DOCSLIB.ORG

Priority Conservation Lands Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Priority Conservation Lands Assessment Tittabawassee River Watershed PRIORITY CONSERVATION LANDS ASSESSMENT 1 This project would not have been possible without the generous fi nancial support of the Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative Network and the professional support of John Bartholic, John Kerr, Doug Koop, Elan Lipschitz, Robb Macleod and Chuck Nelson. Technical support courtesy of Robb Macleod at Ducks Unlimited, Inc. – Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional Offi ce, Helen Enander, John Paskus and Ed Schools at the Michigan Natural Features Inventory and Jessica Moy and Sarah AcMoody at RS & GIS Research and Outreach Services of Michigan State University. 2 Tittabawassee River Watershed: PRIORITY CONSERVATION LANDS ASSESSMENT Jonathan Jarosz, Project Manager and Author Joy Drohan, Editor © 2006. All rights reserved. Design and layout by Shelley Koop 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 7 Growth of Land Conservancies 7 Operational and Financial Issues ...................................................................................................................................................8 The Little Forks Conservancy 9 Conservation Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................................9 The Tittabawassee River Watershed 11 Threats to the Watershed ............................................................................................................................................................. 11 The Land Protection Toolbox 16 Rights in Land ................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Land Acquisition Techniques .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 The Decision-Making Toolbox 18 Project Goals and Benefi ts 20 Project Goals ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Project Benefi ts................................................................................................................................................................................. 21 GENERAL METHODOLOGY 18 Conservation Planning Approaches 18 Fine Filter and Coarse Filter Approaches .................................................................................................................................. 18 Integrated Landscape Approach .................................................................................................................................................. 19 Landscape-Level Conservation Prioritization 20 Multicriteria Conservation Prioritization ................................................................................................................................... 21 PROJECT METHODOLOGY 22 Study Area and Data Sources 22 Study Area ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Data Sources .................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Landscape Division 23 Prioritization 24 Description of Criteria 26 Total Size ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Core Area Index ............................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Biodiversity Value .............................................................................................................................................................................. 29 Management Status ....................................................................................................................................................................... 30 4 Natural Vegetation Index ............................................................................................................................................................... 32 Vegetation Quality ........................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Riparian Features ............................................................................................................................................................................ 33 Riparian Land Cover ....................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Roadedness ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 RESULTS 37 Criteria Scores 37 Total Score 38 Priority Rankings 38 Cumulative Score Statistics ........................................................................................................................................................... 38 DISCUSSION 42 Public and Private Land 42 Criteria Correlation 43 Additional Criteria 44 Landscape Connectivity .................................................................................................................................................................. 45 Financial Cost ................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Distance to Human Stressors ...................................................................................................................................................... 45 Decision Making and Data Limitations 46 Recommendations and Conclusions 47 REFERENCES 48 APPENDIX: COUNTY MAPS OF THE PRIORITY LANDS ASSESSMENT 54 Arenac County .................................................................................................................................................................................. 54 Bay County ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 55 Clare County ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 56 Gladwin County ................................................................................................................................................................................ 57 Gratiot County .................................................................................................................................................................................. 58 Isabella County ................................................................................................................................................................................. 