appendix a: study area element occurrences by landtype...

Appendices 262

APPENDIX A: Study area element occurrences by landtype association (Adapted from MNFI Biotic Database, 2001)

Study AreaLTA Number

MNFILTA

Code

Scientific Name Common Name ElementType

Survey Site State ProtectionStatus

4 2111 BUTEO LINEATUS RED-SHOULDERED HAWK Animal CADILLAC 2 Threatened7 3111 APPALACHIA ARCANA SECRETIVE LOCUST Animal KALKASKA TRAIL BOG Special concern7 3111 CLEMMYS INSCULPTA WOOD TURTLE Animal Special concern7 3111 ATRYTONOPSIS HIANNA DUSTED SKIPPER Animal SHARON RD. Threatened

11 5111 SISTRURUS CATENATUSCATENATUS EASTERN MASSASAUGA Animal BIG CANNON CREEK Special concern

11 5111 DENDROICA KIRTLANDII KIRTLAND'S WARBLER Animal SHARON KWMA Endangered11 5111 ORYZOPSIS CANADENSIS CANADA RICE-GRASS Plant RICHARDSON JACK PINE Threatened11 5111 APPALACHIA ARCANA SECRETIVE LOCUST Animal THE DOUGHNUT Special concern11 5111 CLEMMYS INSCULPTA WOOD TURTLE Animal CANNON CREEK Special concern11 5111 APPALACHIA ARCANA SECRETIVE LOCUST Animal LINN ROAD Special concern11 5111 CIRSIUM HILLII HILL'S THISTLE Plant RANGE 18 Special concern11 5111 DENDROICA KIRTLANDII KIRTLAND'S WARBLER Animal WEST CAMP Endangered

11 5111 SISTRURUS CATENATUSCATENATUS EASTERN MASSASAUGA Animal CCC BRIDGE CAMPGROUND Special concern

11 5111 CLEMMYS INSCULPTA WOOD TURTLE Animal BIG CANNON CREEK Special concern11 5111 DENDROICA KIRTLANDII KIRTLAND'S WARBLER Animal HOWES LAKE Endangered11 5111 OAK-PINE BARRENS Community FLETCHER BARRENS11 5111 CIRSIUM HILLII HILL'S THISTLE Plant FLETCHER ROAD NORTH Special concern11 5111 CIRSIUM HILLII HILL'S THISTLE Plant FLETCHER BARRENS Special concern11 5111 SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS PRAIRIE DROPSEED Plant PORTAGE CREEK NORTH Special concern11 5111 CIRSIUM HILLII HILL'S THISTLE Plant SECTION 29 CURRAN Special concern

11 5111 SISTRURUS CATENATUSCATENATUS EASTERN MASSASAUGA Animal MANISTEE RIVER Special concern

11 5111 INTERMITTENT WETLAND INFERTILE POND/MARSH, GREATLAKES TYPE Community THE DOUGHNUT

12 5131 CLEMMYS INSCULPTA WOOD TURTLE Animal SHARON WEST Special concern12 5131 GAVIA IMMER COMMON LOON Animal EAST LAKE Threatened13 5149 APPALACHIA ARCANA SECRETIVE LOCUST Animal HOWE'S LAKE Special concern

13 5149 SISTRURUS CATENATUSCATENATUS EASTERN MASSASAUGA Animal PORTAGE CREEK Special concern

Appendices 263

APPENDIX A: Study area element occurrences by landtype association (continued)Study Area

LTA NumberMNFILTA

Code



13 5149 GAVIA IMMER COMMON LOON Animal EAST LAKES Threatened

13 5149 SOLIDAGO HOUGHTONII HOUGHTON'S GOLDENROD Plant PORTAGE CREEK PRAIRIECOMPLEX, HOWES LAK Threatened

13 5149 GREAT BLUE HERON ROOKERY GREAT BLUE HERON ROOKERY Other13 5149 SOLIDAGO HOUGHTONII HOUGHTON'S GOLDENROD Plant BLUESTEM PRAIRIE Threatened13 5149 HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS BALD EAGLE Animal FLOWING WELL PONDS Threatened

13 5149 INTERMITTENT WETLAND INFERTILE POND/MARSH, GREATLAKES TYPE Community LAKE MARGRETHE NORTH

13 5149 CIRSIUM HILLII HILL'S THISTLE Plant PORTAGE CREEK PRAIRIE Special concern13 5149 SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS PRAIRIE DROPSEED Plant BLUESTEM PRAIRIE Special concern13 5149 APPALACHIA ARCANA SECRETIVE LOCUST Animal LAKE MARGRETHE NORTH Special concern13 5149 VIOLA NOVAE-ANGLIAE NEW ENGLAND VIOLET Plant HOWES LAKE Threatened13 5149 RICH CONIFER SWAMP Community WATSON SWAMP13 5149 GAVIA IMMER COMMON LOON Animal GRASS LAKE Threatened

