DOCSLIB.ORG

Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge (Lake Huron Islands Managed by Shiawassee NWR)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge (Lake Huron Islands Managed by Shiawassee NWR) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge (Lake Huron islands managed by Shiawassee NWR) Habitat Management Plan October 2018 Little Charity Island 2013. (Photo credit: USFWS) Michigan Islands NWR: Shiawassee NWR Habitat Management Plan Habitat Management Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and as such, are primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the world's premier system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants. Since the designation of the first wildlife refuge in 1903, the System has grown to encompass more than 150 million acres, 556 national wildlife refuges and other units of the Refuge System, plus 38 wetland management districts. Michigan Islands NWR: Shiawassee NWR Habitat Management Plan Table of Contents Signature Page .................................................................................................................................ii Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Scope and Rationale ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Legal Mandates ................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Relationship to Other Plans.............................................................................................. 3 Chapter 2: Background ................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Location and Description of Islands ................................................................................. 6 2.3 Climate ............................................................................................................................. 9 2.4 Historical Perspective ....................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Current Land Classification and Plant Communities ...................................................... 10 Chapter 3: Resources of Concern ................................................................................................. 17 3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 17 3.2. Comprehensive Resources of Concern .......................................................................... 17 3.3. Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health ............................................. 19 3.4. Priority Refuge Resources of Concern ........................................................................... 20 3.5. Relationship between Refuge Habitats and Priority Resources of Concern .................. 23 3.6. Priority Habitats and Relationship to Resources of Concern ......................................... 28 3.7. Conflict Resolution ......................................................................................................... 29 Chapter 4: Habitat Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ................................................................... 30 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 30 4.2 HMP Goal, Objectives, and Management Strategies ..................................................... 33 Habitat Management Goal ................................................................................................... 33 HMP Objective 1: Baseline Habitat Inventory ...................................................................... 33 HMP Objective 2: Species and natural features inventory and monitoring ......................... 34 HMP Objective 3: Colonial waterbirds .................................................................................. 35 HMP Objective 4: Alvar / Shore Communities ...................................................................... 36 HMP Objective 5: Pitcher’s Thistle and Dwarf Lake Iris ........................................................ 38 HMP Objective 6: Wilderness Area (Scarecrow Island) ........................................................ 39 HMP Objective 7: Northern Mesic Forests ........................................................................... 40 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 41 Appendix A: Plant Lists .................................................................................................................. 46 Michigan Islands NWR: Shiawassee NWR Habitat Management Plan Appendix B: 1910 Mershon Expedition: Mammals and Birds ...................................................... 61 Appendix C: Colonial Waterbird Survey Results ........................................................................... 66 Appendix D: CCP Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................... 68 Appendix E: ROCSTAR Comprehensive list of species for Great Lakes Islands NWR .................. 70 Appendix F: ROCSTAR: Resources of Concern Selection Tool for Americas Refuges .................. 86 Appendix G: Invasive Species Habitat Management Strategies .................................................. 96 Appendix H: Measure attributes for Michigan Islands Wilderness Character Monitoring ....... 105 List of Figures Figure 2.1. Locations of islands within the Michigan Islands NWR. Islands within Lake Huron are managed by Shiawassee NWR and islands within Lake Michigan are managed by Seney NWR. .. 8 Figure 2.2. Land cover classification of Scarecrow Island. Scarecrow Island is located in Lake Huron and is part of Michigan Island NWR. ................................................................................. 13 Figure 2.3. Land cover classification of Thunder Bay and Sugar Island. Thunder Bay and Sugar Island are located in Lake Huron and are part of Michigan Island NWR. ..................................... 14 Figure 2.4. Land cover classification of Big Charity Island. Big Charity Island is located in Lake Huron and is part of Michigan Island NWR. ................................................................................. 15 Figure 2.5. Land cover classification of Little Charity Island. Little Charity Island is located in Lake Huron and is part of Michigan Island NWR. ......................................................................... 16 Figure G.1. Phases of strategic and adaptive invasive plant management .................................. 98 Figure G.2. Phases of invasive species invasion and control (from Rawlins et al. 2011). ............ 99 List of Tables Table 2.1: Habitat types and plant communities of MI Islands NWR: Lake Huron. ..................... 11 Table 3.1. Resources from which potential resources of concern were identified. .................... 18 Table 3.2. Selected priority ROCs and reasons for selection for MI Islands NWR: Lake Huron. .. 21 Table 3.3. Summary of habitats and ROCs associated with ......................................................... 23 Table 3.4.: Priority Resources of Concern habitat requirements for MI Islands NWR: Lake Huron, as of 2018. ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 3.5. Priority resources of concern and other benefiting species for MI Islands NWR: Lake Huron as of 2018. .......................................................................................................................... 