L I T T L E T R AV E R S E B AY B A N D S O F O DAWA I N D I A N S

Tribal code

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

L I T T L E T R AV E R S E BAY

BA N D S O F O DAWA

INDIANS

MASTER LAND USE

PLAN

A POLICY PLAN FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT

AND ACQUISITION

CHAPTER ONE

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

Background ................................................................................3

Document point of view ..........................................................3

A Brief history of Non-tribal development in the area.......6

History of Little Traverse Bay Bands Of Odawa Indians...7

CHAPTER TWO

Population and its characteristics..........................................10

Housing characteristics...........................................................15

Economic characteristics........................................................17

CHAPTER THREE

Land use change, 1978 to 1998 .............................................20

Topography and Surface Features ........................................22

Zoning.......................................................................................25

CHAPTER FOUR

The need for a predictive development model...................29

The Model ................................................................................30

Model Results...........................................................................40

CHAPTER FIVE

Government Program data – Financial Strategic Plans ....42

Citizen Input from Public Meetings.....................................42

State-wide public meeting results..........................................45

Appendix A - Land Development Policies .........................47

Appendix B - Tables and Graphs .........................................50

Appendix C - Maps .................................................................73

Appendix D - Public Input Meeting Results.....................103

L I T T L E T R AV E R S E B AY B A N D S O F O DAWA I N D I A N S

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

MASTER LAND USE

PLAN

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

THE LTBB MASTER LAND USE PLAN

B A C K G RO U N D

On Sept. 21, 1994, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (LTBB) were federally

reaffirmed with the signing of Public Law 103-324. A seven member Tribal Council, with staggered

terms, governs the tribe. The tribe has approximately 3800 members with a large number living

within Charlevoix and Emmet Counties. The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians presently

employs about 145 full and part-time employees. The historically delineated reservation area, located

in the northwestern part of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, encompasses approximately 336 square

miles of land within the two-county area. The largest incorporated cities within the reservation

boundaries are Petoskey, Harbor Springs, and Charlevoix. See Map 1, Reservation Overview.

The reservation area of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians encompasses the

majority of Emmet County and a portion of Charlevoix County. This particular area has experienced

tremendous growth in recent years, particularly in the number and area of residential developments.

The population of Emmet County, which was 25,040 in 1990, is expected to increase by over 21% in

the coming decade. 70% of that population growth will take place in the 3 townships that surround

Little Traverse Bay. Since 1990, the number of new housing starts has averaged 368 per year, with

the majority of these again being in the southwestern area of the county.

As originally stated in the 1971 Emmet County Future Land Use Plan, and repeated in the 1997

revision of that plan,

“Emmet County’s resource base must be viewed as an important element of the ecological structure of Michigan

and the (entire) Upper Midwest. Deer hunting…and clean waters represent major factors in the local economy and are

attractions which account for the increasing demands upon the rural environment.” (Abridged, emphasis added.)

With the advent of gaming and other revenue to the Tribe, more opportunities exist for both

land acquisition and property development. The rapid growth of tribal programs and services also

place pressure on the Government to fully provide the infrastructure needed to deliver them. It is

against this backdrop that the LTBB Master Land Use Plan is being developed.

The resources utilized to prepare and review the plan consist primarily of Planning Department

staff. To ensure the highest quality content for the Plan document, a Master Land Use Plan

Working Group was formed by the Tribal Administrator to act as an editorial committee. This

Working Group includes staff that has prior experience with Land Use Planning and the process of

developing this kind of document. The work effort was begun in earnest in late fall of 2003, with

initial drafts complete in early fall of 2004.

DOCUMENT POINT OF VIEW

1) Purpose. The LTBB Master Land Use Plan is a precursor in the development of a

Land Acquisition Policy for the tribe. The reasoning is that before land acquisition

decisions can be made there needs to be an understanding of both current

development patterns in the Reservation area, as well as the direction the larger

community is taking. This, and the priorities of the tribal membership, can only be

addressed by a Master Land Use Plan. The Plan is a policy guide for Tribal

decision-making. It does not carry the force of law or statute, but may be utilized to

generate Tribal statutes or other public policy tools as may be necessary for the

Tribal Council to achieve the goals and objectives in the Plan.

a. The Plan will be a resource document for Tribal Council and staff to gauge

how the proposed acquisition will “fit” and whether it is advisable to

pursue.

b. The Policy, developed from the Plan, will provide the guidance on what

types of acquisitions should be pursued, and what factors any particular

acquisition should be judged against.

c. The Plan is not a substitute for detailed site planning and site plan review of

proposed developments, either Tribal or otherwise. While the Tribe’s

“Land Base Restoration Plan” (last updated in 1999) provides general

direction for which uses the initial tribal land acquisitions should be put to,

they and all other development sites still must rely on original and on-site

data gathering for best results.

2) Governmental Context. As a practical matter, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of

Odawa Indians only has jurisdiction over land use on property it owns and has

placed in trust. This means that land use decisions elsewhere are made at the

Township, City, or County level, depending on who has been granted zoning

authority. Thus, any land use plan developed by the Tribe must take other plans

into consideration. Therefore, a great deal of our analysis focused on these

“external” plans and ordinances.

The external reservation boundaries of the LTBB encompass 12 Townships, 3 Cities

and 2 Villages or Names Places. This, in addition to the County governments of

both Emmet and Charlevoix, as well as sometimes distinct or overlapping Federal

authority can create a jurisdictional patchwork that is sometimes difficult to

negotiate. Nevertheless, and largely because of the sovereignty of the Tribe, any

land use decisions made at any level of government can have an impact on all the

others.

3) Process. To create a Master Land Use Plan for the tribe, a great many factors must

be considered. This includes information about trends in the larger population,

tribal populations, current and historic land use information, and the capability of

the land itself to support development.

Traditionally, future land use plans and policies are based on elements such as:

The needs and desires of the citizenry and elected public officials, in this

case citizens of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and it’s

Tribal Council;

The location, number, and quality of existing public facilities

(infrastructure) such as roads, water, sewer, parks, and other elements of

the built environment;

The capability of undeveloped land to sustain proposed uses, along with

the type and extent of any limitations thereof;

The existing land use and land cover distribution; and

The quantitative need for various types of land uses such as commercial,

residential, and industrial.

This last element can be easily derived for the area as a whole, but is almost

impossible to gauge for the future development of the Tribe. Therefore, this plan

relies most heavily on the first four elements for guidance. It is these elements,

along with the availability and timing of revenue, which will determine the last factor

in all likelihood.

The work plan for the document was as follows:

a. Staff from the Planning and GIS Departments gathered data and other

information while formatting it for presentation in charts, maps, and

graphs. Meanwhile, the Working Group authored the goals, objectives, and

strategies for the document. In addition, this Working Group assisted with

public participation meetings.

b. Next, the Planning Department analyzed the data gathered by staff, and

assembled descriptive text for the information. At the same time, public

input was obtained in several ways. A survey was sent to all Commissions

and all Program Directors soliciting input regarding future land needs for

the Tribe. This was part of a presentation shown at public meetings to the

Elders, and tribal members around the state in Lansing, Grand Rapids,

Escanaba, and Harbor Springs. Their input and rankings were then added

to the plan.

c. Finally, all information, input, maps and written documentation were

assembled into the final product by the Work Group and presented to

Tribal Council by the Planning Department, after public input was gathered

on the draft document.

4) Structure. Originally, the need for a Master Land Use Plan was brought in to sharp

focus by the ability of the Tribe to make more frequent land acquisitions. It is

generally accepted by Tribal Council that a set of criteria or guidelines are needed to

make better land decisions. This led to the desire for a “Land Acquisition Policy”

that will outline the goals, objectives, and specific information needed to make a

land purchase decision.

This Land Acquisition Policy will be based on facts, the desires of the tribal

membership, and the direction of Tribal Council. Because of this, an integrated

“plan” document is needed, and in this case it is an ideal opportunity to put together

a Master Land Use Plan for the LTBB Reservation. This Plan will provide the

information and procedures necessary for Tribal Council and staff to make land

purchase recommendations with a record of why or why not the purchase should be

made.

The basic structure of this document begins with a presentation and analysis of area

demographics. This includes information presented in the Emmet County Master

Plan and more recent information assembled by Tribal staff.

Next, the physical features and development infrastructure are discussed. Existing

land use, zoning, soil capabilities and other development limitations are analyzed.

This will then result in a third component of the Plan, Development Sustainability

Indicators.

Finally, these elements will be compared with the extensive public input gathered in

meetings across the State, from Tribal Commissions, and from Program Directors

in the Government.

A B R I E F H I S TO RY O F N O N - T R I BA L D E V E L O P M E N T I N T H E A R E A , F RO M A N O N TRIBAL PERSPECTIVE1

“Emmet County is at the top of the Michigan mitten. Its northern tip bumps into the Straits of Mackinac and

Lake Michigan outlines its western boundary. At first, Ottawa Indians, … occupied the lakeshore rim. Beyond the

water's edge there was only the forest, the lakes, the streams, and some swamps dismal enough to discourage a traveling

bear. Its strategic location on the great lakes waterways, however, marked it for early discovery by white men and the

point of control for the whole upper great lakes territory. By the time Michigan became a state, well over one hundred

years of … history was already behind it.

Recorded history started about 1715, the year the French built Fort Michilimackinac on the Straits, at present

day Mackinaw City. The history of the area revolved around this fort for the next 66 years. For the first 46 years,

until 1761, the French were in control. The Indians were generally [loyal] to them. They agreeably [returned with]

…the furs, and just as agreeably sent war parties far distances to harass the British forces at war with the French.

France lost this final aspect of the struggle to get control of the fur trade, called the French and Indian War, and by

treaty provisions, the vast great lakes country. British forces moved into Fort Michilimackinac when the French moved

out in 1761. With the exception of one little set back, they were there until 1781.

The setback occurred on June 2, 1763 …by an efficient massacre of most of the garrison. This was the most

blood-curdling episode in the territorial period of the county's history. It took about two years after the massacre for the

British to reestablish themselves at the Fort. They were there when the Revolutionary War was fought. Two years before

the end of that historic struggle the Fort Commandant had a new fort built on the more Gibraltar-like Mackinac

Island. Old Fort Michilimackinac was abandoned in 1781 and the beehive center of the fur trading, military and

political doings shifted from the mainland to that island.

The Indian settlement on the western lake shore rim of the county, however, continued to flourish. In 1840, the

year Emmet achieved shape and form as a county of the State of Michigan; Indian villages were almost continuous

along the shore line from today's Harbor Springs to Cross Village. The area was still a wilderness, the Indians, by

treaty provision with the U.S. Government, having the right to occupy the land. The county continued to be mostly

Indian reservation until 1875. In that period of time it was used pretty much as a political football and went through

numerous changes in shape and size.

In 1840 the State Legislature, wishing to take the basic steps necessary to insure proper development of the whole

state, passed Act No. 119 laying off and outlining the boundaries of certain northern counties. These counties were

unorganized, or prospective only. Section 28 of that Act described the boundaries of Emmet County as that portion of

1 Abridged from the official Emmet County website, compiled by Harriet Kilborn, Emmet County Clerk, 1967-1980.

.. of the line between towns 36 and 37 north, and west of the line between ranges 4 and 5 west. The

the State lying north

Act designated .it as the County of Tonedagana. Two years later another act changed the name to Emmet. Why an

area with such a long … Indian history was required to sacrifice its original name to some Irish patriot remains a

mystery. These unorganized northern counties were attached to the organized Mackinaw County for judicial purposes.

In 1847 a colony of Mormons under King James J. Strang settled on Beaver Island. Feuding, worse than the

Hatfields and McCoys, started immediately between them and [residents] in the Mackinaw and Charlevoix areas. The

Mormons had the short end of the stick for the Mackinaw group had charge of law and order. In 1852, King Strang,

by a brilliant political maneuver, managed to become a member of the House of Representatives of the State Legislature.

By January of 1853 he had ushered through Act No. 18 of the Sessions Laws of 1853 entitled, "An act to organize

the County of Emmet". The Act provided that the islands contiguous to the counties of Emmet and Charlevoix,

together with so much of range 4 west as was theretofore included in Cheboygan County should be annexed to Emmet

County and that the former County of Charlevoix should be a township of Emmet County. King Strang now had some

law and order of his own and a much larger area of control. There is plenty of evidence, but no official records, to show

that he made haste to properly organize the now greatly enlarged Emmet County and put the legal machinery in motion.

County business was certainly transacted at St. James on Beaver Island and Mormons were, naturally, the county

officials.”

A HISTORY OF THE LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BANDS OF ODAWA INDIANS 2

The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians or Ottawa people have been in this

geographical area of Michigan long before the Europeans arrived here on Turtle Island, known as

Canada, North and South America. The Odawa were a migratory people, traveling from the Upper

Peninsula and the northern area tip of Michigan in the fall, to the southern part of Michigan, where

the climate was more hospitable during the winter months.

In the spring, the Odawa people returned to their homelands to collect maple syrup, fish and

plant crops. When they weren't tending their gardens or doing their day-to-day chores, they gathered

fruits, herbs, medicines, as well as any other food products they could dry and put away to be used

during the long winter months.

After the Europeans came and settled in what is known as Escanaba, NocBay, Mackinac, Cross

Village, Good Hart, Middle Village, Harbor Springs, Petoskey and the Bay Shore Area, the Odawa

ceased to migrate to the southern areas of the state. This was due to the new immigrants or early

settlers, who brought with them new food staples and work, which the tribal people took advantage

of. Permanent housing, schools and churches were then established and the Native people went to

work for the settlers or began their own businesses to make their living.

After the 1836 and 1855 Treaties were signed, the benefits the U.S. Government promised the

Tribes, did not materialize. The Ottawa's from this area began to organize to sue the US

Government to try and recover monies agreed upon from the government.

There were three (3) main groups who worked together to unite the Ottawa people politically, to

make the US Government aware of their treaty agreements. They were: the Michigan Indian Defense

Association of 1933, The Michigan Indian Foundation 1947 and the Northern Michigan Ottawa

Association in 1948. The Northern Michigan Ottawa Association was the "Parent" to all of the

Federally recognized tribes because they were an organization.

2 History and Timeline courtesy of: LTBB Archives/Records Department.

The Little Traverse Bay Bands was originally known as the NMOA, Unit 1. Unit 1 began to file

for Ottawa fishing rights (1980's) in the Federal courts. The Federal Courts would not recognize

NMOA Unit 1, because they were an organization.

The tribe reorganized and took the name Little Traverse Bay Bands (Nov. 29, 1982). Again the

Federal Court would not allow the tribe their rights, this time because they were not a Federally

recognized tribe. The Little Traverse Bay Bands did not want to be Federally recognized under the

Bureau of Indian Affairs, instead, they went for Reaffirmation by the Federal Government because

of the treaties. On Sep. 21, 1994, President Clinton signed the bill that gave the Little Traverse Bay

Bands of Odawa Indians, Federal recognition through Reaffirmation.