59 Mecosta County ............................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Midland County ............................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Montcalm County ............................................................................................................................................................................ 62 Ogemaw County .............................................................................................................................................................................. 63 Osceola County ................................................................................................................................................................................ 64 Roscommon County ........................................................................................................................................................................ 65 Saginaw County ............................................................................................................................................................................... 66 5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Local, State, and Regional Land Trusts: Total Acres Conserved by Region, 2003 ................................................. 7 Table 2 Predicted Land Use Change in Michigan: 1980-2040 .............................................................................................10 Table 3 Six General Forms of Decision Making ......................................................................................................................16 Table 4 Digital Data Sources .......................................................................................................................................................23 Table 5 Buffer Distances for the Identifi cation of Core Areas ..........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phase 1 of the Study Examined the Big Picture Or Potential Routes to Connect Each Community
    Tri-County Regional Path Study Phase 2 Bay, Midland and Saginaw Counties January, 2009 With professional assistance from: 230 S. Washington Ave., P.O. Box 1689, Saginaw, Michigan, 48607 (989) 754-4717 www.spicergroup.com Robert R. Eggers, AICP Tanya M. Moore, RLA, ASLA 117122SG200848607 Tri-County Regional Path Core Committee Members Phase 2 Adam Ball, Saginaw County Road Commission Jim Lillo, Bay County Road Commission Keith Baker, City of Midland Joseph Malan, Friends of the Pere Marquette Rail Trail Tom Begin, Consumers Energy Jeff Martin, Dow Chemical Heidi Bolger, The Rehmann Group Terry Moultane, City of Bay City Dave Engelhardt, Bay County Jay Reithel, MDOT Bay Region Michelle Goist, Saginaw County Parks John Schmude, Saginaw County Parks Kim Haller, Midland County Parks Dave Waite, Friends of the Pere Marquette Rail Trail Stephanie Harden, City of Saginaw Cathy Washabaugh, Bay Area Riverwalk/Rail Trail, Bay Dan Hoffman, Saginaw Area GIS Authority Area Community Foundation Mike Kelly, Saginaw Bay WIN/Conservation Fund Brian Wendling, Saginaw County Road Commission Craig Kendziorski, Friends of the Pere Marquette Railtrail Dirk Westbury, Bay County Transportation Planning The Phase 2 Tri-County Regional Path Study was funded by the following entities and events: Dow Chemical Company Foundation Saginaw Community Foundation Midland Area Community Foundation Bay Area Community Foundation Friends of the Saginaw Valley Rail Trail Friends of the Pere Marquette Rail Trail Bay Area Community Foundation Riverwalk/Rail Trail Committee Proceeds
    [Show full text]
  • Us Epa Fact Sheet
    953249 EPA Proposes Cleanup Plan for Middleground Island Tittabawassee River, Saginaw River & Bay Site Midland, Saginaw and Bay City, Michigan February 2020 Share your opinion EPA invites your comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working with the Michigan proposed cleanup plan for soil on Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, has proposed a plan Middleground Island. to clean up dioxin-contaminated soil on Middleground Island in the Saginaw River. The public comment period is Feb. 12 through March 30, 2020. There EPA’s proposed plan calls for removing contaminated soil in people’s are several ways to comment: yards. At residential properties where soil tests show levels greater than 250 parts of dioxin in a trillion parts of soil – a measure known as “parts per • Fill out and mail the trillion,” or “ppt” – workers will dig up and remove contaminated soil, enclosed comment form. replace it with clean soil and restore grasses and plants. EPA’s proposed • Orally or in writing at the cleanup will ensure that people living on Middleground Island are safe public meeting. when they contact soil in their yard. Not every property will need a cleanup. • Email your comments to [email protected]. Your comments are needed EPA will select a final cleanup plan after reviewing comments received EPA may modify the proposed during the public comment period. This fact sheet gives you background cleanup plan or select another option information, describes cleanup options, and explains EPA’s based on new information or public recommendations. You can find more details in a document called the comments, so your opinion is Middleground Island Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Storm and Sanitary Sewer Study Volume 1 – Executive Summary & Report Volumes Bridging Document
