[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
t' &- -3c_J/


N(oRTH\XESTT
I N1CHI(;AN
RESL-URCE
 CONSERVATION &
 [)EVELOP,1EN'T
L'Z,:   CC OLNCIL. INC.
"BrmInpn People and ,Nacwral Rcesurce.% Together"
3193 L,arn Valie' 1Road
Traven,eLrs J7,, Mtchiï¿½ar.
raer49684-4s 772C Michan      ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS YEAR 1 FINAL REPORT

616 946-6817
Fa6: 946-447 Year 1 Project Summary: The first full year of the Northwest Michigan Greenways-Ecological
Corridors project was indeed a full one, with many tasks and challenges. As the year's efforts
came to a close, several distinct issues became evident, as did potential opportunities to address
those issues.

In several public meetings, the river corridors that the Task Force had selected as potential
ecological corridors were evaluated for 5 primary values: recreational, ecological, scenic,
 educational, and economrnic/tourism. In every county, local residents indicated that "ecological"
was indeed the best and highest use for all river corridors except one. The sole exception was the
b".m,     Platte River in Benzie County, which was anticipated, due to the extremely popular canoe livery
G,. --ras and campground located along M-22.
Marsztee
We4oar	In subsequent public meetings, private property rights, and the "takings" issue was the topic of
Maso	greatest concern for private landowners. Many landowners feel threatened when any organization
or agency or conservation group approaches them about their land, no matter what the reason for
Lake
contact may be. Some people don't want to hear that their land is "unique" or "critical" for water
Emrer      quality, aesthetics, wildlife, etc. Conversely, most people were very concerned about the
Ca .ari,-x fragmentation of resources through subdivision and over-development. This message was
-~nm,.	universal, no matter if the group was primarily non-consumptive (birders, hikers) or consumptive
Kaljs	~(hunters, anglers) users.
MZssaui-:e
It is clear that to be successful in protecting the remaining resources in this region in the future,
Osceoio    we must educate not only landowners, but also local and county level government officials, and
those with economic interests. Getting the word out to school-aged children was mentioned
again and again in public sessions. Residents told us repeatedly that education was thte key in
order for resource managers to be able to work on private lands and protect the resources.

This knowledge provides the basis and lays the groundwork for future efforts in the Ecological
Corridors and the overall Greenways Project. Year 2 Funding from the coastal Management
Program will concentrate on the educational aspect. One tool that is currently under development
is the Greenways Concept map, illustrated by local artist Kristin Hurlin. This colorful and creative
map shows the potential network of recreational trails and the interconnectedness of the rivers
between tracts of public land that are valuable for wildlife. The map will be printed on quality
paper, with text and additional drawings on the back explaining what ecological corridors are, and
why they are important. The information will stress the importance of landowners becoming
informed and educated so that they can make good management decisions about their lands.
Voluntary stewardship on private lands will be the underlying theme of the text on back of the
map.
-A NOn-pr,ofi: Nr- -govrc. -n-c-:.. ,.     ,  ' ?  ()rï¿½  . i -ari,T

A coordinated effort that will benefit the Ecological Corridors project directly is the Special
Wetland Area Mapping Project (SWAMP). This project is admninistered by the Northwest
Mcicigan Council of Governments (NWMCOG) and is funded by the MD)EQ-Nonpoint Source
Program. This project has an extensive landowner database covering the 5-county Grand
Traverse Bay Watershed that will provide the basis for the Ecological Corridors landowner
database. A panel of local experts, including several members of the Eco-Corr Task Force, has
convened to determine how the SWAMP database can help identify' and prioritize wetlands in the
region so that resource managers can target high priority wetlands mnore efficiently.

There is much left to pursue on the road to implementation. We are fortunate because many of
the proposed Ecological Corridors probably already function as travel corridors for wildlife. It is
likely that m6re efforts need to be directed at raising public awareness, both at the private and
local government level, and to providing some sort of incentives to private landowners to protect
what they already have. We would also like to explore the how private lands management issue s
are being addressed by local, state and federal agencies, and whether private landowners are
satisfied with the current status of existing programs.

The need for research on wildlife habitats (throughout,the region, and those connected by
potential corridors), and specific habitat needs should also be addressed in the future. Data are
needed to confirm our assurmptions, which can then be used in a rational manner to address issues
that would directly imnpact resources within the study area. The proposed Hammond-H{artrma
road extension across the Boardman River would be an example where such data could help
define specific cause and effect relationships to wildlife in the impact area.