Map

.. T R A V E R S E B A Y B A N D S O F O D A W A I N D I A N S

LITTLE

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

MASTER LAND USE

PLAN

CHAPTER TWO

LTBB RESERVATION AND COUNTY PROFILE

LT B B R E S E RVA T I O N A N D

COUNTY PROFILE

THE LTBB MASTER LAND USE PLAN

POPULATION AND ITS CHARACTERISTICS

The human population of an area, its distribution and makeup, are a major factor in the land use

decision-making. To study the population as it relates to the LTBB Master Land Use Plan, data for

those Minor Civil Divisions (MCD) that make up the LTBB Reservation area were compiled and

examined in various ways. This will give us a picture of the past, present, and future of the

population, both tribal and otherwise.

Evaluating the quality of life in a township or city is a vital and necessary responsibility of those

governmental agencies involved with the delivery of human services. Knowing where the population

is concentrated or perhaps more specifically, where the elderly population is concentrated helps

officials and staff to better understand the demographic makeup of their jurisdiction. Knowing where

and how many housing units are available or what the mean rent is for an area is also useful

information.

Age Distribution by MCD

The Table “LTBB Reservation – Age Distribution by MCD” (Table One) shows us the actual

number of persons in either 18 or 9 different age groups (called cohorts), for each Minor Civil

Division in the LTBB Reservation. The table with the larger number of groups is presented for

completeness; this analysis will focus on the summary table below it. An analysis of a community’s

population breakdown by age cohort is important when trying to forecast the infrastructure, housing,

and social services needs for the future.

As can be seen in the table, the distribution of population in the various age groups is fairly

constant over the entire area, with perhaps two exceptions. By a slight degree, the population is

generally older in the more urbanized areas, particularly in the City of Petoskey. Conversely, the

population is youngest in those areas that are growing the fastest, i.e. Bear Creek Township. Of

particular interest is the relatively large concentration of population in the 55+ age groups. This can

also be seen in Charlevoix County, particularly in the City of Charlevoix. With only 60% of the

population of Bear Creek Township, they nonetheless have a nearly equivalent number of persons

over the age of 75. The inverse of this can be seen in the faster growing areas by the larger

percentage and number of persons in the age groups under 19 years old.

The implications of these two patterns are primarily important in terms of the public

infrastructure, i.e. schools, police, fire, and medical care facilities. In other words, a bulge in the

population at younger ages will, over time, require greater expenditures in areas like schools and

recreational facilities. Likewise, an aging population will need to be dealt with by use of public

resources like police, fire, and ambulance services, and of course will put greater strains on availability

of medical care.

Of particular concern to any plan for the future is the age distribution of the population. Trends,

or exceptions to trends in this area are of paramount concern for the region as a whole when trying

to forecast the infrastructure, housing, and social services needs for the future. For our purposes, it

. that will in part drive development in the area of the LTBB Reservation. In any

is these changes

case, the tribal member population living in this area is by definition a part of these trends in age

distribution. This is shown in Table _ . As can be seen in this table, and Figure _ that accompanies

it, there is not a great deal of variation in the age cohort distribution between MCD’s in the

Reservation area. As is typical,

Population Density/Distribution

The graph “LTBB Reservation – Population Density”(Graph One), and the matching Table Two

that precedes it, show us the density of population in persons per square mile, for each Minor Civil

Division in the LTBB Reservation area. In addition, the table then connects this information with

the number of housing units, and their density per square mile.

In the table, one pattern is immediately obvious, which is that the highest density populations

live in the incorporated cities of Charlevoix, Harbor Springs, and Petoskey. Likewise, areas with the

lowest total populations also have the lowest density. It is telling, though, that the municipality with

the second highest population in the area has a population density that is roughly one tenth that of

the City of Charlevoix. This holds true in the area of housing as well, particularly in Charlevoix,

where there is nearly one housing unit per person, but they are squeezed into only 2 square miles of

area.

Contrasting the clearly urban pattern of development in the City of Charlevoix and other similar

areas is the low density of Bear Creek Township. This pattern has important implications for the

future land use of rural areas, since the greater efficiencies of higher population and housing density

must be planned for and regulated in order to happen. The obvious trend is that newer growth tends

to take up more land than older growth did, with larger and larger lot sizes, and the higher cost of

public services that this brings with it.

As the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians begins to make a greater number of

development decisions relating to this growth, the positive and negative aspects of the current

growth pattern need to be kept in mind in order to both maximize the value of Tribal investment and

ensure the greatest life span for that investment. In other words, it may not make sense in some

cases to capitalize on a development pattern that will eventually collapse on itself due to inefficiency

and inability to maintain land values.

As can be seen in the table, and the graph that follows, the general pattern is that population

density is relatively high only in the Cities of Petoskey, Charlevoix, and Harbor Springs. Elsewhere,

in the townships, density is only a fraction as much. This is to be expected, given the rural land use

pattern of forests and farms. Of interest, though, is moderately high density in Bear Creek, Resort,

and West Traverse Townships. Not as densely developed as the cities, but four to six times as dense

as the “rural” areas in Emmet County. This, along with other evidence, gives us a clear indication of

the growth pressure on these three areas.

Educational Attainment as Percent of Population Age 18+

The graph labeled “LTBB Reservation – Education Attainment as Percent of Population Age

18+” (Graph Two) and the table found above it (Table Three) shows us both the actual numbers of

persons over the age of 18 at the time of the 2000 Census. It also shows what portion of them did

not graduate from High School with a diploma, possesses a High School diploma, has some college,

and attained a Bachelors Degree or more college education.

As can be seen most clearly in the graph, for the reservation area as a whole, approximately 89%

of all persons older than 18 have a High School diploma or more education. The pattern within the

area municipalities is also interesting to observe. Those areas growing most quickly are likely to have

a higher percentage of residents that are better educated. Not necessarily the highest percentage of

all areas, but high nonetheless. Likewise, those areas most rural and sparsely populated, such Bliss

Township, are likely to have lower educational attainment overall, compared to the rest of the area.

Note that, in no case does the percentage of those with a Bachelors Degree or greater fall below

approximately 15%, a respectable figure.

This information has implications similar to the age distribution of the population. It is not

necessarily that those persons of higher or lower education require more or less in the way of

municipal services. Instead, it has been shown that the difference is much more in kind that in

degree. Again, this speaks to the ability of local, regional, and Tribal governmental officials to plan

for the right mix of services and level of service, in the right geographic location.

Persons per Household and Average Family Size

Two closely linked, yet different numbers, are Persons Per Household, and Average Family Size.

The next table and graph pair (Table 4 and Graph 3) depict each of these figures from 2000 Census

data, for the MCD’s in the LTBB Reservation area. The key difference between the two is that

Average Family Size is only computed using households that identify themselves as having a family

present. Persons Per Household uses all persons, and all households, to come up with a result.

In addition, as stated previously, the number of persons per household, and persons per family,

is another key indicator of economic direction and development capability. From the table, we can

see that, as a rule, there are more households than families, and thus the population in households is

greater. If we examine only families, as can be seen in the graph, we can see that there is

considerable variation in the number of persons per family. Although from the table one could

come away with the conclusion that the average is roughly 3 persons per family, the geographic

variability of this figure may be closely linked to the average age figure discussed earlier.

From a land use perspective, shrinking family size, and likewise shrinking household size, is an

extension of a decades-old trend. Fewer persons per household means more individual households

for a given population level, which means more land taken up in dwelling units. The increase in the

number of dwelling units, increasing size of dwelling units, and the generally large area taken up for

each unit in rural areas then results in a quadrupling of the land needed for residential development

in come cases.

Another factor contributing to this trend is the lower birth rate trend. As couples wait longer

and longer to marry, the teen birth rate is declining, and the numbers of children produced are all

going down. This mirrors the national and statewide trend as well.

From the perspective of Tribal development, these factors are important in several ways. First,

although in general Tribal household sized are still larger than average, the trends are difficult to

ignore. This will mean increased demand for things such as elder housing in the future, as well as

larger number of acres needed for single family housing. Secondly however, the ratio of households

to families may indicate something about the nature of the population in a given area, and taken with

other factors, is used to predict such things as the need for apartments versus single-family homes

for instance.

School District

Tabulations

The summary table “LTBB Reservation – School District Tabulations by District” (Table 6) and

the two graphs that accompany it (Graph 4, Graph 5) depict actual and computed data for the six

school districts that have either some or all of their area within the LTBB Reservation boundaries.

Actual data is for the 2002-2003 school year, as provided to www.greatschools.net and its affiliated

data programs. This data can also be seen on Map Two.

As can be seen from the table, the districts tabulated represent a variety of sizes and capabilities.

The largest district, Public Schools of Petoskey, has over 3000 students at 7 facilities, and covers 174

square miles, the second largest area of all those summarized here. This gives it an average of 433

students per facility, again the second highest of those listed.

Perhaps most valuably, we can see for each district the average number of students per facility,

and the area in square miles that each average facility must cover. Therefore, we note, for example,

that while Littlefield Public Schools has only one facility, that facility must service all 456 students,

highest in this listing, and cover 41 square miles.

This may give us an idea of the growth potential for each district as well. If, for example, there is

a small number of students per facility in the district but a large area is covered, that has perhaps

more potential for growth than a district that is small and built-out.

On the following page are tabulations of more traditional measures of a school districts

capability. For each of the six districts, we present the total number of staff in each of six categories,

and compute the number of students per staff member. This is then compared against the average

for the State of Michigan.

Rather than comment or point out data on individual school districts, we can perhaps indicate

that this data is subject to change on an annual basis, as staff are added or eliminated. As a snapshot

of existing conditions, however, this information has a great deal of value in several areas. Students

per teacher, or average class size, are important indicators of educational quality for most districts. In

addition, related to that, is the number of administrators. The relationship between number of

teachers, number of administrators, and the total enrollment may indicate something about the

allocation of budget dollars within the district.

Population Change Tabulation

The table “LTBB Reservation – Population Change Tabulation” (Table 7) and the graph that

accompanies it (Graph 6) illustrate important trends in population change among, and within, the

municipalities in the LTBB Reservation area. In it, we examine the total population for each MCD,

given in the 1970 Census, the 1980 Census, the 1990 Census, and the 2000 Census. Thus, we have

three decades of population change with which to develop trend information. This data is also

displayed via Maps 3 and 4.

As can be seen in the table, the vast majority of MCD’s have gained population in the 30-year

time span, but not all. Several have lost population either in the last decade, or indeed every decade

reviewed here. This distinction is important because, while the region as a whole is growing at a

relatively fast rate, the movement of population within the region, i.e. between municipalities, will

give us a better more precise idea of how to predict future growth. For example, both the City of

Charlevoix and the City of Petoskey have lost population during this time frame, though Petoskey

did show a very slight gain in population between 1990 and 2000.

The graphic illustrates the other side of this picture more vividly. As can be seen in the graph,

several communities have seen population growth each decade from 1970 to 2000, and in

Pleasantview Township in particular the percentage of growth has increased steadily. Even among

communities that saw little or no growth during the 1980’s, as was common, population increases

rebounded significantly during the 1990’s.

These sorts of trend indicators are useful in making development decisions for several reasons.

First, and perhaps most obviously, they give us an idea of which areas are growing and which are not.

But just as importantly, it gives us a better data model upon which to base projections of future

population, by continuing those trend lines on a community by community basis. There are more

geographically specific ways to project population, but at this point the law of diminishing returns

sets in, and it is difficult to make population projections for periods of greater than 30 years at any

rate.

To get further insight into growth patterns, we will examine the total population and the change

in that population over time. Population change can be highly variable; however over long periods of

time patterns will emerge that can be used to predict future growth. As can be seen in the table, after

a period of low growth in the 1980’s, Bear Creek Township and other townships in the area have

enjoyed tremendous surges in population.

However, of similar concern is the pattern of dropping population in the City of Charlevoix.

This can be more clearly seen in the graph. Although the percentage of reduction is getting smaller

as the decades progress, the pattern is still obvious. It may be, however, that a turnaround is taking

place in that general area, as the 67% growth in population for Charlevoix Township attests to.

As stated in the 1997 Emmet County Master Plan, “The five townships which surround Little

Traverse Bay account for only about 1/3 of County land area, yet in the last 30 years they have

accounted for about 70% of the total County population growth.”

Racial Distribution

The table entitled “LTBB Reservation – Race of Population by MCD” (Table 8) depicts the

number of persons in each MCD as distributed by race according to the 2000 Census. The table is

virtually self-explanatory, as a not-very diverse picture emerges. In fact, the only sizable minority

population in most communities is the Native American population, in some areas approaching 5%

of the population, and nearing 10% in the City of Harbor Springs.

It may instead be more worthwhile to examine this data to specifically understand where Native

Americans live within the Reservation boundaries. As can be expected, sizable concentrations of

Tribal membership are located in the cities of Petoskey, Harbor Springs, and to a lesser extent, the

City of Charlevoix.

In Table 8 the distribution of race in the LTBB Reservation area is presented. A look at this

table shows clearly that racial diversity is not to be found in Northern Michigan. However, it is also

clear that the second largest racial group in nearly all MCD’s is “American Indian and Alaska

Native”. Of particular interest is the concentration of Native Americans in cities of Harbor Springs,

Petoskey, and to a lesser extent, Charlevoix. Outside of these, larger numbers can be found in Bear

Creek Township, Resort Township, and as is traditionally the case, Cross Village Township.

. Projections

Population

Carrying this reasoning one step further, we must look into the future. Population projections

can be developed using many methods, however in rural areas such as Northern Michigan the

simplest techniques will most likely produce the most accurate results. In addition, the choice of

method (in this case a straight-line progression) reflects that used by the State of Michigan for most

purposes.

As can be seen from Table 9, both Charlevoix and Emmet Counties can reasonably expect to see

population increases near 10,000 persons over the next 25 to 30 years. Graph 7 illustrates the

problem with this simple approach. In effect, the ratio of population distribution between the

various units of government is permanently fixed, and so only total County population is accurately

projected. Changes in population amongst the MCD’s are not accurately portrayed.

Perhaps a better way to look at population distribution within a County is shown in Table 10.

This method takes a 30-year historical snapshot of population in a jurisdiction, and essentially

continues the trend that averages out, for that jurisdiction. Thus, it is more likely to show patterns of

change, i.e. population moving from one township to another. Graph 8 and Table 11 both display

the result.

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

Housing in the area covered by this plan varies enormously in availability, cost, and quality

throughout the Reservation area. The use of land for housing and shelter represents a significant

proportion of all land uses in most areas. Generally, changes in statistical information related to

housing and shelter mirror important changes in the character of an area. Therefore, the change in

the number of housing units, percentage of owner-occupied units, or increases in building permit

activity over time are all important factors that shape planning decisions.

Dwelling Unit Percent Change 1990 – 2000

Graph 9 is entitled “1855 LTBB Reservation Lands – Dwelling Unit % Change 1990-2000” and

depicts the growth or decline in the actual number of dwelling units, by area municipality, between

the 1990 Census and the 2000 Census. A dwelling unit can be a single-family house, a condominium

unit, an apartment, or any other structure that can be permanently lived in. The source of this graph

is shown as Table 12.

This graph gives us a clear indication of which areas are experiencing the most residential growth

pressure. Most importantly, however, when used in conjunction with other data on land use it gives

us a good way to predict where residential development opportunities might exist in the near future.

This can be seen further in Maps 7 through 10, which show the data evolving over time.

Housing Characteristics Tabulation

Related directly to the population demographics of an area are the characteristics of the housing

base. The use of land for housing and shelter is a significant portion of all land uses in most areas.

