NOAA Technical Memorandum GLERL-166

Saginaw Bay Multiple Stressors and Beyond Workshop

Summary Report

Sonia Joseph Joshi1

Alison Stevens2

Lynn Vaccaro2

1

Michigan Sea Grant, and NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, 4840 S. State Rd., 

Ann Arbor, MI 48108

2

Michigan Sea Grant, University of Michigan, 520 E. Liberty, Suite 310, Ann Arbor, MI 48104

January 2015

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Penny Pritzker

Secretary

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Kathy Sullivan

Acting, Under Secretary for Oceans & Atmosphere

NOAA Administrator

NAT OI NAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRAT OI N

U.S.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NOTICE

Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an endorsement by the NOAA. 

Use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products or the tests of such 

products for publicity or advertising purposes is not authorized. This is GLERL Contribution No. 

1744.

This publication is available as a PDF file and can be downloaded from GLERL’s web site: 

www.glerl.noaa.gov. Hard copies can be requested from GLERL Information Services, 

4840 S. State Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48108.

pubs.glerl@noaa.gov.

NOAA’s Mission – To understand and predict changes in Earth’s environment and conserve and 

manage coastal and marine resources to meet our nation’s economic, social, and environmental 

needs 

NOAA’s Mission Goals:

• Protect, restore and manage the use of coastal and ocean resources through an ecosystem 

approach to management

• Understand climate variability and change to enhance society’s ability to plan and respond

• Serve society’s needs for weather and water information

• Support the Nation’s commerce with information for safe, efficient, and environmentally 

sound transportation

• Provide critical support for NOAA’s Mission 
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.	INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.	METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1	State	of	the	Issues......................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2	Information	and	Research	Needs.......................................................................................................... 4

2.3	Information	and	Communication	Needs............................................................................................ 4

3.	RESULTS.................................................................................................................................................................. 4

3.1	State	of	the	Issues......................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.1 Policy and Programmatic Context ..................................................................................5

3.1.2 Fisheries and Invertebrates History.................................................................................6

3.1.3 Water Quality History .....................................................................................................8

3.1.4 Local Knowledge and Perceptions of Fisheries and Invertebrates Issues.......................8

3.1.5 Local Knowledge and Perceptions of Water Quality Issues...........................................9

3.1.6 Capacity...........................................................................................................................9

3.2	Priority	Research	and	Communication	Issues/Needs ................................................................. 9

3.2.1 Models and Decision and Visualization Support Tools..................................................9

3.2.2 Communication Opportunities......................................................................................10

3.2.3 Spawning Habitat Limitation ........................................................................................12

3.2.4 Fish and Invertebrate Community Changes..................................................................13

3.2.5 Monitoring Plans...........................................................................................................13

3.3	Other	Information	and	Research	Needs...........................................................................................13

3.3.1 Relationship between the Inner and Outer Bay.............................................................13

3.3.2 Dreissenids....................................................................................................................14

3.3.3 Yellow Perch.................................................................................................................14

3.3.4 White Perch Impacts.....................................................................................................14

3.3.5 Fisheries’ Diet Shift to Benthics...................................................................................14

3.3.6 Nearshore Zone .............................................................................................................14

3.3.7 Lake Whitefish ..............................................................................................................15

3.3.8 Watershed Modeling .....................................................................................................15

3.3.9 Muck and Bacteria ........................................................................................................15

3.3.10 Muck Control Technology ..........................................................................................15

3.3.11 Short and Long Term Management ............................................................................15

3.3.12 Socioeconomic Analysis.............................................................................................16

3.3.13 Emerging Issues..........................................................................................................17

4.	CONCLUSIONS,	RECOMMENDATIONS	AND	NEXT	STEPS...............................................................17

5.	REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................................17

APPENDIX	A:	WORKSHOP	SURVEY	RESULTS...........................................................................................18

Overall	Workshop	Improvements..............................................................................................................20

Morning	Presentation	Topics.......................................................................................................................20

Breakout	Discsussion	Topics........................................................................................................................20

Program	Location	Suggestions ....................................................................................................................20

APPENDIX	B:	BREAKOUT	DISCUSSIONS	NOTES......................................................................................21
2

Section	A:	Fisheries	and	Invertebrates.........................................................................................................21

State	of	the	Issues..............................................................................................................................................21

Remaining Issues and New Issues .........................................................................................21

Information	and	Research/Communication	Needs............................................................................22

Section	B:	Water	Quality .....................................................................................................................................24

State	of	the	Issues..............................................................................................................................................24

1. New and emerging issues..................................................................................................25

2. Local knowledge and perceptions.....................................................................................25

3. Capacity.............................................................................................................................26

Information Needs (low hanging fruit) ..................................................................................26

Research Needs (bigger issues)..............................................................................................26

APPENDIX	C:	WORKSHOP	AGENDA ..............................................................................................................28

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Modeling Scenarios / Simulations...................................................................................10

Table 2. Communication Opportunities........................................................................................12

Table 3. Workshop survey participants were asked to prioritize their top three remaining issues, 

research needs, and communication needs. This table presents summary prioritization results 

from the ten completed surveys including the percentage of survey respondents who listed each 

issue/need as a priority. .................................................................................................................18

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Locations of benthic algal growth as well as the location of the most severe 

shoreline fouling............................................................................................................................16

Figure 2. Participants were asked to answer the question: Overall, how would

you rate this workshop?.................................................................................................................18

Figure 3. Participants were asked to answer the question: How would you rate

the helpfulness of the morning presentations in terms of understanding project

findings and results? ......................................................................................................................19

Figure 4. Participants were asked to answer the question: How would you rate

the effectiveness of the breakout discussions? ..............................................................................19

Figure 5. Participants were asked to answer the question: How would you rate

the location of this program?.........................................................................................................20
3

SAGINAW BAY MULTIPLE STRESSORS AND BEYOND WORKSHOP

Summary Report

Sonia Joseph Joshi

Alison Stevens

Lynn Vaccaro

1. INTRODUCTION

Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron touches five Michigan counties: Arenac, Bay, Huron, Iosco, and Tuscola, 

covering 1,143mi2 in area. Its waters and coastal areas are used for drinking water, swimming, boating,

and fishing by roughly 500,000 people making it a significant tourism and recreational area for the state 

of Michigan. The bay is well known as a fishing location, especially around the towns of Oscoda and Au 

Gres, and the Saginaw Bay area is home to three municipal centers Midland, Saginaw, and Bay City, with 

Bay City being the largest city on the Lake Huron shore. Each center features many attractions for 

residents and tourists. More than 3 million waterfowl migrate through Saginaw Bay annually, making it 

an important waterfowl and bird migration resting place. The bay and surrounding area hosts many

natural features such as parks and trails, including the Tobico Marsh wildlife refuge and Frank Andersen 

Nature Trail, lighthouses, county fairs and musical festivals, boating and fishing, and there are 28 beaches 

along the coast stretching from Tawas to the tip of the Thumb. The Saginaw Bay watershed is home to 83 

public beaches and access areas, with 54 of the public beaches and access areas located inside the 1987 

designated area of concern (AOC). These human use benefits for local residents and tourists as well as 

housing values in the Saginaw Bay area constitute an important aspect of the Saginaw Bay society and 

economy.

Saginaw Bay has been and continues to be exposed to many stressors from anthropogenic activities, 

including toxic contaminants, nutrients, sediments, overfishing, exotic species, and declining water levels. 

In response, the NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL), the Cooperative 

Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems Research (CILER), and other partner institutions began a fiveyear Saginaw Bay Multiple Stressors Project sponsored by the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean 

Research (CSCOR) in 2007, evaluating the impacts of these stressors and their combined effects on 

Saginaw Bay and their management implications. With the project coming to an end in 2012, a dialogue 

with the scientists and representatives from the Michigan Departments of Natural Resources (DNR) and 

Environmental Quality (DEQ), Michigan Sea Grant, and other organizations was necessary in order to 

decide how to best convey the project results and prioritize next steps for future research in Saginaw Bay. 