13 5149 SCIRPUS CLINTONII CLINTON'S BULRUSH Plant PORTAGE CREEK PRAIRIECOMPLEX Special concern

13 5149 EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII BLANDING'S TURTLE Animal NORTH BRANCH MANISTEERIVER Special concern

13 5149 JUNCUS VASEYI VASEY'S RUSH Plant PORTAGE CREEK PRAIRIECOMPLEX, HOWES LAK Threatened

13 5149 MESIC SAND PRAIRIE MOIST SAND PRAIRIE, MIDWESTTYPE Community PORTAGE CREEK COMPLEX

13 5149 NORTHERN WET MEADOW WET MEADOW, UPPER MIDWESTTYPE Community CANNON CREEK

14 5211 GAVIA IMMER COMMON LOON Animal INDIAN LAKE Threatened14 5211 HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS BALD EAGLE Animal BUHL LAKE Threatened

14 5211 GAVIA IMMER COMMON LOON Animal LAKE ARROWHEAD, BUHLLAKES Threatened

14 5211 GAVIA IMMER COMMON LOON Animal WASHWOMEN LAKE Threatened14 5211 HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS BALD EAGLE Animal MANISTEE LAKE Threatened14 5211 GAVIA IMMER COMMON LOON Animal PICKEREL LAKE Threatened

15 5222 GAVIA IMMER COMMON LOON Animal TWENTY-EIGHT LAKES, EASTLAKE Threatened

15 5222 GAVIA IMMER COMMON LOON Animal PRICE LAKE Threatened16 5521 HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS BALD EAGLE Animal BLUE LAKES Threatened

Appendices 264

APPENDIX A: Study area element occurrences by landtype association (continued)

Study AreaLTA Number

MNFILTA

Code



16 5521 POTAMOGETON HILLII HILL'S PONDWEED Plant LITTLE BLUE LAKE Threatened

16 5521 SISTRURUS CATENATUSCATENATUS EASTERN MASSASAUGA Animal ISHAWORD FOREST Special concern

16 5521 GAVIA IMMER COMMON LOON Animal SQUAW LAKE Threatened

Appendices 265

APPENDIX B: Landtype association rarity and conservation priority analysis

StudyArea LTANumber

LTACode

Area of LTA inGrayling

Outwash Sub-Subdistrict1

Percent ofGraylingOutwash

Covered byLTA

Area of LTAin Study Area

Percent OfStudy AreaCovered by

LTA

Percent ofGrayling

Outwash LTAFound in

Study Area

Threshold #1 -LTA

represents<1% of

GraylingOutwash

Threshold #2 ->70% of LTA in

GraylingOutwash is

Found in StudyArea

PriorityScore2

* 7-2 3,502,918 0.04% 3,502,918 0.26% 100.00% yes yes 105 2-1-2-1 18,708,246 0.19% 14,668,522 1.09% 78.41% yes yes 1016 5-2-2-2 77,676,528 0.79% 57,491,118 4.29% 74.01% yes yes 104 2-1-1-1 53,269,070 0.54% 14,992,115 1.12% 28.14% yes no 58 3-1-2-1 125,320,864 1.28% 125,320,864 9.34% 100.00% no yes 52 1-1-2-1 141,405,502 1.44% 59,660,893 4.45% 42.19% no no 03 1-2-2-2 120,277,250 1.23% 13,879,270 1.03% 11.54% no no 015 5-5-2-1 167,604,274 1.71% 78,773,854 5.87% 47.00% no no 0* 7-1 148,688,044 1.52% 7,931,635 0.59% 5.33% no no 09 3-1-2-2 255,946,723 2.61% 48,112,374 3.59% 18.80% no no 017 5-5-4-9 199,235,579 2.03% 5,735,841 0.43% 2.88% no no 01 1-1-1-1 221,588,045 2.26% 6,689,611 0.50% 3.02% no no 010 3-2-1-1 287,114,088 2.93% 29,641,094 2.21% 10.32% no no 012 5-1-3-1 534,596,803 5.45% 98,321,983 7.33% 18.39% no no 013 5-1-4-9 783,865,946 7.99% 142,797,638 10.65% 18.22% no no 014 5-2-1-1 1,261,161,886 12.86% 236,019,323 17.60% 18.71% no no 07 3-1-1-1 1,076,889,499 10.98% 149,313,140 11.13% 13.87% no no 06 2-2-2-1 411,651,744 4.20% 5,588,409 0.42% 1.36% no no 011 5-1-1-1 2,803,385,832 28.58% 242,932,414 18.11% 8.67% no no 0

Total Area of Grayling Outwash Plain Ecoregion : 9,808,587,654Total area of Study Area3: 1,341,373,014

1All area figures given in square meters.2LTAs that passed both thresholds were awarded 10 points. LTAs that passed only one were awarded 5 points. LTAs that passed neitherreceived 0 points.3Total area of study area (in m2) is actually 1,380,102,008. This figure excludes 38,728,994 m2 found solely in Cadillac sub-district* Lakes; the project team did not describe these LTAs in Chapter 5.