Generally, changes in statistical information related to housing and shelter mirror important changes

in the character of an area. Officials and citizens alike cite the need for adequate housing, and for

housing that matches the demographics of the area.

Table 13 is entitled “LTBB Reservation – Housing Characteristics Tabulation”, and depicts the

distribution of housing types among the municipalities in the Reservation area.

As we can see in the table, the vast majority of all housing in the area is one-family detached

housing, i.e. the typical single family home. Coming in second (in most areas), is the mobile home.

This is probably under counted, however, due to the fact that many “double-wide” mobile homes

essentially become one-family detached housing once permanently sited. In some areas, such as the

City of Petoskey and West Traverse Township, the number of single-family attached dwellings

(typically a condominium or townhouse) actually exceeds the number of mobile homes. In the City

of Petoskey this is perhaps due to the fact that it would be extremely difficult to site a traditional

mobile home in the City, and to some extent this is true of West Traverse Township as well, however

the average income level plays a role here also.

The distribution of housing types in an area plays a role both as a cause of, and a reaction to,

population growth or decline. Inadequate existing housing stock can be ameliorated somewhat over

time by the construction of new housing, but in general new housing is more expensive than existing.

Thus, the trend in older cities towards the conversion of larger single family homes into multiple

family dwellings, often apartments.

Most development is either guided by, or a reaction to, market forces. The current distribution

of housing stock is one aspect of the larger marketing picture that must be taken into account when

discussing any new development initiatives.

Dwelling Unit Growth/Change Tabulation

Again referring to the large table called “LTBB Reservation – Dwelling Unit Growth/Change

Tabulation” we present important data regarding the area housing stock and how it has changed over

time. It compares data from the 2000 Census with that of the 1990 Census for all municipalities

within the Reservation area.

The bottom third of the table presents a summary of the changes in housing stock between the

two Census years, with “N/V” being the computational result of zero data for that category in both

Census datasets. Also see Maps 9 and 10 for another view of this information.

This can illustrate trends for us such as the large increase in the number of Mobile Homes for

Charlevoix Township between 1990 and 2000. Bear in mind, though, that large increases such as this

one over a ten-year span may be just the result of a single new development. In the case of the 600%

increase in one-family attached dwelling units in Hayes Township, this is almost certainly true.

Key trends to look for, though, include moderate increases or decreases in any category,

particularly one with a large number of units to begin with. For example, a gradual decrease in the

number of single family homes with a corresponding increase in multiple family dwellings may

indicate a major shift in the demographics of an area, and should be examined in light of per capita

income and average family size as well.

Population vs. Housing Units

The graph labeled “LTBB Reservation – Population vs. Housing Units” (Graph 10) illustrates

for us the relationship between two important demographic indicators, total population and total

number of housing units, for each MCD in the Reservation area. This data is taken from the 2000

Census.

Although. fortunately there are no areas where the number of housing units exceeds the total

population, there are in fact several areas where the total population greatly surpasses the number of

housing units. In general, this correlates well with the family size data discussed earlier, but a large

disparity between the two can also be taken as a sign of increasing urbanization. This appears to be

the case in areas such as Bear Creek Township, for example.

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Annual Payroll by Sector – Emmet County

Table 14, “Annual Payroll by Sector – Emmet County”, and Graph 11 that accompanies it, use

Census Economic Sectors to describe the payroll impact of different types of businesses in Emmet

County. This data is from 1997, the most recent year available.

As can be seen clearly in the graph, the largest payroll sectors are Health Care, Retail Trade, and

Manufacturing. This is followed closely by Hospitality, which is no doubt growing in recent years.

Note that this information presents total payroll per sector, not necessarily persons employed.

Therefore, a sector such as wholesale trade may employ a fairly large number of persons, but if they

are paid less than is typical for another sector, the total payroll number will be smaller.

The great reliance on the Health Care sector is typical of both older population bases, and an

economy based in part on seasonality. This, in turn, implies an increasing reliance on aspects of the

economy such as Hospitality and Tourism.

More than is perhaps commonly thought, it appears that Emmet County is somewhat dependant

on the Manufacturing sector, with a fairly large percentage of the whole economy being based there.

Although not shown here, this appears to be distributed relatively evenly from a geographic

standpoint, while still being predominately found in the more urbanized and heavily developed areas

nearest to Petoskey and Bear Creek Township.

Many areas of the economy are inter-dependent, and linked in ways that are not immediately

obvious. In addition, economics is a science, but certainly one of the less exact ones. Small-scale

economies are relatively more sensitive to sudden, large impacts, such as a plant closing, or even the

opening of a large gaming operation.

LTBB Reservation – Poverty Rate

The graph entitled “LTBB Reservation – Poverty Rate (Census 2000)” (Graph 12) and Table 15

above it illustrate for us the diverse pattern of household income that is present in the municipalities

that make up the area covered by the Tribe’s Reservation. Income data reported in the Census is

based on the last whole year of income; therefore the table depicts household income and per capita

income from 1999.

As can be seen in the graph, poverty rates are generally higher in those areas of larger population.

Strikingly, though, the poverty rate in the City of Petoskey is between 2 and 3 times the rate of other

large municipalities in the Reservation area. Conversely, and nearly as surprising, is the relatively low

rate of poverty in the rural areas of Emmet County, even quite inland areas. Although this is the

pattern is larger urban areas, that is to say, suburbs have lower poverty than inner cities, and we are

by no means dealing with a typical urban area within the LTBB Reservation. It is difficult to say

precisely why this is the case, although it may have to do with the high incomes associated with

lakeshore living, and the seasonality of the economy.

In an absolute sense, this means that a higher percentage of the population of the entirety of

Emmet and Charlevoix Counties is likely to be in poverty, a fact that has important repercussions for

development and growth. If in fact we have an economy that is becoming more divergent instead of

less, i.e. greater wealth in some areas balanced by greater poverty in persistent geographic locations,

that will tend to be a damper on growth at some point. Therefore, the type and location of

economic development initiated by either the Tribe or other municipalities becomes key to

determining whether this trend continues.

Per Capita Income Tabulations

Closely related to household income and poverty is Per Capita Income, or PCI. In Table 16,

entitled “LTBB Reservation – Per Capita Income Tabulations (1989-1999)”, we see the change in

PCI between the 1990 Census (1989 income figures), and the 2000 Census (1999 income figures).

The result, as a percentage change, is shown in Graph 13, below the table.

As is probably becoming clear by now, each graph and table presents a slightly different aspect

of the demographic environment that the LTBB Reservation coexists in. Sometimes the results are

consistent with established perceptions, and sometimes larger and more varied information must be

looked at before the picture becomes clear. In this case, it is interesting to note the large gains in PCI

over much of the area, not necessarily just those areas experiencing rapid growth. Also interesting is

that areas with lower PCI growth are not necessarily those areas with higher poverty to begin with.

In fact, a lower rate of PCI growth might just indicate that incomes were higher than average to

begin with, and, due to stagnant population growth or movement, a greater PCI is not possible until

more change in population takes place, as can be seen more clearly in Maps 11, 12, and 13.

However, in this case, the answer more likely is somewhere else. Note from the table that, while

the poverty rate of Bliss and Center Townships are fairly low, even in the 2000 Census they had the

lowest PCI in the area. This can generally be explained by a correspondingly low household size

(persons per household), something explored previously.

L I T T. L E T R A V E R S B A Y B A N D S O F O D A W A I N D I A N S

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

MASTER LAND USE

PLAN

CHAPTER THREE

PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE LTBB

RESERVATION

PHYSICAL FEAT URES OF THE

LT B B R E S E RVA T I O N

THE LTBB MASTER LAND USE PLAN

L A N D U S E C H A N G E , 1 9 7 8 TO 1 9 9 8

Graph 14 is entitled “LTBB Reservation – Land Use % Change (1978-1998)” and shows us

which of the land use/cover types have gained or lost the most area, as a percentage of their original

area. The data is presented in 13 broad areas or groupings of land use/cover classifications. This

data is taken from MIRIS, the basis of which is discussed earlier.

As is evident from the graph, of the 13 major classifications, only 3 have lost area, and only 2 in

any significant sense. What this means, of course, is that the other 10 categories of land use have

seen major gains, and all of those gains have come at the expense of agricultural and forested land, by

and large. To be more specific, in the 20 years between 1978 and 1998, over 40 percent of the land

classed as agricultural is now devoted to some other use. For orchard land, the change has been even

more extreme. Over 92 percent of land classified as orchard in 1978 was classified as something else

by 1998.

The implications of this loss of agricultural land, and its conversion into residential, commercial,

and industrial development, are profound. Already there is a significant shift in public opinion

towards protection of “open space” and those lands generally perceived as undeveloped. In the

future, non-tribal development in this area could be greatly constrained, and will at the very least, be

a good deal more regulated than it is today.

This, in turn, has ramifications for tribal development, if the nature of our development depends

on existing development or anticipated patterns of development. Studying existing patterns of land

use and land use change, and attempting to predict where non-tribal development will be greatly

restricted in the future is half the battle in placing the tribe in the right position to maximize

development potential of its land.

Culturally Significant Areas

The ‘Culturally Significant Areas’ map (Map 14) represents portions of Emmet and Charlevoix

counties that contain the LTBB reservation boundary.

The intent of this map is to gather those areas deemed ‘culturally significant’ to the Little

Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, which can mean “anything that is vital to the continuity of

our cultural beliefs and practices, past and present.” (Wes Andrews 10/04) The next step is to then

spatially map their geographic locations.

To begin this process, LTBB has formed a work group comprised of the LTBB Tribal

Administrator, Cultural Preservation Director, Cultural Preservation Coordinator and the GIS

Director. This group is charged with developing those policies and procedures necessary to maintain

a high degree of confidentiality in regards to data gathering, data access and application, and to

ultimately present these conditions to LTBB tribal council for approval.

.. mapping these cultural resources, it becomes possible to compare and prioritize

By spatially

these locations in relation to other factors, such as areas of high development or environmental

concern. Also, by identifying and acquiring these locations, they can hopefully be preserved for

future LTBB generations.

Development Patterns

The ‘Historical Development Patterns’ map (Map 15) represents concentrated development for

Emmet and portions of Charlevoix counties for the years of 1978 and 1998. The LTBB reservation

boundary falls within this geographic extent.

Historical Development Patterns for 1978 and 1998 were created by selecting all developed

lands* from the 1978 and 1998 MIRIS land use layers, then establishing a 330' buffer around all these

lands. Areas in which these buffers overlap were deemed to be a ‘highly developed’ region, and then

digitized to create ‘regions of high development’ on the ‘Historical Development Patterns’ map.

By overlaying the 1978 and 1998 regions, those areas within Emmet and Charlevoix counties

which exhibit areas of high development become easily identifiable. Not surprisingly, these areas

primarily exist around inland lakes, established urban centers (Harbor Springs, Petoskey, Charlevoix

and Bay Harbor) and along the shore of Lake Michigan (Little Traverse Bay north along the shoreline

to Cross Village Township).

Developmental trends within the LTBB reservation and surrounding areas can have a major

impact on many aspects of tribal operation. For example, culturally significant areas located on the

shore of Lake Michigan or any surrounding inland lakes could be given a higher priority for

acquisition than those areas located outside of a highly developed region.

Developed lands include the following MIRIS land use classifications: Residential, Commercial,

Extractive, Institutional, Industrial, Transportation, Communications, Utilities, Outdoor Cultural,

Outdoor Recreation, and Public Assembly.

MIRIS Land Use

The “1998 Land Use” map (Map 16) represents land uses for Emmet and portions of Charlevoix

counties for the year of 1998. The LTBB reservation boundary falls within this geographic extent.

MIRIS, or Michigan Resource Inventory System, land use is usually created by on-screen

digitizing (drawing lines around) individual land uses in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) or

Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) programs referencing current aerial imagery collected by airplane.

The end result of this operation is a series of adjacent polygons, each of which is assigned an

individual land use code according to the MIRIS land use classification system*.

The original MIRIS land use classification system was developed by the Michigan Department of

Natural Resources in 1978, and was based upon land use data collected from county or regional

planning commissions, and then formatted into a CAD/GIS compatible state-wide coverage using

the Michigan Georef coordinate system.

Current land use data is a very important tool for many tribal departments. For example, by

comparing land use from different time frames, it becomes possible to determine where, how much,

when development has occurred, and on what type land use. Another way to look at this statement

would be to say “over the last 10 years, 5000 acres of agricultural land has been lost to residential

development, with 2500 acres of lost agricultural land coming from Bear Creek Township alone.” As

you can see, current land use forms a key component for many types of analyses.

TO P O G R A P H Y A N D S U R FA C E F E A T U R E S

Topography

The topography of an area is usually the result of both the underlying geologic makeup and

forces on the surface that effect that geology. In northwest Michigan, two topographic features

stand out as being clearly iconic. The topography of the LTBB Odawa Reservation is shown on Map

17.

Septic Suitability

The pie chart labeled “Septic Suitability” (Graph 15) shows us, for the entire LTBB Reservation

area, the distribution of land areas with limitations for septic-based wastewater treatment. It is based

in large part on soils analysis, with each soil type being rated for a variety of factors and capabilities.

This data is taken in part from the engineering table that describes “Limitations of soils for

residential and industrial development and related non-farm uses.” This table is also used as the basis

for Map 18, “Soil Septic Suitability.”

Soils with slight limitations for septic systems will have an appropriate rate of percolation for

drain fields, and have the accompanying proper particle size for filtration of the waste stream. Given

the lack of municipal wastewater treatment in most of the rural areas within the Reservation, areas

with slight limitations for septic systems are more attractive for development, all things being equal.

As can be seen by the graph, there are 83,131 acres of such soils within the Reservation boundaries.

This represents approximately one-third of the entire area available for development.

However, those areas with severe or moderate limitations for septic systems constitute over half

of the area. Severe limitations for septic might include poor percolation rates caused by excessive

clay in the soil, or rocky-barren soils with poor filtration ability. The rating of severe indicates that

“the soil is poorly suited to the use specified and that intensive engineering practices are needed to

overcome the limitations.”

Hydric Soils

The “Hydric Soils” graph (Graph 16) refers to the presence or absence of water in a soils

makeup. Excessive water bound to particles in the soil causes inability to drain, support foundations,

and a host of other limitations. As can be seen by the graph, the vast majority of all soils found in

the Reservation area are Non-Hydric in nature.

Drainage Potential

The graph labeled “Drainage Potential” (Graph 17) refers to a more specific type of “drainage”

that that discussed above. A soil can have severe limitations for septic systems, and still be “well”

drained, as can be seen by the graph. Over 138,000 acres of the Reservation area are classified as

“well” drained, far in excess of the area rated acceptable for septic systems. This is perhaps more

clearly represented by Map 19.

.. poorly drained soils will tend to hold water at the surface or bound up in the upper

Conversely,

layers of the soil.

Erosion Potential

Erosion potential, or “K” Factor, describes a soils tendency to erode, or the ease with which

particles can be carried away by wind and water. Graph 18 and its companion Map 20 are entitled

“Erosion Potential” and tell us that approximately half of the land area in the Reservation has

moderate erosion potential, with roughly 56,000 acres having high erosion potential.

