DOCSLIB.ORG

TARGETING ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION in the SAGINAW RIVER/BAY AREA of CONCERN (AOC) 2001 Remedial Action Plan Update July 2002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TARGETING ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION in the SAGINAW RIVER/BAY AREA of CONCERN (AOC) 2001 Remedial Action Plan Update July 2002 TARGETING ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION IN THE SAGINAW RIVER/BAY AREA OF CONCERN (AOC) 2001 Remedial Action Plan Update July 2002 Prepared for The Great Lakes Commission On behalf of The Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed Prepared by Public Sector Consultants, Inc. Lansing, Michigan www.pscinc.com TARGETING ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION IN THE SAGINAW RIVER/BAY AREA OF CONCERN (AOC) 2001 Remedial Action Plan Update July 2002 Prepared for The Great Lakes Commission On behalf of The Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed Prepared by Public Sector Consultants, Inc. Lansing, Michigan www.pscinc.com Project Director Mark Coscarelli Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1 The Saginaw Bay Watershed .......................................................................................... 3 Overview of Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 5 Measures of Success........................................................................................................ 6 Bay Ecosystem................................................................................................................. 15 Impairments................................................................................................................... 15 Evidence of Recovery................................................................................................... 17 Current Status ................................................................................................................ 18 Management Objectives................................................................................................ 21 Targeted Restored Conditions ....................................................................................... 21 Sediment Contamination................................................................................................ 25 Impairments................................................................................................................... 25 Evidence of Recovery................................................................................................... 26 Current Status ................................................................................................................ 26 Management Objective ................................................................................................. 30 Targeted Restored Conditions ....................................................................................... 31 Bacterial Contamination and Beach Closings .............................................................. 33 Impairments................................................................................................................... 33 Evidence of Recovery................................................................................................... 33 Current Status ................................................................................................................ 35 Management Objectives................................................................................................ 38 Targeted Restored Conditions ....................................................................................... 39 Fisheries............................................................................................................................ 41 Impairments................................................................................................................... 41 Evidence Of Recovery.................................................................................................. 42 Current Status ................................................................................................................ 43 Management Objectives................................................................................................ 44 Other Fisheries Impairments Cited in the 1988 RAP.................................................... 45 Targeted Restored Conditions ....................................................................................... 49 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 55 Impairments................................................................................................................... 55 Evidence of Recovery................................................................................................... 56 Current Status ............................................................................................................... 59 Management Objectives................................................................................................ 61 Targeted Restored Conditions ....................................................................................... 62 Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 65 Delisting ........................................................................................................................ 65 Public Meeting .............................................................................................................. 71 Summary....................................................................................................................... 72 Literature Cited............................................................................................................... 