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 ..........................................................................................