DOCSLIB.ORG

Double-Crested Cormorant Damage Management in Michigan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Double-Crested Cormorant Damage Management in Michigan FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT DAMAGE MANAGEMENT IN MICHIGAN Prepared By: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES In Cooperation with: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE June 2011 SUMMARY The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (USDA, APHIS, WS), the United States Department of the Interior (USDI), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the USDI National Park Service, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore have prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) on alternatives for the management of Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus, DCCO) damage in Michigan. Increases in the North American DCCO population, and subsequent range expansion have resulted in complaints of DCCO damage to property, aquaculture, and public resources (e.g., co-nesting colonial waterbirds, sport and commercial fish populations, and vegetation), and risks to human health and safety (e.g., risk of DCCO collisions with aircraft). This EA analyzes the need for cormorant damage management (CDM) in Michigan and five alternatives for meeting the need for action including implementation of the Public Resource Depredation Order (PRDO) (50 CFR 21.48) as promulgated by the USFWS. Alternatives considered include: 1) continuing the current CDM program including implementation of the PRDO (No Action Alternative); 2) Implementing an adaptive management program proposed by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (MDNR); 3) implementing an adaptive management program proposed by the MDNR with a limit on annual DCCO take intermediate to the current program and the MDNR proposal; 4) Restricting Federal agency CDM to the use of nonlethal methods; and 5) Discontinuing CDM by Federal agencies. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, an Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM) approach would be implemented to reduce cormorant damage and conflicts to aquaculture, property, and natural resources, and risks to human health and safety in localized situations when it is deemed necessary. Cormorant damage management would be conducted on public and private property in Michigan when the resource owner (property owner) or manager requests assistance and all necessary permits and authorizations have been obtained. Landowner/resource manager permission would be obtained prior to conducting CDM activities at any site. The IWDM strategy would involve the use of practical and effective methods of preventing or reducing damage while minimizing harmful effects of damage management measures on humans, target and non-target species, and the environment. The agencies could provide technical assistance and direct operational damage management, including nonlethal and lethal management methods. When appropriate, physical exclusion, habitat modification, or harassment would be recommended and utilized to reduce damage. In other situations, birds would be humanely removed through use of shooting, egg oiling/destruction, nest destruction, or euthanasia following live capture. In determining the damage management strategy, preference would be given to practical and effective nonlethal methods. However, nonlethal methods may not always be applied as a first response to each damage problem. The most appropriate response could often be a combination of nonlethal and lethal methods, or there could be instances where the application of lethal methods alone would be the most appropriate strategy. All management activities would comply with applicable Federal, State, tribal, and local laws. The USFWS would be responsible for ensuring compliance with the PRDO regulations at 50 CFR 21.48, so that the long-term sustainability of regional DCCO populations is not threatened by CDM activities. 2011 Michigan Cormorant Damage Management EA Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ II TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. III ACRONYMS VII CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................................................ 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 DECISION TO BE MADE ................................................................................................. 2 1.4 NEED FOR ACTION ......................................................................................................... 3 1.4.1 Potential DCCO Impact on Aquaculture ................................................................ 4 1.4.2 Potential DCCO Impact on Fishery Resources ....................................................... 4 1.4.3 Potential DCCO Impact on Wildlife and Native Vegetation, Including T&E Species .................................................................................................................... 4 1.4.4 Potential DCCO Impact on Property ...................................................................... 4 1.4.5 Potential DCCO Impact on Human Health and Safety ........................................... 5 1.5 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 5 1.5.1 Double-crested Cormorants in Michigan ................................................................ 