73 Technical Appendix......................................................................................................... 79 Introduction The Saginaw River and Bay was designated by the International Joint Commission (IJC) as one of the major pollution areas in the Great Lakes in 1973, a year after the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the United States and Canada was signed—a commitment by both countries to cooperatively manage their shared water resources and recommend actions for protection. Objectives were specified that would reduce nuisance conditions and the discharge of substances toxic to human, animal, and aquatic life (IJC 1987). The Agreement, as amended by Protocol in 1987, resulted in the designation of Saginaw River/Bay as one of 43 Areas of Concern (AOCs) because degraded water quality conditions impaired certain beneficial uses as defined by the Agreement. Contaminated sediments, excessive nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen runoff, soil erosion, fish consumption advisories, degraded fisheries, and the loss of significant recreational opportunities were the primary causes for the AOC designation (MDNR SWQD 1994). Fourteen of the AOCs are located within Michigan, including three that are shared with Canada. The IJC was established as part of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, a formal acknowledgement between the U.S. and Canada that actions by either country can affect the lakes and river systems that cross both sides of the border. The focus of the IJC—and that of the cooperating federal, state, and provincial agencies for the past 25 years—has been to develop and implement remedial action plans (RAPs), a process to identify and implement pollution abatement measures for each AOC that will restore designated water uses that are presently impaired. The goal of the RAP is to restore and maintain beneficial uses. Subsequent actions carried out to meet the goal will eventually result in the removal of the AOC designation through a “delisting” process. Until recently, however, the delisting process has been ambiguous, with many questions of how and when to formally delist. The goal for delisting revolves around the implementation of remedial actions that target beneficial use impairments and lead to restored and maintained conditions. In addition, the AOC may pursue an interim “recovery stage” designation. The critical test for any such process and associated criteria is to insure that it is rigorous, scientifically defensible, and allows for full review and comment from interested and affected stakeholders (EPA 2001, December 6). In November 1994, Collingwood Harbour, located in Canada, became the first AOC in North America to be delisted, primarily due to its limited, narrowly defined impairments. No large AOC with complex and numerous impairments such as those cited in the Saginaw River/Bay area has been delisted. Completed in September 1988, the Saginaw River/Bay Remedial Action Plan, a nearly 600-page document, was submitted by the State of Michigan to the IJC. The RAP summarized water quality data on the Saginaw Bay drainage basin and outlined remedial actions that should be taken to further address the pollution problems in the 1 Saginaw River and Bay (PSC 2000). The 1988 Saginaw River/Bay RAP cited 12 impairments of the 14 categories specifically listed by the IJC for the Saginaw River/Bay AOC: n Restrictions on fish or wildlife consumption n Tainting of fish or wildlife flavor (taste and odor concerns) n Degradation of fish and wildlife populations n Degradation of fish and wildlife habitat n Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems n Degradation of benthos (bottom-dwelling organisms) n Restrictions on dredging n Eutrophication (nuisance algal blooms, oxygen depletion, and nutrient loadings) n Restrictions on drinking water (taste, odor, or other problems) n Beach closings (exposure to waterborne
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Physical Limnology of Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron
    PHYSICAL LIMNOLOGY OF SAGINAW BAY, LAKE HURON ALFRED M. BEETON U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Biological Laboratory Ann Arbor, Michigan STANFORD H. SMITH U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Biological Laboratory Ann Arbor, Michigan and FRANK H. HOOPER Institute for Fisheries Research Michigan Department of Conservation Ann Arbor, Michigan GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION 1451 GREEN ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN SEPTEMBER, 1967 PHYSICAL LIMNOLOGY OF SAGINAW BAY, LAKE HURON1 Alfred M. Beeton, 2 Stanford H. Smith, and Frank F. Hooper3 ABSTRACT Water temperature and the distribution of various chemicals measured during surveys from June 7 to October 30, 1956, reflect a highly variable and rapidly changing circulation in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron. The circula- tion is influenced strongly by local winds and by the stronger circulation of Lake Huron which frequently causes injections of lake water to the inner extremity of the bay. The circulation patterns determined at six times during 1956 reflect the general characteristics of a marine estuary of the northern hemisphere. The prevailing circulation was counterclockwise; the higher concentrations of solutes from the Saginaw River tended to flow and enter Lake Huron along the south shore; water from Lake Huron entered the northeast section of the bay and had a dominant influence on the water along the north shore of the bay. The concentrations of major ions varied little with depth, but a decrease from the inner bay toward Lake Huron reflected the dilution of Saginaw River water as it moved out of the bay. Concentrations in the outer bay were not much greater than in Lake Huronproper.
