DOCSLIB.ORG

Apples in the Upper Peninsula a Unique Michigan Crop by Russell M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Apples in the Upper Peninsula a Unique Michigan Crop by Russell M Historical Society of Michigan Apples in the Upper Peninsula A Unique Michigan Crop By Russell M. Magnaghi A History of U.P. Fruit Farming A watercolor of a Michigan-grown Duchess Although geographer Henry R. Schoolcraft promoted of Oldenburg apple. (Photo agriculture throughout Michigan as early as the 1830s, courtesy of the U.S. National farming in the Upper Peninsula—and fruit-growing Agricultural Library.) especially—has largely been ignored by history. Nonetheless, research shows that in areas such as Menominee, Chippewa, The Upper Peninsula of Michigan and Delta SocietyCounties, farming has flourished over the years. Apples, in particular, have been part of the Upper Peninsula is historically known for copper2019 since the arrival of the French in the seventeenth century. and iron mining, lumbering, While crab apples—cousins of the domestic apple—are fishing, and tourism, all of which native to North America and were used by the Indigenous overshadow the region’s agricultural peoples of the Great Lakes region, the domestic apple © (Malus domestica) was an import from Europe. Jesuit advancements. But, for hundreds of missionaries, fur traders, and early settlers scattered apple years, the Upper Peninsula has been seeds across the landscape. Only the hardy flourished. Two home to many kinds of vegetables of the better-known variants of Canadian apples were the Gray and Snow apples. and fruits—including the apple, The center of apple growing during Michigan’s colonial which remains a cultural staple in Michiganperiod was at the Straits of Mackinac, where the French Michigan today. introduced both apples and pears. Englishmen developed small apple orchards south of Fort Michilimackinac in the 1760s. Later, in the early nineteenth century, apple of culture flourished on Mackinac Island, and by 1827, there were about 50 apple trees growing in the vicinity of Fort HistoricalMackinac. Author Henry David Thoreau wrote of “apples in bloom” on the island in the early summer of 1861. Catholic and Protestant missionaries in the Great Lakes region sought to encourage Native Americans—who were seminomadic hunters, fishers, and gatherers—to settle in Frequently spraying apple trees during the summer was essential for a successful autumn harvest. (All photos courtesy of Superior Views, unless otherwise noted.) 12 Chronicle Summer 2019 Society Apple picking in the Upper Peninsula was quite2019 the production during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Both boxes and barrels were used to transport the fruit, and long ladders were needed for harvesting apples. Later, the introduction of dwarf trees made the job easier. Michigan’s Upper Peninsula by introducing© new forms of and apples to see what would grow in the area, and he later agriculture to them. Apple trees soon appeared in Sault Ste. reported that the different apples under cultivation were Marie and L’Anse, while others were found on Grand Island. doing well. In 1904, the station won a bronze medal at the St. Louis World’s Fair for a Duchess of Oldenburg apple. With the development of copper and iron mines in Geismar was excited about the award and hoped that it Houghton and Marquette Counties during the mid- would promote further apple culture. nineteenth century, people seeking the flavor of apples had to first rely on imported barrels of dried fruit. Because of a MichiganMany Scandinavian and German immigrants to Michigan growing demand, farmers quickly realized that apples had a brushed aside concerns that fruit trees would not grow home in the Upper Peninsula. in the Upper Peninsula and experimented with apple Farming families typically tried to plant three or four cultivation. Meanwhile, French-Canadian farmers brought varieties of apples so that they had apples throughof the entire their knowledge of apple growing from Québec. harvest, with some varieties storing well into March. Today, Magnus Nelson, a Swedish immigrant, gave up mining and one can see the remainsHistorical of that apple culture by observing was encouraged by a Chicago & North Western Railway the apple trees flourishing in the middle of wilderness areas, agent to develop an apple orchard. Studying on his own, he on Isle Royale, and in Fayette Historic State Park. improved apple cultivation in the Upper Peninsula. When he retired in 1905, Nelson’s net worth was valued at more Cultivating Apples in the than $100,000—or $2.5 million in today’s buying power. Upper Peninsula Robert Blemhuber, a German immigrant, became known for the variety of fruit he was able to grow on the shores of Michigan’s State Agricultural College—known today as Lake Superior in Marquette. Michigan State University—established the U.P. agricultural substation in Chatham, near Munising, in 1899. Its first Many of the apples produced through the 1920s were superintendent, Leo Geismar, planted numerous grains adapted to the Upper Peninsula. Those varieties included 13 Historical Society of Michigan Modern Demand for U.P. Apples In the twentieth century, there was one attempt to cultivate apples on the temperate Garden Peninsula, which is warmed by Lake Michigan. The Mawby family from