We will continue to seek funding from MDEQ-Coastal Management Program and other sources
to address the many issues that remain unanswered at this poinit. The level of conimitment to the
resources that conservation organizations have always maintained is now being joined by non-
traditional partners such as the New Designs for Growth project sponsored by the Traverse Area
Chamber of Commerce. It is through the coordinated efforts of all partners in the Grand Traverse
Bay Watershed Initiative that we vwill see the preservation the resources that characterize the
region.

Year I Proiect Specifies: Several tasks served to create or discover the outcomes discussed in
the summary above. First, a Task Force of wildlife biologists, local conservancy personnel, a GITS
specialist, planners, MDNR personnel, Conservation District personnel, and. interested private
citizens was formed to compile and evaluate the available resource information.

Resource information included in the Greenways GIS database includes all rivers, lakes and
streams, their associated wetlands, public lands (including local conservancy properties and lands
with conservation easements), land use, and land cover. Land cover is further broken down into
upland and lowland hardwoods and conifers. The Task Force determined that river corridors, and
their associated floodplans, provide the greatest opportunity for wildlife to travel between larger
tracts of public land. Currently, the Ecological CorTidors is using a 5-county map showing land
ownership and the wetlands to illustrate the potential corridors in the study area (see enclosed),

The Task Force also determnined that the objectives of the Ecological Corridors project should be
considered on an ecosystem basis, in conjunction with the current NLP Ecosystem Management
Project. Indicator species, who continued health and well-being in the study area will verify the
protection of critical habitats, include river otter, black bear, bobcat, pileated woodpecker, and
great blue heron. These are species that are native to the region, still exist in relative abundance,
and depend on the forest resources and water quality that characterize the area.

As the Greenways Project moved into its next Public Participation phase, it was decided that the
residents of each county should be aflowed to evaluate all river corridors in their county as what
they felt was the best and highest use for the corridor when considering these 5 values:
ecological, recreational, scenic, educational, and economic/tourism. As discussed in the Summary
above, resideiits agreed that "ecological" was indeed the best and highest use for these river
corridors, except the Platte River.

The next phase of Public Participation was to target specific groups in the study area whose
interests are directly inffluenced by the protection and sustained management of the region's
natural resources. Selected groups included the Board of Directors for the Grand Traverse
County Nature Education Reserve and the Brown Bridge Citizens Advisory Committee (focusing
on the Boardman Piver), the Grass River Natural Area Bo'ard of Directors and the Chain of Lakces
Watershed Steering Conumittee (focusing on the Chain of Lakes Watershed), and the MUCC
District 15 member clubs located within the 5-county region (focusing on Grand Traverse,
Leelanau and Benzie Counties).

The results of the Focus drroups was an overwhelm-ing concern with the fragmnentation of the
resources, due primarily from over-development, Although each group had very different
perspectives on why this was important, the most critical result was that each group came to the
same conclusion.

Remarkably, when asked about possible solutions to the fragmnentation issue (and its underlying
causes), all groups said that education was the key. Local and county level officials, private
landowners and school aged children were suggested targets of education and outreach efforts.

A coordinated effor-t that will benefit the Ecological Corridors project directly is the Special
Wetland Area Mapping Project (SWAMP). This project is administered by the Northwest
Michigan Council of Governments (NWMCOG) and is funded by the MDEQ-Nonpoint Source
Program. This project has an extensive landowner database covering the 5-county Grand
Traverse Bay Watershed that will provide the basis for the Ecological Corridors landowner
database. A panel of local experts, including several members of the Eco-Corr Task Force, has
convened to determnine how the SWAMIP database can help identifyj and prioritize wetlands in the
region so that resource managers can target high priority wetlands more efficiently.

There is much left to pursue on the road to implementation. We are fortunate because many of
the proposed.Ecological Corridors probably already function as travel corridors for wildlife. It is
likely that more efforts need to be directed at raising public awareness, both at the private and
local government level, and to providing some sort of incentives to private landowners to protect
what they already have. We would also like to explore the how private lands management issue s
are being addressed by local, state and federal agencies, and whether private landowners are
satisfied with the current status of existing programs.

The need for research on wildlife-habitats (throughout the region, and those connected by
potential corridors), and specific habitat needs should also be addressed in the future. IData are
needed to confirm our assumptions, Which can then be used in a rational manner to a ddress issues
that would directly impact resources witbin the study area. The proposed Hammnond-H-artman
road extension across the Boardman River would be an example where such data could help
define specific cause and effect relationships to wildlie in the impact area.