    [Show full text]
  • DEQ RRD BULLETIN Tittabawassee/Saginaw River
    MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY John Engler, Governor • Russell J. Harding, Director INTERNET: www.michigan.gov/deq DEQ ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE DIVISION INFORMATION BULLETIN TITTABAWASSEE/SAGINAW RIVER FLOOD PLAIN Environmental Assessment Initiative Midland, Saginaw counties February 2002 INTRODUCTION PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Flood Plain Soil This is the first in a series of bulletins to inform area communities about progress, future plans, meeting Historical flow data indicates that during the spring dates, and other activities regarding the and fall months it is common for the flow of water Tittabawassee/Saginaw River Flood Plain Dioxin within the Tittabawassee River to increase to a Environmental Assessment Initiative. What follows level that causes the river to expand onto its flood is an overview of the Department of Environmental plain. During these high flow periods it is possible Quality (DEQ) efforts to identify flood plain areas that sediments, and dioxins that have come to be where dioxin and dioxin-related compounds located in the sediments, are transported from the (hereinafter referred to collectively as “dioxin”) river bottom, or other unidentified source areas, could pose public health or environmental concern. and deposited onto the flood plain. Please refer to the accompanying document entitled “Dioxins Fact Sheet” for a more detailed From December 2000 through July 2001, DEQ account of public health and environmental issues Environmental Response Division (ERD) staff associated with dioxin compounds. A map collected soil samples from the Tittabawassee identifying the environmental assessment area is River flood plain at three locations: 1) at property also included. near the headwaters of the Saginaw River, 2) at property located near the end of Arthur Street in As always, DEQ staff is available to help clarify Saginaw Township, and 3) along the northern issues or address concerns you may have on any perimeter of the Shiawassee National Wildlife aspect of the environmental assessment initiative.
    [Show full text]
  • Saginaw River/Bay Fish & Wildlife Habitat BUI Removal Documentation
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 5 77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 6 MAY 2014 REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF Mr. Roger Eberhardt Acting Deputy Director, Office of the Great Lakes Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 525 West Allegan P.O. Box 30473 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7773 Dear Roger: Thank you for your February 6, 2014, request to remove the "Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat" Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) from the Saginaw River/Bay Area of Concern (AOC) in Michigan, As you know, we share your desire to restore all of the Great Lakes AOCs and to formally delist them. Based upon a review of your submittal and the supporting data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hereby approves your BUI removal request for the Saginaw River/Bay AOC, EPA will notify the International Joint Commission of this significant positive environmental change at this AOC. We congratulate you and your staff, as well as the many federal, state, and local partners who have worked so hard and been instrumental in achieving this important environmental improvement. Removal of this BUI will benefit not only the people who live and work in the Saginaw River/Bay AOC, but all the residents of Michigan and the Great Lakes basin as well. We look forward to the continuation of this important and productive relationship with your agency and the local coordinating committee as we work together to fully restore all of Michigan's AOCs. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (312) 353-4891, or your staff may contact John Perrecone, at (312) 353-1149.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alpena FWCO - Detroit River Substation Fisheries Evaluation of the Frankenmuth Rock Ramp in Frankenmuth, MI Final Report - October 2019 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alpena FWCO – Detroit River Substation 9311 Groh Road Grosse Ile, MI 48138 Paige Wigren, Justin Chiotti, Joe Leonardi, and James Boase Suggested Citation: Wigren, P.L., J.A. Chiotti, J.M. Leonardi, and J.C. Boase. 2019. Alpena FWCO – Detroit River Substation Fisheries Evaluation of the Frankenmuth Rock Ramp in Frankenmuth, MI. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alpena Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office – Waterford Substation, Waterford, MI, 22 pp. On the cover: Staff from the Alpena Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office – Detroit River Substation holding the only northern pike that was recaptured upstream of the rock ramp; a tagged walleye; a small flathead catfish; a net full of tagged fish ready to be released downstream; four tagged white suckers recaptured upstream and boat crew conducting an electrofishing transect. 