Leelanau County bought 160 acres on the peninsula and planted between 4,000 and 5,000 apple trees, all northern varieties created by the University of Minnesota. The attempt was a success. The unique apples were sold locally, peddled by a New York dealer as expensive Christmas gifts, and made into fresh apple cider that was available across the Upper Peninsula. When old age and retirement eventually set in, the Mawby orchard was sold. Production continued under the new owner, John Thill, Proper grading and packing were critical to the successful sale of apples. until his retirement prompted the orchard to be sold to an Illinois man who wanted the land, but not the trees. To fill the demand for apples in the Upper Peninsula during the twentieth century, the Cohodas brothers came on the scene. Immigrants from Belarus, the brothers grew apples in their orchards around Manistee and Empire in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula and in Washington State. They supplied U.P. markets with apples into the 1970s, when they retired. Sam Cohodas, an authority on apple cultivation, pointed out that an apple grower in the Upper Peninsula had to deal with a difficultSociety climate that could be devastating to crops. Because of that reality, he never developed an orchard in the 2019Upper Peninsula and grew his fruit south of the Mackinac Bridge. Cohodas concluded that U.P. apple growers had to be hobbyists who were not worried about making their annual incomes from their crop yields. Several women pick apples in an orchard in© the Upper Peninsula. Today, most apples are brought to the Upper Peninsula the Duchess of Oldenburg, Yellow Transparent, Wealthy, by major distributors, but some continue to be grown on a limited basis in the region. Some apples flourish in the Northwestern Greening, Pewaukee, Snow, Wolf River, wild, while others are cultivated for their spring beauty. Alexander, North Star, Ben Davis, and the Tetofsky, as well Two apple growers who are prominent in the central Upper as a few other Russian varieties. Peninsula today own flourishing orchards with more than However, there were several pitfalls for U.P. apple growers. Michigan600 trees between them. Proper soil had to be identified, and farmers faced Wild apples in the Upper Peninsula are also available by environmental problems such as spring frosts that could seeking out trees growing around old buildings. While the wipe out blossoms and the crop for the year. Then there apples are small, they make excellent applesauce. Larger were struggles with insects and fungi that attacked the of heirloom trees can be found in Fayette Historic State Park trees and fruit, which resulted in the demand for frequent on the Garden Peninsula and in Negaunee. Encountering spraying. Finally, farmersHistorical throughout the region had to deal apples across the Upper Peninsula allows alert travelers to with bears and deer that not only ate their apples but also experience Michigan’s history through the red fruit they destroyed their trees. hold in their hands. U During the heyday of apple growing in the 1920s and 1930s, theft of apples was common. At one point, the Russell M. Magnaghi is the history professor emeritus and research associate for the Center for Upper Michigan State Constabulary—now known as the Michigan Peninsula Studies at Northern Michigan University. State Police—made intercepting apple thieves one of He has written numerous books and articles dealing its chief missions. In Negaunee, a woman took matters with the Upper Peninsula. into her own hands when she chased off boys in her trees with a shotgun. 14 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phase I Avian Risk Assessment
    PHASE I AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Report Prepared for: Heritage Sustainable Energy October 2007 Report Prepared by: Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D. John Guarnaccia Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569 [email protected] [email protected] Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project, Delta County, MI Phase I Avian Risk Assessment Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Executive Summary Heritage Sustainable Energy is proposing a utility-scale wind-power project of moderate size for the Garden Peninsula on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in Delta County. This peninsula separates northern Lake Michigan from Big Bay de Noc. The number of wind turbines is as yet undetermined, but a leasehold map provided to Curry & Kerlinger indicates that turbines would be constructed on private lands (i.e., not in the Lake Superior State Forest) in mainly agricultural areas on the western side of the peninsula, and possibly on Little Summer Island. For the purpose of analysis, we are assuming wind turbines with a nameplate capacity of 2.0 MW. The turbine towers would likely be about 78.0 meters (256 feet) tall and have rotors of about 39.0 m (128 feet) long. With the rotor tip in the 12 o’clock position, the wind turbines would reach a maximum height of about 118.0 m (387 feet) above ground level (AGL). When in the 6 o’clock position, rotor tips would be about 38.0 m (125 feet) AGL. However, larger turbines with nameplate capacities (up to 2.5 MW and more) reaching to 152.5 m (500 feet) are may be used.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Coastal Program Strategic Plan