5 1.5.2 Potential DCCO Impact on Aquaculture ................................................................ 6 1.5.3 Potential DCCO Impact on Fishery Resources ....................................................... 9 1.5.3.1 Les Cheneaux Islands .............................................................................. 10 1.5.3.2 Thunder Bay............................................................................................. 14 1.5.3.3 Bays de Noc ............................................................................................. 17 1.5.3.4 Beaver Islands Archipelago ..................................................................... 19 1.5.3.5 Bellow Island ........................................................................................... 22 1.5.3.6 Paquin and Naubinway Islands ................................................................ 23 1.5.3.7 St. Marys River ........................................................................................ 23 1.5.3.8 Tahquamenon Island ................................................................................ 24 1.5.3.9 Ludington Pumped Storage Project ......................................................... 24 1.5.3.10 Fish Spawning Areas and Release Sites for Stocked Fish ..................... 26 1.5.4 Potential DCCO Impact on Wildlife and Native Vegetation, Including T&E Species .................................................................................................................. 27 1.5.5 Potential DCCO Impact on Property .................................................................... 30 1.5.6 Potential DCCO Impact on Human Health and Safety ......................................... 31 1.5.7 Michigan DCCO Coordination Group .................................................................. 33 1.5.8 Proposed Initial DCCO Population Management Objectives for Breeding Colonies in Michigan ............................................................................................ 33 1.5.8.1 General Objectives ................................................................................... 33 1.5.8.2 MDNRE Management Objectives ........................................................... 35 1.5.8.3 Tribal CDM Projects ................................................................................ 39 1.5.8.4 National Wildlife Refuge Policy .............................................................. 42 1.5.8.5 Future PRDO Projects.............................................................................. 42 1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ............................ 43 2011 Michigan Cormorant Damage Management EA Page iii 1.7 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................................. 43 1.7.1 Actions Analyzed .................................................................................................. 43 1.7.2 Period for Which this EA is Valid ........................................................................ 44 1.7.3 American Indian Tribes and Land ........................................................................ 44 1.7.4 Site Specificity ...................................................................................................... 45 1.7.5 Summary of Public Involvement .......................................................................... 46 1.8 AUTHORITY AND COMPLIANCE ............................................................................... 46 1.8.1 Authority of each Cooperating Agency in CDM in Michigan ............................. 49 1.8.2 Compliance
Load more

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]
  • Lake Michigan Part 1 a Publication of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council May 2019 Vol
    Inland Seas Angler GREAT LAKES BASIN REPORT Special Report – Lake Michigan Part 1 A Publication of the Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council May 2019 http://www.great-lakes.org Vol. 30, No. 5.3a Highlights of the Annual Lake Committee Meetings Great Lakes Fishery Commission proceedings, Ypsilanti, MI This third of a series of annual special reports is a two-part summary of Lake Michigan. This lake committee report is from the annual Lake Committee meetings hosted by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in March 2019. We encourage reproduction with the appropriate credit to the GLSFC and the agencies involved. Our thanks to IL DNR, IN DNR, MI DNR; USFWS; USGS and the many other DNR biologists who make this all happen, and also thanks to the staffs of the GLFC and USGS for their contributions to these science documents. Thanks also to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, its staff, Bob Lamb & Marc Gaden, for their efforts in again convening and hosting the Lake Committee meetings in Ypsilanti, MI. Lake Michigan – Part 1 Index of Reports Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations in Lake Michigan, 2018 (USGS) pgs 2 – 10 Summary of 2018 Salmonine Stocking in Lake Michigan pgs 10 – 12 Harvest of Fishes from Lake Michigan during 2018 pgs 12 – 19 Status of Yellow Perch in Lake Michigan, 2018 pgs 20 – 22 Highlights . Age distribution of alewives remained truncated with no alewife age exceeding 5 years . Bloater biomass was 2.60 kg/ha in 2018, unchanged from 2017, but still only 14% of the long-term average. Round goby biomass was 1.25 kg/ha in 2018, the 3rd largest estimate in the time series .
