DOCSLIB.ORG

Seney National Wildlife Refuge Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge Huron Islands National Wildlife Refuge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Seney National Wildlife Refuge Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge Huron Islands National Wildlife Refuge SENEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE HARBOR ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE HURON ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1988 U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM SENEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SENEY, MICHIGAN ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1988 Refuge Manage Refuge Supervisor ReWe Date Office Approval Date / INTRODUCTION Seney National Wildlife Refuge is situated in the east central portion of Michigan's Upper Peninsula equidistant from Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. Located in northeastern Schoolcraft County, the refuge is removed from major population centers. The three nearest major communities are all over 80 miles away. The 95,455 acre refuge was established in 1935 in what is locally known as the Great Manistique Swamp. Habitats range from marshes and open water areas to hardwoods, spruce and pine forests. There are 21 major, managed impoundments with 7,000 surface acres. The 25,150 acre Seney Wilderness Area, characterized by string bog topography, is located in the northwest corner of the refuge. Also administered from the Seney National Wildlife Refuge are the Huron Islands National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area, eight small islands located off the south shore of Lake Superior, and the Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge in Lake Huron. Total acreage is 842 for these two satellite stations. Typical Summer Scene on the Refuge (JP) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION i A. HIGHLIGHTS 01 B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS 02 C. LAND ACQUISITION 1. Fee Title (Nothing to Report) NA 2. Easements (Nothing to Report) NA 3. Other 04 D. PLANNING 1. Master Plan (Nothing to Report) NA 2. Management Plan 05 3. Public Participation NA 4. Compliance with Environmental and Cultural Resource Mandates (Nothing to Report) NA 5. Research and Investigation 05 6. Other 10 E. ADMINISTRATION 1. Personnel 12 2. Youth Programs 14 3. Other Manpower Programs 14 4. Volunteer Program 14 5. Funding 19 6. Safety 23 7. Technical Assistance 23 8. Other 23 F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT 1. General 24 2. Wetlands 24 3. Forests 25 4. Croplands (Nothing to Report) NA 5. Grasslands (Nothing to Report) NA 6. Other Habitats (Nothing to Report) NA ii . < 7. Grazing (Nothing to Report) NA 8. Haying 26 9. Fire Management 26 10. Pest Control 30 11. Water Rights (Nothing to Report) NA 12. Wilderness and Special Areas 30 13. WPA Easement Monitoring (Nothing to Report) NA 14. Farm Bill Activities 30 G. WILDLIFE 1. Wildlife Diversity 31 2. Endangered and/or Threatened Species 31 3. Waterfowl 32 4. Marsh and Water Birds 35 5. Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species 36 6. Raptors 37 7. Other Migratory Birds 37 8. Game Mammals 37 9. Marine Mammals (Nothing to Report) NA 10. Other Resident Wildlife 39 11. Fisheries Resources 39 12. Wildlife Propagation and Stocking (Nothing to Report) . NA 13. Surplus Animal Disposal (Nothing to Report) NA 14. Scientific Collections 40 15. Animal Control (Nothing to Report) NA 16. Marking and Banding 40 17. Disease Prevention and Control 40 H. PUBLIC USE 1. General 41 2. Outdoor Classrooms-Students 42 3. Outdoor Classrooms-Teachers (Nothing to Report) . NA 4. Interpretive Foot Trails 42 5. Interpretive Tour Routes 43 6. Interpretive Exhibits/Demonstrations 43 7. Other Interpretive Programs 46 8. Hunting 47 9. Fishing 47 10. Trapping 48 11. Wildlife Observation 48 12. Other Wildlife Oriented Recreation 48 13. Camping (Nothing to Report) NA 14. Picnicking 49 15. Off-Road Vehicling (Nothing to Report) NA 16. Other Non-Wildlife Oriented Recreation 49 17. Law Enforcement 49 iii 18. Cooperating Associations 50 19. Concessions (Nothing to Report) NA 20. Entrance Fees 51 I. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES 1. New Construction NA 2. Rehabilitation 53 3. Major Maintenance 53 4. Equipment Utilization and Replacement 54 5. Communications System 54 6. Computer Systems 55 7. Energy Conservation (Nothing to Report) NA 8. Other (Nothing to Report) NA J. OTHER ITEMS 1. Cooperative Programs 57 2. Other Economic Uses (Nothing to Report) NA 3. Items of Interest 57 4. Credits 57 K. FEEDBACK L. INFORMATION PACKET iv < 1 A. HIGHLIGHTS Driest spring and summer temperatures on record occurred during the months of April, May, June and July (see B). Researchers from Ohio Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit conducted a soft release project with refuge sandhill cranes (see D-5). Many personnel changes occurred in 1988. The Project leader position and the refuge biologist position were changed (see E-l). High fire danger occurred in the summer resulting in station fire fighters responding to ten project fires, two of which occurred on the refuge (see F-9). Field inspections were conducted for Farmers Home Administration properties in Michigan. Assistance was also given in wetland restorations (see F-14). The Seney Natural History Association was formed and received a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (see H-18). This year marked the first season of entrance fee collections (see H-20). Renovation construction was completed on both the office and one phase of the shop (see 1-2). •-< 2 B. