DOCSLIB.ORG

2009 Reducing Double-Crested Cormorant Damage in Wisconsin EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2009 Reducing Double-Crested Cormorant Damage in Wisconsin EA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REDUCING DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT DAMAGE IN WISCONSIN FINAL 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, Migratory Bird Management Office United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Horicon, Gravel Island and Green Bay National Wildlife Refuges Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources April 20, 2009 This page left intentionally blank Wisconsin Cormorant Environmental Assessment ii TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION 5 ACRONYMS 6 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 8 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................8 1.1 PURPOSE .........................................................................................................................................9 1.2 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................................9 1.3 DECISION TO BE MADE...............................................................................................................9 1.4 NEED FOR ACTION .....................................................................................................................10 1.4.1 Potential DCCO Impact on Aquaculture.......................................................................... 10 1.4.2 Potential DCCO Impact on Fishery Resources................................................................ 11 1.4.3 Potential DCCO Impact on Wildlife and Native Vegetation, Including T&E Species.... 11 1.4.4 Potential DCCO Impact on Property ............................................................................... 11 1.4.5 Potential DCCO Impact on Human Health and Safety.................................................... 11 1.5 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................12 1.5.1 Double-crested Cormorants in Wisconsin ....................................................................... 12 1.5.2 Potential DCCO Impact on Aquaculture.......................................................................... 13 1.5.3 Potential DCCO Impact on Fishery Resources................................................................ 17 1.5.4 Potential DCCO Impact on Wildlife and Native Vegetation, Including T&E Species.... 28 1.5.5 Potential DCCO Impact on Property ............................................................................... 38 1.5.6 Potential DCCO Impact on Human Health and Safety.................................................... 39 1.5.7 Wisconsin DCCO Coordination Group ........................................................................... 40 1.5.8 Proposed Initial DCCO Population Management Objectives for Breeding Colonies In and Near Green Bay. .............................................................................................................. 40 1.5.9 Examples of Cormorant Damage Management Activities in Wisconsin......................... 46 1.6 WS RECORD KEEPING REGARDING REQUESTS FOR CDM ASSISTANCE ......................47 1.7 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS...........................................48 1.8 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT...............................................................49 1.8.1 Actions Analyzed............................................................................................................. 49 1.8.2 Period for Which this EA is Valid ................................................................................... 49 1.8.3 American Indian Tribes and Land ................................................................................... 49 1.8.4 Site Specificity................................................................................................................. 49 1.6.5 Summary of Public Involvement ..................................................................................... 51 1.9 AUTHORITY AND COMPLIANCE.............................................................................................51 1.9.1 Authority of each Cooperating Agency in CDM in Wisconsin ....................................... 53 1.9.2 Compliance with Other Laws, Executive Orders, Treaties, and Court Decisions............ 55 CHAPTER 2: ISSUES 61 2.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................61 2.1 SUMMARY OF ISSUES................................................................................................................61 2.1.1 Effects on DCCO Populations ......................................................................................... 61 2.1.2 Effects on other Wildlife and Fish Species, Including Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................................................................. 63 2.1.3 Effects on Human Health and Safety............................................................................... 64 2.1.3.1 Effects on Human Health and Safety from CDM Methods............................... 64 2.1.3.2 Effects on Human Health and Safety from Not Conducting CDM ................... 64 2.1.4 Effects on Aesthetic Values............................................................................................. 65 2.1.5 Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns of Methods Used by WS ........................... 66 2.2 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE........................................66 2.2.1 Impacts on Biodiversity ................................................................................................... 66 2.2.2 A “Threshold of Loss” Should Be Established Before Allowing Any Lethal CDM ....... 67 2.2.3 An ongoing monitoring program is needed to assess impacts on DCCO populations..... 67 2.2.4 Fisheries in the Great Lakes are already at risk from invasive species, nutrient loading wetlands destruction and other threats. ............................................................................ 67 2.2.5 The EA fails to provide adequate scientific data proving need for action. ...................... 68 Wisconsin Cormorant Environmental Assessment 3 2.2.6 If expanded control is permitted, it will be fueled by public pressure not real scientific need.................................................................................................................................. 70 2.2.7 Control of a native bird to protect a non-native fish species (brown trout), even if that species provides recreational benefit to a small portion of the human population, is ethically questionable....................................................................................................... 