    [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]
  • State of Michigan
    MICHIGAN The Status of Lighthouses MICHIGAN’S LIGHTHOUSES November 1998 NAME S TATI O N LIGHT OTHER IMPORTANT DATES NATIONAL REGISTER COUNTY NEAREST SITING LOCATION DESCRIPTION OWNERSHIP LESSEE OPEN TO PUBLIC EST. CONST. CITY 1 Alpena Light Station 1877 1914 Determined eligible by USCG; Alpena Alpena Breakwater NE side of entrance to U.S.C.G. No SHPO concurs 2 AuSable (Big Sable) Light Station 1874 1874 1909-Addition to keeper’s house Listed 5/23/78 Alger Grand Marais Land based On AuSable Point, W U.S.C.G. Of Grand Marais 3 Beaver Island (Beaver Head) Light Station 1851 1858 1866-Keeper’s house const. Listed 12/29/78 Charlevoix St. James Land based S. Shore of Beaver Island Charlevoix P.S. 4 Beaver Island Harbor (St. James) Light Station 1852 1870 Determined eligible by USCG; Charlevoix St. James Land based N side of entrance to Beaver U.S.C.G. SHPO concurs Island Harbor 5 Bete Grise (Mendota) Light Station 1870 1895 Keweenaw Bete Grise Land based S. Side of entrance to Mendota Private No Canal 6 Big Bay Point Light Station 1896 1896 Listed 10/12/88 Marquette Big Bay Land based Big Bay Point, 24 miles Big Bay B & B Grounds (11-4) Tower NW of Marquette 1st Sunday, no Children 7 Big Sable Point (Grande Pt. AuSable) Light Station 1867 1867 1900-Tower encased in steel; 1905- Listed 8/4/83 Mason Ludington Land based Big Sable Pt. 8 miles NW U.S.C.G. Big Sable Pt. Light- watchroom encased of Ludington House Keepers Assoc.
    [Show full text]
  • Final 2012 NHLPA Report Noapxb.Pub
    GSA Office of Real Property Utilization and Disposal 2012 PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS REPORT NATIONAL HISTORIC LIGHTHOUSE PRESERVATION ACT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lighthouses have played an important role in America’s For More Information history, serving as navigational aids as well as symbols of our rich cultural past. Congress passed the National Information about specific light stations in the Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act (NHLPA) in 2000 to NHLPA program is available in the appendices and establish a lighthouse preservation program that at the following websites: recognizes the cultural, recreational, and educational National Park Service Lighthouse Heritage: value of these iconic properties, especially for local http://www.nps.gov/history/maritime/lt_index.htm coastal communities and nonprofit organizations as stewards of maritime history. National Park Service Inventory of Historic Light Stations: http://www.nps.gov/maritime/ltsum.htm Under the NHLPA, historic lighthouses and light stations (lights) are made available for transfer at no cost to Federal agencies, state and local governments, and non-profit organizations (i.e., stewardship transfers). The NHLPA Progress To Date: NHLPA program brings a significant and meaningful opportunity to local communities to preserve their Since the NHLPA program’s inception in 2000, 92 lights maritime heritage. The program also provides have been transferred to eligible entities. Sixty-five substantial cost savings to the United States Coast percent of the transferred lights (60 lights) have been Guard (USCG) since the historic structures, expensive to conveyed through stewardship transfers to interested repair and maintain, are no longer needed by the USCG government or not-for-profit organizations, while 35 to meet its mission as aids to navigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lighthouse Construction Dates Styles