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS Weather records which include precipitation and temperature for 1988 are from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration cooperative weather station located at the refuge office. The refuge has maintained an official station since January 21, 1939. Refuge personnel record rainfall, snowfall, snow depth, and temperature daily including weekends and holidays during the summer months. The Secretary transmits this weather data to the Admini­ stration's computers via telephone on their ROSA encoder. The months of April, May, June and July were the driest on record. However, the refuge received 7.29 inches of rain in August, well over the normal 3.11 inches, which began to raise the below normal annual precipitation level. The year ended with a slightly more than average annual precipitation total of 36.7 inches. The temperature readings for the year showed higher than normal temperatures with the highest reading on July 8 of 99 degrees. It is unusual for the Upper Peninsula to experience these high summer temperatures because of the affects of the surrounding Great Lakes. The 1988 snowfall of 86.1 inches was well below the average 125 inches of snowfall. 3 • f Table#! 1988 WEATHER STATISTICS Precipitation Max. Min. Total Normal Snowfall Temp. Temp. January 2 .64 2 . 08 25.2 38 -23 February .96 1.69 13.9 42 -11 March 3.93 2 . 08 10.1 47 -21 April 1 .03 2.23 3.5 65 21 May 1.41 2.96 89 27 June 2 . 16 3.53 91 34 July 2.45 2.80 99 39 August 7 . 29 3.11 91 45 September 3.08 3.43 82 37 October 4.47 2.83 76 27 November 4.79 3.04 3.3 57 22 December 2.49 2.46 30.1 43 -10 ANNUAL TOTALS 36.7 32.24 86 .1 99 -23 (Extremes) Normal precipitation is calculated using monthly readings from 1940 to 1988 4 • < C. LAND ACQUISITION Other An exchange of property between the refuge and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources was proposed in 1986 to straighten irregular boundaries on the south end of the refuge. No final agreement has been made regarding the land exchange with the State of Michigan. The Land Protection Review Board approved the exchange in December of 1986. It is anticipated that the exchange will be finalized during 1989 . 5 D. PLANNING 2. Management Plan Management Plan Part I and II were revised during the year. Objective levels were adjusted for some categories to provide more realistic goals. A significant change was the lowering of the objective of Canada goose production from 1080 to 450. This was because of the increase in the giant Canada goose population throughout Michigan's Upper Peninsula. 5. Research and Investigations SNY NR-84-31510-1 and Ohio Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (14-16-0009-1539). Nesting, Productivity and Movement of Greater Sandhill Cranes of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Dr. Richard Urbanek Nineteen eggs were collected on Seney National Wildlife Refuge via helicopter May 19-22 and hatched in an incubator May 20- 29. Chicks were reared in 1.36- x 0.91-m compartments that opened to 0.91- x 2.42-m runs. Each compartment contained a crane brood mount with a speaker, from which tape-recorded brood calls were played. Chicks were divided into four socialization groups and were exercised for about 1 hr each day, following a person in a puppet costume. Two chicks died from accidents and one died from an unknown cause. Health problems were minimal, and no serious leg/toe problems developed. The 16 surviving chicks were observed in sustained flight at ages of 67-81 days. The planned forced association experiments were not done because of poor weather conditions, construction delays, and severe time constraints. Chicks were released in the free association pen in late August. The 1.85-ha pen, an irregular, open-topped, 8-sided polygon, was built on an area of mudflat and shallow marsh. The fence extended 2.4 m above ground and 0.3 m below; an electrified wire was positioned 0.3 m below the top of the fence. A costumed dummy was placed in the pen so the chicks would remain there without brailing. Wild sandhill cranes began coming into the pen on August 28. Chicks were individually color-banded and equipped with solar/Ni-Cad radio transmitters the first week of September. Eight chicks departed from the Upper Peninsula on September 25-28 and migrated along the normal route used by wild cranes to central Wisconsin. Eight chicks that did not depart were transported to the latter area and released on October 23.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Forests in Michigan
