area Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Assessment ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose of the Plan .................................................................................................................................... 5 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Principles ...................................................................................................... 5 Study Area................................................................................................................................................. 6 Plan Process .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Previous Planning Efforts ............................................................................................................................ 6 Demographics ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Land Use & Zoning ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Transportation ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Environmental Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 14 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 18 Goal 1 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 18 Goal 2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 18 Goal 3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 19 Goal 4 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 20 Goal 5 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 24 Implementation Plan .................................................................................................................................. 27 Appendices Appendix A: City Council Resolutions and Summaries Appendix B: Neighborhood Access Point/Tier Two Access Summary LIST OF MAPS & FIGURES Maps Figures 1: Study Area .............................................................. 7 1: Average Densities .....................................................8 2-A to 2-C: Zoning ................................................ 10-12 2: Age Group Population ...............................................9 3: St. Louis Recreation Route ...................................... 15 3: Owner–Occupied and Rental Units .............................9 4: S-Curve Rendering ................................................. 21 4: Traffic Counts......................................................... 13 5: Sidewalk Analysis ................................................... 14 6: Street Ends ............................................................ 26 3 May 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Park Point has evolved into a mix of commercial and To determine carrying capacity of the land in terms of residential development, which has created incompatibili- infrastructure for future commercial and residential ties in land use. Recent planning and development activi- development opportunities. ty on Park Point, including the City’s implementation of To define public access/use of improved and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, commercial develop- unimproved rights-of-way (Street-Ends). ment including two hotel approvals, public access issues, and infrastructure (water and sewer) capacity concerns, To improve wayfinding-signage for recreational, has raised a number of questions regarding changes to residential and commercial use. existing land use patterns and the character of the Park To provide safe and convenient motorized and non- Point neighborhood. Therefore, it is necessary for the motorized transportation options throughout the study City to study the area in greater detail to develop and area. implement a long term plan that will maintain but also enhance the neighborhood character for residents and To facilitate a park planning process for park visitors of Park Point. improvements. Each goal has specific recommendations for long and short The planning process included stakeholder and public term implementation. Many require ongoing partnerships input. In addition two public meetings were held gather between the City, non-profit organizations, businesses, and input on a vision for Park Point. As a result of back- neighbors. The recommendations continue the City’s policy ground research, previous study recommendations and of strengthening neighborhoods through land use changes recent planning and development activity, the following and neighborhood stabilization. An important part of this five goals were created: planning process was identifying win-win recommendations such as safer modes of travel, including vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle travel, wayfinding, and public access points to the lake and bay. 4 Park Point Small Area Plan ASSESSMENT Background Comprehensive Plan Principles Minnesota Point, more commonly known as Park Point, com- The twelve Governing Principles adopted in the 2006 bined with Wisconsin Point is the largest freshwater sandbar Comprehensive Land Use Plan provide the fundamental in the world. Park Point was the location of some of the earli- concepts guiding all of the Comprehensive Plan’s recom- est settlement in Duluth. Over time, Park Point became pri- mendations. They provide direction when details of the marily a seasonal community with many summer residents. As plan itself are insufficiently clear to resolve issues or the Duluth area grew in numbers, so did the year-round resi- make decisions. These principles also served as a frame- dents on Park Point. The developed area on Park Point is pri- work and guide during the development of the Higher marily residential. Park Point is known for its unique cultural Education Small Area Plan. The Governing Principles are: features including waterfront parks and open space, marinas, 1. Reuse previously developed lands sight-seeing and scenic viewing opportunities and water and land-based recreation. Park Point is also home to several sig- 2. Declare the necessity and secure the future of un- nificant natural features, which include white and red pine developed places forest, sand dunes, beach grass, and wetlands. Park Point is unique and important because of its great diversity of habitats 3. Support Duluth’s traditional economic base which provide roosting, foraging, and nesting opportunities for a wide variety of bird species. A majority of the land area is 4. Support emerging economic growth sectors utilized for recreational purposes and this, combined with the 5. Strengthen neighborhoods unique cultural and natural features, makes Park Point a true gem for the city of Duluth. 