3 Summary Since the construction of the rock ramp, 17 fish species not previously detected upstream have been captured. These species include eight freshwater drum, eleven walleye, two gizzard shad, eight flathead catfish and two round goby. Over the past three years 2,604 fish have been tagged downstream of the rock ramp. Twenty-nine of these fish were recaptured upstream during boat electrofishing assessments or by anglers. Based on the mean monthly discharge of the Cass River during April and May, the data suggests that white and redhorse suckers can move past the rock ramp during normal discharge years.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 179/Tuesday, September 15, 2020
    Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Notices 57231 of Federal Claims, the land from which Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Michigan State University is the Native American human remains Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red responsible for notifying The Tribes, were removed is the aboriginal land of Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, The Consulted Tribes and Groups, and the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian The Invited Tribes that this notice has Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie been published. River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Dated: August 14, 2020. Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Indian Community, Michigan; Melanie O’Brien, Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians Manager, National NAGPRA Program. Boy’s Reservation, Montana (previously of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain listed as Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Band of Chippewa Indians of North [FR Doc. 2020–20295 Filed 9–14–20; 8:45 am] Rocky Boy’s Reservation, Montana); Dakota. BILLING CODE 4312–52–P Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may Chippewa Indians, Michigan; DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, be to the Bad River Band of the Lake Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of National Park Service Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Wisconsin; Lac du
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Enrolled Bill
    Act No. 353 Public Acts of 1996 Approved by the Governor July 1, 1996 Filed with the Secretary of State July 1, 1996 STATE OF MICHIGAN 88TH LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION OF 1996 Introduced by Senators McManus, Gast, Steil, Geake, Rogers, Bennett and Schuette ENROLLED SENATE BILL No. 979 AN ACT to make appropriations for the department of natural resources and the department of environmental quality for the fiscal year ending September 30,1996; to provide for the acquisition of land and development rights; to provide for certain work projects; to provide for the development of public recreation facilities; to provide for the powers and duties of certain state agencies and officials; and to provide for the expenditure of appropriations. The People of the State of Michigan enact: Sec. 1. There is appropriated for the department of natural resources to supplement former appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, the sum of $20,714,100.00 for land acquisition and grants and $5,688,800.00 for public recreation facility development and grants as provided in section 35 of article IX of the state constitution of 1963 and part 19 (natural resources trust fund) of the natural resources and environmental protection act, Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.1901 to 324.1910 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, from the following funds: For Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30, 1996 GROSS APPROPRIATIONS............................................................................................................ $ 26,402,900 Appropriated from: Special revenue funds: Michigan natural resources trust fund.............................................................................................. $ 26,402,900 State general fund/general purpose................................................................................................... $ 0 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A.
    [Show full text]
  • RETURN of HERRING GULLS to NATAL COLONY by JAMES PINSON LUVWXG Overa Periodof 32 Years,F