    OriqiMI from Digitized by Go gle UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NATIONAL FORESTS IN MICHIGAN UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE NORTH CENTRAL REGION • MILWAUKEE, WIS. ON THE COVER. —Great Conglomerate Falls on the Black River. p-3e«M ERRATA Page Line 5 3 97,000,000 should be 45,000,000. 7 4 Porcupine should not be listed vvilh fur bearers. 17 7 Si.o'jld read "the red pine by its ClUoLC"G Cf t»Vj". 44 2-3 Should read "4 rniies east of Munising". UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1941 sEr^ •*«$• . AU TRAIN FALLS ON THE HIAWATHA NATIONAL FOREST. Drama of Michigan Forests DRAMA of the forests of Michigan has been written in several acts THEeach with its colorful pageantry. The action has concerned the magni ficent woodlands of the redman, the rapid depletion of those forests in the last century, and their slow but sure rebuilding in the present. The elusive "northwest passage" to China, Indian furs and Indian souls, iron and land and copper brought the white men to Michigan. In 1621, only 1 year after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, young Etienne Brule, protege of Champlain, reached Lake Superior and was disappointed to find its waters fresh. Thirteen years later, Jean Nicolet, another protege of the French governor of Canada, entered the unknown Lake Michigan through the Straits of Mackinac. Though he never found the longed-for route to the Orient, Nicolet did initiate the French fur trade with the Indians in this territory. Heroic followers of Brule and Nicolet were the Jesuit fathers Jogues and Raymbault, who preached to the Ojibwas in 1641 at Sault Ste.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Islands: Biodiversity Elements And
    GREAT LAKES ISLANDS: BIODIVERSITY ELEMENTS AND THREATS A FINAL REPORT TO THE GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AUGUST 6, 2007 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Funding for this project has been provided by the Great Lakes Program Office (GLNPO) of the Environmental Protection Agency (Grant No. Gl-96521901: Framework for the Binational Conservation of Great Lakes Islands). We especially appreciated the support of our project officer, K. Rodriquez, and G. Gulezian, director of the GLNPO. Project team members were F. Cuthbert (University of Minnesota), D. Ewert (The Nature Conservancy), R. Greenwood (U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service), D. Kraus (The Nature Conservancy of Canada), M. Seymour (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service), K. Vigmostad (Principal Investigator, formerly of Northeast-Midwest Institute), and L. Wires (University of Minnesota). Team members for the Ontario portion of the project included W. Bakowsky (NHIC), B. Crins (Ontario Parks), J. Mackenzie (NHIC) and M. McMurtry (NHIC). GIS and technical support for this project has been provided by T. Krahn (Provincial Geomatics Service Centre, OMNR), J. Slatts (The Nature Conservancy), and G. White (The Nature Conservancy of Canada). Many others have provided scientific and policy support for this project. We particularly want to recognize M. DePhillips (The Nature Conservancy), G. Jackson (Parks Canada), B. Manny (Great Lakes Science Center), and C. Vasarhelyi (policy consultant). Cover photograph: A Bay on Gibraltar Island (Lake Erie) ©2005 Karen E. Vigmostad 2 Contents
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness Visitors and Recreation Impacts: Baseline Data Available for Twentieth Century Conditions
    United States Department of Agriculture Wilderness Visitors and Forest Service Recreation Impacts: Baseline Rocky Mountain Research Station Data Available for Twentieth General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-117 Century Conditions September 2003 David N. Cole Vita Wright Abstract __________________________________________ Cole, David N.; Wright, Vita. 2003. Wilderness visitors and recreation impacts: baseline data available for twentieth century conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-117. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 52 p. This report provides an assessment and compilation of recreation-related monitoring data sources across the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Telephone interviews with managers of all units of the NWPS and a literature search were conducted to locate studies that provide campsite impact data, trail impact data, and information about visitor characteristics. Of the 628 wildernesses that comprised the NWPS in January 2000, 51 percent had baseline campsite data, 9 percent had trail condition data and 24 percent had data on visitor characteristics. Wildernesses managed by the Forest Service and National Park Service were much more likely to have data than wildernesses managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service. Both unpublished data collected by the management agencies and data published in reports are included. Extensive appendices provide detailed information about available data for every study that we located. These have been organized by wilderness so that it is easy to locate all the information available for each wilderness in the NWPS. Keywords: campsite condition, monitoring, National Wilderness Preservation System, trail condition, visitor characteristics The Authors _______________________________________ David N.
