DOCSLIB.ORG

C-10-L-1 Proposal Narrative with Segment 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
C-10-L-1 Proposal Narrative with Segment 1 APPLICATION FOR Version 7/03 FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2. DATE SUBMITTED August 14, 2008 Applicant Identifier 1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION: 3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE State Application Identifier Application : Pre-application Michigan Construction Construction 4. DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY Federal Identifier Non-Construction Non-Construction C-10-L-1 5. APPLICANT INFORMATION Legal Name: MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Organizational Unit: Department: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Organizational DUNS: 805339991 Division: Wildlife Address: Name and telephone number of person to be contacted on matters involving this Street: PO BOX 30028 application (give area code) Prefix: Mr. First Name: Eric City: LANSING Middle Name: County: INGHAM Last Name: Sink State: MI Zip Code: 48909-7528 Suffix: Country: USA Email: [email protected] 6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN): Phone Number (give area code) Fax Number (give area code) 38-6000134 (517) 335-1064 (517) 335-4242 8. TYPE OF APPLICATION: 7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: (See back of form for Application Types) New If Revision, enter appropriate letter(s) in box(es) A. State Government (See back of form for description of letters.) Other (specify): None None Other (specify): 9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. DOI - Fish & Wildlife Service 10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE NUMBER: 11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANT’S PROJECT: 15.614 Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act Saint Mary's River Coastal Wetland Acquisition Other (specify): 12. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): Bruce Township, Chippewa County, Michigan 13. PROPOSED PROJECT 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF: Start Date:09/15/2008 Ending Date: 09/30/2009 a. Applicant: Eighth b. Project: First 15. ESTIMATED FUNDING: 16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS? a. Federal $366,667.13 a. YES THIS PREAPPLICATION/APPLICATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON b. Applicant $ 0.00 c. State $ 166,666.37 DATE: d. Local $0.00 b. NO PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E. O. 12372 e. Other $ 0.00 OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIEW f. Program Income $ 0.00 17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT? g. TOTAL $ 533,333.50 YesIf “Yes” attach an explanation. No 18. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION/PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED ASSURANCES. a. Authorized Representative Prefix: Ms. First Name: Mindy Middle Name: S. Last Name: Koch Suffix: b. Title: c. Telephone Number (give area code) Resource Management Deputy (517) 373-0046 Email: Fax Number (give area code) (517) 375-4242 d. Signature of Authorized Representative e. Date Signed: August 14, 2008 Previous Edition Usable Standard Form 424 (Rev. 9-2003) Authorized for Local Reproduction Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 BUDGET INFORMATION - Non-Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 3048-0044 SECTION A - BUDGET SUMMARY Grant Program Catalog of Federal Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget Function Domestic Assistance or Activity Number Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 1. NCWC 15.614 $366,667.13 $166,666.87 $533,334.00 2. 0.00 3. 0.00 4. 0.00 5. Totals $0.00 $0.00 $366,667.13 $166,666.87 $533,334.00 SECTION B - BUDGET CATEGORIES GRANT SEGMENT BUDGET DETAILS Total 6. Object Class Categories (Segment 1) (Segment 2) (Segment 3) (Segment 4) (5) a. Personnel $3,721.05 $3,721.05 b. Fringe Benefits 1,414.00 1,414.00 c. Travel 250.00 250.00 d. Equipment 0.00 0.00 e. Supplies 0.00 0.00 f. Contractual 525,000.00 525,000.00 g. Construction 0.00 0.00 h. Other - Audit - 0.0038 2,019.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,019.00 i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) 532,404.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 532,404.04 j. Indirect Charges - 0.1811 929.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 929.96 k. TOTALS (sum of 6i-6j) $533,334.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $533,334.00 7. Program Income $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Previous Edition Usable Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form 424A (Rev. 7-97) SECTION C - NON-FEDERAL RESOURCES (a) Grant Program (b) Applicant (c) State (d) Other Sources (e) TOTALS 8. 15.614 NCWC $166,666.87 $166,666.87 9. 0.00 10. 0.00 11. 0.00 12. TOTAL (sum of lines 8-11) $0.00 $166,666.87 $0.00 $166,666.87 SECTION D - FORECASTED CASH NEEDS Total for 1st Year 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 13. Federal $3,666.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,666.67 14. Non-Federal $1,666.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,666.67 15. TOTAL (sum of lines 13 and 14) $5,333.34 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,333.34 SECTION E - BUDGET ESTIMATES OF FEDERAL FUNDS NEEDED FOR BALANCE OF THE PROJECT FUTURE FUNDING PERIODS (Years) (a) Grant Program (b) First (c) Second (d) Third (e) Fourth 16. 15.614 NCWC $363,000.46 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 17. 18. 19. 