This dialogue was conducted through an all-day needs assessment workshop with the goal of receiving 

input and feedback on remaining research and outreach needs in Saginaw Bay and gaining

recommendations for continued research to build upon the Multiple Stressors Project. Additionally the 

workshop aimed at identifying any remaining gaps in research and outreach efforts in Saginaw Bay and to 

determine where NOAA and Michigan Sea Grant should begin prioritizing research and outreach and 

education programs. This report describes the results of the workshop including remaining issues and 

needs identified as well as priorities for future research, and strategies and recommendations for next 

steps. 

2. METHODS

The seven-hour workshop was held on May 22, 2013 in Lansing, MI, at Constitutional Hall. The 

overarching objective of the workshop was to identify and discuss remaining research and outreach gaps 

to assist in prioritize future research, outreach and education programs over the next few years through 

participant input and feedback. The morning session opened with presentations of key findings and policy 
4

and management implications from the Saginaw Bay Multiple Stressors Project. The presentations were 

organized under water quality findings, muck findings and remaining issues, and fisheries and 

invertebrates findings. The afternoon was devoted to the need assessment where two facilitated breakout 

groups were held on the following theme areas “Fisheries and Invertebrates” and “Water Quality”. Each 

breakout discussion was facilitated by a Michigan Sea Grant Extension educator and included scientists 

and decision-makers with relevant expertise in the discussions. The groups were asked to answer the 

following questions within the context of their theme: 

2.1 State of the Issues

1. Issues: What are some remaining issues in relation to this topic?

a. What could be done to mitigate these issues?

2. New Issues: What new issues have emerged since the project began in 2007?

3. Local Knowledge: What have you heard from your constituents in terms of their knowledge of and 

magnitude of these issues? 

4. History: From your perspective, how long have these issues been impacting Saginaw Bay? 

5. Capacity: What information, tools, and technology do you currently have to address these issues and 

what is your current capacity to employ these resources? 

a. What information, tools, and technology do you need to address these issues?

2.2 Information and Research Needs

1. Info gaps: What are the remaining data, information, and research gaps and needs relative to this 

topic?

2. Priorities: What do you see as the major priority, immediate research needs in this theme area?

3. Policy/Management: What research needs remain in this theme area in order to better inform policy 

and management?

4. Ecosystems/Food Webs: What ecosystem services or food web connections still remain unknown?

5. Products: What products, materials, and services should NOAA and Michigan Sea Grant develop to 

help you address these research needs?

2.3 Information and Communication Needs

1. Info gaps: What are your communication and outreach needs relative to this topic?

2. Priorities: What do you see as the major priority, immediate outreach and communication needs in 

this theme area? 

3. Stakeholder Communication: What upcoming meetings/events could Michigan Sea Grant attend and 

what particular stakeholder groups could Michigan Sea Grant speak to in order to gain information 

from and get information out to priority end-user groups?

4. Products: What are some ways that Michigan Sea Grant can help with these communication needs 

through the development of materials, products, and services? 

Following the needs assessment breakouts, groups reconvened and briefly presented their breakout

findings to the workshop participants. There was open discussion for workshop participants to bring up 

any remaining questions or needs that were not captured in the breakouts. The workshop concluded with a 

survey allowing participants to rank what they deemed to be the top three remaining issues, research and 

communication needs, and product and material priorities, as well as to evaluate the success of the 

workshop and make suggestions for improvement. 

3. RESULTS

The workshop provided participants an opportunity to inform scientists, federal agencies, and Michigan 

Sea Grant of what remain as issues and gaps in the bay and research and communication needs, as well as 

the products, materials, and services that Michigan Sea Grant could develop in order to help address these 

needs to more effectively to manage water quality and fisheries and invertebrate issues. 
5

Workshop findings from breakout discussions are summarized below, followed by the next steps 

discussed at the end of the workshop. The survey responses as well as the detailed notes from the 

breakout discussion sessions can be found in Appendix A and B respectively. 

3.1 State of the Issues

3.1.1 Policy and Programmatic Context

Provide context for GLWQA 1970s nutrient mitigation strategies. In September 2012, the United States 

and Canada signed an amended Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). Under this updated 

GLWQA, the two nations renewed their commitment to work together in order “to restore and maintain 

the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes.” Furthermore, the 

revised version modernized their commitment to reflect current knowledge and understanding and 

broadened its range to include the entire extent of factors affecting Great Lakes water quality, with the 

addition of 10 new annexes including areas of concern (AOCs), lake-wide management, chemicals of 

mutual concern, nutrients, discharges from vessels, aquatic invasive species (AIS), habitat and species, 

groundwater, climate change impacts, and science. In order to be successful, the amended protocol 

necessitates that the Great Lakes Executive Committee (GLEC) deal with the matters of the notice and 

response provision, development of numeric standards for nutrients, prioritization of chemicals of 

emerging concern, and partnership with coastal communities in preparing to confront climate change. 

This revised GLWQA provides a driving force for new domestic policies to allow for successful 

implementation of the new protocol and protection of the Great Lakes, including Saginaw Bay.

Of particular concern due to its impetus for further research in Saginaw Bay is the need for numeric 

standards for nutrients and Great Lakes assessment protocols established by the updated GLWQA in 

Annex 4. Many Great Lakes states are still in need of numeric standards for nutrients as insisted by the 

EPA, especially phosphorus, and lack any standards or employ ambiguous standards, causing inefficient 

distribution of resources and protection of water quality. The GLWQA calls for a timeline for 

determining concentration and loading targets and allocations for open water and nearshore phosphorus, 

and other nutrients as required, as well as novel methodologies for successful implementation of these 

goals. In order to conserve the resources of the state agencies, the GLEC has the capacity to make 

regional recommendations for numeric standards for nutrients, such as for Saginaw Bay. The GLWQA 

carried forward interim substance objectives for phosphorus concentration in the open waters of Lake 

Huron and loading targets for Saginaw Bay of 5 μg/L and 440 metric tons per year respectively, though 

no interim substance objectives have been set for Saginaw Bay. However, these interim objectives and 

targets must be reviewed for sufficiency and updated as necessary, and substance objectives for nearshore 

phosphorus concentration must be established. 

The amended GLWQA also calls for the US and Canada to revisit and promote measures required to 

clean, restore and delist AOCs. Saginaw Bay was listed as an AOC in 1987, identified as having 12 of the 

possible 14 beneficial use impairments (BUIs). Since first designated, two of the BUIs have been 

removed, and conditions have improved, however 10 BUIs still remain. The renewed GLWQA commits 

the US and Canada to periodically revise remedial action plans (RAPs) developed for each AOC in order 

to implement a systematic methodology for removing BUIs. Thus, the 2012 GLWQA provides drive for 

persistent review of the RAP, revised in 2012, to continue to move towards removing the remaining BUIs 

and move forward on the path towards delisting Saginaw Bay as an AOC. Additionally, the Great Lakes 

Restoration Initiative (GLRI) proposed for annual funding at $475 million/year from 2010-2015 has a 

focus on cleaning up AOCs. Three priority BUIs are targeted including eutrophication, beach closings, 

and fish and wildlife habitat and populations. A 2010 assessment of beach closings in Saginaw Bay

identified two beaches and two public access areas within the AOC as not meeting BUI targets due to 

frequent and continued closures from bacterial contamination, including Veterans Park North, Kawkawlin 

River Boat Launch, Twining Road, and Singing Bridge. The assessment further found that Whites Beach 

needs additional monitoring to determine whether it is meeting its designated use target. However, the 

review suggested that 95% of public beaches and access areas in the Saginaw Bay area, and 93% of 
6

beaches and access areas within the AOC meet current restoration targets, and thus significant progress 

towards restoration goals has been achieved. The study indicated that the beach closing BUI could be 

removed within a span of 10-12 months if MDEQ confirms that monitoring supports delisting. In 

addition, in 2010, GLRI shifted focus on three Priority Watersheds for reduction of nutrients, one of those 

priority Watersheds is in Saginaw Bay to help with the mitigation of harmful algal blooms and nuisance 

algae. The emphasis on nutrient reduction within GLRI is intended to ameliorate growth of muck as well 

as harmful algal blooms. 

