BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE. A spatial representation of potential natural areas. The polygons
contained in this feature class were derived from data developed for the
2004 Oakland County Natural Areas Report update. Each feature was
assigned a priority of One, Two, or Three. Digital Landcover,
orthophotography, and USGS quadrangle maps were the main sources used to
identify each natural area. The data from the Oakland County Natural
Areas update project was collected in 2004. Key attributes include
Priority and TotalScore. "Priority" is a reflection of quality and
indicates the level of priority to retain or conserve the natural state
of the identified area.The NaturalArea2004 data should be distributed with the Oakland County Potential Conservation/Natural Areas Report - April 2004. This document provides essential information for the attributes and procedures used to create the features in the dataset. Shiawassee & Huron Headwaters Resource Preservation Project - March 2000 Project Staff: Carlisle Wortman & Associates - Richard Carlisle, PCP, and Carey Nyberg Land Information Access Association - Joe VanderMeulen Michigan Natural Features Inventory - John Paskus Oakland County Planning & Economic Development Services
- Bret C. Rasegan, RA, Charlotte P. Burckhardt, AICP, PCP, Lawrence S.
Falardeau, RLA, Russell Lewis, RA, Leslie E. Kettren, AICP, Jim
Keglovitz, and JoAnn Browning The Shiawassee and Huron
Headwaters Resource Preservation Project involved six communities
(Highland, Milford, Rose, Springfield, and White Lake Townships, and the
Village of Milford) in western Oakland County. A Steering Committee
composed of local officials, developers, property owners, and land
conservancy members was the policy group that directed the project. The
Steering Committee contracted with the Michigan Natural Features
Inventory (MNFI) to identify potentially significant natural areas. Oakland County Potential Conservation/Natural Areas Report - July 2002 Prepared by: John Paskus, Associate Program Leader - Conservation Michael Penskar, Program Leader - Botany Helen Enander, Information Technologist I Oakland County Potential Conservation/Natural Areas Report - April 2004 Prepared by: John Paskus, Associate Program Leader - Conservation Helen
Enander, Information Technologist I Michigan Natural Features Inventory
P.O. Box 30444 8th Floor, Mason Bldg. Lansing, MI 48909-7944 This
report identifies and ranks Potential Natural Areas remaining in
Oakland County. Potential Natural Areas are defined as places on the
landscape dominated by native vegetation that have various levels of
potential for harboring high quality natural areas and unique natural
features. In addition these areas may provide critical ecological
services such as maintaining water quality and quantity, soil
development and stabilization, pollination of cropland, wildlife travel
corridors, stopover sites for migratory birds, sources of genetic
diversity, and floodwater retention. However, the actual ecological
value of these areas can only be truly ascertained through on the ground
biological surveys. The process established by the Michigan Natural
Features Inventory (MNFI) of identifying potential conservation areas
can also be used to update and track the status of these remaining
sites. The site map and ranking data can be used by local
municipalities, land trusts, and other agencies to prioritize
conservation efforts and assist in finding opportunities to establish an
open space system of linked natural areas throughout Oakland County. In
this report the term "potential natural area" has been used in place of
the term "potential conservation area". The substitution was made in
order to convey to the reader a clearer picture of the type of sites
that are being delineated. It is felt that more people have a better
understanding of the term "natural area". The term "potential natural
area", however, is not to be confused with the legal term "dedicated
Natural Area" as described in Part 351, Wilderness and Natural Areas, of
the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994 which
gives land special legal protection.When using this information
it is important to keep in mind that site boundaries and ranking are a
starting point and tend to be somewhat general in nature. Consequently,
each community, group or individual using this information should
determine what additional expertise is needed in order to establish more
exact boundaries and the most appropriate conservation efforts. Materials and Interpretation Methodology: Interpretation
of the 25-township area in Oakland County was conducted by using
digital aerial photography taken in 2002, Tax Parcel, and 2002 Oakland
County Potential Conservation/Natural Areas provided by Oakland County's
Planning and Economic Development Services Division. As the
townships were methodically interpreted and digitized using this
imagery, the same areas were examined using: Southeast Michigan Council
of Governments (SEMCOG) 2000 digital landcover, Michigan Center for
Geographic Information (MCGI) MI Geographic Framework Hydrography (v3b),
and Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) Biotics Database. These
additional data sources were used to enhance and corroborate the
interpretation process. Delineation of sites was done through
aerial photo interpretation, with emphasis placed on 1) intactness, 2)
wetlands and wetland complexes, 3) riparian corridors, and 4) forested
tracts. Delineation of sites during this phase of the process was done
conservatively, such that the chance of capturing sites that may end up
being eliminated upon closer inspection, was greater than the chance of
omitting sites that should have been delineated. Sites were delineated
by focusing on wetlands and forest tracts and eliminating as much
development (including roads), active agriculture and old fields as
possible. Boundaries typically were defined by hard edges such as roads,
parking lots, developments, and railroad beds. All potential natural
areas were identified and delineated regardless of size. Municipal
boundaries were not utilized to delineate site boundaries unless the
boundary corresponded to a defined hard edge, such as a road. Once all
sites were delineated, sites under 20 acres were deleted. Following
the aerial photo interpretation and the delineation of potential
natural areas, a more rigorous level of examination was undertaken based
upon specific scaled criteria to prioritize sites. The criteria used to
first delineate the sites were translated to a numerical scale. Each
site could then be assessed based upon the scaled criteria and a total
calculated score, based upon the sum of the scores for each criterion.