20. TOTAL (sum of lines 16-19) $363,000.46 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 SECTION F - OTHER BUDGET INFORMATION 21. Direct Charges: 22. Indirect Charges: 18.11% on Personnel and Fringe Benefits 23. Remarks: Authorized for Local Reproduction Standard Form 424A (Rev. 7-97) Page 2 Michigan Department of Natural Resources Findings of NEPA Compliance for Federal Assistance August 13, 2008 Grant Approval Action Dear Mr. Bryant: The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) is requesting approval of the AFA and Grant Proposal Narrative including Segment 1 for the following Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program grant: Federal ID: C-10-L-1 Amendment Number: Grant Name: Lower St. Mary’s River/Munuscong Coastal Wetlands Project This document has been prepared to serve as part of the administrative record for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Concerning the federal action requested above, I have reviewed the actions included in this grant for NEPA compliance and have found that the activities supported by this grant: Will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment and are completely covered by the following categorical exclusion(s) 1.3 in Appendix 1 to 516 DM Chapter 2 and/or 1.4A(4) in 516 DM Chapter 8.5. The definitions of the categorical exclusions used are as follows: 516 DM 2, Appendix 1 – Department of the Interior Categorical Exclusions revised in the Federal Register: March 8, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 45) 1.3 Routine financial transactions including such things as salaries and expenses, procurement contracts (in accordance with applicable procedures and Executive Orders for sustainable or green procurement), guarantees, financial assistance, income transfers, audits, fees, bonds, and royalties. 516 DM 8.5 – US Fish and Wildlife Service Categorical Exclusions – Effective Date 5/27/2004 1.4A(4) The acquisition of real property obtained either through discretionary acts or when acquired by law, whether by way of condemnation, donation, escheat, right-of-entry, escrow, exchange, lapses, purchase, or transfer and that will be under the jurisdiction or control of the United States. Such acquisition of real property shall be in accordance with 602 DM 2 and the Service's procedures, when the acquisition is from a willing seller, continuance of or minor modification to the existing land use is planned, and the acquisition planning process has been performed in coordination with the affected public. Additionally, none of the following extraordinary circumstances applies that would disallow the use of the Categorical Exclusions listed above: 1. Have significant impacts on public health or safety. C-10-L-1 MDNR NEPA Compliance Documentation Page 1 of 3 2. Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990); floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas. 3. Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA Section 102(2)(E)]. 4. Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks. 5. Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects. 6. Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant environmental effects. 7. Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places as determined by either the bureau or office. 8. Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to be listed, on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species, or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species. 9. Violate a Federal law, or a State, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment. 10. Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations (Executive Order 12898). 11. Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites (Executive Order 13007). 12. Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Great Lakes Connecting Channels, Widening and Deepening Bends in the St
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS WIDENING AND DEEPENING BENDS IN THE ST. MARYS RIVER, MICHIGAN (PHASE III) Prepared by U. S. Army Engineer District Detroit, Michigan March 1974 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS GREAT LAKES CONNECTING CHANNELS WIDENING AND DEEPENING BENDS IN ST. MARYS RIVER, MICHIGAN PHASE III SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 1. I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the documents concerning the proposed action, as well as the stated views of other interested agencies and the concerned public, relative to the proposed dredging project on the connect­ ing channel waterway of the St. Marys River. 2. The River and Harbor Act of 1956 (P.L. 434, 84th Congress) pro­ vided for a safe vessel draft of 25.5 feet for both upbound and downbound traffic with a least channel width of 300 feet. Authority for inclusion of design and construction of the bend widening projects for the St. Marys River into the existing Great Lakes Channels Authorization was granted by the Chief of Engineers on 12 December 1967, subject: Great Lakes Connecting Channels, Widening and Deepening Bends in the St. Marys and St. Clair Rivers. 3. The continued well-being of tire St. Marys River is a matter of great concern to a wide scope of interests, whether they be commer­ cial, conservational, or recreational. The needs of waterborne commerce in terms of the project were carefully and objectively weighed against the potential impacts on the environment as well as the valid objections of concerned individuals and organizations. All phases of the project have been and continue to be coordinated with the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies having perti­ nent responsibilities.