Another driving force is the Clean Water Act (CWA), which calls for states to implement water quality 

standards (WQS) that classify the designated uses for each body of water, such as recreation, to protect 

US waters including the Great Lakes. However, many of the nation’s waters, including those of the Great 

Lakes like Saginaw Bay, fail to meet one or more of their designated uses presently due to point and 

nonpoint source pollution. Once one or more designated uses is identified as not attained and the cause or 

responsible pollutant is determined, a plan is developed to determine how much of a certain 

pollutant/nutrient the water body can assimilate before adverse effects occur. A Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) is the greatest sum of permissible loads to a body of water of a certain pollutant from all 

point and nonpoint sources that allows the water body to still meet WQS. The calculation requires the 

inclusion of a margin of error to be sure that the body of water can still meet its state designated uses. 

The TMDL process requiring water quality data less than five years old could be applied to Saginaw Bay 

in order to determine the maximum daily amount of pollutants in Saginaw Bay allowing the water body to 

still meet its WQS and designated uses, and allocating the load to specific point and nonpoint source 

discharges. Although there is no regulatory authority to enforce these loading targets, once drafted and 

approved by the EPA, the state would identify steps to ensure attainment of the concentration levels 

identified through existing programs and additional programs such as reward incentives, additional 

monitoring, and local participation by organizations to implement the TMDL so that the bay will meet 

WQS and designated uses. Local participation is important so that the process can be continued by 

organizations in the area in the future with DEQ support. 

Saginaw Bay is currently listed as not meeting its fish consumption designated use due to dioxin, mercury 

in fish tissue, and PCB in fish tissue. Additionally, a few drinking water intake Critical Assessment Zones 

(CAZs) in Bay City are listed for nutrients, phosphorus, and taste and odor as 4b, meaning that available 

data and/or information indicate that at least one designated use is not being supported or is threatened, 

but a TMDL is not needed because other approved pollution control mechanisms are in place and are 

reasonably expected to result in attainment of the designated use within a practical time frame. Muck has 

caused “insufficient information” listings for the shoreline, but nothing is listed as “not supporting.”

Furthermore, Singing Bridge beach is listed as “not supporting” for total body contact due to E. coli. 

3.1.2 Fisheries and Invertebrates History

Some issues have been affecting Saginaw Bay for almost 60 years, yet the target issue has been changing 

over time. There are currently new specific issues, but the fish community, for instance, is always 

changing. Some issues, however, have been long-term. For example, invasive species have been 

impacting the bay for years, though the specific invasive species causing the impacts have changed. 

Additionally, land use has been affecting the bay and its food web and ecosystem over the years.
7

Partnerships 

in

Restoration 

Progress

Non-point Source Restoration and Assessment Habitat Restoration

Partnership/Program Focus/Initiative Partnership/Program Focus/Initiative

Pre-GLRI Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program 

(2000-Present)

Financial program that provides incentives 

and technical assistance

GM Natural Resources Damage Assessment 

Funding

Monitoring indicates PCBs in fish are on a 

downward trend

Saginaw Bay Coastal Initiative (2006-Present)

Workgroups and reports on: Combined 

Sewer Overflows, E. coli in Muck, 

Phosphorus Policy, among others

Lake Huron Binational Partnership Funding Phragmites Demonstration Project and 

Landowners Guide

DEQ's Water Resources Division Programs Targeted Technical Assistance, Beach 

sanitary surveys and monitoring

Dept. of Natural Resources, Ducks Unlimited, 

and Others Wildfowl Bay Coastal Wetland Acquisition

Bay County Drain Commissioner Office Army Corps of Engineer's Remedial Action 

Plan project The Nature Conservancy Lake Huron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

DEQ's Coastal Management Program Coastal protection, assessments, and 

restoration projects

Saginaw Bay Coastal Initiative Methodology Report for Prioritizing 

Saginaw Bay Watersheds

Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative Network 

Program Funding

Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge 

restoration

2010 GLRI Michigan Beach Program and Local Health 

Depts

Sanitary surveys and enhanced testing at 

Saginaw Bay beaches Ducks Unlimited and Partners

Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge-1st 

GLRI project completed, Nayanquing Point 

State Wildlife Area Coastal Wetland 

Project, Van Hove Coastal Wetland 

Restoration, Michigan

DEQ's Office of the Great Lakes Review and Statewide Assessment of 

Three BUIs in Michigan AOCs The Conservation Fund "Fish Wish"-Fish Passage at the Frankenmuth Dam

Michigan Dept. of Agriculture and Rural 

Development and Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS)

Technical assistance and Best 

Management Practices University of Michigan Lake Huron invasions, food webs, and fisheries

Michigan State University-Land Policy Institute Saginaw Bay/Lake Huron Land Policy 

Program

Huron Pines Rifle River Watershed Nonpoint 

Implementation Project

Pigeon River Intercounty Drain Drainage Board

Best management practices for 

streambank stabilization and soil erosion 

control project

Shiawassee Conservation District Great Lakes Soil Erosion and 

Sedimentation Program project

2011-12 GLRI Genesee Conservation District Restoration of Flint's Urban Forests and 

Street Trees, Chevy in the Hole

US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Forest 

Service

Cooperative Weed Management Area 

designation for Saginaw Bay

DEQ's Water Resources Division Targeted Phosphorus Reduction in the 

Pigeon River Watershed Michigan State University

Breeding Birds in the Great Lakes Region 

as influenced by climate and land cover 

change

Michigan Dept. of Agriculture and Rural 

Development

Sediment Reduction in the Swartz Creek 

and the Sebawing River Watersheds US Fish and Wildlife Service and Partners Evaluating fish as vectors of contaminants in the Saginaw River/Bay Area of Concern

US Corps of Engineer Western Lake Huron Basin Study Huron Pines Restoration of a Blue Ribbon Trout Stream

Michigan Technical University Harmful Algal Bloom Mapping for the 

Great Lakes Bay County 54-Acre Pinconning Park coastal wetland land acquisition
8

3.1.3 Water Quality History

Amendments to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) in 1978 set targets for the bay

including 440 ton/year total phosphorus loading, and a phosphorus conference the following year to 

establish a management strategy for the Great Lakes recommended a maximum spring average total 

phosphorus concentration in the Bay of 15μg/L as well as a maximum 3.6μg/L chlorophyll concentration 

and a minimum 3.9 m secchi depth. However, workshop participants discussed that these targets have 

never been met in the Bay. 

“Muck”, or shoreline algal mats composed of accumulated, decomposing benthic algae with the potential 

to harbor harmful bacteria, has been washing up on the shoreline for decades, though few detailed 

historical observations exist about its composition. Some participants remember the bay area having nice 

beaches with many visitors, but not everyone remembers the same history; others recall the area of being 

comprised primarily of coastal wetland areas rather than sandy beaches, which brought up the question of 

is the natural landscape of the bay? Has an alteration in the nearshore area contributed to this muck 

problem? Workshop participants noted visitation to the area beaches is decreasing in popularity 

potentially due to cultural shifts or avoidance of nature, skin care/ UV exposure worries, and discomforts. 

With respect to Saginaw Bay beaches in particular, the decline in water quality may be affecting 

attendance. For example, from 2007 to 2011 Bay City state park visitation generally decreased from 

267,612 to 225,803 visitors. Thus a remaining question is what is the potential for Saginaw Bay beaches? 

If the area were restored, how popular would the beaches be? 