    Bird-Banding 68] LUDWIG,Return ofHerring Gulls April RETURN OF HERRING GULLS TO NATAL COLONY BY JAMES PINSON LUVWXG Overa periodof 32 years,F. E. Ludwig,C. C. Ludwig,C. A. Ludwig,and I havebanded 60,000 downy young Herring Gulls (Larusarqentatus) in coloniesin LakesHuron, Michigan, and Superior.I havegrouped the coloniesaccording to geographical locationin sevenareas (See Table 1). From thesecolonies as of July1961 we have recovered 47 adults(See Tables 2, 3, and4 for eachrecovery) which were banded as chicks.All of theseadults werein full adult plumage,and I have assumedthat they were breedingin thecolonies where we found them. Six questionable re- coveries have been noted. TABLE 1. THE AREASAND THEIR COLONIES In Lake Huron 1. Saginaw Bay area-- Little Charity Island 4404-08328 2. Thunder Bay area-- Black River Island 4440-08318 Scarecrow Island 4450-08320 SulphurIsland 4500-08322 GrassyIsland 4504-08325 SugarIsland 4506-08318 Thunder Bay Island 4506-08317 Gull Island 4506-08318 3. Rogers City area-- Calcite Pier colony 4530-08350 4. Straits of Mackinac area-- Goose Island 4555-08426 St. Martin's Shoal 4557-08434 Green Island 4551-08440 In Lake Michigan 5. Beaver Islands' area-- Hatt Island 4549-08518 Shoe Island 4548-08518 Pismire Island 4547-08527 Grass Island 4547-08528 Big Gull Island 4545-08540 6. Grand Traverse Bay area-- Bellows' Island 4506-08534 In Lake Superior 7. Grand Marais area-- Grand Marais Island 4640-08600 Latitude - Longitude Thesenumbers (e.g. 4500 - 08320) are the geo- graphicalcoordinates of the islands. An anlysisof therecoveries reveals that 19 (40.4percent) of the adultswere bandedin the samecolony as recovered,15 (32.1 per- cent)more recovered in the same area as banded, and 13 (27.5per- Bird Divisionof the Museumof Zoology,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor, Michigan Contributionfrom Universityof MichiganBiological Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase II Status Assessment of Herpetofauna in the Saginaw Bay Watershed
    Phase II Status Assessment of Herpetofauna in the Saginaw Bay Watershed July 25, 2013 Prepared for: Saginaw Basin Land Conservancy 809 East Midland Street Bay City, MI 48706 Prepared by: Herpetological Resource and Management, LLC P.O. Box 110 Chelsea, MI 48118 www.HerpRMan.com (313) 268-6189 Project Number: 12D-7.01 Suggested Citation: Mifsud, David A. 2013. Phase II Status Assessment of Herpetofauna in the Saginaw Bay Watershed. Herpetological Resource and Management Report 2012 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 5 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8 Site Locations and Descriptions .................................................................................. 10 Methods ....................................................................................................................... 19 Historical Review and Site Assessment ................................................................... 19 Herpetofaunal Surveys ........................................................................................... 20 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 22 1) Au Gres Delta Nature Preserve .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Culturally Inspired Restoration Sabin Dam Removal - Grand Traverse Band
    2019 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Culturally Inspired Restoration Sabin Dam Removal - Grand Traverse Band Invasive Species Control - Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band Aerial Moose Survey - 1854 Treaty Authority Cover Photo: Wild Rice restored on Nottawa Creek near the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi Reservation Welcome Readers Dear Reader, The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) began in 2010 to accelerate efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes. With the support of GLRI, tribes have substantially increased their capacity to participate in intergovernmental resource management activities for the Great Lakes alongside federal, state and other partners to address some of the most pressing challenges facing the Great Lakes. Indian country, comprised of reservation land bases and ceded territories where tribes retain rights, represents millions of acres within the Great Lakes Basin. Since 2010, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has provided GLRI funding to more than 30 tribes and tribal organizations in the Midwest and Eastern Regions for Great Lakes protection and restoration projects. The BIA GLRI program has gradually increased, growing from $3 million in 2010 to over $11 million in 2019. In total, BIA has provided approximately $60 million in GLRI funding to tribes as of fall 2019 to implement over 500 tribally led restoration projects. These projects protected and restored 190,000 acres of habitat and approximately 550 miles of Great Lakes tributaries, and include over 40 distinct projects to protect and restore native species. The majority of tribal GLRI projects work to assess, monitor, protect and restore local waterways, habitats, and species such as lake sturgeon, moose, and wild rice essential for tribal life-ways and cultural continuity.