    REPORT FOR Storm and Sanitary Sewer Study Volume 1 – Executive Summary & Report Volumes Bridging Document FOR City of Midland September 2018 Prepared by: HUBBELL, ROTH & CLARK, INC. OHM Advisors Consulting Engineers 555 Hulet Drive – P.O. Box 824 415 East Main Street Bloomfield Hills, MI, 48303-0824 Midland, MI, 48640 Introduction As a result of the heavy rains and flooding that occurred in late June 2017, the City of Midland commissioned this Storm and Sanitary Sewer Study by the Joint Venture team of Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment (OHM) and Hubbell, Roth & Clark (HRC). This weather event impacted over one thousand residents and businesses by way of basement flooding and surface flooding. Although much of the IT IS CRITICAL FOR ANY COMMUNITY TO flooding was a direct impact of the Tittabawassee INVEST IN LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO River flood levels, many areas of the City’s storm and MAINTAIN A REASONABLE LEVEL OF sanitary sewer systems were overwhelmed with high SERVICE FOR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES. flows and were therefore unable to provide an adequate Level of Service. The City operates separate storm and sanitary sewer systems. Although they are intended to be separate systems, they can be connected via unknown connections above and below the surface. These connections can include: • Surface flooding entering sanitary sewer manholes. • Floodplain waters entering sanitary pump stations, sewer manholes, and other sanitary sewer structures along the Tittabawassee River, Sturgeon Creek, or any other open channel water feature. • Existing cross-connections between sanitary sewers and storm sewers that were missed during separation projects in the past, or failed bulkheads between the two utilities.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Michigan Dam Breached, Another at Risk Amid Midwest Floods 20 May 2020
    1 Michigan dam breached, another at risk amid Midwest floods 20 May 2020 People living along two lakes and a river in mid- Some residents, such as Jon St. Croix, went to Michigan rushed to evacuate Tuesday after the shelters set up in area schools. breach of a dam following days of heavy flooding across parts of the Midwest. "We were laying in bed when I heard sirens," St. Croix told the Midland Daily News. "A fire truck was Two schools were opened for evacuees in the driving around, broadcasting that (we needed) to Midland area, about 140 miles north of Detroit, evacuate. It's a scary thing—you're sleeping and after the breach of Edenville Dam, which holds awake to sirens." back Wixom Lake. St. Croix, 62, his wife and a next-door neighbor Red Cross worker Tom Restgate, who had been were among more than a dozen people sheltering helping residents of the area seek shelter from the in one school. Their home was not flooded, but St. threat of rising waters, said he received an alert Croix said he had seen flooding in the area. over his cellphone that "the dam ... it breached." Volunteers at the schools said about 120 vehicles Residents in a span of several miles were urged to were in the parking lots of a couple of schools and evacuate. Officials also were watching the Sanford about 30 people had been staying on cots inside, Dam south of Edenville. The city of Midland, which according to WNEM-TV. includes the main plant of Dow Chemical, sits on the banks of the Tittabawassee River about 8 miles About a dozen people hunkered down overnight at away from that dam.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 1988
    .L REPORT FOR THE CHARLES STEWART MOTT FOUNDATION HE G R E A '**^&d«flC> &1&f 64+lsfr OUR FOUNDER 2 FINANCE 65 OUR PHILOSOPHY 3 OTHER INFORMATION 79 ANNUAL MESSAGE 4 HOW TO APPLY FOR A GRANT 80 THE GREAT LAKES: 8 PUBLICATIONS 81 A STEWARDSHIP LEFTUNTENDED OFFICERS AND STAFF 82 GRANTS.. ..27 INDIA ..83 THE GREAT LAKES: A STEWARDSHIP LEFT UNTENDED MM/tov \i/>/Ui'iiltilt Lake H n r o 11 Lake Superior i;(. ,„„„•/;,,,, • I ..i-,,wff. U.I.IC.P.I 9 h-\ /I'NT ' and "viiithi-i n l.iim /!"! (hii-ijf> Ilit'i Lake v».vi,.,,i( Michigan Mihiitukir l:\litttr\ • Lake Ontario lt«nta),'wit lliiiiii.i t,i,i-t,t t •il'iin.'i Kavrntxl liulniiHilliliha \ln/- (M«I! Lake Erie rurfi/-fri'o loxic liuhpots line flic shores of the five interconnected Grcal Lakes. Olir Charles Stewart Mott, who established this Foundation in RmntlCJ' 1926, was deeply concerned from his earliest years in Flint with the welfare of his adopted community. Soon after he had become one of the city's leading industrialists, this General Motors pioneer found a practical and successful way to express his interest. He served two years as mayor (1912-13) during a period when the swiftly growing city was beset with municipai problems, with 40,000 people sharing facilities adequate for 10,000. As a private citizen, he started a medical and dental clinic for children and helped establish the YMCA and the Boy Scouts in Flint along with the Whaley Children's Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Saginaw River Dredge Disposal Project at Saginaw Bay, Michigan
    ' SAGINAW RIVER DREDGE DISPOSAL PROJECT AT SAGINAW BAY, MICHIGAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FEBRUARY 1 ^4/ PREPARED BY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT DETROIT, MICHIGAN STATEMENT OF FINDINGS PROPOSED DREDGE DISPOSAL FACILITY SAGINAW BAY, MICHIGAN 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 dredge disposal fa cility at Saginaw Bay, Michigan. BACKGROUND Construction of the proposed facility is authorized by the River and Har­ bor Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-611, Section 123) which provides for the confined disposal of polluted materials resulting from maintenance dredg­ ing of Federal navigation projects. Additionally, in 1970, the Governor of Michigan requested that the Corps of Engineers cease returning polluted dredged materials to the waters of the Great Lakes in Michigan. As part of the planning process for the proposed fa cility, two workshops were con­ ducted at Bay City in March 1974. These meetings were attended by govern­ ment representatives, city representatives, environmental groups and the general public. The purpose of the meetings was to provide and exchange information relative to the alternatives being considered for siting the facility. As a result of information generated at the workshops and con­ tinued coordination with the State of Michiv,—., the Channel-Shelter Island location was selected. THE SELECTED PLAN -The proposed disposal site is located on the southeast side of the Federal navigation channel in Saginaw Bay, approximately two miles northeasterly from the mouth of the Saginaw River.