Limited management of the muck has been conducted in the bay with respect to its history, except for 

discrete cases of raking and manual removal, though muck clean up has been carried out in other parts of 

the Great Lakes, such as Green Bay. However, a lack of information exists to address how best to manage 

the muck in Saginaw Bay. Further there’s been limited research on understanding and addressing some of 

the contributing factors to muck growth.

3.1.4 Local Knowledge and Perceptions of Fisheries and Invertebrates Issues

The overarching theme discussed was there is a lack of knowledge and understanding of the uncertainty 

and complexity of the issues among the locals. The local communities ask why do we need research? 

State agencies discussed the interest from local communities for action to take place, the problem to be 

solved, and for one solution to the problem to exist. The local communities’ and constituencies’ 

perspective is there must be a scapegoat; there must be one single thing responsible for the decline of 

things they care about. However, the science behind the issue shows that it is much more complex than 

that. For example, the locals want to know why the perch are gone and what is being done about that. 

Participants discussed the need for locals to understand the changes in the food web and the individual 

pieces of the food web, including cormorants and contaminants in fish. Local communities seem to be 

unaware of certain complexities in the system; for example, participants have found that only the most 

knowledgeable fishermen know about Bythotrephes. 

Participants discussed the need for resources on how to educate the community on a local level and make 

knowledge of the complexity and uncertainties of issues more accessible and easily understood. It is clear 

to the participants that there is a lack of belief in the science and that the public is not as conversant with 

scientific information on these issues. The challenge is that if this information does not agree with the 

locals’ preconceived ideas/thoughts on the issues, they may reject this new information. Additionally, 

participants discussed that the locals differ and alter their needs over time. For example, in the past

walleye were not big enough; now local anglers feel they cannot catch enough. What is needed is to 

determine the best methods of education and communication and tailor these methods to meet the 

different audiences of this information. 
9

3.1.5 Local Knowledge and Perceptions of Water Quality Issues

A remaining issue is misconceptions of what the problem is regarding water quality and the complexity of 

the water quality issues. These misconceptions lead to an assumption that there is a simple solution or fix 

to water quality issues in the bay, in particular to get rid of the ‘muck’ problem. There is a lack of 

awareness among the communities of, for example, water dynamics and the inputs from the lakes as well 

as the bay and their interaction. Due to this lack of understanding, there is a perception that locals seem to 

mistrust the government, believing that the government is not taking any action on these complex issues, 

which is resulting in communities taking matters into their own hands. Residents see beaches as a 

potential economic stimulus and want to see the bay developed more, with one suggestion of a Santa 

Monica style pier with restaurants for example. This economic incentive is a driver for beach clean ups 

and temporary fixes that may treat the symptoms rather than the causes of recreational water quality. 

However, state parks and beaches need to meet multiple needs for multiple users such as economic 

development, access to and enjoyment of nature, and preserving nature. The public beaches serve as some 

of the only access points to the bay due to the abundance of private property in the area, and thus the 

locals want their beaches clean. The locals’ method of recreation affects how they want the beach to look, 

however popular modes of recreation seem to be changing and differ based on the user, which can lead to 

varying ideas on how the beaches should be managed or how they should look.

3.1.6 Capacity

In order to address the issues impacting the bay, current tools available include existing data and models 

from the Saginaw Bay Multiple Stressors Project, including LimnoTech’s Saginaw Bay Aquatic 

Ecosystem Model (SAGEM), which is an integrated model incorporating nutrients, contaminants, five 

phytoplankton and one benthic algal group, zooplankton and three groups of zebra mussels. However, this 

model is based on Cladophora, and does not account for the changing sources of muck so may not be 

effective in modeling and predicting muck movement. An updated model may need to be developed or 

SAGEM may need to be improved to help with evaluating different management scenarios of nutrient and 

muck growth and proliferation, taking into account the variation of algal species that comprise Saginaw 

Bay muck. Additionally, the EcoSim analysis to the EcoPath model that focuses on community ecology 

and food web dynamics was applied to Saginaw Bay (Kao et al., 2014), and a geospatial database is one 

year away from being completed, which could be used for preservation and restoration areas. Participants 

suggested using this database to look at different scenarios for best management practices. Hydro-acoustic 

tagged fish, specifically walleye, as well as jaw tags for evaluating ecosystem changes are also available

for use. In addition, potentially looking at and running various scenarios for nutrient concentrations and 

phytoplankton growth can be done through the EcoSim analysis of the EcoPath model (Kao et al., 2014).

3.2 Priority Research and Communication Issues/Needs

3.2.1 Models and Decision and Visualization Support Tools

Decision and visualization support tools incorporating models were high on the list of primary needs for 

workshop participants, as 100% of survey participants prioritized this need. The group discussed the need 

for a way in which to visualize all of the parameters through a tool much like the Great Lakes Water 

Level Dashboard (GLWLD): http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/dbd/; a visualization and 

communication tool tied to model and management scenarios through output graphs and translation tools 

that is user friendly in which the user, for example, could input what kinds of impact an increase in

phosphorus loading could have on fish recruitment. This type of simulation that the public, local 

managers, and project team use to determine the potential results and what is happening with different 

scenario situations would be especially useful for managers who are responsible for policy development

and enforcing existing environmental and natural resource laws. This learning tool could apply the 

models from the Multiple Stressors project and show historic trends, and then see what happens under 

different scenarios with respect to the complex situation. 
10

Similarly, participants discussed the need for a decision support tool, for making informed decisions 

based on what will happen with perch. For the purpose of decision-making, resource managers need 

something that puts the data, models, and results into a useful form in order to turn the results from this 

project into strategies and implementation for management and policy decisions. A scenario based 

decision-support tool could help show how to reach the desired goal if managers, for example, reduce 

fishing by a certain percentage. Participants want to be able to model various output scenarios and the 

effectiveness of different possible management scenarios to help frame expectations and decision options. 

For example, if filamentous algae need to be reduced, what could be done to do so? What level of nutrient 

reduction, such as 50% phosphorus reductions, would lead to reduction in muck? A model that helps 

broadly predict environmental outcomes by changing inputs was highly articulated as a need. This visual 

tool with a user-friendly interface could possibly be linked to a geospatial database for converging project 

results and leading to implementation. 

Participants also suggested improving existing models to look at different management scenarios. In order 

to improve and develop these models, quantification and better characterization of muck is needed 

including its composition, volume, timing, and seasonality. Currently, models are lacking approximations 

of the amount of detrital material washing onto the beaches as well as predictive power with respect to the 

timing and magnitude of muck events. These models could be used for decision-making, such as 

developing site-specific criteria for total maximum daily loads (TMDL) from watersheds. Furthermore, 

high resolution, near-real time hydrodynamic models are currently being developed. These hydrodynamic 

models could be combined with beach surveys in order to predict muck events and thus serve as a 

decision-making tool for managers. 

 Table 1. Modeling Scenarios / Simulations

Modeling Scenarios/ Simulations

Input Output

Reduce Phosphorus by 50% or 25% Impact on Filamentous Algae

Shut off Phosphorus Loading - Benefits to tourism/ economics

- Impact on Filamentous Algae

Reduce Fishing by 25% - Impact to Fishery

- Economic Impacts

3.2.2 Communication Opportunities

Due to the lack of understanding of the issues among the local communities, there is much need for 

communication efforts. One-hundred percent of survey participants prioritized the need for public 

communication. These needed efforts include addressing public perceptions of what Saginaw Bay should 

be since the bay has not responded the way other Great Lakes areas have, as well as controlling 

expectations for what can be realistically achieved through different management actions. Additionally, 

workshop participants mentioned the need to explain to the locals what has already been done and clarify 

the history of the issues. Some potential methods suggested for addressing communication needs include 

fact sheets to distill the scientific presentations and publications information down to easily interpretable 

snippets and vignettes and target specific topics like muck, for example. Continuing with the Beach 

Manager’s Manual series and developing a manual for muck as well as producing informational videos 

and documentaries to explain the uniqueness and value of Saginaw Bay, especially for wildlife, and 

illustrate concepts such as how a coastal wetland works would be useful educational and communications 

products. 