Infiltration Rate

Another component of Septic Suitability, Infiltration Rate describes the ability of water to pass

through, or infiltrate, a particular soil. The graph labeled as Graph 19 shows us that well over half of

the area in the Reservation has a high infiltration rate. In general, the sandy soils prevalent in this

area have a high infiltration rate. While this can be useful for septic systems where the underlying

geology can protect the aquifer, it can also be a hazard in areas where the aquifer is not protected. As

can be seen in Map 21, the overwhelming characteristic of the soils in the area is a high infiltration

rate, with its concurrent danger to area groundwater supplies.

Wetlands Map

The map entitled “Wetlands” ( Map 22) shows the locations of various types of wetlands found

on the LTBB Reservation. Wetlands can be broken down in specific types based upon their unique

characteristics. Examples from each type of wetland can be found on the LTBB Reservation;

however the Forested-Deciduous and the Forested-Coniferous type wetlands occupy the most area.

Overall approximately 15% (32,557 acres) of the LTBB Reservation is covered by wetlands.

Wetlands are fragile communities that offer a range of environmental and natural resource

benefits. Wetland systems act as natural filters and are capable of mitigating some forms of pollution,

wetlands also help reduce and minimize flood potential, help to reduce stream velocities, maintain

natural stream paths and flow and reduce erosion. Wetlands are also tremendously diverse areas.

Many of the Reservation’s wetlands are found along or near creeks, streams, lakes or other water

bodies. Their unique mixture of water and resources allow many types of species (including

endangered and threatened) to flourish. Wetlands are often also very important to number of fish,

reptiles, amphibians and migratory bird species for laying eggs and rearing their young.

The wetlands of the LTBB Reservation, often due to their geographic location, also provide the

Reservation’s wildlife with natural ecological corridors or “wild links” to and between larger

undeveloped sections of the Reservation. These corridors allow the wildlife to move across the

Reservation allowing then to access different habitats as may be seasonally required. These “wild

links” help to lessen the negative impacts of habitat fragmentation.

Surface Water Resources

This map, (Map 23) although provided mostly for reference, does show the large and diverse

number of water bodies found in the Emmet/Charlevoix area, and it can be easily inferred how that

might affect the character and economy of this area. According to the 1997 Emmet County/City of

Petoskey Comprehensive Plan, “Spectacular views, clean unpolluted surface waters, and the

tranquility of the lakes are all part of the natural ambiance of Emmet County. These resources also

contribute to a viable recreational economy.”

Watershed Boundaries

Map 24 displays boundaries for major watersheds located within and adjacent to The LTBB

treaty delineated reservation area. A watershed is the area of land that catches rain and snow and

drains or seeps into a marsh, stream, river, lake or groundwater. Watersheds are inherently defined

by topography as water always follows the path of least resistance. As a result, all activities within a

watershed affect the quality of water as it percolates through and runs across developed landscapes.

The reservation area is divided by two large watersheds: Lake Michigan to the West and Lake Huron

to the East.

Domestic Well Water Depth

This map of domestic well water depths (Map 25) illustrates the dependence of the surrounding

area on groundwater quality. Every citizen of this region is dependent on ground water for their

drinking water source. The quality and quantity of these resources are important to the Tribe and

surrounding community members for more then just our household uses. These vast aquifers are the

driving force of the areas environmental and economic health. Thousands of people travel to this

area each year for the beauty of our lakes and Rivers and the prolific wildlife that abounds due to

groundwater’s influence on surface bodies of water.

Without adequate ground water the health of our lakes, rivers and wetlands would be

dramatically affected. Many of the LTBB Tribal members depend on fishing, hunting, and gathering

for cultural and subsistence motives. This way of life is depended on groundwater quality. The

tourist that visit the Tribal businesses and developments that located in this area come indirectly

because of groundwater’s affect on our surface water. The biggest threats to this resource is failing

septic systems, and leaking underground storage tanks. Protecting this resource is important for the

long term health of Tribal members.

Prime Farmlands

The ‘Prime Farmlands’ map (Map 26) represents prime agricultural lands within Emmet and

Charlevoix counties. The LTBB reservation boundary falls within this geographic context.

Prime farmland is defined by the USDA as “land that has the best combination of physical and

chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Prime farmland

has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained

high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods.”

(Watershed Resource Papers, Lang worthy, Strader & LeBlanc & Associates, Inc.)

Preserving farmland is becoming increasingly difficult. The irony of this issue is that many nonfarming residents want to preserve existing farmlands, while farmers themselves may also want to

preserves their farms, but at the same time want to retain their right to sell.

From an environmental perspective, agricultural lands can offer floodplain protection, areas of

groundwater recharge and wildlife habitat. From a development perspective, agricultural lands can

offer a low to flat developable surface, large parcel sizes and a willing seller. Indeed, some farmers

have begun to view their land holdings as a land retirement accounts.

.. to note that some areas on the ‘Prime Farmlands’ map identified as prime

It is important

farmland have already been converted to an alternate form of land use.

Land Cover

The ‘USGS 1992 Land Cover’ or Map 27 represents land cover for Emmet and portions of

Charlevoix counties for the year of 1992. The LTBB reservation boundary falls within this

geographic extent.

Land cover is often mistaken for the MIRIS (Michigan Resource Inventory System) land use

classification system. A MIRIS land use is composed of a series of polygons (vector format), each of

which is assigned a land use code according to the MIRIS land use classification system*.

While similar, land cover is actually created from multi-spectral satellite imagery, and stored in

multiple layers in a raster (image) format. Individual land uses reflect different wavelengths of color

along the electromagnetic spectrum. By assigning different colors to each layer, it then becomes

possible to differentiate varying land cover classifications.

Analysis of land cover data can yield many different types of information which can be useful to

tribal operations. Examples of this data would be vegetation type and density, or areas of high and

low residential density, or wetland locations. This type of information is important from a tribal

perspective as it can aid in developing a more complete natural resources management plan. For

example, by comparing land use coverage’s from different time frames, a tribal forester could

evaluate changing forest densities and more accurately plan a timber harvest. Also, a tribal planner

could compare residential densities of a neighboring subdivision in relation to a planned tribal

housing development.

ZONING

State Equalized Value Patterns

The map labeled “State Equalized Value Patterns” (Map 28) depicts, for all of Emmet and part

of Charlevoix County, the approximate State Equalized Value or SEV for each parcel of land. SEV

is one end product of the assessment and equalization process that each county goes through in

order to distribute property tax assessments more fairly. The SEV system assumes that the end value

should be roughly one-half the market value of a piece of property at any given time.

As can be seen from the map, the highest value parcels fall into two general categories. First,

large inland parcels that might typically be associated with a seasonal land use, i.e. ski resorts or golf

courses, or in some cases certain types of agricultural enterprises. Second, and perhaps most

obviously, the large number of small but highly valued parcels along the Lake Michigan shoreline.

The effect of having so much SEV concentrated in so little geographic area is hard to analyze

unless we take into account the reason for the concentration. Essentially, people want to live along

the lakeshore, and since no more lakeshore is being created any time soon, the resultant rise in

demand over supply causes the price to rise and remain high.

On the other hand, this does leave quite a bit of the county at the lower end of the SEV

spectrum. Bear in mind, though, that a large portion of the land classed as having low or no SEV

actually is county, state, or federally owned. This is somewhat hard to differentiate, since there is so

much land area on the map classed this way. Regardless, this does provide for substantial economic

opportunity provided other minimum requirements for development are met, such as infrastructure.

LTBB Uniform Zoning Classification System

This section describes the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Geographic Information

Systems Department methodology for the compilation of a digital county-wide zoning layer for

Emmet County.

Emmet County handles zoning classification for the county as a whole for all but the following

jurisdictions: West Traverse Township, Little Traverse Township, Pleasantview Township, Resort

Township, Petoskey, Harbor Springs, Mackinaw City, and the villages of Pellston and Alanson.

LTBB GIS acquired a digital zoning layer from Emmet County Mapping and GIS for those

jurisdictions that use county services for zoning purposes. This data is in the MI State Plane

Coordinate system, NAD83, with units in feet. In addition, Resort Township has given LTBB a

copy of their digital zoning layer, in shapefile format. The referenced coordinate system is the same

as the Emmet County data, MI State Plane, NAD83, units in feet.

The remainder of the jurisdictions were not in a digital format but were digitized individually in

the ArcView environment, referencing hard copy zoning maps and zoning ordinance. Once

complete, all digitized zoning layers were merged together to form a complete coverage for Emmet

County. A separate column was created in the resultant zoning coverage database table, which

contained an assigned LTBB zoning classification. This enables LTBB to represent all zoning as one

contiguous layer. This was accomplished by adding a field in the Emmet County parcel database

table, and keying in an LTBB zoning classification. Additionally, each municipality’s original zoning

code classification is in the resultant database table for cross-reference. The result is graphically

presented as Map 29.

Transportation System

An important part of the physical features encountered in any landscape is the network of roads,

bridges, and paths that carry automobile and other traffic. This can be clearly seen in Map 30 for the

LTBB Odawa Reservation area.

The transportation system is often defined as the physical and operational infrastructure which

accomplishes the movement of people and goods from place to place. As a practical matter, the total

transportation system is broken into a number of subsystems known as modes (including, but not

limited to: highway, transit, rail, air, pedestrian, waterborne, and pipeline) and involving different

types of vehicles and routes.

The total transportation system in our world is a complex one, not only due to its size, but also

because of the mix of public and private ownership of various parts of the system. Highway

transportation, for example, involves a combination of public ownership and maintenance of the

roads and highways, and private ownership of the vehicles operated on those roads and highways.

It has been stated that proper transportation planning clarifies the need for a better

understanding of the interrelationship between transportation facilities and land use controls.

Transportation facilities are very expensive to build and maintain, yet all too often they have become

prematurely inadequate because of a failure to appreciate the relationship that exists between land use

and transportation facilities, to plan accordingly, and to institute the necessary design of land use

controls. This. problem involves not only the safety and convenience of public transportation

investments, but the welfare of land owners abutting transportation facilities and of the traveling

public in general.

These interrelationships are mutual. Land use, and thus land use controls such as zoning and

future land use plans, affect transportation service and transportation service influences land use.

Various land use characteristics have very marked effects on transportation facilities in any area.

These include: type of development, intensity, location, design and location of access to the use, and

site design. These and other factors help to determine the nature of traffic generated in the areas,

which is a principal determinant of the adequacy of the surrounding transportation facilities. These

facilities, especially highways, in turn have a substantial impact on surrounding development and land

use.

This mutual interdependence has often resulted in a transportation-land use cycle. Overtaxed

facilities, such as dirt or unpaved roads (or non-existent ones) prompt the construction of new and

improved facilities. This leads to better access, which prompts more intensive use of the surrounding

land (taking the form of higher density residential development, or new commercial development).

This more intensive use, which has all too often been unexpected or inadequately controlled in the

past, generates more traffic. Often, this added traffic causes the premature obsolescence of the new

facility. Consequently, the success of the new transportation facility in creating new access has often

elicited its own obsolescence.

The problem of balanced transportation facility development and protection could be

approached by attempting to control major traffic generators and overall traffic generation from a

larger area by controlling the type, intensity, and location of land uses. The prime motive is the

control of traffic levels and traffic load characteristics for such areas, so as to be compatible with the

characteristics of the transportation system in the area. This, and the reduction in local expenditure

that comes with it, is one of the prime motivators for proper planning and zoning.

In our area, this can be seen in both Map 15 “Historical Development Patterns”, and Maps 31

and 32, “Daily Traffic Volumes 2004”and “Historic Traffic Volumes”.

L I T T L E T R AV E R S E B AY B A N D S O F O DAWA I N D I A N S

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

MASTER LAND USE

PLAN

CHAPTER FOUR

DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABILITY MODEL

DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABILITY

MODEL

THE LTBB MASTER LAND USE PLAN

THE NEED FOR A PREDICTIVE DEVELOPMENT MODEL

In order to properly evaluate proposed locations for tribal development, the nature and extent of

other development activity in the LTBB Reservation area must first be understood. While it is

relatively easy to examine current land use and developmental patterns, and research will reveal both

past patterns and the direction of change that led to the current pattern, by themselves these will not

assist in the prediction of future likelihood of development. Further, there exist certain sections of

the Reservation area in which any development at all would conflict with the stated goals and

objectives of the Tribe, e.g. environmental preservation, open space protection and so forth.

Several reasons exist why a “parcel-specific” land use plan for areas not currently controlled by

the Tribe cannot be developed at this time. It is not always known in advance when the opportunity

to purchase a particular parcel of land will present itself. Nor can it always be known when the tribe

will have a requirement for land. Third, market forces often dictate either the location of an

available parcel, or the economic need for one. Lastly, specific requirements for a parcel often relate

to the particulars of a proposed development. Therefore, it is not possible to indicate on a map

those specific areas of the LTBB Reservation lands that will be pursued, and in what time frame.

Therefore, it became necessary to construct a method, or mechanism, to both predict future

development, and evaluate its impact on tribal objectives. This became the root motivation for the

creation of a model, using the Tribe’s Geographic Information System, that would weigh the

appropriate criteria and present a graphical result in an interactive fashion if need be.

In this manner Tribal Council and other elected or appointed decision-makers for the Tribe can

interactively and quickly determine the development related impact of a proposed acquisition. This,

together with analysis from staff, can assist in determining both the initial desirability of a site, as well

as it’s relative worth to the Tribe. Over time, the data used can be updated, and the assumptions

modified to reflect changing priorities or better understandings of various relationships.

For example, it is possible to add a new highway or arterial roadway link to the transportation

network dataset (i.e. traffic volume vs. relative capacity) and then calculate its potential impact on

land use. When adding socio-economic data (e.g. demographic changes, income, employment), the

model is able to generate spatial scenario simulations on a wider regional scale that can be interpreted

by staff on a parcel-by-parcel basis.

THE MODEL

This need for a predictive mechanism for land acquisition decisions was discussed at some length

by the staff team when developing this document. It was decided early on that a causal attractantrepellant type of model would most easily be integrated into the unique variety of land uses and

landforms in this part of Michigan3, although the prevailing methodologies would need to be greatly

streamlined and simplified.

Therefore, a base list of factors and characteristics was drawn up, assigned to either increase the

potential for development at a particular site, or increase the limitations on development (from the

Tribe’s presumed point of view, of course). A rating system was then applied, whereby the factors

that rank high in development potential or limitations were given up to 10 points, and a reduction in

either influence then reduces the score all the way down to 1 point for very slight potential or

limitation.

While clearly the model is not sophisticated enough for more thoroughly developed urban areas,

in rural areas such as northwest lower Michigan there are a relatively smaller set of variables that

promote the likelihood of development. Conversely, the overall sense or desire for acknowledgment

of the environmental limitations on development is relatively constant across populations in this area.

For an example of a more detailed model, the graphic below shows us a land use vs. crop yield

model recently developed for agricultural evaluation in The Netherlands. As can be seen, the level of

detailed data, amount of data input, and sequence of analysis is much greater.

Graphic: “Regional Analysis of Maize-Based Land Use Systems for Early Warning Applications”,

Doctoral thesis (2002) ISBN 90-5808-584-8 Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Technical Methodology

3 Verburg, P. H., G. H. J. de Koning, et al. (1999). “A spatial explicit allocation procedure for modeling the pattern of land

use change based upon actual land use.” Ecological Modeling 116(1): 45-61.