    [Show full text]
  • Wiikwedong Dazhi-Ojibwe
    WIIKWEDONG DAZHI-OJIBWE The Keweenaw Bay Ojibwe Waabigwani Giizis – Flower Moon - May 2019 Issue 178 KBIC TRIBAL VETERANS WIIKWEDONG OGICHIDAA SOCIETY Tribal Council Members: HONOR GUARD PROUDLY ACCEPTS THE GIFT OF TWO SCOOTERS Warren C. Swartz, Jr., President Gary F. Loonsfoot, Jr., Vice-President Susan J. LaFernier, Secretary Toni J. Minton, Asst. Secretary Doreen G. Blaker, Treasurer Robert R.D. Curtis, Jr. Dale Goodreau Randall R. Haataja Kim Klopstein Michael F. LaFernier, Sr. Rodney Loonsfoot Elizabeth D. Mayo SPECIAL POINTS OF INTEREST Wiikwedong Ogichidaa Society Veterans gifted scooters KBOCSS visits local schools (Left to right) Proudly displaying the organizations new scooters are KBIC Tribal Veterans Wiikwedong with Easter Bunny Ogichidaa Society Honor Guard Members: Allen Gauthier, Joseph Eckerberg, Rodney Loonsfoot, and Joseph Dowd. Spring Quarterly Council Meet- ing held The KBIC Tribal Veterans Wiikwe- Bringing Easter Joy in our Schools dong Ogichidaa Society Honor Guard KBIC attends NMU Powwow proudly displayed two new scooters KBIC AIS Program Activities they received on Saturday, April 13, 2019. The Veterans’ scooters were KBIC Health Systems Updates made possible through the Wounded Criminal Report Warriors Family Support Network wwfs.org. (Left) Khloe Loonsfoot shares a stroll down Rodney Loonsfoot, Tribal Council/ Baraga Elementary School hall with the Veteran Service Representative, began school’s surprise visitor, Easter Bunny! the process last year through applica- tion. The Tribe had to have an accred- KBIC Office of Child Support Ser- ited service officer who is recognized vices Outreach visited the Baraga by the Veterans Administration. KBIC and L’Anse schools on April 18, met all the eligibility requirements and 2019, along with the Easter Bunny.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE East Lansing Field Office (ES) 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101 IN REPLY REFER TO: East Lansing, Michigan 48823-6316 May 1, 2015 Leslie Auriermno, Forest Supervisor Huron-Manistee National Forests 1755 South Mitchell St. Cadillac, MI 49601-8533 Re: Fonnal Section 7 Consultation on the Huron-Manistee National Forests' Ongoing and Planned Actions- Log# 1O-R3-ELF0-03 Dear Ms. Amiemmo: This letter transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion for the Huron­ Manistee National Forests' (HMNF) ongoing and planned actions in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S .C. 1531 et seq.). The HMNF detennined that the proposed actions were "Likely to Adversely Affect" the norihern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). We base the enclosed Opinion on information provided in several documents, including your northern long-eared project matrix and Biological Assessment, the Programmatic Biological Assessment and Opinion for the HMNF's Land and Resource Management Plan, and our April 1, 2015, Conference Opinion. Other sources ofinfonnation include previous telephone conversations, e-mails and meetings. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at our East Lansing Field Office. After reviewing the current status of northern long-eared bat, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is our biological opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of northern long-eared bat With respect to ESA compliance, all aspects of the project description are binding.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Security Threatens Northern Border Wildernesses
    Wilderness In Peril: Border Security Measures Threaten Wilderness along the Northern Border with Canada An Analysis Prepared by Wilderness Watch October 2012 Wilderness Watch P.O. Box 9175 Missoula, MT 59807 406-542-2048 www.wildernesswatch.org For more information, contact: George Nickas, Executive Director Kevin Proescholdt, Conservation Director [email protected] [email protected] 406-542-2048 612-201-9266 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………...…………….Page 3 Introduction………………………………………………………..………..….....Page 4 Background…………………………………………………..………………....…Page 4 A. Early 20th Century Border Easements B. International Boundary Treaties with Canada C. 2005 REAL ID Act D. 2006 Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Border Patrol Practices on the Southern Border and Lessons for the North……………………………………………………………….Page 9 A. Border Wall Construction B. Illegal Roads and Vehicle Routes C. Border Security Infrastructure D. Motorized Patrols Emerging Major Threats to Wildernesses near the Northern Border……...