We will continue to seek funding from NMEQ-Coastal Management Program and other sources
to address the many issues that remain unanswered at this point. The level of conmmitment to the
resources that conservation organizations have always maintained is now being joined by non-
traditional partners such as the New Designs for Growth project sponsored by the Traverse Area
Chamnber of Commierce. It is through the coordinated efforts of all partners in the Grand Traverse
Bay Watershed Initiative that we will see the preservation the resources that characterize the
region.

Year I Project SDecifics: Several tasks served to create or discover the outcomes discussed in
the sumumary above. First, a Task Force of wildlife biologists, local conservancy personnel, a GIS
specialist, -planners, MDNR personnel, Conservation District personnel, and 'interested private
citizens was formed to compile and evaluate the available resource information.

Resource informnation included in the Greenways GIS database includes all rivers, lakes and
streams, their associated wetlands, public lands (including local conservancy properties and lands
with conservation easements), land use, and land cover. Land cover is further broken down into
upland and lowland hardwoods and conifers. The Task Force determined that river corridors, and
their associated floodplains, provide the greatest opportunity for wildlife to travel between larger
tracts of public land. Currently, the Ecological Corridors is using a 5-county map showing land
ownership and the wetlands to illustrate the potential corridors in the study area (see enclosed).

The Task Force also determnined that the objectives of the Ecological Corridors project should be
considered on an ecosystem basis, in conjunction with the current NLP Ecosystem Management
Project. Indicator species, who continued health and well-being in the study area will verify the
protection of critical habitats, include river otter, black bear, bobcat, pileated woodpecker, and
great blue heron. These are species that are native to the region, still exist in relative abundance,
and depend on the forest resources and water quality that characterize the area.

As the Greenways Project moved into its next Public Participation phase, it was decided that the
residents of each county should be allowed to evaluate all river corridors in their county as what
they felt was the best and highest use for the corridor when considering these 5 values:
ecological, recreational, scenic, educational, and econom-ic/tourismi. As discussed in the Summary
above, residents agreed that "ecological" was indeed the best and highest use for these river
corridors, except the Platte River.

The next phase of Public Participation was to target specific groups in the study area whose
interests are directly influenced by the protection and sustained management of the region's
natural resources. Selected groups included the Board of Directors for the Grand Traverse
County Nature Education Reserve and the Brown Bridge Citizens Advisory Committee (focusing
on the Boardman River), the Grass River Natural Area Bo'ard of Directors and the Chain of Lakes
Watershed Steering Committee (focusing on the Chain of Lakes Watershed), and the MUCC
District 15 member clubs located within the 5-county region (focusing on Grand Traverse,
Leelanau and Benzie Counties).

The results of the Focus Groups was an overwhelming concern with the fragmnentation of the
resources, due primarily from over-development. Although each group had very different
perspectives on why this was important, the most critical result was that each group came to the
same conclusion.

Remarkably, when asked about possible solutions to the fragrnentation issue (and its underlying
causes), all groups said that education was the key. Local and county level officials,' private
landowners and school aged children were suggested targets of education and outreach efforts.

ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS:

A LITERA TURE REVIEW



By



Lautra B. Granthlam
Northwest Michigan Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc.
3193 Logan Valley Road
Traverse City, MI 49684
616-946-6817


And
Susan Cronander
Cronander and Associates
1271/2 East 8th Street
Traverse City, MI 49686
616-947-9432

ECOLOGICAL CORRIDORS - A LITERA TURF REVIEW
I. Definition: FEcological corridors may be known by different names, such as wildlife corridors,
or travel corridors, but the essential meaning of all of these terms is a typically linear landscape
element that connects one or more wildlife areas with each other. These linkages effectively
increase the space avaiable for wildlife to survive and reproduce.

Wildlife habitat, or the space animals need to survive, is becoming, smaller and more fragmented
as more people move from cities into the rural landscape. Construction of houses, businesses,
new subdivisions, and the roads to access these amenities are carving up the forests and rural
landscape with human derived artifice. Instead of seeing human development occurring in a
matrix of natural landscapes, natural areas are now occurring in a matrix of human-domfinated
landscapes. Fragmentation of the resources has become the most serious issue that biologists
consider when managing for wildlife. Ecological corridors are quickly becoming a popular tool
for wrildlife managers to maintain current health and abundance of native wildlife in the face of
declining natural landscapes.