27 Table 3.6. Priority I and II habitats for MI Islands NWR: Lake Huron. .......................................... 28 Table 4.1. Crosswalk between the goals and objectives identified in the Great Lakes Islands CCP (Appendix D) and the objectives developed for MI Islands NWR: Lake Huron. ........................... 31 Table A.1. Vegetation survey results from the 1991 survey on [Big] Charity Island’s West shore. ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 Michigan Islands NWR: Shiawassee NWR Habitat Management Plan Table A.2. In McAvinchey et al. 2005, Appendix 4: Plant species list for Thunder Bay, Scarecrow, Big Charity and Little Charity Islands. Sugar Island was not included in this inventory. ............. 51 Table B.1. Mammals (Wood 1911a) ............................................................................................. 61 Table B.2. Birds (Wood 1911b; 1912) ........................................................................................... 61 Table C.1. Little Charity Island colonial waterbird nesting survey results, 1997, 2002-2017. ..... 66 Table C.2. Scarecrow Island aerial colonial waterbird nesting survey results, 1997-2017. ......... 67 Table G.1. Wilderness
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description
    Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description Prepared by: Michael A. Kost, Dennis A. Albert, Joshua G. Cohen, Bradford S. Slaughter, Rebecca K. Schillo, Christopher R. Weber, and Kim A. Chapman Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036 For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral and Fire Management Division September 30, 2007 Report Number 2007-21 Version 1.2 Last Updated: July 9, 2010 Suggested Citation: Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Copyright 2007 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status or family status. Cover photos: Top left, Dry Sand Prairie at Indian Lake, Newaygo County (M. Kost); top right, Limestone Bedrock Lakeshore, Summer Island, Delta County (J. Cohen); lower left, Muskeg, Luce County (J. Cohen); and lower right, Mesic Northern Forest as a matrix natural community, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Ontonagon County (M. Kost). Acknowledgements We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division and Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division for funding this effort to classify and describe the natural communities of Michigan. This work relied heavily on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists and collaborators, including members of the Michigan Natural Areas Council.
    [Show full text]
  • United States National Museum Bulletin 276
    ,*f»W*»"*^W»i;|. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION MUSEUM O F NATURAL HISTORY UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 276 A Revision of the Genus Malacosoma Hlibner in North America (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae): Systematics, Biology, Immatures, and Parasites FREDERICK W. STEHR and EDWIN F. COOK SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS CITY OF WASHINGTON 1968 PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM The scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series. Proceedings of the United States National Museum and United States National Museum Bulletin. In these series are published original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired facts in the field of anthropology, biology, geology, history, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the various subjects. The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume. In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902, papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium. This work forms number 276 of the Bulletin series.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Relationships and Historical Biogeography of Tribes and Genera in the Subfamily Nymphalinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)
    Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKBIJBiological Journal of the Linnean Society 0024-4066The Linnean Society of London, 2005? 2005 862 227251 Original Article PHYLOGENY OF NYMPHALINAE N. WAHLBERG ET AL Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 86, 227–251. With 5 figures . Phylogenetic relationships and historical biogeography of tribes and genera in the subfamily Nymphalinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) NIKLAS WAHLBERG1*, ANDREW V. Z. BROWER2 and SÖREN NYLIN1 1Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 2Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331–2907, USA Received 10 January 2004; accepted for publication 12 November 2004 We infer for the first time the phylogenetic relationships of genera and tribes in the ecologically and evolutionarily well-studied subfamily Nymphalinae using DNA sequence data from three genes: 1450 bp of cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) (in the mitochondrial genome), 1077 bp of elongation factor 1-alpha (EF1-a) and 400–403 bp of wing- less (both in the nuclear genome). We explore the influence of each gene region on the support given to each node of the most parsimonious tree derived from a combined analysis of all three genes using Partitioned Bremer Support. We also explore the influence of assuming equal weights for all characters in the combined analysis by investigating the stability of clades to different transition/transversion weighting schemes. We find many strongly supported and stable clades in the Nymphalinae. We are also able to identify ‘rogue’
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Fen Communitynorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1
    Northern Fen CommunityNorthern Abstract Fen, Page 1 Community Range Prevalent or likely prevalent Infrequent or likely infrequent Absent or likely absent Photo by Joshua G. Cohen Overview: Northern fen is a sedge- and rush-dominated 8,000 years. Expansion of peatlands likely occurred wetland occurring on neutral to moderately alkaline following climatic cooling, approximately 5,000 years saturated peat and/or marl influenced by groundwater ago (Heinselman 1970, Boelter and Verry 1977, Riley rich in calcium and magnesium carbonates. The 1989). community occurs north of the climatic tension zone and is found primarily where calcareous bedrock Several other natural peatland communities also underlies a thin mantle of glacial drift on flat areas or occur in Michigan and can be distinguished from shallow depressions of glacial outwash and glacial minerotrophic (nutrient-rich) northern fens, based on lakeplains and also in kettle depressions on pitted comparisons of nutrient levels, flora, canopy closure, outwash and moraines. distribution, landscape context, and groundwater influence (Kost et al. 2007). Northern fen is dominated Global and State Rank: G3G5/S3 by sedges, rushes, and grasses (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). Additional open wetlands occurring on organic Range: Northern fen is a peatland type of glaciated soils include coastal fen, poor fen, prairie fen, bog, landscapes of the northern Great Lakes region, ranging intermittent wetland, and northern wet meadow. Bogs, from Michigan west to Minnesota and northward peat-covered wetlands raised above the surrounding into central Canada (Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec) groundwater by an accumulation of peat, receive inputs (Gignac et al. 2000, Faber-Langendoen 2001, Amon of nutrients and water primarily from precipitation et al.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus Affinis) Voluntary Implementation Guidance for Section 10(A)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act