A remaining question is how does this information help towards project goals? Does it help along in one 

direction or help with management decisions? Workshop participants want to help advise resource 

managers to determine how to use the information from this project. Participants also discussed the need 
11

to explain the meaning of the nutrient models and outcomes to the public through visualization methods, 

and the need to communicate the effect of the combined disposal facility (CDF) impact on the circulation 

and deposition of muck; researchers say the CDF does not have an effect, though the community believes 

that it does. 

Workshop participants also emphasized the need to bridge the gap between the local communities and 

management on communication and information on the costs of different management options, and get 

research out to the communities. There is a need to encourage consistent information and time spent with 

the community, including possibly a “water fellow for Saginaw Bay”

(http://www.cws.msu.edu/waterfellows.htm). More local university involvement would be valuable as 

these universities have a good relationship with the communities may assist in being a ‘neutral’ 

information provider on the complexity of issues in the Saginaw Bay and the reasons why certain areas of 

the bay are focused on for restoration/ mitigation/ remediation. Some opportunities for increased 

involvement discussed include the development of a new speaker series partnership with DNR, DEQ, 

Michigan Sea Grant, and possibly the Office of the Great Lakes (OGL) with more promotion, one-on-one 

or group meetings and conferences, and small-scale demo research. Securing funds for pilot management 

projects with community members would help control public perception, as this would provide a way for 

the locals to see that their issues are cared about and are being worked on. The group also suggested 

holding workshops for the public, potentially with DNR since the agency connects with fisheries around 

Saginaw Bay. Additionally, participants mentioned engaging regional partners in communication efforts 

such as the Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed, the Saginaw Bay Coastal Initiative (SBCI), 

Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU), Delta College, and the Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative 

Network (WIN). Furthermore, due to the difference in opinions among agency and stakeholder groups as 

well as local politics, more synergy is needed among experts and agency groups.

This past year, Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU) established its Saginaw Bay Environmental 

Science Institute (SBESI) in order to consolidate all of SVSU’s Saginaw Bay watershed related work 

under one umbrella, strengthen its activities, and facilitate future work. The SBESI will build upon 

SVSU’s existing research activities and partnerships, such as that with Delta College, provide 

interdisciplinary learning with faculty from several fields of study, and offer research opportunities for the 

scientific study of the watershed for the students and faculty of SVSU. In 2012, the Michigan Department 

of Environmental Quality (DEQ) awarded a grant of $26,185 to SVSU to continue its research on the 

Kawkawlin River in Bay County, and will be used to investigate northern sections of the river and 

evaluate why it fails to meet water quality standards (WQS) for dissolved oxygen in Michigan. In 

September 2013, SVSU received a grant of $413,234 from the University of Michigan Water Center for

the SBESI, which will be used to support additional ecological studies of Saginaw Bay and the 

development of priorities to guide continued conservation efforts in the area. The institute will provide 

oversight for these projects and more as well as provide an external advisory committee composed of 

professionals and scientists from the region. Additionally, it will work to improve communication 

between researchers and regional stakeholders through a web site, printed materials, and regular 

workshops. 

Michigan Sea Grant (MSG) was awarded funding for the 2013-2014 round to conduct an Integrated 

Assessment (IA) entitled “Where People Meet the Muck: An Integrated Assessment of Beach Muck and 

Public Perception at the Bay City State Recreation Area, Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron.” This IA will 

summarize the current state of knowledge on the causes and consequences of muck at the Bay City State 

Recreation Area (BCSRA) and its socio-economic impacts at the park and on the Saginaw Bay region as 

a whole. The IA will implement models and surveys to understand public perception of muck-related 

issues and identify a series of short-term and long-term management actions that could help alleviate and 

better manage the impact of muck. The results will provide stakeholders with a shared understanding of 

the current state of the knowledge related to muck and the options for effectively managing the impacts of 

muck.
12

In terms of additional products and services, the development of educational work for public schools, at 

the high school level, such as for students taking AP Environmental Science (APES) was discussed. 

Participants suggested designing a unique and novel project or lesson based on these complicated issues 

and specifically developing Teaching With Great Lakes Data (TWGLD) lesson plans 

(http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/lessons/) to get teachers to incorporate this information in their 

lessons, as well as using this information with Project FLOW

(http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/lessons/). These lessons could discuss, for example, how to pass this 

information onto potential future resource managers.

Table 2. Communication Opportunities

Communication Opportunities

Product/Service Who's Involved? Notes Contact

1 Demo Research/Pilot 

Projects Community members Small-Scale, Help control public perception

2 Speaker Series DNR, DEQ, MSG, OGL More promotion Charlie Bauer or Laura Ogar

3 Informational 

Videos/Documentaries MSG Explain value of the Bay, illustrate concepts

4 Educational Work for 

Public Schools MSG/NOAA GLERL

At the high school level, 

TWGLD, Project FLOW

5 Meetings/Conferences/ 

Workshops

Various agencies and 

academic institutions

6 Beach Manager's Manual 

Series MSG

Informational handbook/ Field 

guide on emerging issues: One 

developed for harmful algal 

blooms

Sonia Joseph Joshi 

Sonia.Joseph@noaa.gov

734-741-2283

7 Fact Sheets MSG Distill information/target issues

8 Water Fellow for Saginaw 

Bay MSU? Erin Dreelin (MSU)

9 Where People Meet the 

Muck (IA)

MSG, NOAA, MDEQ, 

MDNR, UM, Limno Tech, 

MSU, WSU

Understand public perception 

of muck-related issues

Donna Kashian (WSU) 

dkashian@wayne.edu 313-

577-8052

10

Saginaw Bay 

Environmental Science 

Institute (SBESI)

SVSU Interdisciplinary research for 

SVSU students and faculty

David Karpovich (SVSU) 

dsk@svsu.edu

989-964-4349

3.2.3 Spawning Habitat Limitation

Fifty-percent of workshop survey participants prioritized understanding if there are reef limitations for 

fish in Saginaw Bay. Participants would like to understand what the critical habitats are for fish, 

specifically spawning and nursery, and the distribution and limitation of these habitats. A remaining 

question is, are reefs significant sources of walleye larvae in the current ecosystem? The Saginaw Bay

tributary the Tittabawassee River seemed to contribute the majority of walleye production in the bay in 

the 1990s, and reefs in the bay may have also supplied walleye in the past. Other studies have found that 

additional areas such as other Saginaw Bay river systems may now be contributing to larval walleye. 

Thus, in order to determine whether spawning and nursery habitat limit walleye production in the bay, 

future research should assess possible sources of walleye in different areas of the Bay and its tributaries. 

In general, participants want to know if there is value in the construction of new reefs and discussed 

looking at riverine habitats in addition to bay reef habitats with respect to spawning habitats and the 

potential construction of new reefs. Future research should determine what the critical habitats are and if 

fish production can be improved especially for walleye, lake whitefish, and possibly Cisco through reef 

construction and restoration or dam removal. 
13

3.2.4 Fish and Invertebrate Community Changes

The discussion of remaining and new issues included understanding why and what is shaping how the 

fish and invertebrate communities have changed over time, since the 1970s and 1980s appear to be 

different from the 1990s and 2000s. Forty-percent of survey participants prioritized understanding the 

drivers of fish and invertebrate community changes, especially within the food web, such has how 

climate, nutrients and invasive species impact fish, particularly walleye and perch. Specifically, 

participants discussed understanding the effect of zooplankton on the shift of fish. The question was 

posed, does a pattern exist similar to the fish community with the zooplankton community and could the 

zooplankton data be used with fish data? Addressing this question, the group discussed the need for the 

same environmental explanatory variables aligned year-by-year in order to use the zooplankton data and 

fish data together, thus posing a seven year limit. To avoid this limitation, the participants suggested 

conducting an analysis of zooplankton without relating it to fish data as another option. 