    [Show full text]
  • M I C H I G a N O N T a R
    314 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 6, Chapter 10 26 SEP 2021 85°W 84°W 83°W 82°W ONTARIO 2251 NORTH CHANNEL 46°N D E 14885 T 14882 O U R M S O F M A C K I N A A I T A C P S T R N I A T O S U S L A I N G I S E 14864 L A N Cheboygan D 14881 Rogers City 14869 14865 14880 Alpena L AKE HURON 45°N THUNDER BAY UNITED ST CANADA MICHIGAN A TES Oscoda Au Sable Tawas City 14862 44°N SAGINAW BAY Bay Port Harbor Beach Sebewaing 14867 Bay City Saginaw Port Sanilac 14863 Lexington 14865 43°N Port Huron Sarnia Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 6—Chapter 10 NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml 26 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 6, Chapter 10 ¢ 315 Lake Huron (1) Lawrence, Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg and Eastern Chart Datum, Lake Huron Arctic for complete information.) (2) Depths and vertical clearances under overhead (12) cables and bridges given in this chapter are referred to Fluctuations of water level Low Water Datum, which for Lake Huron is on elevation (13) The normal elevation of the lake surface varies 577.5 feet (176.0 meters) above mean water level at irregularly from year to year. During the course of each Rimouski, QC, on International Great Lakes Datum 1985 year, the surface is subject to a consistent seasonal rise (IGLD 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • RR-545- East Central Michigan Transportation Study
    HE • .. 'i no, \ T'' ~- .. ' ' ' 'n·,.'' ·i :r: i ' I ' EAST CENTRAL MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY ,_ PRESENTED BY THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN COOPERATION WITH THE EAST CENTRAL MICHIGAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGION . ., I . ' J.P. WOODFORD, DIRECTOR ·~ I I MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION June, 1979 This report represents the findings and/or professional opinions of the Michigan Department of Transportation staff and is not an official opinion of the Michigan Transportation Commission. MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Hannes Meyers, Jr. , Cl;lairman Carl V . Pellonpaa Weston E. Vivian Lawrence C. Patrick, Jr. William C . Marshall Rodger D. Young Director John P. Woodford i L -1- ; I ·.J l: ' I CNI'ARIC I -w L I " i' f i \ § I c--i\ LI - -~ (_ i }; MINNESOTA ( ....... r \' i IOWA I PENNSYLVANIA .I ' II..I..INCIS I CHIC -- I NOlANA MISSOURI KENTUCKY / ----- ~-;__ ____ / REGION 7 LOCATION MAP MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I ' ' TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE -- A. Introduction ..•.. ~ • . • . • • . • • • . • • • . • . • • • . • • • • 1 Study Area • . • • . • . • . • • . • . • • • • • • • • 1 Purpose of_ Study ......•••.........• , .....•••••••• , • • 1 B. Planning Technique ........•.•••••..•.••.•...........••• , , 3 C. Analysis Techniques •...........•.....••...•.•....•.••• ; • • 6 D. Transportation Issues Goals and Objectives ••....•.•••••• ~- 9-------- -··--....... ___ Discussion of Issues Identified at Pre-Study Meetings . • . • . • . • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . • . • . • 10 State Transportation Goals
    [Show full text]
  • Charity Island Partnership Agreement
    Huron Pines 4241 Old US 27 South, Suite 2; Gaylord, MI 49735 | [email protected] | (989) 448-2293 Charity Islands Phragmites Management Project 2016 Partnership Agreement Between Huron Pines U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) The Nature Conservancy Saginaw Bay Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area (CISMA) Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU) Au Gres-Sims School District Great Lakes Stewardship Initiative (GLSI) Michigan Sea Grant Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Michigan DNR) Charity Island Transport, Inc. Purpose This Partnership Agreement outlines a long-term plan for managing non-native Phragmites australis at the Charity Islands. The main goal of this project is to restore sensitive wetland habitat and protect native plant and animal species, including the state- and federally-threatened Pitcher’s thistle. Other objectives include supporting ongoing university research, providing place-based outdoor education opportunities for local K-12 students, raising public awareness about invasive species, and preserving the scenic and recreational of the Charity Islands. The Agreement summarizes project activities that have already been completed and clarifies partner roles and responsibilities for the timeframe 2016 through 2018. This Agreement updates and supersedes the 2015 Charity Islands Phragmites Management Partnership Agreement and will be considered valid through the end of 2018, upon which it will be reviewed and updated as necessary to cover anticipated activities and partner roles beyond the end of the 2018 treatment season. Project Background The Charity Islands are located in Saginaw Bay, approximately 12 miles east of the City of Au Gres and 10 miles northwest of the City of Caseville, and are part of Arenac County.
    [Show full text]