70 2.2.8 There is no proof that DCCO removal would protect/enhance target fish populations. .. 70 2.2.9 Please conduct CDM to protect fish at Lake Largo. ........................................................ 71 CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES 72 3.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL................................................................................72 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................73 3.1.1 Alternative 1. Integrated CDM Including Implementation of the AQDO and PRDO (Proposed Action)............................................................................................................ 73 3.1.3 Alternative 3. Only Technical Assistance....................................................................... 75 3.1.5 Alternative 5. - Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of the PRDO (No Action) ............................................................................................................................. 77 3.2 CDM STRATEGIES AND METHODOLOGIES ..........................................................................77 3.2.1 Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM)........................................................ 77 3.2.2 Decision Making.............................................................................................................. 79 3.2.3.1 Non-lethal Methods ........................................................................................... 80 3.2.3.2 Lethal Methods.................................................................................................. 81 3.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE 82 3.3.1 Lethal CDM Only ............................................................................................................ 82 3.3.2 Compensation for DCCO Damage Losses....................................................................... 82 3.3.3 Increase DCCO Population Reduction and/or Elimiante DCCOs ................................... 82 3.3.4 Non-lethal Methods Implemented Before Lethal Methods.............................................. 83 3.4 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR CDM IN WISCONSIN..................................84 3.4.1 Standard Operating Procedures - General........................................................................ 84 3.4.2 Additional Mitigation Specific to the Issues.................................................................... 85 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 88 4.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................88
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Niche Overlap Among Anglers, Fishers and Cormorants and Their Removals
    Fisheries Research 238 (2021) 105894 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Fisheries Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/®shres Niche overlap among anglers, fishersand cormorants and their removals of fish biomass: A case from brackish lagoon ecosystems in the southern Baltic Sea Robert Arlinghaus a,b,*, Jorrit Lucas b, Marc Simon Weltersbach c, Dieter Komle¨ a, Helmut M. Winkler d, Carsten Riepe a,c, Carsten Kühn e, Harry V. Strehlow c a Department of Biology and Ecology of Fishes, Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Müggelseedamm 310, 12587, Berlin, Germany b Division of Integrative Fisheries Management, Faculty of Life Sciences, Humboldt-Universitat¨ zu Berlin, Invalidenstrasse 42, 10115, Berlin, Germany c Thünen Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries, Alter Hafen Süd 2, 18069, Rostock, Germany d General and Specific Zoology, Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany e Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Research Centre for Agriculture and Fisheries, Institute of Fisheries, Fischerweg 408, 18069, Rostock, Germany ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Handled by Steven X. Cadrin We used time series, diet studies and angler surveys to examine the potential for conflict in brackish lagoon fisheries of the southern Baltic Sea in Germany, specifically focusing on interactions among commercial and Keywords: recreational fisheries as well as fisheries and cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis). For the time period Fish-eating wildlife between 2011 and 2015, commercial fisheries were responsible for the largest total fish biomass extraction Commercial fisheries (5,300 t per year), followed by cormorants (2,394 t per year) and recreational fishers (966 t per year). Com­ Human dimensions mercial fishing dominated the removals of most marine and diadromous fish, specifically herring (Clupea Conflicts Recreational fisheries harengus), while cormorants dominated the biomass extraction of smaller-bodied coastal freshwater fish, spe­ cifically perch (Perca fluviatilis) and roach (Rutilus rutilus).
    [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]
  • U.S. Coast Guard Historian's Office
    U.S. Coast Guard Historian’s Office Preserving Our History For Future Generations Historic Light Station Information WISCONSIN ALGOMA PIERHEAD LIGHT (FRONT & REAR) Location: MOUTH OF THE AHNAPEE RIVER ON LAKE MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN Station Established: 1893 Year Current Tower(s) First Lit: 1932 Operational? YES Automated? YES 1973 Deactivated: N/A Foundation Materials: PIER Construction Materials: STEEL Tower Shape: CYLINDRICAL Markings/Pattern: RED Relationship to Other Structure: INTEGRAL Original Lens: FRESNEL Range: 16 Miles Characteristic: Red, Isophase 6 sec. HISTORICAL INFORMATION: Ahnapee grew rapidly in the mid to late 1870s and became the home to the largest commercial fishing fleet on Lake Michigan. When the government would not approve a lighthouse to mark the entrance to the harbor, locals erected a couple of post lights at the outer end of the two piers at the harbor entrance. Congress finally appropriated money to build some range lights in 1891 to mark the entrance of the harbor at Ahnapee which was renamed Algoma. The light was built in 1892 after new piers were completed but the light was not lit until the beginning of the 1893 shipping season. The piers were unique in that they were split and off-set. There was not a single continuous pier. To get to the lighthouse a bridge had to be built to span the gap between the off-set portions. The range initially consisted of a front post light and a wooden skeletal tower rear range. In 1895 the rear range tower had an upgrade to the lens. A fifth order lens was installed that increased the range from 9 miles to 11 miles.