Participants noted that Bythotrephes are also a piece of the puzzle with respect to fish and invertebrate 

community changes. They discussed defining more what this reappearance has done in terms of 

understanding fish and invertebrate community changes over time; has this reappearance triggered a 

zooplankton reaction? The group explained that the Bythotrephes reintroduction appears to force 

zooplankton down trophically, inserting a new trophic level between zooplankton and fish. 

3.2.5 Monitoring Plans

A regular monitoring plan throughout all seasons to prevent major gaps such as those that already exist in 

the data and obtain more long-term data was also high on the list of primary needs, as 30 percent of 

survey participants prioritized this need. Participants suggested the need for more monitoring buoys that 

GLRI could possibly help contribute. A long-term monitoring plan is needed especially for the lower food

web and zebra and quagga mussels. Specifically, continued monitoring of the forage base supporting the 

walleye production in Saginaw Bay throughout the year as well as the development and application of 

models to evaluate plausible responses of walleye and forage fish populations to potential future 

ecosystem changes was discussed. Participants mentioned the need to tie this information together with 

water quality information; what is happening with the fisheries and invertebrate communities based on 

phosphorus and chlorophyll data? More water quality samples are needed such as during rain events, and 

especially for tributaries. The most recent data for tributary sampling is from the early 1990s. Tributary 

monitoring is necessary in order to evaluate phosphorus loadings and to identify problematic 

subwatersheds for prioritization. Additionally, more monitoring is needed for the local sources of 

phosphorus such as drains in order to determine their impact on more localized problems. 

This monitoring plan developed must complement the accuracy necessary for decision-making. The 

Multiple Stressors Project produced a loading estimation method appropriate for an annual time scale;

however, other methods suitable for finer time scales should be investigated and developed. 

Additionally, monitoring is necessary in order to evaluate success. What metrics should be used as a 

measure of success? Though some metrics are already in place, walleye for example, participants 

discussed the need to further define these metrics. 

3.3 Other Information and Research Needs

3.3.1 Relationship between the Inner and Outer Bay

Participants discussed that the project currently has an inner bay focus for most issues examined. 

However, there is movement between the inner and outer bay, such as with fish. Participants would like to 

understand the movement of fish and invertebrates between the inner and outer bay, and thus in general, 

understand the relationship between the inner and outer bay.
14

3.3.2 Dreissenids

There is currently a lack of understanding of dreissenid dynamics and impacts. What is happening with 

mussels in the bay? Participants discussed the need to understand what controls the distribution of 

mussels; do currents play into this? Specifically there is a need to understand the density and population 

distribution of mussels on soft-substrates rather than just on hard substrates, which is better studied. In

general, due to the roughly 11-year data gap, participants are unsure if mussel densities are decreasing 

over time or if they vary through time. Additionally, the relationship between mussels and benthic algae

is not clear and thus, participants question the impact of this relationship if phosphorus loading is further 

decreased. Furthermore, participants suggested that quagga mussels may filter more in the winter and thus 

asked, ‘is there a change in siphoning seasonally for dreissenids?’ In order to mitigate these issues, 

participants discussed the need for using existing studies while also conducting new studies.

3.3.3 Yellow Perch

Yellow perch production and recruitment in Saginaw Bay seem to be controlled differently in recent years

(since 1995) than historically, and since 1970, brood stock biomass has been at its lowest levels. 

However, high numbers of age-0 yellow perch recently suggest that brood stock may not be the only 

contributor to low yellow perch recruitment levels. Rather, it seems to participants that high predation by 

walleye of later-stage age-0 yellow perch in addition to slow growth resulting in over-winter mortality 

and greater vulnerability to predation may be limiting recruitment. 

It is clear that many potential factors limiting yellow perch recruitment in the bay remain unknown. More 

research is needed to answer the question, is yellow perch brood stock limited? If the answer is yes, one 

potential strategy of increasing brood stock is to overwhelm predators with more forage; participants 

discussed that more perch may be needed now because of walleye predation pressure. The group 

suggested using existing data on stock recruitment to help address this need, as there is a different stock 

recruitment relationship in recent years than historically. Participants also discussed the need to 

understand the over-winter mortality of perch; perch lose energy over winter, and getting eaten is likely 

the main source of mortality. Resource managers need to understand the limitation on yellow perch 

production to determine how to manage yellow perch so that they can be abundant at the same time as 

walleye; how can the two be balanced? Thus, additional research should assess the relationship between 

walleye predation, slow growth, density-dependence, and recruitment. 

3.3.4 White Perch Impacts

An additional information gap mentioned is a lack of knowledge of white perch impacts. Most of the 

young of the year (YOY) never make it through the winter due to either starvation or predation. 

Participants discussed findings of white perch predation by yellow perch in the middle of winter. White 

perch are not as abundant now as they used to be; however, participants are unsure if the lower abundance 

of white perch is an issue. Does this issue need to be followed up on? To mitigate this research need, Lori 

Ivan has trawl data; the group also suggested using diet data to help answer this question. 

3.3.5 Fisheries’ Diet Shift to Benthics

Workshop participants want to understand what is impacting the fisheries’ ontogenetic niche diet shift to 

benthics; could this be due to goby-perch interactions? Could mussels also be impacting the diet shift? To 

mitigate this issue, the group suggested looking at historical data to see what the young of the year (YOY) 

were eating before the invasive gobies entered the Great Lakes.

3.3.6 Nearshore Zone

The development of a decision support tool specifically for nearshore zone specific processes and 

development issues was also discussed. NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 

through the Great Lakes Coastal Forecasting System (http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/sb/) has 

developed real-time and forecasted circulation models, which may be expanded. This management tool 

could help determine the type of nearshore habitats that need to be protected and thus how important 
15

certain nearshore and resulting fish communities are. Participants discussed the need to give management 

the ability to protect these areas. To mitigate this research need, the group suggested using existing 

isotopic data on what fish inhabit nearshore areas, as the fish acquire the isotopic signature of the area that 

they stay in as adults, as well as diet data since prey pathways are different and yellow perch, for 

example, in different parts of Saginaw Bay are eating different things. Thus, this data could inform 

development such as where to allow dredging. Participants also discussed the need to understand how 

Great Lakes water levels are affecting near shore habitat. Does the impact change depending on where 

you are in the Great Lakes? 

3.3.7 Lake Whitefish

There is currently little information on the YOY lake whitefish. Participants want to understand the 

reproductive importance of lake whitefish in Saginaw Bay for the Lake Huron population. How much of 

the lake whitefish production in Lake Huron is dependent on Saginaw Bay? How much of a source of 

production is Saginaw Bay and how does lake whitefish in the bay influence Lake Huron whitefish? 

3.3.8 Watershed Modeling

Participants discussed the development of a landscape based loading model. How can land use changes be

measured to determine whether they are making a difference? Resource managers need to know how land 

use change will affect the Saginaw Bay food web and ecosystem. More research is needed on Saginaw 

Bay hydrology and non-point source phosphorus loading, as point sources constitute a low amount of the 

total annual phosphorus loading and currently non-point source estimates from the watershed are 

unknown. 

3.3.9 Muck and Bacteria

Some remaining questions discussed by participants are, what is the relationship between bacteria and 

muck, what is the source of this fecal bacteria associated with muck, and what is the health risk of the 

bacteria associated with muck? Bacteria, specifically E. coli, is measured in knee to chest deep water such 

as in the swash zone, and is always high in bacteria though never tested for its correlation with and impact 

on human health. Additionally, E. coli is high in muck but is currently not monitored nor is there a 

standard to sample in the muck. Thus, research is needed in order to evaluate this relationship and 

investigating more monitoring and sampling of bacteria in muck and in the swash zone, as well as the 

development of criteria for health standards. 