    [Show full text]
  • 103 Tittabawassee River Assessment Figure 1
    Tittabawassee River Assessment 2 4 3 Secord Impoundment 5 6 9 Gladwin Harrison Smallwood Impoundment 10 11 12 8 21 Wixom Impoundment S Clare a g 14 in a 19 15 Sanford Impoundment w 20 B 22 13 ay 7 16 17 Midland 18 26 Mt. Pleasant 27 25 24 1 23 Saginaw River St. Louis Saginaw Alma 05 10 20 Miles 1 – Tittabawassee River 15 – North Branch Salt River 2 – East Branch Tittabawassee River 16 – South Branch Salt River 3 – Middle Branch Tittabawassee River 17 – Carroll Creek Drain 4 – West Branch Tittabawassee River 18 – Chippewa River 5 – Sugar River 19 – North Branch Chippewa East River 6 – Molasses River 20 – Coldwater River 7 – Sturgeon Creek 21 – North Branch Chippewa West River 8 – Tobacco River 22 – West Branch Chippewa River 9 – Cedar River 23 – Pine River 10 – North Branch Tobacco River 24 – North Branch Pine River 11 – Middle Branch Tobacco River 25 – South Branch Pine River 12 – South Branch Tobacco River 26 – Pony Creek 13 – Salt River 27 – Bullock Creek 14 – Bluff Creek Figure 1.–Tittabawassee River system and its watershed boundary. 103 Tittabawassee River Assessment Headwaters Secord Impoundment Middle Gladwin Smallwood Impoundment Harrison S Clare a g in a w Wixom Impoundment B ay Mouth Sanford Impoundment Midland Mt. Pleasant Saginaw River St. Louis Saginaw Alma 0 5 10 20 Miles Figure 2.–Main stem valley segments of the Tittabawassee River. 104 Tittabawassee River Assessment Bayport Limestone Coldwater Shale Grand River formation Marshal formation Michigan formation Red beds Secord Impoundment Saginaw formation Gladwin Harrison Smallwood Impoundment 1 2 Wixom Impoundment S Clare a g in a Sanford Impoundment w B ay 5 Midland 6 7 3 Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Remedial Action Plan
    Michigan Department of Natural Resources Remedial Action Plan for SAGINAW RIVER AND SAGINAW BAY Area of Concern September 1988 Michigan Department of Natural Resources Surface Water Quality Division Great Lakes and Environmental 'Assessment Section P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 PREFACE This Saginaw RiverIBay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was prepared by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) from a first draft compiled for MDNR by the East Central Michigan Planning and Development Region, the National Wildlife Federation, and graduate students from the University of Michigan. The Remedial Action Section was prepared by MDNR and a regional public organization known as the Saginaw Basin Natural Resources Steering Committee. Public and technical comment was received throughout the RAP development and review process as described in Section VI. The RAP summarizes existing water quality data on the Saginaw Bay drainage basin and outlines initial perceptions of the remedial actions that should be taken to further address the eutrophication and toxic material problems in the Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay. The remedial actions presented here will be further refined in future versions of the RAP, which it is anticipated, will be periodically updated and revised as more data are acquired, remedial measures are implemented, and environmental conditions improve. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS An extensive list of people and agencies contributed a great deal of time and effort to develop this plan. The complete list is too extensive to present
    [Show full text]
  • Midland County Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2014-2018
    Midland County Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2014-2018 Midland County Recreation Plan 2014-2018 1 Adopted June 17, 2014 Midland County Parks and Recreation Master Plan: 2014-2018 Midland County Parks and Recreation Commission 2013-2014 Resolution recommending adoption by County Board of Commissioners Jim Sperling, Chair Kyle Nothstine Catherine Sias, Secretary Nicolas Finley Roy Green Richard Keenan Douglas Enos Matt McPherson Robert Sheets Eugene Smith County Parks & Recreation Director: Kim Haller Midland County Board of Commission 2013-2014 James Leigeb, Chair James Geisler Nicolas Finley, Vice Chair Richard Keenan Mark Bone Dan McGillivray Eric Dorrien County Administrator: Bridgette Gransden Prepared with assistance from: PM Blough, Inc., PO Box 102, Grand Haven, MI 49417 616.402.2398 Midland County Recreation Plan 2014-2018 2 Adopted June 17, 2014 Table of Contents I. Introduction.............................................................................................................. Page 4 II. Community Description ........................................................................................... Page 5 III. Administrative Structure ...................................................................................... Page 8 IV. Recreation Inventory ............................................................................................. Page 12 V. Community Input .................................................................................................. Page 39 VI. Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................Page
    [Show full text]
  • Progress Report for Lake Sturgeon Spawning in St