    [Show full text]
  • NOAA Great Lakes Charts Catalog Reference
    Charts on the Great Lakes and Adjacent Waters 96° 94° Data On the Great Lakes System Chart Number Title Scale Chart Number Title Scale Chart Number Title Scale LAKE LAKE LAKE LAKE LAKE LAKE 14500 Great Lakes—Lake Champlain to Lake of the Woods 1:1,500,000 14847 Toledo Harbor 1:20,000 14915 Little Bay de Noc 1:30,000 GENERAL LAKE DIMENSION SUPERIOR MICHIGAN HURON ST. CLAIR ERIE ONTARIO ST. LAWRENCE RIVER Entrance Channel 1:40,000 14916 SMALL-CRAFT BOOK CHART Length in miles 350 307 206 26 241 193 14770 Morristown, N.Y. to Butternut Bay, Ont. 1:15,000 14848 Detroit River 1:30,000 Lake Winnebago and Lower Fox River (book of 34 charts) Various 14850 Lake St. Clair 1:60,000 14917 Menominee and Marinette Harbors 1:15,000 14500 Breadth in miles 160 118(1) 183(2) 24 57 53 14771 Butternut Bay, Ont., to Ironsides lsland., N.Y. 1:15,000 Length in coastline (including islands) 2,730 1,640 3,830(3) 257 871 712 14772 Ironsides lsland, N.Y., to Bingham lsland, Ont. 1:15,000 14852 St. Clair River 1:40,000 14918 Head of Green Bay, including Fox River below De Pere 1:25,000 Area in square miles 14773 Gananoque, Ont., to St. Lawrence Park. N.Y. 1:15,000 Head of St. Clair River 1:15,000 Green Bay 1:10,000 1450 Water Surface, United States 20,600(4) 22,300(5) 9,150(6) 198(7) 4,980 3,560(8) 14774 Round lsland, N.Y., and Gananoque, Ont., to Wolfe l., Ont.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Morphometric Factors in the Formation of Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands C
    P1: GIM TJ1095-03 TJ-AEM.cls May 27, 2004 9:29 Morphometric factors in the formation of Great Lakes coastal wetlands C. E. Herdendorf Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA; E-mail: [email protected] The Great Lakes basins were carved from ancient river valleys by continental ice sheets that receded from the region less than 10,000 years ago. Not only did the glaciers create the basins now holding the lakes, but they are responsible for many of the shallow depressions in the coastal margin that have since developed as coastal wetlands of various types. For the past four thousand years, coastal processes in the lakes have further modified the shore topography to form embayments, coastal lagoons, estuaries, deltas, and solution basins where thousands of hectares of wetlands have become established. This paper will explore the origin of the various morphometric forms which these wetlands have taken and their characteristic hydrologic processes. Keywords: estuaries, geomorphology, karst, lacustrine, palustrine, physiography Physiography of the Great Lakes gin of the waning ice sheet retreated northward into the newly carved lake basins, some of which were dammed The five adjoining Laurentian Great Lakes— by glacial end moraines. The early ice-margin lakes ex- Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario—extend panded as the glacial ice masses shrank. However, as 1,370 km from westernmost point to easternmost point new and lower outlets were uncovered to the north, the and 1,130 km from north to south (Figure 1). With lakes drained to ever lowering levels except during peri- a total surface area of 244,160 km2, this is the largest ods of minor readvances of the ice front (Hough, 1962).
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment Sugar Island Causeway Modifications for the Restoration of Little Rapids Habitat
    Draft Environmental Assessment Sugar Island Causeway Modifications for the Restoration of Little Rapids Habitat ST. MARYS RIVER, CHIPPEWA COUNTY, MICHIGAN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE January 2014 Little Rapids Habitat Restoration Project Draft Environmental Assessment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project: Little Rapids Habitat Restoration Sponsor: NOAA Restoration Center (NOAA) and the Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional Planning and Development Commission (EUP) Location: Sugar Island Causeway, Chippewa County, Michigan. Need: The loss of rapids habitat within the St. Marys River is having a long-term adverse effect on the existing fish assemblage and populations (EUP 2011). By modifying an existing causeway the ecological integrity of the aquatic habitat in the project area will be restored benefitting fisheries and other aquatic species. Purpose: The purpose of the Preferred Alternative is to better meet the objectives of the St. Marys River Area of Concern (AOC) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) by completing the last remaining habitat restoration project necessary to remove the Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) for the Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations and Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat. This will ultimately lead to the delisting of the St. Marys River AOC. Proposal: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Restoration Center (NOAA) provided initial funding for a feasibility study and engineering and design in 2011. In 2013 NOAA proposes to provide funding and technical assistance to implement the proposed action to restore flow to historic rapids by modifying the Sugar Island Causeway. Benefits of this action will provide additional high-quality habitat for spawning, nursery, and foraging for a variety of aquatic species within the Little Rapids area.