    The Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) Voluntary Implementation Guidance for Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act Version 1.1 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Regions 3, 4, 5 and 6 March 21, 2017 Contents Background and Purpose ................................................................................................................ 1 Current Versions of this Guidance .................................................................................................. 1 Range of Rusty Patched Bumble Bee .............................................................................................. 1 Brief Description of the Habitat Model ...................................................................................... 2 Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act and the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee .............. 5 Screening and Evaluation of Projects – A Stepwise Approach ................................................... 5 Step 1. Determine whether the rusty patched bumble bee is likely to be present in the project area. ............................................................................................................................ 5 Step 2 - Review the Project for its Potential to Incidentally Take the Species ....................... 8 Step 3 - Review Measures to Avoid Incidental Take of the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee ...... 14 Conservation Measures ............................................................................................................ 15 Restore and Maintain High Quality Habitat
    [Show full text]
  • Euconulus Alderi Gray a Land Snail
    Euconulus alderi, Page 1 Euconulus alderi Gray A land snail State Distribution Photo by Matthew Barthel and Jeffery C. Nekola Best Survey Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Status: State listed as Special Concern are smaller, have a more shiny luster, and a darker shell color. Also, the microscopic spiral lines on the base of Global and state ranks: G3Q/S2 the shell are stronger than the radial striations. This is reversed in E. fulvus (Nekola 1998). For more Family: Helicarionidae information on identifying land snails, see Burch and Jung (1988) pages 155-158 or Burch and Pearce (1990) Synonyms: none pages 211-218. Total range: The global range of Euconulus alderi Best survey time: Surveys for E. alderi are best includes Ireland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the performed after rain, when the soil and vegetation are United States. Within the U.S. it has been found in moist. During dry periods, a survey site can appear Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and completely devoid of snails, while after a rain the same Wisconsin (Frest 1990, NatureServe 2007, Nekola site can be found to contain numerous individuals. 1998). This species was not known from North Temperatures should be warm enough that the ground is America until 1986 when it was discovered in Iowa and not frozen and there is no snow. Dry, hot periods during Wisconsin (Frest 1990, Nekola 1998). mid-summer should be avoided. The best time of day to survey is often in early morning when conditions are State distribution: E.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Common and Scientific Names for Fish and Wildlife Species Found in Idaho
    APPENDIX A: COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES FOUND IN IDAHO. How to Read the Lists. Within these lists, species are listed phylogenetically by class. In cases where phylogeny is incompletely understood, taxonomic units are arranged alphabetically. Listed below are definitions for interpreting NatureServe conservation status ranks (GRanks and SRanks). These ranks reflect an assessment of the condition of the species rangewide (GRank) and statewide (SRank). Rangewide ranks are assigned by NatureServe and statewide ranks are assigned by the Idaho Conservation Data Center. GX or SX Presumed extinct or extirpated: not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery. GH or SH Possibly extinct or extirpated (historical): historically occurred, but may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20–40 years. A species could become SH without such a 20–40 year delay if the only known occurrences in the state were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The SH rank is reserved for species for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences. G1 or S1 Critically imperiled: at high risk because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it particularly vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G2 or S2 Imperiled: at risk because of restricted range, few populations (often 20 or fewer), rapidly declining numbers, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation. G3 or S3 Vulnerable: at moderate risk because of restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors that make it vulnerable to rangewide extinction or extirpation.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterfly Gardening Stephen M
    ® ® University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Know how. Know now. G1183 (Revised November 2012 Butterfly Gardening Stephen M. Spomer, Research Technologist, Entomology; and Kim Todd, Extension Horticulturist Life Cycle This NebGuide discusses butterflies and their rela- tives and the plants that will help attract them to a garden. Egg — Eggs are laid singly or in clusters, usually on the host plant, but sometimes in organic matter, weeds, or soil. Eggs hatch in a few days to a couple of weeks, depending on the Butterflies can be found throughout Nebraska, from the species. However, some copper and hairstreak butterflies spend coniferous forests of the Pine Ridge, through the grasslands the winter in the egg stage. The larva eats its way out of the egg of the Sandhills, to the deciduous forests along the Missouri and is soon ready to feast on its host plant. Fritillaries are one River. Like bird watching or observing wildflowers, watching exception, spending the winter as newly-hatched unfed larvae. butterflies is a popular and enjoyable pastime. Although many Larva — The larva continues to eat many times its own natural butterfly habitats have been lost to urbanization and weight until its cuticle (skin) stretches to capacity. A hormone agricultural development, conservation of these beautiful insects in the larva signals when it is time to shed its skin, or molt. has been incorporated into numerous programs and projects. Butterfly caterpillars go through three to five molts and are Many individuals also are taking a personal interest in attracting therefore found in various sizes before they are ready to pupate.