6. Reinforce the place-specific Purpose of the Plan 7. Create and maintain connectivity The Comprehensive Plan, adopted in June of 2006, recognized 8. Encourage a mix of activities, uses, and densities that there were areas of the City where uncertainty about 9. Support private actions that contribute to the public market conditions, ownership patterns, or infrastructural ca- realm pacity was particularly high, and that those areas would re- quire additional study to guide possible modifications to the 10. Take sustainable actions future land use map. Although Park Point was not included in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a future study area, 11. Include considerations for education systems in land there has been strong interest by residents and City officials use actions to complete a Small Area Plan. 12. Create efficiencies in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2012 St. Louis River Summit Proceedings
    St. Louis River Estuary Science Summit 2012 March 8 & 9 University of Wisconsin - Superior Yellowjacket Union St. Louis River Estuary Summit (March 2012) Page 2 Acknowledgments Thanks are owed to many people and organizations for support of this very grass-roots event. Special thanks to the following organizations who provided funding and in-kind contributions: Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve University of Wisconsin Extension University of Wisconsin – Superior Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Barr Engineering Company US Environmental Protection Agency – Mid-Continent Ecology Division Enbridge Engineering Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Wisconsin Sea Grant West Wisconsin Land Trust Limnotech Minnesota Sea Grant Organizing committee: Shon Schooler, Lake Superior NERR Sarah Johnson, Northland College John Jereczek, MN DNR Nick Danz, UW Superior Pat Collins, US FWS David Bolgrien, US EPA Rick Gitar, Fond du Lac Reservation Editors: Shon Schooler, Seth Bliss, Ralph Garono, and Patrick Collins Published by The Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve, Superior, WI LSNERR Document number: 2012-R-1002 Cover photo by Sue OHalloran Interior Photos by Michel Anderson (www.singingcanoe.smugmug.com) St. Louis River Estuary Summit (March 2012) Page 3 Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................6 Abstracts for Oral Presentations ..................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP) 2015-2019
    Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan 2015 - 2019 The Lake Superior Partnership September 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was made possible by the many individuals and organizations working to restore and protect the Lake Superior ecosystem. The document builds upon many relevant local, tribal, state provincial, national and binational plans. Special thanks to all those involved in preparing A Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Lake Superior (LSBP, 2015); to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Lake Superior Technical Committee; to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Lakewide Management Annex (Annex 2) Subcommittee; to the numerous stakeholder groups that helped to refine the document through their review and comments at various stages of development; and to all the individuals of the Lake Superior Partnership who contributed to the LAMP’s development and who will be collaborating during the implementation of this plan. This document was prepared by the Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan Writing Team, co-chaired by Rob Hyde of Environment and Climate Change Canada (formerly Environment Canada) and Liz LaPlante of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Writing Team members included: Jen Ballinger (GLIFWC), Marilee Chase (MNRF), Faith Fitzpatrick (USGS), John Jereczek (MNDNR), Ann McCammon-Soltis (GLIFWC), Michelle McChristie (MOECC), Henry Quinlan (USFWS), Mike Ripley (CORA), Lisa Sealock (ECCC), Stephanie Swart (MDEQ), Brent Schleck (NOAA), Amy Thomas (Battelle), Michele Wheeler (WDNR) and Laurie
    [Show full text]
  • Hawk Migration Over the Western Tip of Lake Superior1
    HAWK MIGRATION OVER THE WESTERN TIP OF LAKE SUPERIOR1 P. B. HOFSLUND INCE 1951, members of the Duluth Bird Club and the Minnesota Ornithol- S ogists ’ Union have spent slightly more than 922 hours of 201 days in counting the hawks that pass over the city of Duluth during the fall migration. In this time we have tallied 159,397 individuals, an average of 172+ hawks per hour of observation. The pattern of flight can be discerned to some extent by studying Tables 1 and 2. The 93,187 Broad-winged Hawks (Buteo platypterus) and 33,475 Sharp-shinned Hawks (Accipiter striatus) make up nearly 80 per cent of the count (actually they probably make up over 80 per cent, as the 16,852 un- identified hawks more than likely contain a great percentage of these two species). The relative position of the other 12 regular species perhaps does not express accurately the true picture of the flight. There is a bias due to an uneven distribution of observation periods through the three main months of the flight. Prior to 1961, only 28 days were given to the period following the end of the big Broadwing flights in September. Consequently, we have missed, in most years, the peak Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicemis) , Rough-legged Hawk (B. Zagopus), and Goshawk (Accipiter gent&s) flights. Prior to 1961, only 80 Goshawks were tallied; since 1961, 1,117 have graced our tally sheets. It was not at all unusual in 1963 to count more Goshawks in a single observation period than we had tallied as a total during the first 10 years of observation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lighthouses – Clippings