    [Show full text]
  • US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Dredging Proposal
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DETROIT DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS BOX 1027 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48231-1027 April 3, 2014 IN REPLY REFER TO: Planning Office Environmental Analysis Branch PUBLIC NOTICE 1. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Detroit District, proposes to place dredged material from the St. Marys River Federal navigation channel at Moon Island. Moon Island is located alongside the Federal navigation channel in Chippewa County, Michigan, about 22 miles south of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, near the southern end of Neebish Island. Only shoal material tested and found to be suitable for unrestricted placement would be placed at the island. The dredged material would be placed within a stone perimeter that will provide added erosion protection for the island. 2. Potential alternatives for handling dredged material from the Federal channel in the St. Marys River include: 1) No Action, 2) Upland Placement, and 3) Moon Island Placement. The proposed action is Alternative 3, Moon Island Placement. A stone perimeter would be constructed around the island and immediately adjacent shallow water area. To maximize fill capacity while avoiding scrub shrub wetlands on the island, approximately 6.1 acres of emergent vegetation (mainly common reed) would be filled, but 6.1 acres of the newly filled area that is currently open water will be left at a lower elevation to develop into replacement wetlands. 3. This Public Notice and the attached Environmental Assessment (EA)-Dredged Material Placement, Moon Island, Chippewa County, Michigan-are being issued for the purpose of providing information to various Government agencies and the general public and to solicit their comments and views relative to the proposed activity.
    [Show full text]
  • A Synthesis of Sport Fishing Activity in the St. Marys River May Through October 2017
    A synthesis of sport fishing activity In the St. Marys River May through October 2017 Neal Godby1*, Tracy Claramunt2, David G. Fielder3, Stephen Chong4, Anjanette Bowen5, Eric Morrow6 St. Marys River Fisheries Task Group Lake Huron Technical Committee Lake Huron Committee Great Lakes Fishery Commission 1Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Northern Lake Huron Management Unit, 1732 W. M-32, Gaylord, Michigan 49735 2Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Oden Interpretive Center, 8258 South Ayr Road, Alanson, Michigan 49706 3Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Alpena Fisheries Research Station, 160 E. Fletcher, Alpena, Michigan 49707 4Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 1235 Queen St. East, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario P6A 2E5 5United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Alpena Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, 480 W Fletcher St., Alpena, Michigan 49707 6Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Statewide Angler Survey Program, 1732 W. M-32, Gaylord, Michigan 49735 Introduction The St. Marys River provides world-class fishing opportunities for a variety of species. The river is unique in the diversity of recreational sport fisheries and the magnitude of the fishery. In order to quantify the sport fisheries, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF) undertook an open water creel survey of sport anglers in 2017. The survey covered both Ontario and Michigan waters from the compensating works downstream to Lake Huron at DeTour. This is only the second whole-river creel study of the St. Marys River, with the first conducted in 1999-2000 (Fielder et al. 2002). Partial river creel surveys were conducted during a number of years, but extrapolation to whole-river estimates proved difficult (Greenwood et al.