Appendices 266

APPENDIX C: Pre-settlement vegetation and 1978 land cover comparison analysis

Pre-SettlementComparisonCategories

1978 Land CoverCategories

1978 Land CoverCodes

Land Use ~1800 Categories Land Use ~1800Codes

Points

Aspen Aspen 4146 Aspen-Birch Forest 414 10

Aspen, Birch Aspen, Birch 413, 4130 Aspen-Birch Forest 413 10

UndifferentiatedAspen/White Birch 4130 Aspen-Birch 413

Black Spruce Black Spruce 4232 Muskeg/Bog 4232 (423), 6121,6122 10

Cedar Cedar 4233 Cedar Swamp, Mixed ConiferSwamp 4233 (423) 10

Central Hardwood Central Hardwood 412 Beech-Sugar Maple-HemlockForest 4111 5

Emergent Wetland Emergent Wetland 622 Shrub Swamp/Emergent Marsh 6221, 6222, 6224,6228 10

Herbaceous Rangeland Herbaceous Rangeland 31 Grassland 31 5

Jack Pine Jack Pine 4213 Pine Barrens, Jack Pine-RedPine 4213, 4215 5

Lowland Conifer Lowland Conifer 423, 4230, 4231,4232, 4233

Cedar Swamp, Mixed ConiferSwamp

42, 423, 4231, 4232,4233 10

UndifferentiatedLowland Conifer 4230 Cedar Swamp, Mixed Conifer

Swamp 42, 423, 4231

Lowland Hardwood Lowland Hardwood 414 Black Ash Swamp, MixedHardwood Swamp

414, 4141, 4142,4143, 4146, 4147 10

Northern Hardwood Northern Hardwood 411, 4110, 4111 Beech-Sugar Maple-HemlockForest 4111, 4119 5

UndifferentiatedNorthern Hardwood 4110 Beech-Sugar Maple-Hemlock

Forest 4111, 4119

Appendices 267

APPENDIX C: Pre-settlement vegetation and 1978 land cover comparison analysis (continued)

Pre-SettlementComparisonCategories

1978 Land CoverCategories

1978 Land CoverCodes

Land Use ~1800 Categories Land Use ~1800Codes

Points

Other Upland Conifer Other Upland Conifer 422Hemlock, Hemlock-White Pine,Hemoloc-Sugar Maple,Hemlock-Yellow-birch

4226, 4227, 4228,4229 10

Pine 421

White Pine, Jack Pine, RedPine-Jack Pine, Red Pine-White Pine, White Pine-WhiteOak, Red Pine-Oak, WhitePine-Beech-Maple

4211, 4213, 4215,4216, 4217, 4218,4219

5

Pine

Undifferentiated Pine 4210

Pine-Oak, White Pine, RedPine-Jack Pine, Red Pine-White Pine, White Pine-WhiteOak

421, 4211, 4213,4216, 4217

Red Oak Red Oak 4121 White Pine-Mixed Hardwood 4218, 4219 5

Shrub Rangeland Shrub Rangeland 32 Herbaceous-Upland Grassland,Oak-Pine Barrens 31, 333 10

Shrub/Scrub Wetland Shrub/Scrub Wetland 612 Shrub Swamp/Emergent Marsh 6121, 6122 10

Sugar Maple Sugar Maple 4111 Beech-Sugar Maple-HemlockForest 4111, 4119 5

Tamarack Tamarack 4233 Muskeg/Bog 423, 4233 10

White Pine White Pine 4211

White Pine-Mixed HardwoodForest, White Pine-Red PineForest, White Pine-White OakForest

4211, 4216, 4217,4219 10

Wooded Wetland Wooded Wetland 611Black Ash Swamp, CedarSwamp, Mixed Conifer Swamp,Mixed Hardwood Swamp

414, 4141, 4142,4143, 6121, 6122 10

Appendices 268

APPENDIX D: Different weighting scenarios considered for the unfragmented natural areas driverThis table describes the four weighting options that the team investigated for the unfragmented natural areas driver. The team selected Option A.

Options Weights Pros & Cons

A. Weighting isbased on an arbitraryselection of a 1,000-acre acreagethreshold, and a 500mcentroid threshold.

10 pts: Greater than or equal to 1,000 acres& centroid is greater than or equal to 500mfrom roads5 pts: Greater than or equal to 1,000 acres &centroid is <500m from roads0 pts: <1,000 acres

Pros: Least complex weighting of options compared to options B, C,& D – 1,000 acres is an easily understandable figure. Produced areasonable number of 5 and 10-point natural areas compared to theother options – fewer than options B & C, but more than option D.

Cons: No weighting differentiation between any natural areas of<1,000 acres. For example, a natural area of 900 acres is scored thesame (0 points) as a natural area of 5 acres.

B. Weighting isbased on an arbitraryselection of acreagethresholds of 1,000and 500 acres, and ofcentroid thresholds of250m and 500m each.