    [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]
  • DOOR COUNTY LIGHTHOUSE FESTIVALS Spring Festival: June 12, 13, 14 | Fall Festival: October 3 & 4
    27TH ANNUAL DOOR COUNTY LIGHTHOUSE FESTIVALS Spring Festival: June 12, 13, 14 | Fall Festival: October 3 & 4 ORDER TICKETS: Online at doorcountytickets.com Or by Calling the Door County Maritime Museum at 920.743.5958 Photo by Daniel Anderson Photography. MEMBERS-ONLY PRESALE TICKETS BEGIN ON FEBRUARY 24TH TICKETS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ON MARCH 23RD SPRING LIGHTHOUSE FESTIVAL – LOCATION HOURS: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION: Door County Maritime Museum – Sturgeon Bay*: 9am-5pm all weekend • Arrive at the tour departure location at least 15 minutes before departure time Death’s Door Maritime Museum – Gills Rock*: 10am-5pm all weekend • Dress in layers as the weather can change quickly Cana Island Lighthouse – Baileys Harbor*: 10am-5pm all weekend Sherwood Point Lighthouse – Sturgeon Bay: 10am-4pm (Saturday & Sunday) • Take note of the lunch details of each tour USCG Canal Station – Sturgeon Bay: 10am-4pm (Saturday & Sunday) • Bring your camera, sunscreen, and bug spray Eagle Bluff Lighthouse – Peninsula State Park*: 10am-4pm all weekend • Wear sturdy close-toed shoes, especially when hiking Pottawatomie Lighthouse – Rock Island: 10am-4pm all weekend • Each lighthouse tour ticket includes free admission to the Death’s Door Maritime Museum in Gills Rock through the Ridges Range Lights – Baileys Harbor*: 11am-2pm all weekend end of the 2020 season *Please note, if you are planning a self-guided experience, there may be an admission rate. Order Tickets Online at doorcountytickets.com 27TH ANNUAL DOOR COUNTY LIGHTHOUSE FESTIVALS 27TH ANNUAL DOOR COUNTY LIGHTHOUSE FESTIVALS 2020 Tour Schedule Intensity is the level of difficulty in participating in the tour (“1” being the easiest “5” being the most difficult) Fall Lighthouse Spring Lighthouse Festival Festival Friday Saturday Sunday Saturday Sunday Airplane Tours Cost Length Capacity Intensity Lunch June 12 June 13 June 14 Oct.
    [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]
  • Menominee River Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitat BUI Removals Documentation
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF· Jon W. Allan, Director Office of the Great Lakes Michigan Department of Natural Resources 525 W Allegan St. FEB O7 201J P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909-7528 Dear MyctTon fl-- Thank you for your December 3, 2018 request to remove the "Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations" and "Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat" Beneficial Use Impairments (BUls) at the Lower Menominee River Area of Concern (AOC) located within the cities of Menominee, MI and Marinette, WI. As you know, we share your desire to restore all the Great Lakes AOCs and to formally delist them. Based upon a review of your submittal and the supporting data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves your request to remove these BUis from the Lower Menominee River AOC. EPA will notify the International Joint Commission (IJC) of this significant positive environmental change at this AOC. We congratulate you and your staff as well as the many federal, state and local partners who have been instrumental in achieving this environmental improvement. Removal of these BUis will benefit not only the people who live and work in the Lower Menominee River AOC, but all residents of Michigan, Wisconsin, and the Great Lakes Basin as well. We look forward to the continuation of this important and productive relationship with your agency and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources as we work together to delist this AOC in the year to come. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (312) 353- 8320 or your staff can contact Leah Medley at (312) 886-1307.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Population Status and Management of Double-Crested Cormorants in Ontario" (1997)
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Symposium on Double-Crested Cormorants: Population Status and Management Issues in USDA National Wildlife Research Center the Midwest Symposia December 1997 Review of the Population Status and Management of Double- Crested Cormorants in Ontario C. Korfanty W.G. Miyasaki J.L. Harcus Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nwrccormorants Part of the Ornithology Commons Korfanty, C. ; Miyasaki, W.G.; and Harcus, J.L., "Review of the Population Status and Management of Double-Crested Cormorants in Ontario" (1997). Symposium on Double-Crested Cormorants: Population Status and Management Issues in the Midwest. 14. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nwrccormorants/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the USDA National Wildlife Research Center Symposia at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Symposium on Double- Crested Cormorants: Population Status and Management Issues in the Midwest by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Symposium on Double-Crested Cormorants 130 Population Status and Management of Double-Crested Cormorants in Ontario Review of the Population Status and Management of Double-Crested Cormorants in Ontario By C. Korfanty, W. G. Miyasaki, and J. L. Harcus Abstract: We prepared this review of the status and pairs on the Canadian Great Lakes in 1997, with increasing management of double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax numbers found on inland water bodies. Double-crested auritus) in Ontario, with management options, in response to cormorants are protected in Ontario, and there are no concerns expressed about possible negative impacts of large population control programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Door County Place Names Project of the Peninsula Genealogical Society to James Halstead (1926 -2000)