    [Show full text]
  • A Distributional Checklist of the Birds of Michigan
    MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NO. 164 A Distributional Checklist of the Birds of Michigan Robert B. Payne Museum of Zoology and Division of Biological Sciences The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Ann Arbor MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN March 28, 1983 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NO. 164 The publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan consist of two series-the Occasional Papers and the Miscellaneous Publications. Both series were founded by Dr. Bryant Walker, Mr. Bradshaw H. Swales, and Dr. W. W. Newcomb. The Occasional Papers, publication of which was begun in 1913, serve as a medium for original studies based principally upon the collections in the Museum. They are issued separately. When a sufficient number of pages has been printed to make a volume, a title page, table of contents, and an index are supplied to libraries and individuals on the mailing list for the series. The Miscellaneous Publications, which include papers on field and museum techniques, monographic studies, and other contributions not within the scope of the Occasional Papers, are separately. It is not intended that they be grouped into volumes. Each number has a title page and, when necessary, a table of contents. A complete list of publications on Birds, Fishes, Insects, Mammals, Mollusks, and Reptiles and ~rn~hibiansis available. Address inquiries to the Director, Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48 109. MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS MUSEUM OF ZOOLOGY. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NO. 164 A Distributional Checklist of the Birds of Michigan Robert B. Payne Museum of Zoology and Division of Biological Sciences The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Ann Arbor MUSEUM OF ZOOL,OGY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN March 28, 1983 PAGE 1N'I'IZOI)UCI'ION ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • St. Marys River
    CH A P St. Marys River TER 16 CHARTS U.S.: 14882, 14883, 14884; Canadian: 2250, 2251, 2297 he outlet of Lake Superior, the St. Marys River discharges an average of 75,000 cubic feet of water T per second. The tumultuous rapids here, before the river was regulated by dams and locks, inspired the name Sault Ste. Marie. The passage is relatively tame now, but the discharge still kicks up a current of up to 2 mph at nar- row passes around the islands. The flow is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, through their management of the gates and locks at Sault Ste. Marie. Cruising the St. Marys There is plenty of room for small craft to share the river with the big freighters that ply this passage, but keep ST. MARYS RIVER clear. Not only are small craft likely to be invisible from a ship’s bridge, but even at their slow pace through the river, the lakers can require a couple of miles to come to a stop. As these large vessels are restricted in their ability ■ DETOUR PASSAGE to maneuver, it is the recreational skipper’s obligation to stay clear of them. Always cross behind, and give them a NAVIGATION: Use Chart 14882. The 74-foot-high DeTour wide berth. Reef Light welcomes you to the St. Marys River. The vil- Also, remember that changes mandated by the 9/11 lage of DeTour, four miles beyond on the west bank, is a terrorist attack forbid close approach to certain classes convenient place to stock up or rest.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Marys River Monitoring Projects for TMDL Development
    FINAL REPORT ST. MARYS RIVER MONITORING PROJECT FOR TMDL DEVELOPMENT PREPARED FOR: MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 525 WEST ALLEGAN STREET, PO BOX 30473 LANSING, MI 48909-7973 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3507 USEPA CONTRACT NUMBER EP-RS-10-03 TASK ORDER 0001 DECEMBER, 2010 ST. MARYS RIVER MONITORING PROJECT FOR TMDL DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT Citation Format: Montgomery Associates (2010). St. Marys River Monitoring Project for TMDL Development: Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 and Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. ST. MARYS RIVER MONITORING PROJECT FOR TMDL DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT SUMMARY................................................................................................................................1 1.1. Project Purpose.....................................................................................................................................1 1.2. Background ..........................................................................................................................................1 1.3. Project Team Organization...................................................................................................................2 2. METHODS...................................................................................................................................................6 2.1 Sampling Overview..............................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Between Land and Lake: Michigan's Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands
    Between Land and Lake: Michigan’s Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands E-2902 • New • December 2003 Between Land and Lake: Michigan’s Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands by Dennis A. Albert Michigan Natural Features Inventory www.msue.msu.edu/mnfi ISBN 1-56525-018-4 Albert, Dennis A. 2003. Between Land and Lake: Michigan’s Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University Extension, East Lansing, Mich.: Extension Bulletin E-2902. 96 p. Design by Alicia Burnell, Michigan State University Communication and Technology Systems. © 2003 Michigan State University, all rights reserved. Dedication and Acknowledgments any of us will remember MTed Cline for his tireless dedication to conserving Michigan’s special places. Ted’s aerial photography helped pro- tect important biodiversity sites from Drummond Island to the tip of the Keweenaw Peninsula, as well as in New Mexico. In this book, his photos provide us an important landscape perspective. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Edward Bonanno, John Brazner, Tom publication. Konrad Schmidt’s Voss, who introduced me to Burton, Pat Chow-Fraser, Sue photos came from Minnesota’s Great Lakes marshes in 1980, Crispin, Eric Epstein, Mike Fishes of Minnesota Web site. allowing me to join him in his Grimm, Tom Hart, Bud Harris, The gracious staff of the Monroe long-term marsh studies at Joel Ingram, Carol Johnston, Archives provided access to its Cecil Bay. Shari Gregory, Dave Kenyon, historic photography collection. Janet Keough, Elizabeth LaPorte, This study represents the efforts Michigan Sea Grant (www.mi- James McCormac, Rich Merritt, of many. Individuals participating seagrant.umich.edu) provided Mary Moffett, Glenn Palmgren, in the field studies include Larry access to its digital graphics col- Mary Rabe, Dave Rutkowski, Brewer, William Brodowich, lection, as did The Nature Thomas Simon, Steve Patrick Comer, Tim Garlock, Conservancy and the Michigan Sutherland, Todd Thompson, Chad Hess, Michael Kost, Will DNR.
    [Show full text]