For completeness’s sake, the following is the technical process by which the Geographic

Information Systems Department actually constructed the model. The initial listing of data layers

and ranking criteria used follow this. The end result can be found in Appendix C of this document.

1. Septic suitability, etc.

Download SSURGO soils data from the State of Michigan CGI for Emmet County and

extract to \\prime570\GIS_data\data\Shapefiles\Soils\Emmet\

b. Use CHXsoils.shp acquired from Charlevoix County GIS through use of an

intergovernmental data sharing agreement and extract to

\\prime570\GIS_data\data\Shapefiles\Soils\Charlevoix\

Add fields named 'potential' and 'limit' to attribute tables for Emmet and Charlevoix

SSURGO soils shapefiles as a short integer, 0 precision.

d. Using the MUNAME soil series field, 'select by attributes' based on septic limitations

referenced in Emmet and Charlevoix Soil Survey compiled in May, 1974 by the United

States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service as severe, moderate, slight or

variable.

Use field calculator to enter appropriate values: Selection set (severe, moderate, slight,

variable) = x (ranking value for severe, moderate, slight, variable)

Dissolve features in Emmet and Charlevoix soils shapefiles based on 'potential' development

field using Geoprocessing Wizard

g. Dissolve features in Emmet and Charlevoix soils shapefiles based on development 'limit'

field using Geoprocessing Wizard

h. Merge Emmet and Charlevoix septic 'potential' shapefiles using Geoprocessing Wizard

Merge Emmet and Charlevoix septic 'limit' shapefiles using Geoprocessing Wizard

Clip septic development potential to model extents Geoprocessing Wizard, save to

C:\\extents\seppot.shp

k. Clip septic developmental limitations to model extents using Geoprocessing Wizard, save to

C:\\extents\seplimt.shp

2. Transportation Infrastructure, etc.

Download Emmet County roads framework version 4 from the State of Michigan

CGI and extract to \\prime570\GIS_data\data\Shapefiles\Emmet\TIGER_95\

b. Download Charlevoix County roads framework version 4 from the State of

Michigan CGI and extract to

\\prime570\GIS_data\data\Shapefiles\Charlevoix\TIGER_95\

Merrge Emmet and Charlevoix Roads using Geoprocessing Wizard

<merge_roads>.shp.

d. Create a 33' buffer around <merge_roads>.shp using the Geoprocessing Wizard

<merge_roads_buffer>.shp

Add fields named 'potential' and 'limit' to attribute table of

<merge_roads_buffer>.shp as a short integer, 0 precision.

Using 'select by attributes' based on the FCC (Framework Classification Code) rank

according to the following classifications:

A11 - A13 = Interstates

A21 - A23 = State Highway

A31 = Principal Arterial

A32 - A36 = Minor Arterial, Collectors

A41 - A49 = Local Roads

A51 - A73 = Seasonal/Unclassified Roads

g. Clip <merge_road_buffer>.shp to model extents using Geoprocessing Wizard

<merge_road_buffer_clip>.sh

h. Union <merge_road_buffer_clip>.shp with model extents and save to

C:\\extents\road.shp

3. Traffic Volumes (Steps a-c completed by a consultant)

Pull arterial road classifications (FCC code A31) from Emmet and Charlevoix roads

framework version 3 from the State of Michigan CGI website and save as

Emmet_Traffic_SPC_polyline.shp and Charlevoix_Traffic_SPC_polyline.shp.

b. Obtain ADT (average daily traffic counts) from Emmet and Charlevoix County Road

Commission's for arterial road classifications

Add field ADT in in Emmet_Traffic_SPC_polyline.shp and

Charlevoix_Traffic_SPC_polyline.shp an d enter ADT data, save as emmet_adt.shp and

Charlevoix_adt.shp.

d. Buffer emmet_adt.shp and Charlevoix_adt.shp 33', save as emmADTbuffer.shp and

charADTbuffer.shp.

Clip emmADTbuffer.shp and charADTbuffer.shp with model_extents.shp using the

geoprocessing wizard

Merge emmADTbuffer.shp with charADTbuffer.shp using the geoprocesing wizard, save as

merge_adt.shp

g. Clip merge_adt.shp using mode_extents.shp as overlay with the geoprocessing wizard, save

as merge_adt_clip.shp

h. union merge_adt_clip.shp with model_extents.shp then save as adt.shp to

C:\\extents\adt.shp.

4. Local Zoning Ordinances.

Use complete_emmet_zoning.shp, ltbb_chandler_zoning.shp, ltbb_melrose_zoning.shp,

ltbb_bay_zoning.shp, HAYzoning.shp, EVAzoning.shp, ltbb_char_zoning.shp and

MARzoning.shp, merge using the LTB_Zon field with the gepprocessing wizard, save as

zon_merge.shp.

b. Clip zone_merge.shp with the model_extent.shp using the geoprocessing wizard, save as

zoning.shp.

Add fields 'potential' and 'limit' to the attribute table of zoning.shp

d. Select by attributes those LTBB zoning classifications fitting the ranking system

With records selected, use the field calculator to populate the attribute table with appropriate

rankings

5. Proximity to Surface Water

Download Emmet County roads framework version 4 from the State of Michigan CGI and

extract to \\prime570\GIS_data\data\Shapefiles\Emmet\TIGER_95\

b. Download Charlevoix County roads framework version 4 from the State of Michigan CGI

and extract to \\prime570\GIS_data\data\Shapefiles\Charlevoix\TIGER_95\

reproject Emmet and Charlevoix lakes and rivers to spnad83

d. merge Emmet and Charlevoi rivers using the geoprocessing wizard

merge Emmet and Charlevoix lake using the geoprocessing wizard

merge rivers and lakes using the geopreocessing wizard

g. buffer surfacewater.shp ¾ mile in 660' zones.

h. clip resultant layer using the model_extent.shp

save as surfacewater.shp in C:\\extents

6. Current Land Use

use 98lu.shp

b. add fields 'potential' and 'limit'

clip 98lu.shp using model_extents.shp using geprocessing wizard

d. select by attributes using the CODE field according to the following:

Conservation = 19 - Open Land and Other, 4 - Forest Land, 6 - Wetlands

Open Space = 2 - Agricultural Land, 3 - Grass and Shrub Lands, 7 - Barren Lands

Single Farm Residential = 113 - Single Family, 1132 - Duplex

Multi-Family Residential = 112 - Multi-Family, 115 - Manufactured Home Park,

Industrial, Commercial, Institutional, Office Space = 12 - Commercial, Services, 13 - Industrial,

14 - Transportation, Communication, Utilities, 17 - Extractive

Ranking System for Model

Base Map

Population-block group

Per Capita Income

Educational Attainment

School District

Aquifer Vulnerability

Septic Suitability

Transport Infrastructure-FCC Network

Traffic Count

Zoning

Proximity to Surface Water

MIRIS 1998 Land Use-update 2004

Culturally Significant Areas (update)

Proximity to Developed Lands

Wetlands

Prime Farmland

Output Map

P,L

Scale (1-10) 1=best, 10=worst

Septic Suitability

Potential(P)

Category

Severe

Moderate

Slight

Variable

Population Block-Group- Not yet implemented

Educational Attainment

Potential(P)

Category

No H.S. Diploma

H.S. Graduate

Some College

Bachelors or higher

School District (Students per Teacher)

Limitations(L)

Potential(P)

Category

15.9-16.4

16.5-17.0

17.1-17.5

17.6-18.0

18.1-18.5

Transportation Infrastructure

Potential(P)

Category

Interstates

State Highways

Arterial Roads

County Roads

Local Roads

Seasonal Roads

Limitations(L)

Potential(P)

Category

0-2500

2501-5000

5001-7500

7501-10,000

>10,000

Limitations(L)

Potential(P)

Category

Conservation

Agriculture/Open Space

Low Density Residential

High Density Residential

Commercial/Industrial

Limitations(L)

Category

<.25

.26-.50

.51-.75

.76-1.00

1.01-1.25

1.26-1.50

Limitations(L)

Category

Limitations(L)

Traffic Count

Zoning

Proximity to Surface Water

Potential(P)

MIRIS Land Use

Potential(P)

Conservation

Open Space

Single Fam Residential

Multi-Fam Residential

Industrial/Com./Inst./Off.

** Conservation= Forest, Wetland, Public

Open Space= Agriculture, Grass/Shrub

Multi-Fam Residential includes Manufactured Housing

Proximity to Developed Land

Potential(P)

Category

<.25

.26-.50

.51-.75

.76-1.00

1.01-1.25

1.26-1.50

Culturally Significant Areas- Limitations score a 10 at all times

Wetlands- Limitations score a 10 at all times

Prime Farmland - Not yet implemented

Draft Model Results Presentation

M O D E L R E S U LT S

Development Limitations

As can be seen by the draft illustrations above and by the final maps later on in the Appendix,

the model validates fairly well against current development patterns. Although adjustments may need

to be made later on as experience with the model builds, the initial set of parameters and weighting

values seems to result in a mapped dataset that will reflect the Tribe’s concerns and values regarding

development protections.

In particular, we can see that development limitations are high in the area around Wilderness

State Park, Pleasantview Swamp, the area immediately south of Wycamp Lake, and the shore of Lake

Michigan in general. This reflects well various concerns regarding development in or near wetlands,

and the delicate nature of the dunes and slopes near the Great Lakes. In addition, development

limitations are lower in areas close to currently developed sections of the Reservation, such as the

City of Petoskey and the industrial areas nearer to the City of Harbor Springs. This tends to affirm

that the model is reflecting the economy of developing where infrastructure is already present and

similar types of development have already occurred.

Development Potential

Similarly, we can see that development potential also seems to mirror either common

perceptions of development suitability, or known patterns of land use in the LTBB Reservation area.

For instance, while the Lake Michigan shoreline ranks high in the area of Development Limitations

as discussed above, it also ranks highly for Development Potential. This is largely due to the scenic

nature of the area, the current existence of highly valued real estate along the shore, and the higher

educational attainment of the existing population there.

In addition, the area of highly likely development near the middle of the Reservation area

corresponds closely with the existing, and highly valuable, development of ski resorts and golf

courses in the general vicinity. Finally, development nearest the south end of the City of Petoskey

seems likely as well, most probably due to the availability of transportation, concentration of similar

land uses, and recent changes in zoning patterns.

In general, these validating scenarios can be said to do nothing more than reflect commonly held

perceptions of area residents, “common sense” if you will. But, because the model is repeatable,

flexible, and can be entirely directed and dictated by the goals and objectives of the LTBB, it is more

useful in a wider range of circumstances than mere “common sense”. Indeed, even if an opinion poll

were taken of the greater population in the Reservation area regarding areas most likely to be

developed and those most in need of environmental protection, the results would reflect the

priorities of that population, at that moment in time. This is to say nothing of the impracticality and

cost of repeating the experiment due to changes in development patterns and local concerns.

Bear in mind that these maps define areas of development suitability based upon land capability

and infrastructure capacity as described above. These maps are not a replacement for more detailed

planning or zoning. The development capabilities maps depict at a regional scale those areas

considered to be most and least suitable for development and are intended as a supplement and a

tool for site-specific planning and evaluation activities.

.. T R A V E R S E B A Y B A N D S O F O D A W A I N D I A N S

LITTLE

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

MASTER LAND USE

PLAN

CHAPTER FIVE

LTBB MEMBERSHIP INPUT AND NEEDS

ASSESSMENT

G OV E R N M E N T P RO G R A M DA TA – F I NA N C I A L S T R A T E G I C P L A N S

In 2001 and 2002, as the LTBB Tribal Government was completing a multi-year project of

department-level and overall Tribal Strategic Plan development, implementation steps for many of

those plans revolved around the relationships between program needs and the financial ability to

meet those needs. Therefore, as a final step in the initial Strategic Plan project, each program

developed Financial Strategic Plans, highlighting both staffing and capital improvement needs.

While the plans served their own purposes, these capital improvement need lists were then

utilized by the staff team assembling this document to create a core list of tribal needs related to land

acquisition and building construction. The raw data from these surveys was re-categorized and

related with individual surveys submitted by each department for the purposes of this plan. These

additional surveys dealt only with land acquisition, however.

The result of this effort became a “prompting list”, as described later in this chapter, that was

used at the initial public meetings to generate participant reaction and further input.

C I T I Z E N I N P U T F RO M P U B L I C M E E T I N G S

For several years the Planning Department of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians

has been involved in gathering Tribal Member input for planning and development activities. These

have included two public hearings early in the development of the Wah-Wahs-Noo-De-ke housing

site, and numerous visits to concentrations of tribal population around the state in preparation for

the LTBB Strategic Plan project.

In most, but not all of these instances, the Planning Department elected to utilize a form of

Nominal Group Technique or NGT to promote and manage group input. This method is a

structured process that identifies and ranks the major problems or issues that need addressing. For

this method to be a success, a minimum group size is advantageous, but this requirement has not

always been met.

In the context of the LTBB Master Land Use Plan, the public participation issues can be

narrowed to three open areas of concern. They are, in no specific order,

For what purposes should the tribe obtain land?;

Of all the functions the Government needs to perform for tribal members, where would land be

ranked?; and

Given a fixed annual amount of money for land acquisition, how much would you devote in

actual dollars?

It is from these basic questions that the public participation strategy was generated.

LTBB MASTER LAND USE PLAN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY OPTIONS

1) Traditional Survey. In this method, a survey instrument (paper survey) is delivered via mail

to each household, or perhaps to each tribal member. The surveys that are returned

constitute the information sample, and results are tabulated from that sample. Question

formulation, neutrality of verbiage, and sample size versus total population are just some of

the variables inherent in this method.

2) Public "Comment Box". This method is more suited to longer time-frames and specific

issues than those being dealt with here. Improvements in customer service or processrelated issues can benefit more from this technique. One benefit of this approach is that

ideas are more freely generated and submitted, using the relative privacy of the comment

box.

3) Focus Group. Focus groups are a powerful means to evaluate services or test new ideas.

Basically, focus groups are interviews, but of 6-10 people at the same time in the same

group. As with any method based on asking users what they want -- instead of measuring or

observing how they actually use services -- focus groups can produce inaccurate data because

users may think they want one thing when they need another.

5) Nominal Group Technique. Essentially a combination of the best features of the Comment

Box and Focus Group, this approach is a group technique, but only nominally so. People

are assembled into a group, but they both generate and submit ideas individually and in

private. Those ideas are anonymzed and evaluated in public, by groups that ascend in size

and specificity.

During the months of April and May of 2004, a team of LTBB staff visited 4 sites around

the State of Michigan to gather Tribal member input. Meetings were held in Grand Rapids, East

Lansing, Harris (Escanaba/Hannahville area), and Harbor Springs. The staff team consisted of:

Bryan Gillett, Planning Director

Alan Proctor, Geographic Information Systems Director

Doug Craven, Natural Resources Director

Rachel Schwarz, Environmental Services Director.

Al Colby Jr., Tribal Administrator

Purpose of Public Forum

The statewide meetings were seen as a method of obtaining Tribal member input for the

Master Land Use Plan; a method of educating participants on the process and purposes of the

Master Land Use Plan; and a method of informing membership about the contents of the Master

Land Use Plan all in one event, at a well known location near or in a population center for Tribal

members.