    Copyright 2005 by the Peninsula Genealogical Society 477 No. 6th Ave. Sturgeon Bay WI 54235 e-mail address: [email protected] Dedication We wish to dedicate this The Door County Place Names Project of the Peninsula Genealogical Society to James Halstead (1926 -2000). He was one of our dedicated charter members during the creation of this project but more than that, his great knowledge of Door County and his willingness to share that knowledge and perfect the final locations of so very many of the places herein has made this project one that we know will be of great help to researchers in and of Door County Wisconsin. “We hope you are pleased with the final project, Jim!” Introduction We have had many deterrents along the way but have not given up what we feel is a project worth doing and after fifteen years of waiting, the PGS Door County Place Names Project has finally been completed. While working on a Door County Research Guide in the beginning of The Peninsula Genealogical Society’s infancy around 1990, the need for a Door County Place Names Project became apparent. Many old names of places in the County were unknown as to location on the maps of our time. Family history researchers had old letters indicating places long lost to recent knowledge, so the Society began to gather names with their locations with the plan to include them in the Research Guide. That place names part of the Research Guide was becoming a massive undertaking and one to be a project worthy to stand on its own.
    [Show full text]
  • Double-Crested Cormorant Conflict Management and Research on Leech Lake 2005 Annual Report
    Double-crested Cormorant Conflict Management And Research On Leech Lake 2005 Annual Report Prepared by Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Division of Resources Management Minnesota Department of Natural Resources US Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services Photo by Steve Mortensen This report summarizes cormorant conflict management and research that occurred on Leech Lake during 2005. The overall goal of this project is to determine at what level cormorant numbers can be managed for on the lake without having a significant negative effect on gamefish and on other species of colonial waterbirds that nest alongside cormorants on Little Pelican Island. Work conducted this summer went much better than anticipated and we are well on the way towards resolving cormorant conflict issues on Leech Lake. Cormorant Management Environmental Assessment An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared that gathered and evaluated information on cormorants and their effects on fish and other resources. We compiled, considered, and incorporated input from all parties that have an interest or concern about the proposed controlling of cormorants on Leech Lake. This document could have been written specifically so the Leech Lake Band could address the Leech Lake cormorant colony, but it was decided to prepare it as a joint effort between LLBO Division of Resources Management (DRM) and USDA Wildlife Services (WS), MN Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR), and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). WS served as lead agency in this effort. By preparing it in this manner, it could be utilized by other agencies elsewhere in Minnesota if resource damage was documented. The EA proposed to reduce the Leech Lake colony more than 10% so, under provisions of the Federal Depredation Order, the Leech Lake Band submitted a request to the US Fish and Wildlife Service to go to a higher population reduction limit (reduction to 500 nests).
    [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]
  • PIELC-2016-Broshure-For-Sure.Pdf
    WelcOME! Welcome to the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (PIELC), the premier annual gathering for environmen- talists in the world! Now in its 34th year, PIELC unites thousands of activists, attorneys, students, scientists, and commu- nity members from over 50 countries to share their ideas, experience, and expertise. With keynote addresses, workshops, films, celebrations, and over 130 panels, PIELC is world-renowned for its energy, innovation, and inspiration. In 2011, PIELC received the Program of the Year Award from the American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, and in 2013 PIELC received the American Bar Assoication Law Student Division’s Public Interest Award. PIELC 2016, A LEGacY WORTH LeaVING “A Legacy Worth Leaving” is a response to the drastic need of daily, direct action of individuals in their communities. Cohesive leadership models must acknowledge that individual participation directs society’s impact on interdependent community and global systems. Diversity of cultures, talents, and specialties must converge to guide community initiatives in a balanced system. Each has a unique role that can no longer be hindered by the complacent passive-participation models of traditional leadership schemes. Building community means being community. This year at PIELC, we will be exploring alternative methods of approaching current ecological, social, and cultural paradigms. First, by examining the past – let us not relive our mistakes. Then, by focusing on the present. Days to months, months to years, years to a lifetime; small acts compound to the life-story of a person, a place, a planet. What legacy are you leaving? WIFI GUEST ACCOUNT LOGIN INSTRUCTIONS 1) Connect to the “UOguest” wireless network (do NOT connect to the “UOwireless” network).
    [Show full text]