10 pts: Greater than or equal to 1,000 acres& centroid is >500m from roads5 pts: Greater than or equal to 1,000 acres &centroid is <500m from roads; OR 500-999acres and the centroid is >250m from roads0 pts: 500-999 acres & centroid is <250mfrom roads; OR 0-499 acres

Pros: “Clean” weighting in terms of using easily understandableacreages (500 and 1,000). Also, very comprehensive. Finally,outcome was reasonable given its similarity to the outcome usingnatural breaks (see next weighting description).

Cons: Produced so many 5-point natural areas that the team felt itwas not selective enough.

C. Weighting is basedon natural breaks.

Same weighting as option B, but withacreages based on natural breaks10 pts: >1,820 acres & centroid is >500mfrom roads5 pts: >1,820 acres & centroid is <500mfrom roads; OR 470-1,819 acres and thecentroid is >250m from roads0 pts: 470-1,819 acres & centroid is <250mfrom roads; OR 0-449 acres

Pros: Weighting is less arbitrary than Options A & B since GIS usesthe available data to calculate natural breaks.

Cons: Natural breaks results in seemingly (if not actually) randomlyselected acreages that are much less clearcut than simply using athreshold of 1,000 acres. Also, concept of natural breaks is moredifficult to explain than other classification options. Finally, this optionproduced fewer 5-point natural areas than the scenario above, but stillenough so that the team questioned whether the criteria wereselective enough.

D. Weighting isbased on equalinterval.

Same weighting as options B & C, but withacreages based on equal interval10 pts: >3,501 acres & centroid is >500mfrom roads5 pts: >3,501 acres & centroid is <500mfrom roads; OR 1,751-3,500 acres and thecentroid is >250m from roads0 pts: 1,751-3,500 acres & centroid is<250m from roads; OR 0-1,750 acres

Pro: Easily understandable acreage division – equal interval involvessimply dividing the total acreage by 3 to obtain different classes.

Con: Resulted in the fewest areas receiving 5 or 10 points, so few infact that the team determined this scenario to be too limiting.

Appendices 269

APPENDIX E: Results of analysis of all private parcels > 40 acres in top three CFAs in Kalkaska County

Note: for the acreage cut-off of 40 acres, the team used parcels 38 acres or larger to account fordiscrepancies between GIS digitized polygons and plat books figures. Scores were assigned as follows:

Area Weighted Mean EcologicalScore

NaturalAcres

Natural AcresScore

ContiguousLandscape

0-10 4 <30 411-20 3 30-45 321-34 2 46-100 235-65 1 >100 1

Not quantitative;based on visualinspection

NORTH BRANCH CFA, Flowing Well Landscape FeatureParcel ID Total Acres Natural

AcresNaturalAcresScore

AreaWeighted

Mean

EcologicalScore

ContiguousLandscape

Score

Total ParcelScore

201 1,728 1,296 1 32.8 2 1 4250 282 277 1 26.4 2 1 4249 157 149 1 28.4 2 1 4251 156 148 1 24.8 2 1 4247 78 74 2 40.2 1 1 4234 80 79 2 28.8 2 1 5246 39 39 3 47.6 1 1 5245 79 59 2 26.2 2 2 6218 41 41 3 29.8 2 1 6241 40 40 3 34.2 2 1 6219 40 40 3 26.6 2 1 6248 40 40 3 34.2 2 1 6240 39 39 3 33.2 2 1 6244 181 72 2 21.0 2 3 7204 81 48 2 24.9 2 3 7203 79 47 2 22.2 2 3 7242 41 41 3 27.0 2 2 7202 39 37 3 31.7 2 2 7

Acreage Subtotals 3,221 2,566

Appendices 270

APPENDIX E: Results of analysis of all private parcels > 40 acres in top three CFAs in Kalkaska County (continued)

NORTH BRANCH CFA, Sharon Landscape FeatureParcel ID Total Acres Natural


AreaWeighted

Mean

EcologicalScore

ContiguousLandscape

Score

Total ParcelScore

199 1,337 1,337 1 20.0 3 2 6263 56 50 2 23.8 2 3 7266 49 49 2 23.7 2 3 7273 40 40 3 26.6 2 2 7


NORTH BRANCH CFA, Kniss Landscape FeatureParcel ID Total Acres Natural


AreaWeighted

Mean

EcologicalScore

ContiguousLandscape

Score

Total ParcelScore

221 118 89 2 26.1 2 1 5220 69 68 2 23.0 2 1 5228 79 79 2 25.4 2 2 6226 86 51 2 19.6 3 2 7229 40 40 3 25.8 2 2 7223 59 56 2 19.8 3 3 8