Process for gathering Membership input

The team spent an evening with the Tribal members that chose to attend, utilizing a

prepared presentation that highlighted selected data as later presented in this Plan. The

presentation explained the reasoning behind both a Master Land Use Plan and a Land

Acquisition Policy; and connected that with the method chosen to obtain public input. This

presentation made up the first half of the meeting.

During the second half of the meeting, participants, gathered at round tables in groups of 4

to 8 persons, were given an opportunity to react to and expand upon input obtained previously.

A “prompting list” was reviewed first, presented in categories. They were Recreation,

Commercial, Government Development, Industrial, Conservation/Management, Community

and Culturally Significant Sites, Housing, and Other Land Issues. This list, as explained above,

was a compilation of various areas of proposed capital improvement or facility construction.

Next was an extended opportunity for participant input on the list, through individual and

group idea generation. Members were encouraged to either speak up directly or raise their hand

to announce whatever ideas came to mind as the list was read. Utilizing group interaction,

facilitator prompting, and through the answering of any other questions attendees asked of staff,

a great deal of input was gathered that covered a wide variety of subject matter.

At the conclusion of this phase of the evening’s event, the newly complete list was reorganized, reprinted, and copied for each participant. Attendees were then given a lined yellow

sheet of paper and a pencil in preparation for the next phase.

Participants were then asked to prioritize the newly developed and displayed list by ranking

the top ten items on their sheet or taking notes and then, individually and without discussion,

marking the top ten items on the copy of the list provided to them. Key to this task was the

concept that the number one is ranked as the highest priority; ten is the lowest priority of the

ones they have chosen. All other items on the list achieve zero priority for that participant.

The Public Input Process as presented to Tribal Council

Four Community Meetings. These meetings, the specific content of which is

outlined in the material above, formed the foundation of the Public Input Process.

The public meetings would take place over a period of two months, and conclude

before the LTBB Annual Meeting takes place in May. Several staff would attend

each, and the emphasis would be on tribal members setting priorities for land

acquisition.

Draft Review Public Meetings. These meetings, to be sometime held after the LTBB

Annual Meeting, would allow members to review the draft document in a setting that

allows for maximum interaction between staff and membership. These meetings

would be held before the draft document was received by Tribal Council, and before

final publication.

S TA T E - W I D E P U B L I C M E E T I N G R E S U LT S

The resulting lists from each meeting were then combined and tabulated. The first step in the

tabulation process was to eliminate from the list items that, while suggested at a meeting, received no

votes at any meeting. The end product of this process was a list that contained only items that had

been voted on and ranked by participants.

Next, a calculation was done on each individual item to ascertain it’s relative strength of support

among the various attendees at all of the meetings. Therefore, the result of this calculation indicated

not only how many times an item was voted on, but what rank it received and how often it received

that rank. For example, if at the conclusion of all meetings a particular idea had received a “1” vote,

only once, it would be awarded a total score of 1. If it had received a score of “2”, perhaps twice, it

would be given a score of .5, twice (once each for every time it got that score), and its resulting total

score would also be 1.

A total of 425 total votes were cast at all meetings, on 120 individual items. Of these 120 items,

all but 16 received at least one vote during one meeting or more. A total of 71 items were given a

final score of 1.00 or higher, indicating that they were either scored a “1” at least once, or were

scored a lesser priority a cumulative number of times to equal 1.00 or more. The complete result of

this calculation process is presented in Appendix D.

Finally, and also presented in Appendix D, is a table and graph of the top ranking ideas. These

are somewhat arbitrarily ended at Number 20, in the interest of space saving. Graphically, however,

it is clear that the Victories 2 project commanded a great deal of interest and preference among the

meeting attendees. It received a weighted score over twice as high as the next item, at 16.744 points.

If any pattern can be gleaned from these results, it is that, in general, the areas of health care and

economic development in one form or another were responsible for the majority of interest. This is

not to say that other areas were not represented, just that these two areas received the largest share of

total weighted points.

What this means in terms of priority setting and preferences in land acquisition is not completely

clear, but rather will have to be ascertained over time. This will happen only as Tribal Council and

the new Executive branch of government seek to interpret these results and turn them into actions

that benefit the Tribal membership. Depending on resources available at any given time, this may or

may not result in land acquisition or property development. It may also result in re-alignment or

redevelopment of land currently owned or held in trust relative to the Tribe.

Appendices

A. Proposed Land Acquisition and Land Development Policies

B. Tables and Graphs

C. Maps

D. Survey Data

Appendix A.

Proposed Land Development and Land Acquisition Policies

General Land Development Policies

1. Decisions about land use and development on the LTBB Reservation will

be based on area resource characteristics implemented through sitespecific plans.

2. LTBB prefers development in areas supported by underutilized

infrastructure including land and buildings; transportation facilities; water,

sewer and drainage facilities; etc. (For example, redevelopment of an

existing site for an industrial use is preferred land use to conversion of

farmland for industrial use.)

3. New developments will in most cases be clustered near similar

developments in the most appropriate places on the Reservation and will

be consistent with local plans where possible.

4. New uses on trust land should be located to improve the appearance of

existing and expanded uses where practical.

5. Cluster new uses near similar ones or replace existing uses rather than

develop isolated, unrelated sites that promote sprawl and reduce open

space in the Reservation. New land uses should be located in areas that

are compatible with adjacent land uses. For instance, intense uses should

be located in existing areas of intense use, rather than in undeveloped

areas. This policy recognizes that some land uses, such as marinas, are

exceptions and will not normally be clustered.

6. Where practical, comply with federal, state, and local requirements to

avoid floodplain and wetland development.

7. Where practical, comply with federal, state, and local requirements to

protect endangered, threatened, and rare species (including state-listed

species) and their habitats.

8. Support the regional transportation planning process, including the

intermodal transportation goals identified in Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act, especially the use of mass transportation

and bicycle/pedestrian trail linkages.

9. Minimize the cumulative impacts on natural, cultural, and economic

resources that result from many individual land development projects

being implemented over time. Techniques will be developed to measure

cumulative impacts and respond to significant undesirable effects.

10. Rehabilitate and adaptively reuse historic structures where practical.

11. Work to increase and restore wildlife habitat and biological diversity in

development projects.

12. Establish an enabling environment for sustainable development to occur,

by creating a clear and coherent institutional, financial, and legislative

framework; with clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and authority for

land development and planning at all levels.

Land Acquisition Implementation Policies and Procedures

1. Put into place an overall administrative structure for the vetting,

cataloging, analysis, and review of proposed land purchases and

acquisitions.

2. Acquire land for the use of the Tribe that is in the best interests of the

Tribe, and that follows the guidelines and ideals for land development laid

out in this document.

3. Follow, and adapt if necessary, this procedure when considering the

purchase or acquisition of land for the Tribe.

i. Interested party, either buyer, staff that proposes (i.e. Tribal

Department) or seller submits standard package of information to

Tribal Administration; Code number established.

ii. Property package is catalogued and released to staff for

administrative vetting; this results in the…

iii. Preliminary Report from Planning/Environmental Services/GIS

Departments.

iv. Report is reviewed administratively, and parcel is authorized for

Model Analysis and Recommendation.

v. The Land Development Model Analysis and Recommendation

Report is forwarded to Tribal Council for review.

vi. Tribal Council utilizes a Development Matrix consisting of:

Development Model Report (Potential/Limitations)

Citizen Input from LTBB Master Land Use Plan

Budget Distribution or Funding Availability

Past Land Acquisition Practices and Land Base Restoration

Plan Inventory

vii. If the parcel is found to fit into the goals and objectives of the

Matrix, an offer is authorized.

viii. If the offer is accepted, the Legal Due Diligence process is

initiated, consisting of:

Detailed survey of the parcel

Site visit by appropriate and authorized personnel

Phase One environmental report

Building inspection if required.

ix. If the Due Diligence process is successfully completed, the parcel

is scheduled for closing.

Appendix B.

Tables and Graphs

LTBB Reservation - Age Distribution by MCD

MCD

Emmet County

Bear Creek Twp

Bliss Twp

Center Twp

Cross Village Twp

Friendship Twp

Harbor Springs City

Little Traverse Twp

Petoskey City

Pleasantview Twp

Readmond Twp

Resort Twp

West Traverse Twp

Charlevoix County

Bay Twp

Charlevoix City

Charlevoix Twp

Hayes Twp

Total under 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 to 79 80 to 84 85 +

5121

598

534

274

823

1619

2415

6247

857

506

2472

1479

370

146

350

140

408

213

353

176

427

112

145

392

235

117

322

143

566

217

123

270

348

320

362

112

283

174

349

124

333

118

204

502

195

453

204

543

267

109

436

146

193

518

244

175

451

119

197

300

155

141

215

153

264

191

105

127

210

159

130

162

127

195

158

109

268

115

249

111

199

279

1060

2986

1688

1883

203

122

172

125

130

158

129

158

174

123

207

151

199

112

260

130

161

133

141

147

163

103

208

114

158

220

142

169

175

150

147

101

142

113

139

15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 74 75 to 84

85 +

Source: 2000 US Census

LTBB Reservation - Age Distribution by MCD

MCD

Emmet County

Bear Creek Twp

Bliss Twp

Center Twp

Cross Village Twp

Friendship Twp

Harbor Springs City

Little Traverse Twp

Petoskey City

Pleasantview Twp

Readmond Twp

Resort Twp

West Traverse Twp

Charlevoix County

Bay Twp

Charlevoix City

Charlevoix Twp

Hayes Twp

Total

under 5

5 to 14

5121

598

534

274

823

1619

2415

6247

857

506

2472

1479

370

146

350

140

835

105

103

124

210

358

745

108

411

200

322

143

566

217

123

270

348

1389

196

136

238

374

676

1756

351

154

698

299

887

151

265

390

818

105

399

316

726

109

154

377

516

937

114

424

373

226

135

448

279

1060

2986

1688

1883

203

122

150

330

254

288

174

123

207

263

751

432

521

162

428

256

327

277

577

302

407

226

Source: 2000 US Census

Table 1

LTBB Reservation - Population Density / Distribution Tabulation by MCD

Area in square miles

Geographic area

Population Housing units Total area Water area Land area

Geographic area

Charlevoix County

Bay Twp

1,068

787

18.85

3.32

15.53

Charlevoix City

2,994

2,096

2.15

0.1

2.04

Charlevoix Twp

1,697

942

12.12

6.13

5.99

Hayes Twp

1,893

1,030

43.24

13.14

30.1

Emmet County

Bear Creek Twp

5,269

2,969

45.77

6.17

39.6

Bliss Twp

572

325

46.24

2.31

43.94

Center Twp

499

301

35.29

0.93

34.36

Cross Village Twp

294

280

10.23

0.21

10.02

Friendship Twp

844

457

31.4

0.01

31.39

Harbor Springs City

1,567

1,086

1.3

Little Traverse Twp

2,426

1,555

20.38

2.37

18.02

Petoskey City

6,080

3,342

5.23

0.21

5.02

Pleasantview Twp

943

754

35.7

0.01

35.68

Readmond Twp

493

411

30.99

Resort Twp

2,479

1,215

21.54

2.43

19.11

West Traverse Twp

1,448

1,093

13.36

0.03

13.34

Source: 2000 US Census

Density per square

mile of land area

Population

Housing

units

68.8

50.7

1,465.80 1,026.20

283.3

157.3

62.9

34.2

133

14.5

29.3

26.9

1,208.90

134.7

1,210.90

26.4

15.9

129.7

108.6

7.4

8.8

27.9

14.6

837.8

86.3

665.6

21.1

13.3

63.6

Table 2

LTBB Reservation - Population Density

1600

1400

1000

800

600

400

200

ity

rle

lla

ttl

ity

rle

Population per Square Mile

1200

Graph 1

LTBB Reservation - Education Attainment for All Persons 18 Years of Age +

Area Name

18+ Population

No HS Diploma

Graduated HS

Some College,

Including Associates

Degree

Bachelors Degree

and Higher

Charlevoix County

Bay Twp

793

238

241

229

Charlevoix City

2338

278

847

734

479

Charlevoix Twp

1233

141

343

366

383

Hayes Twp

1451

128

493

536

294

5815

632

1921

1877

1385

Bear Creek Twp

3677

383

1072

1128

1094

Bliss Twp

432

193

116

Center Twp

367

138

106

Cross Village Twp

232

Friendship Twp

614

220

167

178

Harbor Springs City

1292

160

305

407

420

Little Traverse Twp

1823

175

467

705

476

Petoskey City

4838

644

1221

1628

1345

County Total

Emmet County

Pleasantview Twp

672

282

184

134

Readmond Twp

382

115

112

123

Resort Twp

1784

180

533

616

455

West Traverse Twp

1124

200

381

471

17237

1934

4809

5615

4879

County Total

Source: State of Michigan

Table 3

LTBB Reservation - Education Attainment as Percent of

Population Age 18+

No HS Diploma

11%

Bachelors Degree and

Higher

24%

Graduated HS

33%

Some College, Including

Associates Degree

32%

Graph 2

LTBB Reservation - Household and Family Size Tabulation by MCD

Households

Emmet County

Bear Creek Twp

Bliss Twp

Center Twp

Cross Village Twp

Friendship Twp

Harbor Springs City

Little Traverse Twp

Petoskey City

Pleasantview Twp

Readmond Twp

Resort Twp

West Traverse Twp

Charlevoix County

Bay Twp

Charlevoix City

Charlevoix Twp

Hayes Twp

Source: 2000 US Census

Population in

Households

Population in

Families

Average Family

Size

2,001

234

192

132

333

683

978

2,700

313

198

894

629

5,141

571

489

290

842

1,461

2,416

5,772

809

493

2,479

1,446

1,417

167

137

240

384

707

1,448

224

149

722

448

4,346

490

418

232

718

1,106

2,046

4,179

682

425

2,232

1,239

3.07

2.93

3.05

2.67

2.99

2.88

2.89

3.04

2.85

3.09

2.77

429

1,375

662

767

1,068

2,940

1,652

1,893

327

812

462

578

935

2,239

1,375

1,627

2.86

2.76

2.98

2.81

Table 4

LTBB Reservation - Average Persons per Family by MCD

3.10

3.00

2.90

2.80

2.70

2.60

2.50

arl

oix

Ci t

arl

oix

Fr i

hip

rbo

pri

Lit

ity

tle

Tra

rse

tos

Ple

ity

tvi

rt T

Tra

rse

Vil

lag

nte

Bli

ree

2.40

Graph 3

LTBB Reservation - Household and Family Size Tabulation by MCD

Households

Emmet County

Bear Creek Twp

Bliss Twp

Center Twp

Cross Village Twp

Friendship Twp

Harbor Springs City

Little Traverse Twp

Petoskey City

Pleasantview Twp

Readmond Twp

Resort Twp

West Traverse Twp

Charlevoix County

Bay Twp

Charlevoix City

Charlevoix Twp

Hayes Twp

Source: 2000 US Census

Population in

Households

Population in

Families

Average Family

Size

2,001

234

192

132

333

683

978

2,700

313

198

894

629

5,141

571

489

290

842

1,461

2,416

5,772

809

493

2,479

1,446

1,417

167

137

240

384

707

1,448

224

149

722

448

4,346

490

418

232

718

1,106

2,046

4,179

682

425

2,232

1,239

3.07

2.93

3.05

2.67

2.99

2.88

2.89

3.04

2.85

3.09

2.77

429

1,375

662

767

1,068

2,940

1,652

1,893

327

812

462

578

935

2,239

1,375

1,627

2.86

2.76

2.98

2.81

Table 5

LTBB Reservation - School District Tabulations by District

District

Charlevoix Public Schools

Public Schools of Petoskey

Harbor Springs School District

Pellston Public Schools

Littlefield Public Schools

Boyne City Public Schools

Area Total

# Students

1406

3029

1099

763

456

1308

8061

Area (square

miles)

174

104

245

758

Students /

Square Mile

14.6

17.4

10.6

3.1

11.1

13.3

10.6

# Schools

Students /

School

351.5

432.7

274.8

254.3

456.0

218.0

322.4

Area (square

miles) / School

24.0

24.9

26.0

81.7

41.0

16.3

30.3

Source: www.greatschools.net

Table 6

School District Area (Sq. mi.)