    GREAT LAKES MARINE COLLECTION MILWAUKEE PUBLIC LIBRARY/WISCONSIN MARINE HISTORICAL SOCIETY MARINE SUBJECT FILES LIGHTHOUSE CLIPPINGS Current as of November 7, 2018 LIGHTHOUSE NAME – STATE - LAKE – FILE LOCATION Algoma Pierhead Light – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan - Algoma Alpena Light – Michigan – Lake Huron - Alpena Apostle Islands Lights – Wisconsin – Lake Superior - Apostle Islands Ashland Harbor Breakwater Light – Wisconsin – Lake Superior - Ashland Ashtabula Harbor Light – Ohio – Lake Erie - Ashtabula Badgeley Island – Ontario – Georgian Bay, Lake Huron – Badgeley Island Bailey’s Harbor Light – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan – Bailey’s Harbor, Door County Bailey’s Harbor Range Lights – Wisconsin – Lake Michigan – Bailey’s Harbor, Door County Bala Light – Ontario – Lake Muskoka – Muskoka Lakes Bar Point Shoal Light – Michigan – Lake Erie – Detroit River Baraga (Escanaba) (Sand Point) Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – Sand Point Barber’s Point Light (Old) – New York – Lake Champlain – Barber’s Point Barcelona Light – New York – Lake Erie – Barcelona Lighthouse Battle Island Lightstation – Ontario – Lake Superior – Battle Island Light Beaver Head Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – Beaver Island Beaver Island Harbor Light – Michigan – Lake Michigan – St. James (Beaver Island Harbor) Belle Isle Lighthouse – Michigan – Lake St. Clair – Belle Isle Bellevue Park Old Range Light – Michigan/Ontario – St. Mary’s River – Bellevue Park Bete Grise Light – Michigan – Lake Superior – Mendota (Bete Grise) Bete Grise Bay Light – Michigan – Lake Superior
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Resources Investigations in Wisconsin, 2004
    Water-Resources Investigations in Wisconsin, 2004 Open-File Report 2004–1403 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations in Wisconsin, 2004 Compiled by Jennifer L. Bruce, Michelle M. Greenwood, and Susan Z. Jones Open-File Report 2004–1403 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services Box 25286, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Contents iii Contents Basic Mission and Projects ...................................................................................................................vii Wisconsin District Organizational Chart ...............................................................................................ix Cooperators ................................................................................................................................................x Summary of Hydrologic Conditions .......................................................................................................xi Surface-Water and Sediment Studies Team ...........................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • WISCONSIN POINT TRAIL MAP CHIPPEWA BURIAL SITE Near the End of the Point Is the Sign Announcing the Chippewa Burial Site And
    CHIPPEWA BURIAL SITE THE LIGHT HOUSE WISCONSIN POINT TRAIL MAP Near the end of the point is the sign Wisconsin Point Light House sits at the announcing the Chippewa burial site entrance to Superior Harbor on a pier jutting and the stone marker. The marker from the end of a three-mile spit of land, reads: “Here was the burial ground of which protects the ore docks and the harbor. the Fond du Lac Band of the Chip- The peninsula became city park space except pewa People dating from the 17th for the tip where the lighthouse and Army century. It was removed in 1919 to St Corps buildings were constructed. Francis Cemetery, Superior.” Wisconsin Point, along with Minnesota Point, report- edly make up the largest freshwater sandbar in the world. 203 acres with 2 3/4 miles of beach Bird watching, hiking, beach use, and duck hunting Watchable Wildlife area Historical marker for a sacred Chippewa bur- ial ground Superior entry lighthouse Important Items to Note Motor vehicle traffic and parking is prohib- ited between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. on Wisconsin Point Road, including any parking areas, beyond Lot #1, except during the spring smelt run season as defined by the Parks and Recreation Department The burial site is covered with items left Glass beverage containers are prohibited by visitors through the years, such as Fires may not be started closer than ten (10) beads and feathers, stuffed animals, feet from the nearest plant life walking sticks, coins, and tobacco. Camping is not allowed between the hours of 10:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Louis and Lower Nemadji River Watershed
    Wisconsin St. Louis and Lower Nemadji Watersheds River Watershed 2010 Water Quality Management Plan Update Lake Superior Basin, Wisconsin August, 2010 The t.S Louis River, the largest U.S. tributary to Lake Superior, drains 3,634 square miles, entering the southwestern corner of the lake between Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin. The river flows 179 miles through three distinct areas: coarse soils, glacial till and outwash deposits at its headwaters; a deep, narrow gorge at Jay Cooke State Park in Minnesota; and red clay deposits in its lower reaches. As the St. Louis River approaches Duluth and Superior, the river takes on the characteristics of a 12,000 Contents acre freshwater estuary. The upper estuary has some Watershed Details 1 wilderness-like areas, while the lower estuary is character- Population and Land Use . 1 ized by urban development, an industrial harbor, and Ecological Landscapes . 3 a major port. The lower estuary includes St. Louis Bay, Other Details . 3 Map 1: St Louis River and Lower Nemadji Superior Bay, Allouez Bay, Kimball’s Bay, Pokegama Bay, River Watershed Invasive Species . 3 Howard’s Bay, and the lower Nemadji River. Historical Note . 4 Watershed Details Watershed Condition 4 Priority Issues . 4 Water Quality Goals . 4 Population and Land Use Overall Condition . 4 The watershed is dominated by Point and Nonpoint Sources . 5 forests (65%), agriculture (9%), Fish Consumption Advice . 5 followed closely by open water River and Stream Condition . 5 and open space (8%) (Figure 1). Lakes and Embayments . 16 Wetlands . 17 In 1987, the International Joint Waters of Note: . .22 Commission, an advisory com- mission on U.S-Canadian border Watershed Actions 23 Figure 1: Land Use in the St Louis and Lower Nemadji River Partnership Activities .