    [Show full text]
  • Misery Bay Chapter 2
    Existing Conditions The first step in developing a plan to protect the coastal resources of Misery Bay is to establish an accurate representation of existing cultural and environmental features within the study area. This chapter will present a series of maps and associated text to describe key features such as owner type, land uses, vegetation cover types, soils and geology. NEMCOG used information and digital data sets from the Center for Geographic Information, State of Michigan, Michigan Resource Information System, Alpena Township, Alpena County, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and U.S. Geological Survey. Information from the Alpena County Master Plan and Alpena Township Master Plan was used to develop a profile of existing conditions. Field surveys were conducted during 2003. Community Demographics Trends in population and housing characteristics can provide an understanding of growth pressures in a community. Population trends from 1900 and 2000 are summarized in Table 2.1. Population levels have risen and fallen twice in the last 100 years, first in the early part of the century and again in the 1980’s. The 1980 US Census recorded the largest population for Alpena Township and Alpena County at 10,152 and 32,315 respectively. During the 80’s decade, population fell by over five percent and has not climbed back to the 1980 US Census level. Table 2.1 Population Trends Alpena Township and Alpena County, 1900-2000 Alpena Township Alpena County Year Population % Change Population % Change 1900 1,173 --- 18,254 --- 1910 928 -20.9% 19,965 +9.4% 1920 701 -24.5% 17,869 -10.5% 1930 813 +16.0% 18,574 +3.9% 1940 1,675 +106.0% 20,766 +11.8% 1950 2,932 +75.0% 22,189 +6.9% 1960 6,616 +125.6% 28,556 +28.7% 1970 9,001 +36.0% 30,708 +7.5% 1980 10,152 +12.8% 32,315 +5.2% 1990 9,602 -5.4% 30,605 -5.3% 2000 9,788 +1.9% 31,314 +2.3% Source: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Lakefront & Beach Access Study Report Bay City State
    April 2015 Approved April 27, 2015 Michigan DNR Parks and Recreation Division Final Draft for approval July 8, 2014 Bay County Prepared with the assistance of: www.clearzoning.com Intentionally blank RESOLUTION NO. 04-2015-01 MICHIGAN STATE PARKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MSPAC) RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE “BAY CITY RECREATION AREA LAKEFRONT & BEACH ACCESS STUDY” ADOPTED: WHEREAS, an extensive planning process was initiated in partnership with Bay County government to identify strategies to enhance the beach recreation value to enhance tourism. WHEREAS, the study was jointly funded by DNR Parks and Recreation and Bay County, WHEREAS, the process included public surveys and meetings and other stakeholder opportunities to develop recommendations, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the MSPAC support the recommendations in the plan for the DNR Parks and Recreation Division to use as a guide for future investments to enhance Bay City Recreation Area. Submitted by: Chris Graham, Chair, MSPAC Stewardship Subcommittee Motioned by: Commissioner Mary Pitcher Yeas: -13- Seconded by: Commissioner Mike Foote Nays: - 0- Abstained: -0 Absent: -2- This resolution was adopted by the Michigan State Parks Advisory Committee at their April 9, 2015 meeting as Resolution No. 04-2015-01. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Chapter 1: Purpose, Vision and Goals Chapter 2: Planning Team Expertise & Assessments 2.1 Meeting Overviews 2.2 Lakeshore Tour Outcomes 2.3 Changing Ecology of Saginaw Bay Chapter 3: Legal Review/Guiding Resources 3.1 Legal Mandates Review
    [Show full text]