Acreage Subtotals 451 383

NORTH BRANCH CFA, Dutch Road Landscape FeatureParcel ID Total Acres Natural


AreaWeighted

Mean

EcologicalScore

ContiguousLandscape

Score

Total ParcelScore

294 320 192 1 13.7 3 2 6290 64 62 2 23.5 2 2 6292 39 33 3 25.8 2 3 8


Appendices 271


NORTH BRANCH CFA, Misc. ParcelsParcel ID Total Acres Natural


AreaWeighted

Mean

EcologicalScore

ContiguousLandscape

Score

Total ParcelScore

253 53 48 2 24.5 2 3 7208 47 42 3 30.4 3 2 8235 56 0 4 17.4 3 3 10


NORTH BRANCHSUBTOTALS

5,733 4,802

(continued on next page…)

Appendices 272


28 LAKES CFA, Maple Creek Landscape FeatureParcel ID Total Acres Natural


AreaWeighted

Mean

EcologicalScore

ContiguousLandscape

Score

Total ParcelScore

16 142 140 1 36.4 1 1 314 449 382 1 29.0 2 1 49 236 200 1 23.4 2 1 420 198 198 1 26.6 2 1 430 158 158 1 22.3 2 1 421 78 78 2 35.2 1 1 433 156 132 1 16.2 3 1 515 81 81 2 27.2 2 1 531 79 79 2 21.8 2 1 523 78 78 2 29.2 2 1 517 79 79 2 15.3 3 1 618 76 76 2 17.8 3 1 668 41 41 3 34.4 2 1 622 38 38 3 34.8 2 1 686 42 36 3 29.6 2 2 719 39 39 3 16.0 3 1 732 39 39 3 19.7 3 1 734 41 14 4 18.0 3 1 835 40 36 3 8.2 4 1 8


(continued on next page…)

Appendices 273


28 LAKES CFA, Misc. ParcelsParcel ID Total Acres Natural


AreaWeighted

Mean

EcologicalScore

ContiguousLandscape

Score

Total ParcelScore

78 355 142 1 22.3 2 3 626 152 129 1 21.8 2 3 61 228 57 2 12.0 3 3 876 40 32 3 23.4 2 3 88 85 4 4 17.5 3 3 10


28 LAKESSUBTOTALS

2,948 2,288

BLACK CREEK CFA, Black Creek Landscape FeatureParcel ID Total Acres Natural


AreaWeighted

Mean

EcologicalScore

ContiguousLandscape

Score

Total ParcelScore

502 162 162 1 21.2 2 1 4501 3,210 3,210 1 19.3 3 1 5500 522 522 1 12.2 3 1 5503 120 84 2 26.5 2 1 5504 41 41 3 24.8 2 1 6


CFA PARCELTOTALACREAGE

12,736 11,109

Appendices 274

APPENDIX F: Ranked 2nd and 3rd tier Conservation Areas

2nd Tier Conservation Areas 3rd Tier Conservation AreasID # Acres Area

WeightedScore

Rank ID # Acres AreaWeighted

Score

Rank

26 340 28.8 1 60 18 30.2 144 116 28.3 2 59 18 28.5 238 179 27.4 3 49 87 28.4 329 309 26.4 4 50 63 27.6 430 287 26.2 5 55 34 27.3 521 431 26.2 6 54 41 26.3 640 159 25.8 7 52 45 26.1 739 171 25.8 8 57 26 25.8 819 441 25.7 9 53 43 25.8 925 350 25.4 10 48 89 25.4 1032 240 25.4 11 46 99 24.7 1133 237 25.3 12 47 95 23.2 1223 424 24.9 13 56 29 23.2 1320 433 24.8 14 51 59 22.7 1445 107 24.8 15 58 20 21.9 1543 121 24.8 1635 194 24.7 1722 429 24.6 1827 336 24.4 1941 143 24.2 2037 185 23.5 2131 268 23.4 2236 185 23.3 2334 213 23.1 2424 379 22.9 2542 131 21.7 2628 315 21.1 27

Appendices 275

APPENDIX G: CFAs and individual driver mean scores (area weighted)

CFA Mean Scores All Drivers -Total Mean

# DriversPresent

GroundwaterAccumulation Wetlands Riparian Elements LTA Pre-settle Fragment Adjacency

1 0.1437 6.7269 1.9355 3.5332 0.5192 3.0584 9.2988 4.1355 29.3512 8

2 1.4056 8.0732 0.6245 5.5168 0.0000 2.9522 8.3307 3.4008 30.3038 7

3 3.4152 3.7963 3.5952 4.5791 0.0232 2.1254 3.7354 7.5446 28.8144 8

4 1.8415 7.5378 2.8885 2.8008 0.0000 3.2234 6.2704 1.7553 26.3177 7

5 0.1675 3.1033 1.1592 5.8789 7.7929 2.6023 4.3461 2.4414 27.4916 8

6 3.1384 0.7388 0.7675 5.5197 2.5239 2.9585 1.0417 7.2120 23.9005 8

7 0.0041 6.8206 1.3465 0.0000 3.7127 1.9779 7.7636 3.5074 25.1328 7

8 3.3210 4.5517 3.3322 3.1297 0.0000 2.4941 8.5516 2.8271 28.2074 7

9 1.5303 3.5077 1.7480 0.0000 2.4954 1.9951 7.8488 7.6056 26.7309 7

10 2.4674 5.5994 2.0546 2.3892 0.0000 3.1965 8.5000 3.1889 27.3960 7

11 4.4522 7.5088 1.1993 0.0000 0.0000 3.3278 4.5271 6.3250 27.3402 6

12 0.4701 4.2121 2.0718 7.5821 0.0000 2.4581 5.9072 4.2606 26.9620 7

13 8.6908 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7513 3.8862 9.8003 0.0000 24.1286 4