    [Show full text]
  • STATE-REGION7 FUTURE Great Lakes Region
    STATE-REGION7 FUTURE -'adeavailable under NASA sponsorWip Great Lakes Region in the interc-st of early and wide dis. sominiation of Earth Resources Survey - O Program inforration and without liability for any use m-Ue thereof." ft.14 /, a / 7 1'975 NationalWater Assessment ' E91O3) STAT' -REGIZONAI ]FUTU]RE GR /- N79-30594 ,LAKES REGION: IBM 1975 NIAfIONaL WATEE ,A.SESSHENIT (Great Liakes Basin Comm'ission) , /­ / / All / Juy 97 iE 1023\t6 •TT-EII c- # - I ~ . 7 NataJaonal Ws STATE-REGIONJ FUTURE Made available under NASA sponsorWip Great Lakes Region Ithe intercst of early and wide dis. ,minat,on of Earth Resources Survey if. - 1 ­ rograril Iqfcrtion and without liability I rany use m-Ude thereof." 4 ~~44of ,~~~ I Irlrf Ii :15 7' 1975 National Water Assessment '(E7~9jI0233) STAT' -REGIONA1 , < PUTU1E GRtEAT t r N79_30594/ LAKES REGION: THI 1975 11fICNAL flER 'ASSESSMENT (Great,ftakes Basin Commission) 119 p A~C A09/MP A01 / ) /"- C\sc/8l / Inclas - /fl" 'G3/43 00233, / / 1 I \ / iiI, I I I II I - - \fj i 1 \ Ii STATE-REGIONAL FUTURE GREAT LAKES REGION 1975 National Water Assessment Great Lakes Basin Commission July 1976 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION......................... 1 REGIONAL GOALS ........... ............... .......... 7 LAKE SUPERIOR REGIONAL GOALS . ................. 8 LAKE MICHIGAN REGIONAL GOALS ....... .................... 15 LAKE HURON REGIONAL GOALS ........ ...................... 22 LAKE ERIE REGIONAL GOALS . .............. 25 LAKE ONTARIO REGIONAL GOALS ...... 32 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS........ ..................... 41 LAKE SUPERIOR REGION - ASA 01 ..... .. ..... 43 NORTHWESTERN LAKE MICHIGAN REGION - ASA 02 .... ........... 47 SOUTHWESTERN LAKE MICHIGAN REGION - ASA 03 . 47 EASTERN LAKE MICHIGAN REGION - ASA 04..... ........ .. 47 LAKE HURON REGION - ASA 05 .
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Superior Streams
    EPA-905/9-79-004 January 1979 RED CLAY TURBIDITY AND ITS TRANSPORT IN LAKE SUPERIOR by Michael Sydor Richard T. Clapper Gordon J. Oman Kirby R. Stortz Physics Department University of Minnesota, Duluth Duluth, Minnesota 55812 E.P.A. Grant No. R005175-01 Project Officer Anthony G. Kizlauskas U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V Great Lakes National Program Office Chicago, Illinois 60605 GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION V CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60605 DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National Program Office, Region V, -U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor doesmentionof trade names constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ii FOREWORD The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created because of increasing public and governmental concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural envi­ ronment. The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. EPA was established in Region V, Chicago, to provide a specific focus on the water quality concerns of the Great Lakes. GLNPO provides funding and personnel support to the International Joint Commission activities under the U.S.­ Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Several water quality studies have been funded to support the Upper Lakes Reference Group (ULRG) under the Agreement to address specific objec­ tives related to pollution in the Upper Lakes (Lake Superior and Lake Huron).