    U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE The Coastal Program ~ Strategic Plan ~ Stewardship of Fish and Wildlife Through Voluntary Conservation Regional Step-Down Plan Region 3 - “Great Lakes -Big Rivers” Part 2 of 3 FY 2007-2011 Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................1 II. Regional Overview..................................................................................................................... 3 Wetland Habitat Types............................................................................................................... 3 Coastal Upland Habitat Types ................................................................................................... 4 Stream/Riparian Habitat Types.................................................................................................. 5 Issues and Risks ......................................................................................................................... 6 Cooperative Conservation.......................................................................................................... 6 III. Goal One: Conserving Habitat................................................................................................. 7 Regional Objectives ................................................................................................................... 7 Key Strategic Activities ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Wisconsin's Door Peninsula and Its Geomorphology
    WISCONSIN'S DOOR PENINSULA AND ITS GEOMORPHOLOGY Howard De II er AGS Collection, UW-Mllwaukee and Paul Stoelting University of Wisconsin-La Crosse The Door Peninsula of Wisconsin is one of the premier tourist regions of the American r~iddle West. According to a recent geography of Wisconsin (Vogeler et al 1986,8) , the region is best known for its picturesque sea­ scape, New England-style architecture, fish boils, and cherry orchards. Among geomorphologists, however, the region is known for the great variety of land­ form types and for the complex and changing geomorphological processes which have operated in the peninsula. Towering bluffs, sand dunes, lake terraces, abandoned beach ridges, swampy lowlands, and drumlin fields are only some of the many types of landforms to be found in the peninsula. Indeed, the region can be viewed as a unique geomorphological laboratory and an excellent example for classroom study. In this short paper an attempt is made to describe and analyze some of the more prominent landform features of the peninsula and the processes which have influenced their formation. LOCATION AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The Door Peninsula, located In northeastern Wisconsin. is part of the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands province of the state. The peninsula extends in a northeasterly direction into Lake Michigan to separate Green Bay on the west from the main body of Lake Michigan on the east. The peninsula is approximately 64 miles long and about 26 miles wide on its southern end, between the mouth of the Fox River and the city of Kewaunee on Lake Michigan (Map I).
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: a Second Iteration
    Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: A Second Iteration (Revised September 2000) Prepared by The Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program 8 South Michigan Avenue Suite 2301 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 759-8017 Copyright 2000 Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Toward A New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes In 1996, The Nature Conservancy’s Great Lakes Program launched a collaborative initiative to identify high priority biodiversity conservation sites in the Great Lakes region. This initiative was precipitated by the Conservancy broadening its focus beyond just rare and endangered species and natural communities. The Conservancy recognized that to effectively protect the full range of biodiversity, conservation efforts must include those species and natural communities that are more common and representative as well as those that are declining or vulnerable. Taking an Ecoregional Perspective To address this shift in focus, the Conservancy oriented its work based on ecoregions—large areas defined by the influences of shared climate and geology, the main factors that determine the broad-scale distribution of plants and animals.1 The Great Lakes ecoregion—which includes major portions of Canada and the United States—is one of 64 ecologically distinct regions of the continental United States. For each of these ecoregions, the Conservancy is developing a detailed plan that identifies the places that need to be protected to conserve native biodiversity for the long term. At many of these places, local communities, private landowners and an array of public and private entities are already leading important conservation efforts. The Great Lakes ecoregional planning initiative is a systematic approach that identifies all native species, natural communities and aquatic systems characteristic of the Great Lakes region and then determines how many of and where these elements of biodiversity need to be protected over the long term.