14 1.8079 8.6188 1.5975 0.0000 0.0000 1.7338 9.8814 4.0101 27.6495 6

15 0.7290 9.1194 3.2518 0.5463 0.0000 6.0502 4.6363 0.2462 24.5792 7

16 7.1484 7.5381 5.8998 0.0000 0.0000 2.1112 3.9054 1.6879 28.2908 6

17 1.7710 1.4998 0.8810 8.4365 1.2741 2.6574 0.0000 9.3083 25.8281 7

18 5.3655 5.2209 5.8454 4.0763 0.0000 1.1446 0.0000 8.2570 29.9097 6

Appendices 276

APPENDIX H: Demographic data

Note concerning calculation of estimates for the study area:The project team generated population, housing unit, and land area estimates for the study area as a whole by first multiplying the totalpopulation (or housing units or land area) for each individual township by the percent of each township within the study area. Then,the totals for each portion of townships within the study area were summed to obtain the total for the entire study area.

Another possible method would have been to first sum the total population (or housing units or land area) for all of the townships andthen multiply by 51.6%, which is the total percentage of the 17 township area that is occupied by the study area.

Both methods are equally correct and acceptable methods for calculating the estimates. However, according to a statisticalphenomenon known as Simpson’s Paradox, these two methods result in different estimates. For example, the estimated 2000population of the entire study area was calculated as follows: The 2000 population of Bloomfield Township is 746, and 44.1% of thetownship lies within the study area. Therefore, the population of Bloomfield township with the study area is 746 x .441 = 209. Thisprocess was repeated for each of the 17 townships and summed to obtain a total study area population of 10,041.

Using the alternative method, the 2000 population for Bloomfield Township (746) would have been summed with the population of all16 other townships, for a total of 22,953. Because the study area occupies approximately 51.6% of the total land area of thesetownships, the population of the study area would be: 22,953 x .516% = 11, 844.

Because both methods are statistically valid, an acceptable population estimate of the study area could therefore be either 10,041 or11,844. For the purposes of this demographic analysis, the team chose to use the first method because it allowed the team to calculateestimates for individual portions of the watershed by township, whereas the alternative method would have only provided estimatesfor the study area as a whole.

Appendices 277

APPENDIX H: Demographic data (continued)

Table H-1: Land area of townships and study area

Township Twp. Area(km2)

Percent ofTwp. in Study

Area

Twp. Area inStudy Area

(km2)

PercentPrivate Landin Study Area

Private Land inStudy Area

(Km2)

Bear Lake 187.3 99.4% 186.2 25.2% 47.0

Bloomfield 92.3 44.1% 40.6 31.8% 12.9

Blue Lake 93.7 100.0% 93.7 29.7% 27.9

Cold Springs 93.8 53.6% 50.3 85.6% 43.1

Excelsior 93.8 78.1% 73.2 64.5% 47.2

Frederic 186.6 51.4% 95.9 21.3% 20.4

Garfield 276.3 84.0% 232.2 30.1% 69.9

Grayling 452.3 13.2% 59.8 18.7% 11.2

Hayes 182.3 46.7% 85.0 89.7% 76.3

Kalkaska 184.1 50.6% 9.3 100.0% 9.3

Mancelona 185.3 51.9% 96.1 40.5% 38.9

Norwich 187.6 23.2% 43.4 38.7% 16.8

Oliver 93.4 100.0% 93.4 38.7% 36.2

Orange 90.1 76.7% 69.1 98.5% 68.0

Pioneer 92.9 79.4% 73.8 45.6% 33.6

Springfield 91.9 54.1% 49.7 67.7% 33.6

Star 88.6 29.5% 26.2 100.0% 26.2

TOTAL 2,672.3 51.6% 1,378.0 44.9% 618.5

Appendices 278


Table H-2: Township population growth

Township 1970Pop.

1980Pop.

1990Pop.

2000Pop.

1970-1980Pop.

Change

1980-1990Pop.

Change

1990-2000Pop.