    [Show full text]
  • St. Louis River Restoration Initiative
    he St. Louis River is among 43 Great Lakes “Areas THE Federal funding from the Great Lakes Restoration Tof Concern” listed through the Great Lakes Water Initiative, and new Minnesota sales tax funds give us Quality Agreement between the U.S. and Canada in unprecedented opportunities to proceed with clean-up the 1980s. These “Areas of Concern” share a history S T. LOUI S RIVER and restoration of the St. Louis River Estuary & Harbor. of past industrial uses when dumping waste on land and water was common place. These past practices left Restoration Initiative For more information on the St. Louis River Remedial innesota and Wisconsin have worked Action Plan, the Lower St. Louis River Habitat Plan Mtogether for over 20 years to improve the St. “legacy” pollutants in bottom sediment, which degraded and goals for the St. Louis River see: Louis River. Our strong partnerships have made great habitat for fish and wildlife, and contributed to human www.stlouisriver.org progress to clean up, restore, and protect our water. health risks. The Water Quality Agreement called upon However, important clean-up projects still need to be states, provinces, and the federal governments to clean completed. With these new funding sources, we can up these areas. Sustained funding, however, has not been This brochure was developed by: make major progress to restore and protect the value available to fully realize this goal. In 1992, the states of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources of our St. Louis River, estuary, and harbor. Minnesota and Wisconsin developed a Remedial Action Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Plan for the St.
    [Show full text]
  • May 14, 2021 DOUGLAS COUNTY LAND
    May 14, 2021 DOUGLAS COUNTY LAND CONSERVATION COMMITTEE Tuesday, May 18, 2021, 10:00 a.m. Government Center, Boardroom 201 1316 North 14th Street, Superior, Wisconsin OR JOIN BY PHONE: (US) +1 252-584-0118 PIN: 782 923 307# OR VIDEO: https://meet.google.com/ffx-amnz-oki *Due to COVID-19 concerns, members of the committee and public may attend the meeting remotely. Please call the Chair or County Clerk’s Office (715-395-1569) if you are unable to attend. MEMBERS: Sue Hendrickson, Chair Mary Lou Bergman, Vice Chair Kathryn McKenzie Larry Luostari Jim Soyring, FSA Wendy Bong AMENDED A G E N D A (Committee to maintain a two-hour meeting limit or take action to continue meeting beyond that time.) 1. Roll call. 2. Approval of minutes from the March 16, 2021, meeting (attached). 3. Presentation: Manure storage facilities – Nathan Johnstad, Stacy Dehne, Jane Anklam. 4. Action items: a. Recommend creation of committee to review Ordinance #8.15 – Douglas County Animal Manure Storage (attached); b. Support creation of agriculture enterprise area(s) in Douglas County (attached); c. Wildlife Damage and Abatement Program: 1. Report; and 2. Resolution (attached). d. Aquatic Invasive Species Strategic Plan approval (attached); e. Environmental Reserve Fund: 1. Funding requests: a. $600 for 2021 rain barrel project (attached); b. $200 for Minong Flowage drawdown, including letter of support (attached); and c. $1,002.86 for Pleasant View Road community well abandonment (attached). 2. Application revision (attached). f. Grant account creation (attached): 1. Superior Bay and Pickle Pond Yellow Iris Response – 61429; and 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Superior National Estuarine Research Reserve LAKE SUPERIOR NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
    ManageMent Plan 2010 - 2015 Lake Superior National estuarine research reserve LAKE SUPERIOR NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2010-2015 Prepared by: University of Wisconsin-Extension September 2010 Prepared for: U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management Estuarine Reserves Division 1305 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 University of Wisconsin - Extension 432 North Lake Street Madison, WI 53706 This Management Plan has been developed in accordance with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) regulations, including all provisions for public involvement. It is consistent with the congressional intent of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and the provisions of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. This publication is funded, in part, through a grant agreement with the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management under the Coastal Zone Management Act, Grant # NA08NOS4200405. Cover photography by: Michael K. Anderson Interior photography by: Amy Elliot, Becky Sapper, Michael K. Anderson, Patrick Robinson, Lynelle Hanson and Frank Koshere - WDNR Graphic Design by: Amy B. Torrey - UW Extension Lake Superior NatioNaL EstuariNe RESEARCH RESERVe 2010-2015 i | Table of Contents Table of Contents LIST OF APPENDICES iii LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF MAPS iv LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF ACRONYMS v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 INTRODUCTION 6 Purpose and Scope of the Lake Superior NERR Management Plan. 6 Description of the Lake Superior NERR. 7 Great Lakes Freshwater Estuaries. 7 Lake Superior NERR Key Attributes and Setting.
    [Show full text]