    2008 Final Report: Evaluation of Lake Sturgeon Spawning in the Saginaw River Watershed (2005 - 2008) Project Coordinator: James Boase US Fish and Wildlife Service National Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office Alpena, Michigan 1 2008 Final Report: Evaluation of Lake Sturgeon Spawning in the Saginaw River II Watershed (2005 - 2008) Project Coordinator: James Boase US Fish and Wildlife Service National Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office Alpena, Michigan Date: August 29, 2008 Period covered: March 1, 2005 – June 30 2008 Prepared by: James Boase Introduction Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens were once widely distributed in rivers and lakes throughout North America. Their historic range included drainage basins of the Mississippi, Hudson Bay, and the Great Lakes (MacKay 1963; Scott and Crossman 1973). Within the last century, lake sturgeon populations were dramatically reduced or extirpated from much of their native range (Harkness and Dymond 1961; Brousseau 1987). Habitat destruction, excessive harvesting, and over fishing were determined to be the primary causes for their decline (Harkness and Dymond 1961; Tody 1974; Brousseau and Goodrich 1989). To slow the decline of lake sturgeon, state governments in the United States and provincial governments in Canada have listed them as a protected species (Brousseau 1987; Johnson 1987). Lake sturgeon are protected from harvest in seven of the eight Great Lakes border states, and have recently been listed (July 2008) as threatened under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in the Canadian jurisdictional waters of the Great Lakes (Thomas Pratt personal communication). They are also listed as a state threatened species in Michigan (Auer 1999). From historical records on Lake Huron, lake sturgeon spawned on at least 40 tributaries in the United States and Canada, of those 24 were located in Ontario waters with the remaining 16 located in Michigan waters (Hay-Chmielewski and Whelan 1997; Holey et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resource Damage Assessment Plan for the Tittabawassee River System Assessment Area
    Natural Resource Damage Assessment Plan for the Tittabawassee River System Assessment Area Prepared under contract for: Remediation and Redevelopment Division Michigan Department of Environmental Quality PO Box 30426 Lansing, MI 48909 Contact: Judith Gapp Natural Resource Damage Assessment Plan for the Tittabawassee River System Assessment Area Prepared under contract for: Remediation and Redevelopment Division Michigan Department of Environmental Quality PO Box 30426 Lansing, MI 48909 Contact: Judith Gapp Prepared by: Stratus Consulting Inc. PO Box 4059 Boulder, CO 80306-4059 303-381-8000 1920 L St. NW, Ste. 420 Washington, DC 20036 Contacts: Kaylene Ritter P. David Allen II April 2008 SC11317 Contents List of Figures............................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................ix List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................xi Chapter 1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Statement of Purpose ......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Trusteeship Authority........................................................................................ 1-2 1.2.1 State trustees.........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tittabawassee River Floodplain Soils Outreach Strategy
    TITTABAWASSEE RIVER FLOODPLAIN SOILS OUTREACH STRATEGY ADDENDUM #1 TO THE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PLAN FOR THE TITTABAWASSEE RIVER, SAGINAW RIVER AND BAY SITE FEBRUARY 2013 OVERVIEW The Tittabawassee River, Saginaw River and Bay Site includes areas in and along a 24-mile stretch of the Tittabawassee River south of the confluence of the Chippewa River, the 22-mile Saginaw River and portions of the 1,143 square mile Saginaw Bay. The rivers and floodplains include residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and agricultural areas of Midland, Saginaw and Bay Counties in Michigan. The Saginaw Bay watershed is one of Michigan's most diverse areas – its rich resources support agriculture, tourism, manufacturing, outdoor recreation and a vast variety of wildlife. In the Tittabawassee River, dioxins and furans are the primary contaminants in sediment, riverbanks and floodplain soil. These contaminants came from historical releases from The Dow Chemical Company’s Midland Plant. EPA, in coordination with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, is requiring Dow to evaluate cleanup options at the Site under a legal agreement that was signed in 2010 between EPA, DEQ and Dow. Activities to be carried out under the agreement fall into three critical categories: Limiting contact with bare floodplain soil in areas frequently used by people Controlling movement of highly contaminated soil and sediment through early actions Developing comprehensive long-term cleanup options for the rivers and bay The current focus is on the Tittabawassee River because upstream cleanup is needed before EPA can move ahead with the Saginaw River and Bay. EPA’s initial strategy for comprehensive long-term cleanup was to divide the Tittabawassee River into seven segments for development of upstream-to- downstream cleanup options.
    [Show full text]