HI. History and Background Theory: The study of linkages has resulted from the need to
address rapid hurman population growth in areas that once were prime for wildlife. When wildlife
species begin to decline, biologists start to research possible causes. When the variety of native
wildlife that once existed also begins to decrease, it becomes clear that something is happening on
a larger scale, and may have world-side implications.

Wildlife in the United States has been declining in the number of species for decades.. This loss of
variety is called a decline in biodiversity. Another common occurrence is that as native wildlife
declines in areas of rapid human population growth, there is a simultaneous increase in non-native
and nuisance species. Examples of these types include European starlings, English sparrows,
raccoons, and opossums. These species are highly adaptive to their surroundings, and compete
with native species that are not as tolerant of humans.

In many areas of the U.S., growth is occurring, at such a rapid rate that communities often do not
have the ordinances in place to plan or regulate the patterns of development. What happens next
is a rapid transformation of the landscape, with natural areas becomi~ng increasingly isolated from
one another. Historical wildlife travel patterns are disrupted , along with the ecological processes
that characterized predevelopment conditions.

Although movement corridors have been used as a wildife management technique for nearly 50
years, they are just recently considered critical by many experts in order to maintain bio diversity.
How does isolation of populations in the fragmented landscape affect wildlife? First of all,
populatiotns will be limited by the quality and quantity of food in their patch. Another important
factor is the possibility of inbreeding within isolated populations. For somne groups, particularly
the larger animal species, there simply won't be enough space to maintain a healthy population.

If there are connections that allow movement between two or more patches of habitat, then
individuals may travel between populations. Inbreeding is avoided, the chance of the population
being decimated by disease is reduced, and the habitat will be able to sustain a viable level of
individuals writhout harmn. The theory of ecological corridors assumes that if connections between
favorable patches of wildife habitat remain intact, then wildife populations will have the means to
utilize these patches and maintain viable populations, even as the landscape becomes increasingly
developed by man. Without these linkages, native wildlife diversity and abundance will decline.


III. Pros and Cons of Ecological Corridors: There appear mnany benefits to maintaining linkages
between larger natural areas. Since fragmentation is believed to be the principal cause of the loss
of species, then linkages between larger natural areas across the landscape can help counter these
losses.

Corridors provide animals, especially the larger camnivores, enough room to find food and mnates,
as well as nmigrate safely without crossing a landscape donminated by humans. It has been
documented that isolated populations have a higher extinction rate than populations that are
connected. Corridors allow for the influx of genetic material that will counteract the problems
associated with inbreeding.

Furtherrmore, corridors provide connections not only for animals and plants, but also for
ecological processes, such as fire, the flow patterns of water and energy, and function of
wetlands. These processes are critical to the overall function of the ecological community.
Riparian habitats, for example, are very dependent on animal movement. Fish, birds, and other
animals move biological matter (food) and energy along the stream environment, and are an
intricate part of the food chain. Wide-ranging carnivores, such as black bear, use food sources
from more habitats than animals lower in the food chain. Carnivores impact the relative
abundance and distribution of prey species. The loss or decline of such species has far reaching
implications on the relationships within an ecosystem.

But corridors are not a simple solution to such a complex problem. Most biologists will confirm
that corridors, regardless of their effectiveness, will never replace the effectiveness of large tracts
of natural landscape for the protection of ecosystems and the species found within them.
Corridors should be, at best, considered bandages for a wounded natural landscape, and can only
partly comnpensate for the denaturing activities of humans. Many experts also believe that badly
designed corridors can be worse for wildlife than no corridor at all. Potential pitfals include the
transmission of fires, disease from one patch to another, and alow predators to target prey within
their confines. Corridors could also promote non-native species over native species, and attract
more human use.

The design of corridors is probably the most important aspect of implementation. Ideally,
corridors should connect patches that were once linked historically. The 2 most important
objectives should be to (1) provide a high quality corridor for native species, especially those most
sensitive to fragmnentation and human impacts, and (2) maintain enough functional connectivity
along the entire length of the corridor to alow safe passage of the target species. It is critical,

then, to know the habitat needs of the species the corridor is being designed for. Width and
length of the corridor are also important design considerations, and whether there is adequate
food and escape cover for species writhin the corridor.