Some additional questions that remain include the debate over whether or not the muck is natural. Muck 

and algae are part of the food web, but was the muck always here? Furthermore, workshop participants 

discussed whether there are any water quality measures to enact that would reduce the muck and control 

the sources, for example measures addressing total maximum daily loading (TMDL). The participants 

asked what would be the time frame for controlling the muck and what are strategies for controlling the 

muck with respect to its changing composition throughout the seasons? 

3.3.10 Muck Control Technology

Workshop participants discussed options for various muck control technologies. These options included 

what participants described as a muck machine for cleaning suspended muck from the water, wetland 

restoration, as well as a pier built to simply pass over the muck. Also mentioned were Gunderboom nets 

to serve as a blockade; however, participants suggested that these nets would be a challenge to maintain. 

If the muck were to be removed, another remaining question discussed is what should be done with the 

muck once removed. The workshop participants discussed the possibility that the muck to be potentially 

used as fertilizer. 

3.3.11 Short and Long Term Management

Much discussion took place regarding options for short- and long-term fisheries/invertebrates and water 

quality management. Primarily, the discussion focused around the question, what should be done about 
16

the muck? A remaining research need is to identify depositional areas for muck and determine whether 

the sources of these areas are localized or systematic as this could influence management and ways in 

which to address the muck depositional areas. Short-term solutions must be identified as well as whether 

or not the muck is natural. If the muck is natural yet the bay areas should remain in use as beaches, then 

management options must be determined that are responsible but also satisfy the users and public. 

More research is needed on the effectiveness of and costs associated with different management actions 

and options including beach grooming and muck removal. With respect to grooming, how long would it 

take for the muck to return, how successful would beach grooming really be, and how aggressive would it 

need to be for success? Workshop participants discussed the potential cost of beach grooming, for 

example the Bay City Recreation Area (BCRA) which is the site of most severe shoreline fouling as 

shown in Figure 1, and the economic threshold of a groomed beach or the residents’ willingness to pay 

for a certain amount of groomed beach area. Remaining questions regarding beach grooming include, 

who will pay whether state, local, or private and who has the power to allow beach grooming? 

 

Participants also discussed the need for an active Adaptive Management Framework to reduce future 

uncertainties with consistently updated modeling and pilot studies in order to evaluate management 

options and slowly move towards a realistic picture of what can be done. One example is evaluating the 

option of only solving the filamentous algae problem in the short-term since macrophytes are only 1 in 4 

years. Another example is fisheries managers determining a management action such as for the yellow 

perch population and then evaluating that option by examining outcomes of the yellow perch populations. 

The group discussed the need to identify possible actionable areas such as focusing on short-term 

solutions if modeling shows long-term solutions may not effect changes. Coastal dynamics need to be 

considered when evaluating options. Additionally, a remaining issue is determining where to expend time 

and resources whether on the causes or symptoms of water quality issues. 

3.3.12 Socioeconomic Analysis

Workshop participants discussed the need for a socioeconomic analysis of the impacts of the shifts in 

fisheries. For example, what is the consequence of having more walleye? This type of analysis could help 

Figure 1. Locations of 

benthic algal growth as well 

as the location of the most 

severe shoreline fouling. 
17

answer the question, who do you placate? For example, should harvest rates of walleye be increased to 

decrease predation pressure on yellow perch? Additionally, participants want to understand the 

socioeconomic impacts of other issues including muck, water quality, and recreation as well as the 

economic impacts of remediation. 

3.3.13 Emerging Issues

Workshop participants discussed some emerging issues regarding fisheries/invertebrates and water 

quality. These included the potential impacts of climate change, sparking questions such as if there would 

be a change in water transport and the impact of flooding. Other issues recently exposed include the 

relationship between nutrient cycling and bacteria, and the composition changes of muck. Since it serves 

as an indicator of good water quality, another research need is a Hexagenia study in order to determine 

why the mayflies are not recovering in Saginaw Bay as in other Great Lakes areas. Furthermore, more 

research is needed to determine whether there is hypoxia at the sediment-water interface where 

phosphorus may be released without detection, which could be promoting algal growth. 

4. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

Following the discussion of findings from the breakout groups, the workshop came to a close with a 

wrap-up and conversation regarding the next steps for the project. Sonia Joseph Joshi (Michigan Sea 

Grant/NOAA GLERL), Lynn Vaccaro (Michigan Sea Grant), and Felix Martinez (NOAA CSCOR) led 

the closing discussion, reiterating that the Saginaw Bay Multiple Stressors Project final report including 

the key findings discussed during the morning session would be completed and available for reference 

and use in the near future. The three emphasized the need for future research and communication 

programs and their implementation. Additionally, they suggested following an Adaptive Management 

Framework in order to research short- and long-term management and communication options as well as 

potential pilot projects to evaluate some of the proposed management options. This workshop provided 

participants with the opportunity to discuss remaining research, communication and outreach gaps and 

needs as well as to establish where NOAA and Michigan Sea Grant should begin prioritizing their efforts.

Key Needs and Gaps:

• Models and Decision and Visualization 

Support Tools

• Communication Opportunities

• Access to scientific information

• Human Dimensions work: bridging gap 

between research, policy, and public concerns 

and public perception

• Spawning Habitat Limitation

• Fish and Invertebrate Community Changes

• Monitoring Plans

• Relationship between the Inner and Outer 

Bay

• Dreissenids

• Yellow Perch

• White Perch Impacts

• Fisheries’ Diet Shift to Benthics

• Near Shore Zone

• Lake Whitefish

• Watershed Modeling

• Muck and Bacteria

• Muck Control Technology

• Short and Long Term Management

• Socioeconomic Analysis

• Emerging Issues

5. REFERENCES

Kao, Y.C., S.A. Alderstein, and E.S. RUTHERFORD. The relative impacts of nutrient loads and 

invasive species on a Great Lakes food web: An Ecopath with Ecosim analysis. Journal of Great 

Lakes Research 40(Supplement 1):35-52 (DOI:10.1016/j.jglr.2013.11.012) (2014). 
18

APPENDIX A: WORKSHOP SURVEY RESULTS

The following figures and subsequent text represent summary results from the workshop survey in which 

participants were asked to prioritize important remaining research and communication issues and needs, 

rank various aspects of the workshop and its overall success, as well as comment on important topics 

omitted from the presentations and discussions and make suggestions for improvement.

Table 3. Workshop survey participants were asked to prioritize their top three remaining issues, 

research needs, and communication needs. This table presents summary prioritization results from 

the ten completed surveys including the percentage of survey respondents who listed each 

issue/need as a priority. 

Priority Remaining Research and Communication Issues/Needs

Issue/Need

Percentage of Survey 

Respondents who listed as 

Priority

Models/Decision/Visualization Support Tools 100%

Public Communication 100%

Spawning Habitat Limitation 50%

Fish and Invertebrate Community/Food Web Changes 40%

Monitoring Plans 30%

Socioeconomic Analysis 20%

Muck Source, Transport, and Deposition 20%

Yellow Perch Limitations 20%

Watershed Modeling 20%

Short and Long Term Management/Pilot Projects 20%

Near Shore Specific Processes 10%

Dreissenids 10%

Lake Whitefish 10%

 

Figure 2. Participants were asked to answer the question: Overall, how would 

you rate this workshop?
19

Figure 3. Participants were asked to answer the question: How would you rate 

the helpfulness of the morning presentations in terms of understanding project 

findings and results?

Figure 4. Participants were asked to answer the question: How would you rate 

the effectiveness of the breakout discussions?
20

Figure 5. Participants were asked to answer the question: How would you rate 

the location of this program?

Overall Workshop Improvements

With respect to the overall workshop, survey respondents suggested providing an abstract to participants 

for future workshops, explaining the purpose and goals of the workshop to prevent any ambiguity.