Change

1970-1980Percentchange



Bear Lake 186 433 639 746 247 206 107 132.8% 47.6% 16.7%

Bloomfield 166 268 390 475 102 122 85 61.4% 45.5% 21.8%

Blue Lake 238 300 378 428 62 78 50 26.1% 26.0% 13.2%

Cold Springs 321 942 1,073 1,449 621 131 376 193.5% 13.9% 35.0%

Excelsior 232 580 714 855 348 134 141 150.0% 23.1% 19.7%

Frederic 697 1,142 1,287 1,401 445 145 114 63.8% 12.7% 8.9%

Garfield 214 366 596 794 152 230 198 71.0% 62.8% 33.2%

Grayling* 2,252 2,227 3,734 4,564 -25 1,507 830 -1.1% 67.7% 22.2%

Hayes 416 888 1,437 2,385 472 549 948 113.5% 61.8% 66.0%

Kalkaska* 489 1,890 2,317 2,604 1,401 427 287 286.5% 22.6% 12.4%

Mancelona* 1,003 1,288 1,803 2,692 285 515 889 28.4% 40.0% 49.3%

Norwich 321 418 505 646 97 87 141 30.2% 20.8% 27.9%

Oliver 136 241 291 263 105 50 -28 77.2% 20.7% -9.6%

Orange 258 792 885 1,176 534 93 291 207.0% 11.7% 32.9%

Pioneer 235 323 388 460 88 65 72 37.4% 20.1% 18.6%

Springfield 280 739 871 1,270 459 132 399 163.9% 17.9% 45.8%

Star 331 453 575 745 122 122 170 36.9% 26.9% 29.6%

TOTAL 7,775 13,290 17,883 22,953 5,515 4,593 5,070 70.9% 34.6% 28.4%

* Excludes city or village populations

Appendices 279


Table H-3: Study area population growthTownship 1970

StudyAreaPop.

1980StudyAreaPop.

1990StudyAreaPop.

2000StudyAreapop.

1970-1980Pop.

Change

1980-1990Pop.

Change

1990-2000Pop.

Change

Percent1970-1980

change

Percent1980-1990

change

Percent1990-2000

change

Bear Lake 185 430 635 742 246 205 106 132.8% 47.6% 16.7%

Bloomfield 73 118 172 209 45 54 37 61.4% 45.5% 21.8%

Blue Lake 238 300 378 428 62 78 50 26.1% 26.0% 13.2%

Cold Springs 172 505 575 777 333 70 202 193.5% 13.9% 35.0%

Excelsior 181 453 557 668 272 105 110 150.0% 23.1% 19.7%

Frederic 358 587 661 720 229 75 59 63.8% 12.7% 8.9%

Garfield 180 308 501 667 128 193 166 71.0% 62.8% 33.2%

Grayling* 298 295 494 604 -3 199 110 -1.1% 67.7% 22.2%

Hayes 194 414 670 1,113 220 256 442 113.5% 61.8% 66.0%

Kalkaska* 25 96 117 132 71 22 15 286.5% 22.6% 12.4%

Mancelona* 520 668 935 1,396 148 267 461 28.4% 40.0% 49.3%

Norwich 74 97 117 150 22 20 33 30.2% 20.8% 27.9%

Oliver 136 241 291 263 105 50 -28 77.2% 20.7% -9.6%

Orange 198 607 678 901 409 71 223 207.0% 11.7% 32.9%

Pioneer 187 256 308 365 70 52 57 37.4% 20.1% 18.6%

Springfield 151 400 471 687 248 71 216 163.9% 17.9% 45.8%

Star 98 134 170 220 36 36 50 36.9% 26.9% 29.6%

TOTAL 3,268 5,908 7,732 10,041 2,640 1,824 2,309 80.8% 30.9% 29.9%


Appendices 280


Table H-4: Historic county population growth trendsCounty 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Antrim 16,568 15,692 11,543 9,979 10,964 10,721 10,373 12,612 16,194 18,185 23,110

Crawford 2,943 3,934 4,049 3,097 3,765 4,151 4,871 6,482 9,465 12,260 14,273

Kalkaska 7,133 8,097 5,577 3,799 5,159 4,597 1,482 5,272 10,952 13,497 16,571

Missaukee 9,308 10,606 9,004 6,992 8,034 7,458 6,784 7,126 10,009 12,147 14,478

Otsego 6,175 6,552 6,043 5,554 5,827 6,435 7,545 10,422 14,994 17,957 23,301

TOTAL 44,027 46,791 38,136 31,351 35,689 35,312 33,015 43,884 63,594 76,036 93,733

Table H-5: Projected county and state population growthsCounty 2000

Population2005

Population2010

Population2015

Population2020

PopulationChange

2000 - 2005Change

2005 - 2010Change

2010 - 2015Change

2015 - 2020

Antrim 21,700 23,200 24,600 26,200 27,700 6.9% 6.0% 6.5% 5.7%

Crawford 14,900 16,300 17,700 19,300 20,900 9.4% 8.6% 9.0% 8.3%

Kalkaska 15,900 17,100 18,500 19,900 21,200 7.5% 8.2% 7.6% 6.5%

Missaukee 14,400 15,400 16,400 17,600 18,600 6.9% 6.5% 7.3% 5.7%

Otsego 23,200 25,800 28,500 31,600 34,800 11.2% 10.5% 10.9% 10.1%

TOTAL 90,100 97,800 105,700 114,600 123,200 8.5% 8.1% 8.4% 7.5%

Michigan 9,786,700 9,963,800 10,121,300 10,285,000 10,454,700 1.8% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6%