    [Show full text]
  • North End of Lake Michigan, Including Green Bay NOAA Chart 14902
    BookletChart™ North End of Lake Michigan, Including Green Bay NOAA Chart 14902 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Published by the small-craft harbor at Petoskey is protected on the W by a breakwater extending N from shore and marked on the outer end by a light. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration breakwater should not be passed close aboard due to large riprap National Ocean Service stones along the sides, and end. Office of Coast Survey Beaver Island, the principal island in the group W of Grays Reef Passage, is 13 miles long N and S with a maximum width of 6.5 miles. The wooded www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov island is bluff on the W side and lower on the E side. Shoals extend 888-990-NOAA about 0.5 to 1 mile offshore around the island, except in Sandy Bay, about mid-length of the E side, where deep water is within 0.2 mile of What are Nautical Charts? shore. Good Harbor Bay, between Carp River Point and Pyramid Point 7.7 Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show miles WSW, has deep water close to shore and affords protection in all water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much but N to NE winds. However, in the NE part of the bay, an extensive more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and rocky ledge with depths of 2 to 18 feet is 1 to 3 miles offshore.
    [Show full text]
  • Nahma Township Recreation Plan 2011-2015
    NAHMA TOWNSHIP RECREATION PLAN 2011-2015 Acknowledgments Nahma Township Board: Cindy Bradshaw, Supervisor Patti Migut, Clerk Elizabeth Denessen, Treasurer Mary LaVigne, Trustee Ruth Bingham, Trustee Nahma Township Recreation Committee: Glenn Lamberg, Chairperson Kathy Fries, Vice-Chairperson Dawn White Christine Groleau Charley & Laurie MacIntosh Carlton Johnson, Jr. Tammy Frankovich Mark Hansen Jerry Herod Special thanks to the following individuals/organizations for their assistance: Michelle Dewitt, Senior Planner, Central Upper Peninsula Planning and Development (CUPPAD), 2415 14th Ave. South, Escanaba, MI, www.cuppad.org Anne Okonek, US Forest Service, Rapid River, MI Marilyn Shy, Upper Peninsula RC&D Program, Marquette, MI Nahma Township Historic Society-Photos/Documents Jon Hayes-Proof Reading and Suggestions Phyllis Lamberg-Proof Reading Betty Denessen-Proofing and Suggestions Violet Sargent and Dani Groleau-Proofing History Mary Lavigne-Day Trips Section Tee Lynts-Proofing and Guidance Acknowledgements NAHMA TOWNSHIP RECREATION PLAN 2011-2015 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Nahma Township History ............................................................................................ 4 2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE ................................................................................... 10 2.1 Organizational Structure ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft​ ​Green Bay​ ​National Wildlife Refuge Fishing Plan
    APPENDIX B GREEN BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE DRAFT FISHING PLAN Draft Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge ​ ​ ​ ​ Fishing Plan January 2019 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge W4279 Headquarters Road Mayville, WI 53050 Submitted By: Project Leader ______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Concurrence: Refuge Supervisor ______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Approved: Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System ______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Page 2 Table of Contents I. Introduction 4 II. Statement of Objectives 6 III. Description of Fishing Program 7 A. Areas to be Opened to Fishing 7 B. Species to be Taken, Fishing Periods, Fishing Access 7 C. Angler Permit Requirements 7 D. Consultation and Coordination with the State 7 E. Law Enforcement 7 F. Funding and Staffing Requirements 8 IV. Conduct of the Fishing Program 8 A. Angler Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures 8 B. Refuge-Specific Regulations 8 C. Relevant State Regulations 8 D. Other Rules and Regulations for Anglers 8 V. Public Engagement 9 A. Outreach Plan for Announcing and Publicizing the Fishing Program 9 B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Fishing Program 9 C. How the Public Will be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations 9 VI. Compatibility Determination 9 ​ ​ VII. References 9 Page 3 DRAFT GREEN BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ​ ​ FISHING PLAN I. Introduction ​ National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Capitalism and the Company Town: Structural Power, Bio-Power, and Identity in Nineteenth-Century Fayette, Michigan
    Industrial Capitalism and the Company Town: Structural Power, Bio-Power, and Identity in Nineteenth-Century Fayette, Michigan Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Cowie, Sarah E. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 05/10/2021 15:28:41 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/195560 INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM AND THE COMPANY TOWN: STRUCTURAL POWER, BIO-POWER, AND IDENTITY IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY FAYETTE, MICHIGAN by Sarah E. Cowie _____________________ Copyright © Sarah E. Cowie 2008 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2008 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Sarah E. Cowie entitled Industrial Capitalism and the Company Town: Structural Power, Bio-Power, and Identity in 19th Century Fayette, Michigan and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 03/31/08 David Killick _______________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing for a Living on the Great Lakes by Janet C