    Lighthouses of Michigan Lighthouse Name Station Established Light Constructed Style Tower Fort Gratiot 1825 1829 Thunder Bay Island 1832 1832 Presque Isle (Old) 1840 1840 Beaver Island (Beaver Head) 1851 1851 tower attached to dwelling conical Waugoshance 1832 1851 Rock Harbor 1855 1855 tower attached to dwelling conical Charity Island 1857 1857 tower attached to dwelling conical Pointe Aux Barques 1848 1857 tower attached to dwelling conical Grand Traverse 1852 1858 schoolhouse (b) Point Betsie 1858 1858 tower attached to dwelling conical St. Clair Flats South Channel Rear Range 1859 1859 St. Clair Flats South Channel Front Range 1859 1859 Manitou Island 1850 1861 Steel Skeletal attached to dwelling Steel Skeletal Whitefish Point 1848 1861 Steel Skeletal attached to dwelling Steel Skeletal Reconstruction (1865-1877) Marquette Harbor 1853 1866 schoolhouse (a) Copper Harbor 1849 1866 schoolhouse (a) Peninsula Point 1866 1866 schoolhouse (a) Grand Island North 1854 1867 schoolhouse (a) Big Sable Point 1867 1867 tower attached to dwelling conical Gull Rock 1867 1867 schoolhouse (a) Sand Point (Escanaba) 1867 1867 schoolhouse (a) Ontonagon 1852 1867 schoolhouse (a) Granite Island 1868 1868 schoolhouse (a) Copper Harbor Rear Range 1868 1868 schoolhouse (b) Copper Harbor Front Range 1868 1868 n/a South Fox Island 1868 1868 schoolhouse (a) Bois Blanc Island 1829 1868 schoolhouse (a) Sturgeon Point 1869 1869 tower attached to dwelling conical McGulpin's Point 1869 1869 Tudor Beaver Island Harbor (St. James) 1852 1870 tower attached to dwelling conical Presque Isle Old Front Range 1870 1870 [small tower] Presque Isle Old Rear Range 1870 1870 schoolhouse (b) Grand Island East Channel 1870 1870 schoolhouse (a) Portage River (Jacobsville) 1856 1870 tower attached to dwelling conical Mission Point (Old) 1870 1870 schoolhouse (b) Eagle Harbor 1851 1871 Tudor Presque Isle (New) 1871 1871 tower attached to dwelling conical Point Iroquois 1855 1871 tower attached to dwelling conical South Manitou Island 1839 1872 tower attached to dwelling conical St.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • RETURN of HERRING GULLS to NATAL COLONY by JAMES PINSON LUVWXG Overa Periodof 32 Years,F
    Bird-Banding 68] LUDWIG,Return ofHerring Gulls April RETURN OF HERRING GULLS TO NATAL COLONY BY JAMES PINSON LUVWXG Overa periodof 32 years,F. E. Ludwig,C. C. Ludwig,C. A. Ludwig,and I havebanded 60,000 downy young Herring Gulls (Larusarqentatus) in coloniesin LakesHuron, Michigan, and Superior.I havegrouped the coloniesaccording to geographical locationin sevenareas (See Table 1). From thesecolonies as of July1961 we have recovered 47 adults(See Tables 2, 3, and4 for eachrecovery) which were banded as chicks.All of theseadults werein full adult plumage,and I have assumedthat they were breedingin thecolonies where we found them. Six questionable re- coveries have been noted. TABLE 1. THE AREASAND THEIR COLONIES In Lake Huron 1. Saginaw Bay area-- Little Charity Island 4404-08328 2. Thunder Bay area-- Black River Island 4440-08318 Scarecrow Island 4450-08320 SulphurIsland 4500-08322 GrassyIsland 4504-08325 SugarIsland 4506-08318 Thunder Bay Island 4506-08317 Gull Island 4506-08318 3. Rogers City area-- Calcite Pier colony 4530-08350 4. Straits of Mackinac area-- Goose Island 4555-08426 St. Martin's Shoal 4557-08434 Green Island 4551-08440 In Lake Michigan 5. Beaver Islands' area-- Hatt Island 4549-08518 Shoe Island 4548-08518 Pismire Island 4547-08527 Grass Island 4547-08528 Big Gull Island 4545-08540 6. Grand Traverse Bay area-- Bellows' Island 4506-08534 In Lake Superior 7. Grand Marais area-- Grand Marais Island 4640-08600 Latitude - Longitude Thesenumbers (e.g. 4500 - 08320) are the geo- graphicalcoordinates of the islands. An anlysisof therecoveries reveals that 19 (40.4percent) of the adultswere bandedin the samecolony as recovered,15 (32.1 per- cent)more recovered in the same area as banded, and 13 (27.5per- Bird Divisionof the Museumof Zoology,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor, Michigan Contributionfrom Universityof MichiganBiological Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase II Status Assessment of Herpetofauna in the Saginaw Bay Watershed