Students per District

250

245

3500

3029

3000

200

174

2500

150

2000

104

1500

100

1406

1308

1099

1000

763

456

500

Charlevoix Public

Schools

Public Schools of

Petoskey

Graph 4

Harbor Springs

School District

Pellston Public

Schools

Littlefield Public

Schools

Boyne City Public

Schools

Charlevoix Public

Schools

Public Schools of

Petoskey

Graph 5

Harbor Springs

School District

Pellston Public

Schools

Littlefield Public

Schools

Boyne City Public

Schools

Charlevoix Public Schools

Public Schools Of Petoskey

Harbor Springs School District

Grades

KG-12

Grades

KG-12

Grades

PK-12

Number of students

1406

Number of students

3029

Number of students

1099

Number of schools

Total Number

Students per

Staff Member

Total Number

Students per

Staff Member

Total Number

Students per

Staff Member

Teachers

16.2

Teachers

164

18.5

Teachers

65.2

16.9

Instructional Aides

10.5

133.9

98.4

Instructional Aides

30.5

99.3

98.4

Instructional Aides

12.3

89.3

98.4

Guidance Counselors

351.5

601.3

Guidance Counselors

605.8

601.3

Guidance Counselors

2.8

392.5

601.3

Librarians/Media Specialists

468.7

1347.2

Librarians/Media Specialists

1009.7

1347.2

Librarians/Media Specialists

549.5

1347.2

District-level Administrators

School-level Administrators

703

351.5

1404

337.1

District-level Administrators

School-level Administrators

1514.5

252.4

1404

337.1

District-level Administrators

School-level Administrators

549.5

274.8

1404

337.1

State Average

Pellston Public Schools

Grades

Littlefield Public Schools

KG-12

Number of students

763

Number of schools

State Average

Grades

456

Number of schools

Total Number

Students per

Staff Member

State Average

Teachers

15.9

Instructional Aides

8.2

Guidance Counselors

Librarians/Media Specialists

District-level Administrators

School-level Administrators

Boyne City Public Schools

KG-12

Number of students

State Average

Total Number

Students per

Staff Member

State Average

Teachers

27.8

16.4

98.4

Instructional Aides

6.5

70.2

381.5

601.3

Guidance Counselors

0.2

0.9

847.8

1347.2

Librarians/Media Specialists

763

381.5

1404

337.1

District-level Administrators

School-level Administrators

Grades

KG-12

Number of students

1308

Number of schools

Total Number

Students per

Staff Member

State Average

Teachers

73.2

17.9

98.4

Instructional Aides

33.5

98.4

2280

601.3

Guidance Counselors

1308

601.3

456

1347.2

Librarians/Media Specialists

1308

1347.2

456

228

1404

337.1

District-level Administrators

School-level Administrators

4.8

654

272.5

1404

337.1

Source: www.greatschools.com

Table 6 a

LTBB Reservation - Population Density / Distribution Tabulation by MCD

Area in square miles

Geographic area

Charlevoix County

Bay Twp

Charlevoix City

Charlevoix Twp

Hayes Twp

Emmet County

Bear Creek Twp

Bliss Twp

Center Twp

Cross Village Twp

Friendship Twp

Harbor Springs City

Little Traverse Twp

Petoskey City

Pleasantview Twp

Readmond Twp

Resort Twp

West Traverse Twp

Source: 2000 US Census

Population

Housing units

Total area

Water area

1,068

2,994

1,697

1,893

787

2,096

942

1,030

18.85

2.15

12.12

43.24

3.32

0.1

6.13

13.14

5,269

572

499

294

844

1,567

2,426

6,080

943

493

2,479

1,448

2,969

325

301

280

457

1,086

1,555

3,342

754

411

1,215

1,093

45.77

46.24

35.29

10.23

31.4

1.3

20.38

5.23

35.7

30.99

21.54

13.36

6.17

2.31

0.93

0.21

0.01

2.37

0.21

0.01

2.43

0.03

Land area

Geographic

area County

Charlevoix

Bay Twp

15.53

Charlevoix City

2.04

Charlevoix Twp

5.99

Hayes Twp

30.1

Emmet County

Bear Creek Twp

39.6

Bliss Twp

43.94

Center Twp

34.36

Cross Village Twp

10.02

Friendship Twp

31.3

9 1.3

Harbor Springs City

Little Traverse Twp

18.02

Petoskey City

5.02

Pleasantview Twp

35.68

Readmond Twp

30.99

Resort Twp

19.11

West Traverse Twp

13.34

Density per square

mile of land area

Housing

Population

units

68.8

1,465.80

283.3

62.9

50.7

1,026.20

157.3

34.2

133

14.5

29.3

26.9

1,208.90

134.7

1,210.90

26.4

15.9

129.7

108.6

27.9

14.6

837.8

86.3

665.6

21.1

13.3

63.6

Table 7

LTBB Reservation - Population Density

1600

1400

1000

800

600

400

200

r le

ity

r le

lla

ttl

ity

Population per Square Mile

1200

Graph 6

LTBB Reservation - Race of Population by MCD

MCD

Emmet County

Bear Creek Twp

Bliss Twp

Center Twp

Cross Village Twp

Friendship Twp

Harbor Springs City

Little Traverse Twp

Petoskey City

Pleasantview Twp

Readmond Twp

Resort Twp

West Traverse Twp

Charlevoix County

Bay Twp

Charlevoix City

Charlevoix Twp

Hayes Twp

Source: 2000 US Census

White alone

Black or African

American alone

American Indian and

Alaska Native alone

Asian alone

Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander alone

Some other

race alone

Two or more

races

4,945

542

504

225

782

1,462

2,347

5,908

749

483

2,390

1,438

121

252

1,048

2,831

1,608

1,819

Table 8

LTBB Reservation - Population Projection

Place

Charlevoix County

.Bay Twp

.Charlevoix City

.Charlevoix Twp

.Hayes Twp

Emmet County

.Bear Creek Twp

.Bliss Twp

.Center Twp

.Cross Village Twp

.Friendship Twp

.Harbor Springs City

.Little Traverse Twp

.Petoskey City

.Pleasantview Twp

.Readmond Twp

.Resort Twp

.West Traverse Twp

Census 2000

26,090

1,068

2,994

1,697

1,893

31,437

5,269

572

499

294

844

1,567

2,426

6,080

943

493

2,479

1,448

2010 Projection

28,960

1,185

3,323

1,884

2,101

34,895

5,849

635

554

326

937

1,739

2,693

6,749

1,047

547

2,752

1,607

2020 Projection

32,145

1,316

3,689

2,091

2,332

38,734

6,492

705

615

362

1,040

1,931

2,989

7,491

1,162

607

3,054

1,784

2030 Projection

35,681

1,461

4,095

2,321

2,589

42,994

7,206

782

682

402

1,154

2,143

3,318

8,315

1,290

674

3,390

1,980

State of Michigan projection methodology applied to data sourced from the 2000 US Census (pop + 11% for each of

the 10-year increments and calculated at ~1.1% annually.)

Table 9

Population Projection - LTBB

8,500

8,000

7,500

7,000

6,500

6,000

5,500

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

Census 2000

2010 Projection

2020 Projection

2030 Projection

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

ity

Tw x C

Tw r Tw

Tw s C

en Villa

lev

.H ar C

ien or S

ittl

Graph 7

LTBB Reservation - MCD Based Projection

Place

Cross Village Twp

Population

1970

Population

1980

Population

1990

Population

2000

2010

Projection

2020

2030

Projection Projection

185

215

201

294

349

414

492

Readmond Twp

234

356

374

493

639

829

1,075

Center Twp

349

435

517

499

566

641

727

Bliss Twp

282

441

483

572

733

939

1,203

Friendship Twp

240

467

591

844

1,305

2,020

3,124

Pleasantview Twp

124

212

375

943

1,884

3,765

7,524

Bay Twp

456

599

825

1,068

1,419

1,886

2,506

6,086

West Traverse Twp

420

997

968

1,448

2,337

3,771

Harbor Springs City

1,662

1,567

1,540

1,567

1,538

1,509

1,481

Charlevoix Twp

720

993

1,016

1,697

2,303

3,127

4,245

Hayes Twp

706

1,274

1,317

1,893

2,698

3,846

5,483

Little Traverse Twp

985

1,574

1,805

2,426

3,307

4,507

6,144

Resort Twp

1,009

1,687

2,068

2,479

3,385

4,624

6,315

Charlevoix City

3,519

3,296

3,116

2,994

2,837

2,689

2,548

Bear Creek Twp

2,450

3,287

3,469

5,269

6,878

8,978

11,720

Petoskey City

6,342

6,097

6,056

6,080

5,995

5,911

5,828

Charlevoix County

16,541

19,907

21,468

26,090

30,404

35,430

41,288

Emmet County

18,331

22,992

25,040

31,437

37,703

45,219

54,233

Source: 2000 US Census (population)

Table 10

LTBB Reservation - Minor Civil Divisions Population History and Projections

70000

Petoskey City

60000

Bear Creek Twp

Charlevoix City

50000

Resort Twp

Population

Little Traverse Twp

Hayes Twp

40000

Charlevoix Twp

Harbor Springs City

30000

West Traverse Twp

Bay Twp

Pleasantview Twp

20000

Friendship Twp

Bliss Twp

10000

Center Twp

Readmond Twp

Population 1970

Cross Village Twp

Population 1980

Population 1990

Population 2000

2010 Projection

2020 Projection

2030 Projection

Projection Timeframe

Graph 8

1855 Treaty LTBB Reservation Lands - Population Projection

Population Population Population Population Pop. Change Pop. Change Pop. Change Pop. % Change Pop. % Change Pop. % Change Averaged % Change

2010

2020

1970

1980

1990

2000

1970-1980

1980-1990

1990-2000

1970-1980

1980-1990

1990-2000

1970-2000

Projection Projection

Charlevoix County

2030

Projection

16,541

19,907

21,468

26,090

3,366

1,561

4,622

20.3%

7.8%

21.5%

16.5%

30,404

35,430

41,288

456

599

825

1,068

143

226

243

31.4%

37.7%

29.5%

32.9%

1,419

1,886

2,506

Charlevoix City

3,519

3,296

3,116

2,994

-223

-180

-122

-6.3%

-5.5%

-3.9%

-5.2%

2,837

2,689

2,548

Charlevoix Twp

720

993

1,016

1,697

273

681

37.9%

2.3%

67.0%

35.7%

2,303

3,127

4,245

Bay Twp

Hayes Twp

706

1,274

1,317

1,893

568

576

80.5%

3.4%

43.7%

42.5%

2,698

3,846

5,483

Emmet County

18,331

22,992

25,040

31,437

4,661

2,048

6,397

25.4%

8.9%

25.5%

19.9%

37,703

45,219

54,233

2,450

3,287

3,469

5,269

837

182

1,800

34.2%

5.5%

51.9%

30.5%

6,878

8,978

11,720

Bliss Twp

Bear Creek Twp

282

441

483

572

159

56.4%

9.5%

18.4%

28.1%

733

939

1,203

Center Twp

349

435

517

499

-18

24.6%

18.9%

-3.5%

13.3%

566

641

727

Cross Village Twp

185

215

201

294

-14

16.2%

-6.5%

46.3%

18.7%

349

414

492

Friendship Twp

240

467

591

844

227

124

253

94.6%

26.6%

42.8%

54.7%

1,305

2,020

3,124

Harbor Springs City

1,662

1,567

1,540

1,567

-95

-27

-5.7%

-1.7%

1.8%

-1.9%

1,538

1,509

1,481

Little Traverse Twp

985

1,574

1,805

2,426

589

231

621

59.8%

14.7%

34.4%

36.3%

3,307

4,507

6,144

6,342

6,097

6,056

6,080

-245

-41

-3.9%

-0.7%

0.4%

-1.4%

5,995

5,911

5,828

124

212

375

943

163

568

71.0%

76.9%

151.5%

99.8%

1,884

3,765

7,524

Petoskey City

Pleasantview Twp

Readmond Twp

Resort Twp

West Traverse Twp

234

356

374

493

122

119

52.1%

5.1%

31.8%

29.7%

639

829

1,075

1,009

1,687

2,068

2,479

678

381

411

67.2%

22.6%

19.9%

36.6%

3,385

4,624

6,315

420

997

968

1,448

577

-29

480

137.4%

-2.9%

49.6%

61.4%

2,337

3,771

6,086

Source: 2000 US Census

Table 11

ttl

lla

ity

i ty

ity

rle

1855 Treaty LTBB Reservation Lands - Dwelling Unit % Change 1990-2000

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00

Graph 9

LTBB Reservation - Dwelling Unit Growth / Change Tabulation

2000 - Units in Structure

1, detached

1, attached

3 or 4

5 to 9

10 to 19

20 to 49

50 or more

Mobile home

Boat, RV, van, etc.

