Michigan Botanical Club State Newsletter
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Michigan Technological University Archives' Postcard Collection MTU-196
Michigan Technological University Archives' Postcard Collection MTU-196 This finding aid was produced using ArchivesSpace on February 08, 2019. Description is in English Michigan Technological University Archives and Copper Country Historical Collections 1400 Townsend Drive Houghton 49931 [email protected] URL: http://www.lib.mtu.edu/mtuarchives/ Michigan Technological University Archives' Postcard Collection MTU-196 Table of Contents Summary Information .................................................................................................................................... 3 Biography ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Collection Scope and Content Summary ....................................................................................................... 4 Administrative Information ............................................................................................................................ 4 Controlled Access Headings .......................................................................................................................... 4 Collection Inventory ....................................................................................................................................... 5 A ................................................................................................................................................................... 5 B .................................................................................................................................................................. -
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. -
VGP) Version 2/5/2009
Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A. -
Michigan Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Plan DRAFT April
Michigan Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Plan DRAFT April 2008 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Coastal Zone Management Program Table of Contents List of Figures......................................................................................................................................... iv I. Introduction a. Program background and federal requirements ..............................................................................1 b. Purpose and goals of Michigan’s CELC plan ..................................................................................2 II. Priorities for Coastal and Estuarine Protection a. Geographic extent of Michigan’s CELCP areas ..............................................................................2 b. Types of lands to be protected and the need for conservation of these resources.........................3 c. Project areas that represent Michigan’s priority areas for conservation..........................................6 d. Descriptions of existing plans, or elements thereof that are incorporated into Michigan’s plan......8 III. State Process for Implementing the CELCP a. Identification of state lead agency .................................................................................................13 b. List of state or local agencies, or types of agencies, that are eligible to hold title to property.......13 c. Description of the state’s project nomination process ...................................................................13 IV. Program Procedures and Coordination -
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. -
Sylvania Wilderness for More Information, Contacatn: DERSON LAKE BIG DONAHUE LAKE Florence to Big Bateau Lake 34 Rods 36
2 DAMON LAKE Watersmeet 3.5 miles 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 Sylvania 30 29 PIT LAKE Wilderness CUTTERS POND 28 ROSS LAKE ALBINO LAKE and Recreation RAVEN LAKE PORCUPINE LAKE HATTIE LAKE 35 Area BIG AFRICAN LAKE 36 31 32 RECORD LAKE 33 PARTRIDGE LAKE GOG-535 MAUD LAKE 34 DOYLE LAKE 35 36 31 32 33 BIG AFRICAN LAKE SNAP JACK LAKE CLEAR LAKE Sylvania RICKLES LAKE Entrance TRAIL LAKE Station HELEN LAKE Clark Lake Campground KERR LAKE WOLF DEER-1 LONG LAKE COYOTE LITTLE TRAIL LAKE 2 WEST BEAR LAKE DEER-2 1 EAST BEAR LAKE PILOT LAKE 6 5 KATHERINE LAKE PORCUPINE-2 4 HIGH LAKE 3 2 HILLTOP LAKE PORCUPINE-1 RACCOON 1 JENNINGS LAKE 6 5 GOG-535 4 BOBCAT LYNX-2 THOUSAND ISLAND LAKE ASH-1 LYNX-1 ASH-2 JAY LAKE ERMINE-2 ERMINE-1 BALSAM-1 COREY LAKE 6320 LILUIS LAKE BALSAM-2 MINK-1 MOUNTAIN LAKE CHICKADEE LAKE LOUISE LAKE MINK-2 BEAR-2 CEDAR-2 PINE-1 CHIPMUNK BEAR-1 11 CEDAR-1 BEAVER-1 12 PINE-2 7 SQUIRREL-2 8 CLARK LAKE 9 DOROTHY LAKEELSIE LAKE 10 SQUIRREL-1 BEAVER-2 LITTLE DUCK LAKE BIRCH 12 CROOKED LAKE FOX-1 7 MAPLE-2 11 8 MAPLE-1 9 FOX-2 MULE LAKE SISKIN LAKE BADGER-1 BADGER-2 DAISY LAKE FISHER-1 9 FISHER-2 3 5 - G HAY LAKE O DEVILS HEAD LAKE G PERCH-1 GERMAIN LAKE TRAPPER LAKE 14 13 PERCH-2 INDIAN LAKE 18 17 16 15 14 MALLARD-1 13 18 17 16 DREAM LAKE MALLARD-2 WHITEFISH LAKE EAST BAY LAKE PIKE-1 LOON LAKE PIKE-2 OSPREY-2 DUCK LAKE 23 BASS LOON 24 OSPREY-1 19 LOIS LAKE 20 DEER ISLAND LAKE 6320 21 22 EAGLE-2 23 24 19 20 Mic EAGLE-1 21 higan MOSS LAKE MAMIE LAKE Wilderness Campsites Wisc FISHER LAKE onsin Boat Landing JOHNSTON SPRINGS Portage Lengths -
PDF for Print
UPPER GREAT LAKES Physical Description species including the fisher, black bear, snowshoeing, nature study and soli- The Upper Great Lakes Keystone Forest loon, osprey and brook trout. There is tude. is part of the larger Western Great also potential habitat for the recovery Lakes forest ecoregion. Even today, the of extirpated or rare species such as the Threats remote Upper Peninsula of Michigan, cougar, lynx, marten and wolverine. As the U.S. Forest Service has run out northern Wisconsin and Minnesota har- The most dominant feature of the of areas to log in other regions, the bor some of the most expansive forests region is water, with hundreds of miles rate of cutting has skyrocketed in the remaining in the lower 48 states. A mix of shoreline on Lake Superior; tens of national forests of the Great Lakes. The of spruce-fir coniferous forest and a thousands of lakes, ponds and wet- state forests in the region have long hardwood mix of aspen, paper birch, lands; and thousands of miles of rivers been grossly mismanaged and continue beech and maple dominate this key- and streams. This keystone forest is to suffer major ecological damage stone forest. This vast forest is home to well-known for its diverse backcountry from logging, road-building and inten- most of the wolves and almost one- recreational opportunities, including sive motorized recreation. A significant half of the bald eagles in the lower 48 hiking, camping, canoeing, boating, threat on both federal and state lands states, as well as other sensitive wildlife fishing, hunting, cross-country skiing, is widespread clearcutting to benefit commonly hunted wildlife, such as deer and ruffed grouse, to the detri- ment of many sensitive native species. -