Although there are many arguments for and against ecological corridors, most experts agree that
the established present-day conservation techniques are not adequate for the conservation of
biodiversity in human-don-inated landscapes. Many also agree that the maintenance and/or
restoration of corridors that allow organisms and natural ecological processes will be necessary to
maintain biodiversity in the 21 st century.

No one will argue that ecological corridors are a panacea to the biodiversity crisis, nor that they
are without costs or liability. The critical question may not be whether corridors are good or bad,
but whether a managed, interconnected system of protected areas that incorporates movement
corridors will function better to conserve biodiversity than dispersed protected areas with no
connections. It seems the answer is yes.


IV. Current Ecological Corridors Programts:

Arizona: Based on a 1986 study by the University of Arizona, the Tucson metropolitan area and
Pimna County and pursued the protection and linkage of identified wildlife habitats through
regulatory means In Tucson, the 1990 Environmental Resource Zone ordinance uses overlay
zoning to protect areas and corridors essential to wildlife. The zoning is based on a "Critical and
Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Map" that was previously adopted. The ordinance provides strong
incentives for keeping projects out of any floodplain area and prohibits any permanent walls or
fences that could impede wildlife movement. Tucson's other riparian and wildlife protection
ordinance the Watercourse Amenities Safety and Habitat ordinance, requires developers to
provide complete plant and habitat inventories and a basin management plan within 50 feet of the
banks of each riparian corridor. Pima County is also planning two ordinances aimed at protecting,
riparian zones , and the Arizona Game and Fish Departments is studying animnal and vegetation
density with the idea of developing guidelines for cluster housing that will help to preser-ve
habitat.

California: In 1991, California passed the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act which
shifted planning and protection emphasis away from individual endangered species to multiple
habitats. Based on this law, San Diego has three programs that are studying the connection of
habitat preservers throughout the 4,200 square miie county. Habitat of separate small areas were
quantified using criteria of connectivity, species diversity and the amnount of habitat needed by
certain species. An analysis was made of areas most at risk for development with insufficient land
use controls. A key element of this program was identifying wildlife mnovement corridors and
biological "core" areas that the corridors would connect. Once the mapping and analysis is
complete, jurisdictions can then analyze costs and determine the most cost effective size of the
preserve system that they can protect or preserve through development regulations

Southeastern Wisconsin: In 1966, the Southeastemn Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEVWRPC) adopted a plan for a system of corridors along waterways and natural ridgelines.
Four hundred and sixty-seven square miles of primary environmental corridors were identified for
protection and nearly 349 square miles were protected as of 1993. Of the total area
recommended for protection, 3 1% were purchased by local and county governments and the State
of Wisconsin. Forty-four percent were private lands that were protected through the Wetlands
Act and local and State wetland regulations. The design and identification of these corridors
began with a comprehensive resource inventory which included aerial photos, and data on
vegetation, soils, habitat, hydrology, scenic vistas, and land use. This inventory is updated every
5 years.

Colorado: The purpose of the Boulder Greenways program is to protect open space for
recreation and wildlife and protect the water quality of Boulder Creek. In 1967, the City of
Boulder started an open space acquisition program by dedicating 0.4% sales tax, which was raised
in 1989 to 0.77%. So far, 20,000 acres of land in and around the city have been protected. Most
of the tax funds are currently being used to create a greenbelt just outside of the city in order to
protect natural areas, provide access to recreation and limit urban sprawl. Connectivity is stressed
as an important feature for wildlife movement, although the width of the greenways is limited by
existing development in most places ifi the city.

Boulder County has identified and is protecting significant wildlife habitat and elk miigration
corridors on private land. Deer, mountain lion and black bear also use these corridors. The
county is using a variety of tools to protect these cor-ridors: cooperative land management plans,
transfer of development rights, and cluster hosing. The county also has the authority to deny
approval fro new construction that encroaches on to key habitats and corridors.

The Boulder County Nature Association is trying to create a broader ecosystem plan for the
county consisting of critical areas, core habitats and connecting corridors. The Association is
working cooperatively with the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, private
landowners and municipal and county governments because the plan includes private, federal,
municipal and county lands. The Association acts as a facilitator in cooperative efforts such as
ecological management planning, transferring development rights, fashioning creative
development plans, obtaining conservation easements, assisting in fee acquisition, and promoting
land trades to consolidate disjunct federal lands.