…Page 13 A. Congressional Legislation B. Northern Border Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement C. 2006 MOU and Motorized Patrols D. Administrative Waiver of Federal Laws E. Clearing and Construction in Border Reservations F. Conclusion Needed Actions to Reestablish and Affirm Wilderness Protections Along the Northern Border……………………………………….……………..Page 17 A. Existing Homeland Security Laws B. 2006 MOU C. Northern Border PEIS D. Pending Legislation E. Restore Wilderness Protection Appendix - Wildernesses at Risk along the Northern Border………………....Page 18 3 Executive Summary Under the guise of border security, a plethora of new and proposed laws, policies, memoranda, and other governmental actions pose an unprecedented threat to Wildernesses, including in many national parks, along our nation’s Northern Border. This whitepaper describes the threats and presents several recommendations for securing the protection of Wilderness and parks along the Northern Border.
    [Show full text]
  • MS-042 John T. Reeder Photograph Collection
    John T. Reeder Photograph Collection MS-042 Finding aid prepared by Elizabeth Russell, revised by Rachael Bussert. This finding aid was produced using the Archivists' Toolkit June 26, 2014 Describing Archives: A Content Standard Michigan Technological University Archives and Copper Country Historical Collections 1400 Townsend Drive Houghton, Michigan, 49931 906-487-2505 [email protected] John T. Reeder Photograph Collection MS-042 Table of Contents Summary Information ................................................................................................................................. 4 Biography.......................................................................................................................................................5 Collection Scope and Content Summary...................................................................................................... 5 Arrangement...................................................................................................................................................5 Administrative Information .........................................................................................................................6 Controlled Access Headings..........................................................................................................................6 Collection Inventory...................................................................................................................................... 8 Series I, Inventories and General Records..............................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Falco Peregrinus Tunstall Peregrineperegrine Falcon,Falcon Page 1
    Falco peregrinus Tunstall peregrineperegrine falcon,falcon Page 1 State Distribution Best Survey Period Copyright: Rick Baetsen Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Status: State Endangered Dakota, Florida, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Nevada. In Mexico, Global and state rank: G4/S1 peregrine falcon is present on the Baja Peninsula, islands of the Gulf of California, and northwestern Family: Falconidae – Falcons states of the mainland. Breeding also confirmed for eastern Cuba and the Dominican Republic (White et al. Total range: While having one of the most extensive 2002). global distributions, peregrine falcons were never abundant anywhere, due to its specific habitat State distribution: Barrows (1912) noted that the requirements and position in the food web as a top peregrine falcon was “nowhere common” and Wood predator (Hess 1991). The species was formerly (1951) called the species a rare local summer resident extirpated throughout much of its original range due to in northern counties along the Great Lakes. Isaacs exposure to organic chemicals such as DDT, and (1976) described ten historical nesting sites in Michigan: reoccupancy and restoration is still incomplete (White et Goose Lake escarpments, Huron Islands, Huron al. 2002). Three subspecies occur in North America, Mountains, and Lake Michigamme in Marquette with F. p. anatum being the subspecies that breeds in County; Grand Island and Pictured Rocks in Alger Michigan. Payne (1983) noted that F. p. tundrius is an County; Garden Peninsula of Delta County; Isle Royale occasional transient in the State. See White et al. in Keweenaw County; Mackinac Island in Mackinac (2002) and citations therein for a detailed description of County; and South Fox Island in Leelanau County.