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 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! -
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 -
The National Forests of Michigan, Federal Payments to States
The National Forests of Michigan Federal Payments to States The Eastern Region of the U.S. Forest Service The Federal Government reimburses States that contain National Forest System Lands in several ways. The 25 Percent Payments. The first county payment or revenue is the “25 Percent Fund payment.” The 25 Percent Fund payment is based on gross National Forest receipts within a National Forest and is allocated to counties by the proportion of the total National Forest acreage within each county in the particular National Forest. Secure Rural Schools. The Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program is an alternative to 25 Percent Payments. This program allows counties to elect the manner in which their payment is calculated. A county may choose to continue to receive the 25-percent payments based on a 7-year rolling average of receipts from national forests located in the State. Counties may elect to receive the Full Payment option, in which Title I dollars are allocated to roads and schools while Title II and III funds are spent on work completed on or that benefit National Forest System lands. The PILT Payment. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are Federal payments to local governments that help offset losses in property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries. The key law that implements the payment is Public Law 94-565. The Law recognizes that the inability of local government to collect property taxes on Federally-owned land can create a financial impact. Mineral Royalties. The third major Federal program that funds States and counties involves mineral royalties generated on Federal lands. -
Ottawa National Forest
0614spj1 Ottawa National Forest United States Department of Agriculture Record of Decision Forest Service Eastern Region Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2006 To accompany the Land and Resource Management Plan Cover Photo: Burned Dam, Watersmeet Ranger District, Ottawa National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Marquette, and Ontonagon Counties Responsible Official: Randy Moore, Regional Forester USDA Forest Service Eastern Region 626 E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-297-3428 For Further Information Contact: Ottawa National Forest Forest Supervisor E6248 US Hwy. 2 Ironwood, MI 49938 Phone: 906-932-1330 Fax: 906-932-0122 TTY: 906-932-0301 Table of Contents PREFACE......................................................................................................................................................I RECORD OF DECISION ........................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 1 THE OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST .............................................................................................................. 2 A VISION OF THE FUTURE........................................................................................................................... 3 DECISION AND RATIONALE................................................................................................................. -
Yellow Dog River Community Forest Plan Adopted on February 8, 2017 Authored by Emily Whittaker Special Projects Manager Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve
Yellow Dog River Community Forest Plan Adopted on February 8, 2017 Authored by Emily Whittaker Special Projects Manager Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve Table of Contents I. Introduction II. History of the Yellow Dog River Community Forest III. Natural Features of the Community Forest a. Land Cover b. Topography c. Soils and Geology d. Natural Communities i. Granite Bedrock Glades ii. Boreal Forests e. Forest Composition f. Understory Plants g. Animals i. Mammals ii. Birds iii. Reptiles and Amphibians iv. Aquatic Invertebrates v. Aquatic Vertebrates h. Water Features i. Yellow Dog River ii. Tributaries iii. Waterfalls iv. Wetlands v. Groundwater IV. Recreational Features of the Community Forest V. Community Demographics VI. Management of the Community Forest a. Roles and Responsibilities i. The Landowner ii. The Community Forest Committee iii. The Public iv. Other Partners b. Givens and Restrictions VII. The Public Participation Process a. Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Planning Process i. Methods for Solicitation of Public Input ii. Project Timeline b. Results of VERP i. Purpose Statement ii. Desired and Prohibited Uses iii. Goals and Objectives iv. The User Experience v. Conceptual Design and Alternatives vi. Selected Management Alternative VIII. Priority Management Actions a. Environmental Use Task List b. Recreational Use Task List c. Educational Use Task List d. Economic Use Task List e. Schedule of Activities IX. Long Term Stewardship a. Funding Mechanisms b. Adaptive Management X. Conclusion Appendices Appendix A: Plant Species List Appendix B: Mammal Species List Appendix C: Bird Species List Appendix D: Reptile and Amphibian Species List Appendix E: Conceptual Management Alternatives Appendix F: Forest Stewardship Plan List of Figures 1.