Total Units - 2000

Charlevoix Charlevoix

Bay Twp

City

Twp

727

1,283

653

113

106

150

141

196

207

786

2103

945

Hayes Bear Creek

Twp

827

2,120

181

165

183

230

1026

3004

Bliss

Twp

283

350

Center Cross Village Friendship

Harbor

Little Traverse Petoskey Pleasantview Readmond

Twp

Springs City

Twp

City

Twp

263

282

398

784

1,115

1,811

437

347

281

253

148

233

127

276

123

275

122

101

297

309

458

1092

1575

3352

729

384

Resort West Traverse

Twp

1,048

984

110

1209

1102

1990 - Units in Structure

1, detached

1, attached

3 or 4

5 to 9

10 to 19

20 to 49

50 or more

Mobile home or trailer

Other

Total Units - 1990

Bay Twp

586

668

Charlevoix Charlevoix

City

Twp

1215

431

109

138

136

1917

526

Hayes Bear Creek

Twp

559

1659

121

260

702

2101

Bliss

Twp

230

298

Center Cross Village Friendship

Harbor

Little Traverse Petoskey Pleasantview Readmond

Twp

Springs City

Twp

City

Twp

188

189

266

725

863

1659

271

287

166

245

113

169

255

329

130

319

221

208

327

941

1289

2804

502

Resort West Traverse

Twp

792

690

138

986

828

1990 to 2000 Percent Change Units in Structure

1, detached

1, attached

3 or 4

5 to 9

10 to 19

20 to 49

50 or more

Mobile home or trailer

Other

Total Change 1990-2000

Source: 2000 US Census

Bay Twp

24.1%

-68.4%

25.0%

50.0%

400.0%

N/V

-42.6%

-57.1%

17.7%

Charlevoix Charlevoix Hayes Bear Creek Bliss

Center Cross Village Friendship

Harbor

Little Traverse Petoskey Pleasantview Readmond Resort West Traverse

City

Twp

Springs City

Twp

City

Twp

5.6%

51.5%

47.9%

27.8% 23.0%

39.9%

49.2%

49.6%

8.1%

29.2%

9.2%

61.3%

20.9%

32.3%

42.6%

-58.3%

325.0% 600.0%

-7.7% -33.3%

-33.3%

N/V

143.8%

-59.7%

726.5%

-48.2%

500.0%

N/V

-8.3%

76.6%

23.8%

0.0%

242.9%

N/V -100.0%

N/V

50.0%

0.0%

100.0%

3.3%

500.0%

50.0%

23.5%

-71.4%

29.3%

13.3% -100.0%

852.6%

N/V

-100.0%

N/V

-17.2%

31.0%

37.9%

-19.4%

N/V

92.0%

37.6%

-16.7% -100.0%

725.0%

N/V

173.3%

119.0%

8.2%

6050.0%

N/V

-64.0%

N/V

-44.9%

N/V

-33.9%

N/V

1060.0%

N/V

-16.4%

-100.0%

N/V

464.0%

N/V

577.8%

N/V

44.1%

N/V

40.3%

N/V

-33.3%

340.4%

51.2%

-11.5% 14.8%

18.5%

125.0%

-13.2%

70.0%

-24.6% -100.0%

133.3%

-4.3%

-20.3%

-10.5%

-92.0%

-100.0% -100.0%

-100.0% -72.7%

N/V

-100.0%

-50.0%

-100.0%

-100.0% -100.0%

N/V

-100.0% -100.0%

-100.0%

9.7%

79.7%

46.2%

43.0% 17.4%

34.4%

48.6%

40.1%

16.0%

22.2%

19.5%

45.2%

20.4%

22.6%

33.1%

Table 12

LTBB Reservation - Housing Characteristics Tabulation

Units in Each Structure

Emmet County

Bear Creek Twp

Bliss Twp

Center Twp

Cross Village Twp

Friendship Twp

Harbor Springs City

Little Traverse Twp

Petoskey City

Pleasantview Twp

Readmond Twp

Resort Twp

West Traverse Twp

Charlevoix County

Bay Twp

Charlevoix City

Charlevoix Twp

Hayes Twp

Source: 2000 US Census

3 or 4

5 to 9

10 to 19 20 to 49 50 or more

Mobile

home

Boat, RV,

van, etc.

Total:

1, detached

1, attached

3,004

350

297

309

458

1,092

1,575

3,352

729

384

1,209

1,102

2,120

283

263

282

398

784

1,115

1,811

437

347

1,048

984

281

253

181

148

233

165

127

276

123

275

122

101

230

110

786

2,103

945

1,026

727

1,283

653

827

113

106

150

141

196

207

183

Table 13

LTBB Reservation - Population-v-Housing Units

6,500

6,000

5,500

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

Population

Housing Units

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

rle

it y

rle

lla

ttl

ity

Graph 10

Figure 9

Annual Payroll by Sector - Emmet County

Description

Manufacturing

Wholesale Trade

Retail Trade

Real Estate

Professional

Administrative/Support

Educational Services

Health Care

Arts/Entertainment

Hospitality

Other Services

Annual payroll (1000's)

39,065

6,699

41,907

2,011

9,662

6,681

N/A

52,001

2,759

24,732

3,328

Source: 1997 US Economic Census

Table 14

Annual Payroll by Sector - Emmet County

60,000

Annual Payroll (1000's)

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

o rt

lity

ing

sta

ita

tur

rvi

sio

rvi

T ra

ofe

ter

tiv

the

ole

tio

tr a

Graph 11

Figure 2

LTBB Reservation - Household Income and Poverty Tabulation

Median Household

Size

Emmet County

Bear Creek Twp

Bliss Twp

Center Twp

Cross Village Twp

Friendship Twp

Harbor Springs City

Little Traverse Twp

Petoskey City

Pleasantview Twp

Readmond Twp

Resort Twp

West Traverse Twp

Charlevoix County

Bay Twp

Charlevoix City

Charlevoix Twp

Hayes Twp

Source: 2000 US Census

Median Household

Income 1999

Per Capita

Income 1999

Poverty Rate

288

111

275

135

44,129

36,339

38,333

46,364

46,000

35,341

41,228

33,657

42,333

40,114

52,772

64,167

22,534

17,094

16,201

32,535

22,324

21,876

20,830

20,259

20,332

20,270

25,080

31,136

4.94

0.64

0.72

1.05

0.95

2.00

2.88

13.75

0.62

1.61

1.28

118

100

107

48,462

35,284

45,758

50,478

25,594

21,319

22,835

25,512

1.01

5.43

1.48

2.26

Table 15

LTBB Reservation - Poverty Rate (Census 2000)

14.00

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00

vie

lla

rle

ttl

Graph 12

LTBB Reservation - Per Capita Income Tabulations (1989-1999)

PCI - 1989

Emmet County

Bear Creek Twp

Bliss Twp

Center Twp

Cross Village Twp

Friendship Twp

Harbor Springs City

Little Traverse Twp

Petoskey City

Pleasantview Twp

Readmond Twp

Resort Twp

West Traverse Twp

Charlevoix County

Bay Twp

Charlevoix City

Charlevoix Twp

Hayes Twp

Source: 2000 US Census

PCI - 1999

Percent change (19891999)

$14,233.00

$9,046.00

$7,632.00

$9,952.00

$10,201.00

$11,558.00

$13,851.00

$14,626.00

$11,528.00

$14,589.00

$13,130.00

$17,589.00

$22,534.00

$17,094.00

$16,201.00

$32,535.00

$22,324.00

$21,876.00

$20,830.00

$20,259.00

$20,332.00

$20,270.00

$25,080.00

$31,136.00

63.2%

40.1%

33.9%

44.2%

45.3%

51.3%

61.5%

64.9%

51.2%

64.7%

58.3%

78.1%

$12,332.00

$14,720.00

$17,082.00

$12,889.00

$25,594.00

$21,319.00

$22,835.00

$25,512.00

54.7%

65.3%

75.8%

57.2%

Table 16

LTBB Reservation - PCI % Change (1989-1999)

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

ity

rle

ity

rle

ttl

Graph 13

lla

0.0%

LTBB Reservation - Land Use % Change (1978-1998)

100.00

80.00

74.35

72.56

60.00

44.81

48.08

49.02

40.00

Percent Change

28.35

20.00

12.22

4.47

1.47

0.00

-14.01

-20.00

-40.00

-40.37

-60.00

-80.00

-92.53

-100.00

ial

rcu

the

tur

ate

nti

lan

tur

ard

str

tio

ion

etl

res

ted

/ In

ore

ing

litie

erb

Graph 14

Septic Suitability

1,925 acres

Varied Limitations

12,288 acres

Not Rated

83,131 acres

Slight Limitations

109,539 acres

Severe Limitations

19,298 acres

Moderate

Limitations

Graph 16

Hydric Soils

9,048 acres

Hydric

7,132 acres

Water

184,597 acres

Non-Hydric

25,403 acres

Not Rated

Graph 15

Drainage Potential

14,727 acres

Not Rated

19,401 acres

Very Poor

8,308 acres

Poor

9,120 acres

Somewhat Poor

138,371 acres

Well

22,034 acres

Somewhat Excessive

12,918 acres

Excessive

1,302 acres

Moderately Well

Graph 17

Erosion Potential

17,083 acres

(Not Rated)

55,787 acres

(0.24-0.43)

16,851 acres

(0.00-0.09)

14,566 acres

(0.10-0.14)

18,119 acres

(0.15-0.16)

Graph 18

103,775 acres

(0.17-0.23)

Infiltration Rate

14,727 acres

-Not Rated988 acres

-D1,362 acres

-C/D-

128,842 acres

-A-

1,016 acres

-C2,973 acres

-B/D53,392 acres

-B-

22,880 acres

-A/D-

Graph 19

Key to Infiltration Rate graph:

- High Infiltration Rate

A/D - Group A and D Characteristics (drained or undrained)

- Moderate Infiltration Rate

B/D - Group B and D Characteristics

- Slow Infiltration rate

C/D - Group C and D characteristics

- Very Slow Infiltration Rate

NR - Not Rated

100

101

102

Appendix D

Survey Data and Public Input Results

103

Computed Public Input Results 1

16.744Victories 2

7.301Purchase resort properties / condos - time shares / economic revenue

6.778Prescription Drug Benefit with wholesale drug house

6.728Extend the 27 county service area

5.583Satellite Health Park off Reservation (Lansing)

5.125Mackinaw Casino

4.847Bank/Credit Union

4.825Mobile Health Clinic

4.647Health Center/Clinic

4.111Centrally located inter-tribal information center

4.050Tribal construction company

3.663Elders meeting place

3.408Health Outreach Satellite Clinic

3.333Telecommunications company/complex

3.333Community Center

3.200Tribal Cemetery in SW Michigan

3.194Elderly Assisted Living Facility

3.167Allocate spending to create more revenue

2.800Wind energy complex

2.667Statewide chain gas station

2.443Athletic assistance programs - youth

2.403Satellite education park for cultural preservation

2.393Assisted living for elderly / reimbursement program

2.392Purchase additional recreational access property in Cross Village

2.350Community food warehouse

2.286Purchase property for habitat protection of culturally significant species (sweet grass, birch trees,

black ash, eagles, etc.)

2.250Treatment Center

2.250Elderly living assisted facility in Grand Rapids

2.211Statewide transportation assistance

2.200Satellite Dental/Vision/Health Office in U.P.

2.100Access to SW Michigan lakes and hunting opportunities

2.100Single housing units for Tribal members in 1855

2.000C-store Fish Market

2.000Intensive Outpatient Treatment

2.000Mental Health Services Center

2.000Halfway House

1.825Cultural gathering areas in SW Michigan

1.744Cell Tower

1.621Purchase Le Grande Buffalo Ranch, 3,000 acres in Cheboygan County

105

1.510Education Center

1.500Safe house

1.454Substance abuse treatment center

1.452Cultural gathering areas (black ash, sweet grass, birch bark, medicines, etc)

1.403Tribal School( Alternate Ed. Or Middle School)

1.379Archives and Record Museum

1.333Local fitness centers

1.333Tribal campground- 400 acres or more

1.333C-store Car wash/Quick Lube

1.292Early Childhood Development/Headstart Center

1.250Health Department Building

1.250Land conservation

1.225Purchase golf course opportunities - golf packages

1.167Outreach Gov. Offices in U.P

1.125Banquet halls

1.125Purchase property around Wycamp area to be managed for blueberry harvest.

1.111Added area to store membership records, additional staff space, microfiche

1.111Transitional Housing

1.086Administration Building Expansion

1.058Purchase and preserve wetlands.

1.010Purchase land throughout the Ceded Territory to provide access to more Tribal members.

1.000Recreational beach

1.000Bowling Alley

1.000Tribal Court Facilities, offices and parking

1.000Human services center

1.000Property for Hatchery- 40 acres

1.000Natural Resources Fish Hatchery

1.000Substance Abuse Building

1.000Purchase land on Lakes and Streams within the reservation (to ensure access).

1.000Community Gardens

1.000Purchase property for tribal sugar bushes (maple syrup)

1.000Reverse Mortages - Lifetime Lease

0.933Purchase lands for the protection of aquifers

0.910Tribal Cemetery

0.869Mortgage assistance for home purchase, statewide

0.750Purchase land for natural resource related use for each of the Tribe’s Bands with the Bands

geographic area.

0.722Purchase land on Lakes and streams within the Reservation-250 acres

0.711RV Park

0.711Expand tax agreement area to consider U.P

0.700Purchase lands for agriculture preservation

0.656St. Martins Island Improvements

0.633Low-income housing

106

0.625Tribal center for community meetings

0.617Housing development

0.583Lifetime lease

0.500Radio Station

0.500Cooperative approach to pres. Wetlands (conservation groups)-L

0.450Properties contiguous or within one mile of already purchased property.

0.400Gourmet Organic Foods

0.393Purchase some property for access, gathering, recreation or cultural on some of the islands

within or near the Reservation (Beaver, Garden, High)-200

0.268Industrial Park

0.267Purchase property to provide hunting, fishing, gathering, trapping opportunities.

0.267Purchase development rights.

0.250Expand method of informing membership

0.250Wetland Conservation

0.236Tribal greenhouse

0.200Purchase property for timber production-500acres

0.200Purchase abandoned Robinson road prison camp

0.143Nature Park

0.143High Speed Cruise Line

0.125Archives and Record Building

0.111Purchase Easements

0.100Indoor-outdoor nature walk

0.100Trap Net Operations

0.100Sweat lodge

0.000Gym, pool, weight room, rec room

0.000Playgrounds

0.000Outdoor skating rink

0.000Recreation, hiking, camping, snow shoeing, cross country skiing, etc.

0.000Tribal Parks

0.000Tribal Shooting range

0.000Fitness/Recreation Center

0.000Water Park

0.000Winter sports revenues - ski packages

0.000Areas for scientific research, long term studies-100 acres

0.000Waterfront Conservation

0.000Waawaashkesh Recreation Area Improvements

0.000Healing Lodge

0.000Pharmacy for Tribal membership

0.000Low income housing in Grand Rapids

107

Rank Score

Priority

1 16.744Victories 2

2 7.301Purchase resort properties / condos - time shares / economic revenue

3 6.778Prescription Drug Benefit with wholesale drug house

4 6.728Extend the 27 county service area

5 5.583Satellite Health Park off Reservation (Lansing)

6 5.125Mackinaw Casino

7 4.847Bank/Credit Union

8 4.825Mobile Health Clinic

9 4.647Health Center/Clinic

10 4.111Centrally located inter-tribal information center

11 4.050Tribal construction company

12 3.663Elders meeting place

13 3.408Health Outreach Satellite Clinic

14 3.333Telecommunications company/complex

15 3.333Community Center

16 3.200Tribal Cemetery in SW Michigan

17 3.194Elderly Assisted Living Facility

18 3.167Allocate spending to create more revenue

19 2.800Wind energy complex

20 2.667Statewide chain gas station

108

18.000

16.000

14.000

12.000

10.000

8.000

6.000

4.000

2.000

0.000

Victories 2

Purchase resort properties / condos - time shares / economic revenue

Prescription Drug Benefit with wholesale drug house

Extend the 27 county service area

Satellite Health Park off Reservation (Lansing)

Mackinaw Casino

Bank/Credit Union

Mobile Health Clinic

Health Center/Clinic

Centrally located inter-tribal information center

Tribal construction company

Elders meeting place

Health Outreach Satellite Clinic

Telecommunications company/complex

Community Center

Tribal Cemetery in SW Michigan

Elderly Assisted Living Facility

Allocate spending to create more revenue

Wind energy complex

Statewide chain gas station

109

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.