    [Show full text]
  • GEOLOGY and TOPOGRAPHY LAKE SUPERIOR LAND DISTRICT, 31St
    REPORT GENERAL LAND OFFICE, April 26, 1850. ON THE SIR: I have the honor to communicate, herewith, a GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY report from Messrs. Foster and Whitney, United States OF A PORTION OF THE geologists, on the “copper lands” of the Lake Superior LAKE SUPERIOR LAND DISTRICT, land district, in Michigan, accompanied by a number of IN views of the principal features of that interesting region, THE STATE OF MICHIGAN with diagrams of the mines, &c., illustrating the work. BY There is, also, accompanying this report, a fac-simile of a map of Lake Superior and the adjacent regions, made J. W. FOSTER AND J. D. WHITNEY by the Jesuit missionaries in 1670 and 1671, and UNITED STATES GEOLOGISTS. published at Paris in 1672. This report contains a vast fund of valuable information, IN TWO PARTS. and the publication of it will be an important addition to the cause of science. It would have been communicated PART I. with my usual annual report, but the time since those COPPER LANDS gentlemen were appointed was too short to enable them to prepare it in season. It is now submitted as supplementary to that report, and I respectfully request that it may be so communicated to Congress. WASHINGTON: With much respect, your obedient servant, PRINTED FOR THE HOUSE OF REPS. J. BUTTERFIELD, Commissioner. Hon THOMAS EWING, 1850. Secretary of the Interior. 31st CONGRESS, [HO. OF REPS.] Ex. Doc. 1st Session No. 69 BOSTON, April 15, 1850 GEOLOGICAL REPORT ON THE COPPER LANDS OF LAKE SUPERIOR LAND DISTRICT, MICHIGAN SIR: We herewith present to you a report on the “copper lands” of the Lake Superior land district.
    [Show full text]
  • Emmet Cheboygan Lake Michigan Lake Superior Lake
    Superior Region - East RoadRoad andand TrailTrail BicyclingBicycling GuideGuide ) X M Whitefish Twp Park !! ! Whitefish Point Vermillion _ !! Twomile Weatherhogs reek Lk. ns C Lk. Lake Superior Crisp Point ) Brow Browns Marsh Lakes d R Lk. t Be in tsy McMullan Lakes o Ri v P e r h 11 s i CR 412 f e t T Hawkins i hree h M Lk. W i l e Shelldrake Dam 9 Little Lake Harbor C r Betsy e State Forest Campground e River Little!! _¬ k X ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Lk. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Bodi Lake 9 9 ! ! Andrus Lake ! ! ! Andrus ! X ! Bear Lk. X ! ! ! ! ! State Forest Campground Lk. Mouth of Two Hearted River ! Ile Parisienne ! ! ! Culhane State Forest Campground ! ! !! 9 !! !! Bodi Lk. ! Lk. State Forest Campground! X ! ! ! ! ! s ! X ! Bet y ! ! ! R ! Culhane! Lake ! ! ! i ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! v ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! 9 e ! ! ! ! ! ! ! State Forest Campground r !! ! ! ! ! ! Lake Superior ! Shelldrake ! r ! ! Randolph Muskallonge Lake State Park e Muskrat ! ! ! ! ! 9 ! v ! ! ! i ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 9 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! State Forest Campground! ! ! ! ! ! R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! r ! ! Lk. ! ! ! ! e ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !iv ! ! ! ! d Lakes ! ! ! ! ! ! R ! ! ) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! e ! r ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !e! ! !! ! t ! Section k ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! c ! ! ! ! !! ! ! u ! ! ! ! r ! S ! ! ! ! ! d ! ! ! ! ! ! a S ! ! ! Deer! Park ! X n ! ! ! ! ! ! ! i ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! l ! ! ! e ! ! B Mud ! ! ! u ! ! ! X ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Woodland Park ! ! H !! GRAND MARAISc ! ! Four Lk. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! o ! ! ! k ! ! ! ! ! ! !
    [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]