    Fishing for a Living on the Great Lakes by Janet C. Gilmore Commercial fishing on the Great Lakes, as with most work today along or on the water, has become a much less pervasive, visible activity than it once was. Fewer people operating larger, more powerful equipment harvest an increasingly restricted catch. Fish­ janet C Gilmore received her Ph.D in folk­ ing has become a specialized occupation no longer fully- integrated lore from Indiana University and is currently into the daily lives of the lakeside population. While perpetually self-employed, working out ofMadison , Wisconsin. During the past year she has threatened with extinction by overfishing, heavy pollution, and the interviewed commercial fishermen from Lake introduction (purposeful and inadvertent) of non-native species, Superior, Lake Michigan, and the Mississippi River for several regional folk arts surveys, and edible fish still survive in the Great Lakes in enough numbers to publishedThe World of the Oregon Fishboat, sustain an average annual U.S. catch of75-100 million pounds. Also based on fieldwork conducted among Charles­ ton, Oregon's commercia/fishers during the threatened, but with political constraints and a smaller share of the late 1970s. catch, a hardy lot of Great Lakes commercial fishers has continued to pass on to new generations its way of making a living. Of all the Great Lakes states Michigan touches upon the most lakes and boasts the greatest shoreline, yet her numbers of commercial fishermen and pounds of fish commercially landed fall surprisingly second to Wisconsin's and barely surpass Ohio's. Partly because of complex political issues and partly because of profound regional differences in the state, most of Michigan's commercial fishers work off the Upper Peninsula.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules
    25880 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of the record of the public hearing and on with the floodplain management criteria confidentiality accompanies the any other relevant written submissions required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the submission when it is received by EPA, and other pertinent information. This minimum that are required. They it may be made available to the public information will be available for public should not be construed to mean that without further notice to the person inspection at the EPA Air Docket, the community must change any making comments. Docket No. A±97±26 (see ADDRESSES). existing ordinances that are more B. Public Participation Dated: May 8, 1997. stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The Any person desiring to present Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and community may at any time enact testimony regarding this proposed rule stricter requirements of its own, or at the public hearing (see DATES) Radiation. [FR Doc. 97±12476 Filed 5±9±97; 8:45 am] pursuant to policies established by other should notify the contact person listed Federal, state or regional entities. These BILLING CODE 6560±50±P above of such intent as soon as possible. proposed elevations are used to meet A sign-up sheet will be available at the the floodplain management registration table the morning of the requirements of the NFIP and are also FEDERAL EMERGENCY hearing for scheduling testimony for used to calculate the appropriate flood MANAGEMENT AGENCY those who have not notified the contact insurance premium rates for new person.
    [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 l 0 l IN REPLY RFFER TO: East Lansing, Michigan 48823-6316 November 4, 2011 Ms. Xio Cordoba Heritage Sustainable Energy 121 East Front Street Traverse City, MI 49684-2570 Dear Ms. Cordoba: Thank you for your previous correspondence with our office concerning Phase I of your proposed wind energy development located on the Garden Peninsula in Delta County Township 39N, Range 18W, Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9; and Township 40N, Range 18W, Sections 28, 29, 32, and 33. Our records indicate that Phase I of the proposed project involves 14 commercial wind turbines located approximately 0.5 to 1.5 miles from the Lake Michigan shoreline. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) supports the development of alternative energy sources. However, if not appropriate1y designed and sited, wind turbines may negatively impact wildlife and their habitats. Our comments in this letter are provided pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; Eagle Act). We provide this information to inform Heritage Sustainable Energy of our assessment of risk to migratory birds and bald eagles from this proposed wind development. Based on the data currently available, we must once again recommend that you not construct a commercial wind energy development on the Garden Peninsula because of the high potential for avian mortalities and violations ofFederal wildlife laws. Since 2007, our office has expressed significant concerns with this project.
    [Show full text]