Appendices 281


Table H-6: Township and study area population densitiesTownship Population Population

Within StudyArea

PopulationDensity

(people/km2)

Study AreaPopulation Density

on Private Land Only(people/km2)

Bear Lake 746 742 4.0 15.8

Bloomfield 475 209 5.1 16.2

Blue Lake 428 428 4.6 15.4

Cold Springs 1,449 777 15.4 18.0

Excelsior 855 668 9.1 14.1

Frederic 1,401 720 7.5 35.3

Garfield 794 667 2.9 9.5

Grayling* 4,564 604 10.1 54.1

Hayes 2,385 1,113 13.1 14.6

Kalkaska* 2,604 132 14.1 14.1

Mancelona* 2,692 1,396 14.5 35.9

Norwich 646 150 3.4 8.9

Oliver 263 263 2.8 7.3

Orange 1,176 901 13.1 13.3

Pioneer 460 365 4.9 10.9

Springfield 1,270 687 13.8 20.4

Star 745 220 8.4 8.4

Total 22,953 10,041 8.6 16.2


Appendices 282


Table H-7: Township and study area housing unit (H.U.) densities

Township H.U.s inTwp

H.U.s inStudy Area

H.U. density(H.U./km2)

H.U.Density on

PrivateLand

(H.U./km2)

% SeasonalHousing

SeasonalH.U.s in Twp

Seasonal H.U.sin Study Area

Bear Lake 1,072 1,066 5.7 22.7 66.3 711 707

Bloomfield 329 145 3.6 11.2 42.2 139 61

Blue Lake 738 738 7.9 26.5 70.6 521 521Cold Springs 1,349 723 14.4 16.8 51.7 698 374

Excelsior 560 437 6.0 9.3 32.5 182 142

Frederic 1,092 561 5.9 27.5 46.1 503 258

Garfield 780 656 2.8 9.4 51.8 404 340

Grayling* 3,050 404 6.7 36.1 45.5 1388 184

Hayes 1,303 608 7.1 8.0 32.1 418 195

Kalkaska* 1,251 63 6.8 6.8 17.3 217 11

Mancelona* 1,568 813 8.5 20.9 31.4 493 256

Norwich 547 127 2.9 7.5 51.0 279 65

Oliver 242 242 2.6 6.7 48.3 117 117

Orange 596 457 6.6 6.7 26.3 157 120

Pioneer 346 275 3.7 8.2 43.6 151 120

Springfield 704 381 7.7 11.3 28.0 197 107

Star 532 157 6.0 6.0 39.5 210 62

TOTAL 16,059 7,851 6.0 12.7 42.3 6,785 3,639

* Excludes City or village housing units

Appendices 283


Table H-8: Populations 65 and olderTownship 65 years and older

in twp.65 and older in

study area% 65 and older

Bear Lake 166 165 22.3%

Bloomfield 57 25 12.0%

Blue Lake 143 143 33.4%

Cold Springs 257 138 17.7%

Excelsior 122 95 14.3%

Frederic 217 112 15.5%

Garfield 145 122 18.3%

Grayling* 909 120 14.0%

Hayes 227 106 9.5%

Kalkaska* 655 33 13.6%

Mancelona* 490 254 12.0%

Norwich 107 25 66.0%

Oliver 36 36 13.7%

Orange 106 81 9.0%

Pioneer 54 43 11.7%

Springfield 124 67 9.8%

Star 124 37 16.6%

TOTAL 3,939 1,602 15.9%

* Excludes city or village populations State Average: 12.3%

Appendices 284


Table H-9: Racial composition by townshipTownship White Black/

AfricanAmerican

AmericanIndian

Asian Other/ MixedRace

Bear Lake 97.5% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 2.0%Bloomfield 95.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.4% 3.2%

Blue Lake 98.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

Cold Springs 98.4% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 1.0%

Excelsior 98.6% 0.2% 0.6% 0.2% 0.4%

Frederic 97.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.1% 1.6%

Garfield 98.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.7%

Grayling* 94.8% 3.0% 0.5% 0.3% 1.4%

Hayes 97.5% 0.3% 0.8% 0.4% 1.0%

Kalkaska* 96.9% 0.5% 1.0% 0.5% 1.1%

Mancelona* 96.5% 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 3.0%

Norwich 97.8% 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 1.2%

Oliver 97.3% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 1.6%

Orange 97.8% 0.0% 1.1% 0.1% 1.0%

Pioneer 97.4% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 1.7%

Springfield 97.3% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% 1.4%

Star 97.7% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 1.1%TOTAL 97.35% 0.34% 0.63% 0.18% 1.51%


appendix a: study area element occurrences by landtype...

Documents