California: The Santa Monica project is designed to protect habitat and several wildlife species
that are sensitive to habitat fragmentation through connecting greenways and highway
underpasses that will link large habitat areas in the Santa Monica Mountains, the Simii Hilfls, and
the Santa Susana Mountains. Originally, these mountain ranges were connected by wildlife
habitat, but now are currently split by intensive development and two major freeways. The
greenways and underpass design is based on the landscape characteristics, the needs of local
wildlife species and property ownership [patterns. When completed, the corridors and habitat are
expected to encompass nearly 270,000 acres. Habitat in the mountains remains largely intact at
the moment. However, land fragmentation between the mountain ranges greatly inhibits wildlife
movement.

Wildlife corridors will be created by providing underpasses under freeways, adding artificial water
sources, creating plantings for cover, and relying on development to steer wildlife towards the
corridors. Most of the initial framework for the corridors was based on the location of existing
core habitats and opportunities for suitable linkages. Once the initial framework was laid out, a
study of native species of concemn was completed, which included estimates of population sizes,
territorial needs, and minimum viable population levels for population longevity. Based on this
informnation, several guidelines were created for several fragmentation sensitive species such as
mule deer, mountain lion, bobcat, badger, gray fox, long-tail weasel and coyote. These guidelines
include:
+ Locate movement cor-ridors along traditional wildlife routes.
* Provide multiple movement routes so that altemnate corridors are provided in case of human
impacts or natural disturbance.
4	Seek a nminimum corridor width if 1,500 feet and even greater across 1/4 nmile or more.
4	Locate corridors so that their edges include steep terrain that will deter human use and
development
4	include water sources if possible.
4	Make areas with structurally diverse vegetation a high priority for inclusion.
4 Include grassland and chaparral (specific habitats for some of the species of concern).
4	Locate corridors as far from human activity as possible.
4	Include habitat nodes within and adjacent to corridors when possible to increase wildlife
movement through the corridors.
4  Maximfize the width of the crossing on non-freeway roads to increase the number of
alternative crossing points for animals.

After the above guidelines were created, detailed ownership information was gathered and applied
along with the guidelines to the initial corridor frarmework in order to create a detailed design for
land acquisition. If the corridors function as expected, the wildlife populations in the Los Angeles
area should be large enough to be self-sustaining.9

Massachusetts: The Quabbin to Wachusett Wildlife Corridor Study was an exercise by graduate
students in landscape architecture at the University of Massachusetts at Amrherst in 1990.
Sponsored by the Massachusetts Audubon Society, the purpose of the study was to design
wildlife corridors for an area in central Massachusetts. The target area was approximately 38,400
acres between tow state preserves.

The main goal of the study was to use Geographic Information Systems (GIlS) to identify wildlife
corridors that could link together the two preserves. Another goal was to explore ways of
integrating the wildlife corridor design into the area's development processes. Two predatory
indicator species that were also sensitive to habitat fragmentation were selected: the river otter
and fisher. The assumption was that their presence indicates a healthy food chain at the lower
levels. Habitat requirements for these species were then used for the design of the corridors.
Existing vegetative cover was mapped using GIS in order to identify potential nodes for the
indicator species habitat. Nodes for the habitat network were chosen where suitable habitat
existed for these two species, and also where the land was already protected. A series of very

broad swaths were then identified that could link the nodes together. Criteria for scenic features
and land suitable for development were added to the mapping process.

Property boundaries were next added to the GIS. Habitat needs for the fisher and river otter were
added and used to define suitable corridors within a selected study swath .Wildlife experts
assisted in defining mininium widths necessary for the two species. Besides width, other criteria
for locating the corridors was selected according to two scenarios: protecting wildlife habitat and
movement needs and miiinimizing effects on private property and future development. The final
part of this study considered appropriate land conservation techniques such as fee-simple
purchase or bargain sales, and zoning regulations. Although the study results have not been
implemented, the process of developing a method of ecological design is considered a useful one.





















Authors' Note:- Numerous articles, books and research papers contributed to the content of this
literature review. If you are interested in reading any of the original documents summarized in
tlis review, or many other Greenways resource articles and books, they are available in the
Greenways Reference Library, located at the Northwest Michigan Resource Conservation and
Development Council, Inc. office. Hours are Monday through Friday, 8: 00 AM to 4:3 0 PM.
CaUling (616) 946-6817 prior to visiting the Library will ensure that someone will be available to
assist you.


The Greenways Reference Library was created with generous funding support from
the National Park Service - Rivers, Traits and Conservation Assistance Program
and the Coastal Management Program - Michtigan Department of
En viro n mentalI Q)uality.