    Phase II Status Assessment of Herpetofauna in the Saginaw Bay Watershed July 25, 2013 Prepared for: Saginaw Basin Land Conservancy 809 East Midland Street Bay City, MI 48706 Prepared by: Herpetological Resource and Management, LLC P.O. Box 110 Chelsea, MI 48118 www.HerpRMan.com (313) 268-6189 Project Number: 12D-7.01 Suggested Citation: Mifsud, David A. 2013. Phase II Status Assessment of Herpetofauna in the Saginaw Bay Watershed. Herpetological Resource and Management Report 2012 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 5 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8 Site Locations and Descriptions .................................................................................. 10 Methods ....................................................................................................................... 19 Historical Review and Site Assessment ................................................................... 19 Herpetofaunal Surveys ........................................................................................... 20 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 22 1) Au Gres Delta Nature Preserve .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • M I C H I G a N O N T a R
    314 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 6, Chapter 10 26 SEP 2021 85°W 84°W 83°W 82°W ONTARIO 2251 NORTH CHANNEL 46°N D E 14885 T 14882 O U R M S O F M A C K I N A A I T A C P S T R N I A T O S U S L A I N G I S E 14864 L A N Cheboygan D 14881 Rogers City 14869 14865 14880 Alpena L AKE HURON 45°N THUNDER BAY UNITED ST CANADA MICHIGAN A TES Oscoda Au Sable Tawas City 14862 44°N SAGINAW BAY Bay Port Harbor Beach Sebewaing 14867 Bay City Saginaw Port Sanilac 14863 Lexington 14865 43°N Port Huron Sarnia Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 6—Chapter 10 NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml 26 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 6, Chapter 10 ¢ 315 Lake Huron (1) Lawrence, Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg and Eastern Chart Datum, Lake Huron Arctic for complete information.) (2) Depths and vertical clearances under overhead (12) cables and bridges given in this chapter are referred to Fluctuations of water level Low Water Datum, which for Lake Huron is on elevation (13) The normal elevation of the lake surface varies 577.5 feet (176.0 meters) above mean water level at irregularly from year to year. During the course of each Rimouski, QC, on International Great Lakes Datum 1985 year, the surface is subject to a consistent seasonal rise (IGLD 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • RR-545- East Central Michigan Transportation Study
    HE • .. 'i no, \ T'' ~- .. ' ' ' 'n·,.'' ·i :r: i ' I ' EAST CENTRAL MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY ,_ PRESENTED BY THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN COOPERATION WITH THE EAST CENTRAL MICHIGAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGION . ., I . ' J.P. WOODFORD, DIRECTOR ·~ I I MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION June, 1979 This report represents the findings and/or professional opinions of the Michigan Department of Transportation staff and is not an official opinion of the Michigan Transportation Commission. MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Hannes Meyers, Jr. , Cl;lairman Carl V . Pellonpaa Weston E. Vivian Lawrence C. Patrick, Jr. William C . Marshall Rodger D. Young Director John P. Woodford i L -1- ; I ·.J l: ' I CNI'ARIC I -w L I " i' f i \ § I c--i\ LI - -~ (_ i }; MINNESOTA ( ....... r \' i IOWA I PENNSYLVANIA .I ' II..I..INCIS I CHIC -- I NOlANA MISSOURI KENTUCKY / ----- ~-;__ ____ / REGION 7 LOCATION MAP MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I ' ' TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE -- A. Introduction ..•.. ~ • . • . • • . • • • . • • • . • . • • • . • • • • 1 Study Area • . • • . • . • . • • . • . • • • • • • • • 1 Purpose of_ Study ......•••.........• , .....•••••••• , • • 1 B. Planning Technique ........•.•••••..•.••.•...........••• , , 3 C. Analysis Techniques •...........•.....••...•.•....•.••• ; • • 6 D. Transportation Issues Goals and Objectives ••....•.•••••• ~- 9-------- -··--....... ___ Discussion of Issues Identified at Pre-Study Meetings . • . • . • . • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . • . • . • 10 State Transportation Goals
    [Show full text]