Morning Presentation Topics

Some topics survey respondents wished had been presented on in the morning session include lake levels, 

invasive species, and migratory bird population impacts on Saginaw Bay and its ecosystem. Additionally, 

respondents would have liked to see model outputs of nutrients, climate change, and economic impacts. 

Respondents also would have liked to see presentations on the local residents’ perceptions of science as 

well as management perspectives and needs and how these managers could potentially use this 

information.

Breakout Discsussion Topics

Regarding the breakout discussions, some survey respondents commented that they would have liked to 

participate in both breakout sections in order to contribute to both conversations to help determine the 

important issues and needs. More specifically, survey respondents would have liked more discussion of 

the education and psychological components of these Saginaw Bay issues, noting that the few points 

discussed under these topics were highly beneficial.

Program Location Suggestions

Some suggestions from survey respondents regarding other program locations include somewhere in the 

Saginaw Bay area since that is the location of interest and could encourage better participation by local 

invitees and gain show-and-tell benefit of meeting in the location being discussed. Specifically, 

respondents suggested such locations as Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU), Delta College, or other 

local venues to support local breakout sessions with local residents. Depending on pertinent participants, 

other respondents suggested the same location, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quatlity 

(DEQ), or Ann Arbor for engaging certain staff members.
21

APPENDIX B: BREAKOUT DISCUSSIONS NOTES

Section A: Fisheries and Invertebrates

Saginaw Bay: Multiple Stressors and Beyond Workshop

Breakout Discussions

May 22, 2013

Objective: Identify and discuss remaining research and outreach gaps and prioritize research, education,

and outreach programs

State of the Issues

Remaining Issues and New Issues

• We want to understand why the fish and invertebrate communities have changed over time. We 

also want to understand the affect of zooplankton on the shift of fish. Is there a pattern similar to the 

fish community with the zooplankton community? Could we use this zooplankton data with fish data? 

We would need the same environmental explanatory variables to do so. The data would need to be 

matched up year-by-year and thus we would be limited to 7 years. However, we could do an analysis 

of zooplankton and not relate it to fish data as another option. We want to know what is shaping how 

the community has changed over time since the 70’s and 80’s are different from the 90’s and 2000’s. 

o Is there a change in the siphoning seasonally for dreissenids? Quagga mussels may filter more in 

the winter. 

o Bythotrephes are also a piece of the puzzle. We want to define more what this reappearance has 

done in terms of understanding fish and invertebrate community changes over time. Has this 

triggered a zooplankton reaction? Bythotrephes appear to come in and force zooplankton down 

trophically, inserting a new trophic level between zooplankton and fish. 

• We currently have an inner bay focus for most issues here. However there is movement between the 

inner and outer bays, such as with fish. We would like to understand the movement of fish and 

invertebrates between the inner and outer bay, and thus, understand the relationship between the 

inner and outer bay.

• We would like to understand what controls the distribution of mussels? Do currents play into this? 

What is happening with mussels in the bay? 

• How have spawning habitats (reefs) limited our fish? Is there value in the construction of new 

reefs? 

• We could use a socioeconomic analysis of the impacts of the shifts in the fisheries. For example, 

what is the consequence of having more walleye, etc? We need this socioeconomic analysis to help 

answer the question, who do you placate? For example, do we increase harvest rates of walleye to 

decrease predation pressure on yellow perch?

Local Knowledge: What have you heard from your constituents in terms of their knowledge of and 

magnitude of these issues?

• The locals want to know why the perch are gone and what we are doing about that.

• There is a lack of knowledge and understanding of the complexity of the issues. How do we 

educate the community on a local level? We need to make this knowledge more accessible to locals to 

help them understand the complexities and uncertainties. 

• The locals ask why do we need research? We need to find a way to explain this to them. People just 

want the problem solved and want us to do something. 
22

• We have found that most locals don’t know about Bythotrephes. Only the most knowledgeable 

fishermen know about Bythotrephes. We need to educate the locals. The challenge is that if what we 

tell them doesn’t agree with their preconceived notions, they reject this new information. They need 

to understand the changes in the food web and the individual pieces of the food web, including 

cormorants and contaminants in fish. To the constituents there must be a scapegoat; there must be 

something, one single thing, responsible for the decline of the things that they care about. The public 

is not as in tune with the science as they should be. It is clear there is too much uncertainty and a lack 

of belief in the science. The public needs to understand the concept of uncertainty and complexity. 

We need to employ the help of environmental psychologists.

• The people want one answer for what the solution to the problem is. 

• The challenge is that people will complain no matter what the situation is. The locals used to 

complain that walleye weren’t big enough. Now the locals complain that they can’t catch enough. 

History: From your perspective, how long have these issues been impacting Saginaw Bay? 

• Something has been affecting the Bay for almost 60 years. It has just been a different problem over 

time. There are new specific issues, but the fish community is always changing. The target issue 

changes. We have had some long-term issues. For example, invasive species have been impacting the 

bay long-term, though the specific invasive species causing the impacts have changed. What we’ve 

been doing on the landscape has been affecting the bay over the years. 

Capacity: What information, tools, and technology do you currently have to address these issues and what 

is your current capacity to employ these resources?

• We currently have the Saginaw Bay Multiple Stressors data and models, including LimnoTech’s 

water quality model that we can use. 

• We have the ECO SIMM model, which is almost complete. We could apply this model to Saginaw 

Bay. 

• We are one year away from creating a geospatial database, which could be used for preservation and 

restoration areas. We could use this to look at different scenarios. 

• We also have hydro-acoustic tagged fish, specifically walleye, as well as jaw tags. 

What info, tools, and technology do you need to address these issues? 

• Visualization of Data (ex. Great Lakes Water Level Dashboard). We need a way to visualize all 

of the parameters. We need a data visualization tool much like the Great Lakes Water Level 

Dashboard (GLWLD). We need some manner in which to “throw all the balls in the air”. Something 

that is user friendly. A tool in which we could increase phosphorus loading and see what it does to 

fish recruitment, so that the public can see what’s happening with different scenario situations. We 

could apply the models. We could show historic trends and then can see what happens under different 

scenarios. This could be used for informed decisions based on what will happen with perch, etc. We 

want a way in which to combine all the models. However, we would need to use this as more of a 

learning tool since the situation is so complex. We would need to be careful with how it’s used. 

• Decision Support Tool. We also need a decision support tool, such as for perch. We need something 

that puts our data and models and results into a form that managers can use for decision-making. 

• We also need a regular monitoring plan throughout all seasons to prevent major gaps in data like 

we already have. We need more monitoring buoys, ideally everywhere in Great Lakes! Though 

everywhere is likely not feasible right away. We could get GLRI to kick in more data buoys. 

Information and Research/Communication Needs

Info Gaps: What are the remaining data, information, and research/communication gaps and needs 

relative to this topic? 
23

• We need to understand the density of mussels on soft-substrates rather than just on hard substrates. 

In order to mitigate this issue we can use existing studies and also conduct new studies. 

• Is yellow perch brood stock limited? 

o One potential strategy of increasing brood stalk is to swamp predators with more forage. We 

may need more perch now because of the walleye population. We could use existing data on 

stock recruitment to address the situation as there is a different stock recruitment relationship in 

recent years than historically. 

• We have a lack of knowledge of white perch impacts. Most of the young of the year (YOY) never 

make it through winter. The YOY either starve and the rest get eaten by something. We have found 

white perch inside of yellow perch and that eight inch yellow perch are eating white perch in middle 

of winter. We have few adult white perch but not many of them (from millions to hundreds of 

thousands). We have seen the white fish though so we are not sure if it’s an issue. Does this issue 

need to be followed up on?

o To mitigate this issue, Lori has trawl data. White perch are not as abundant now as they used to 

be. We also could use diet data. 

• What is impacting the ontogenetic niche diet shift to benthics? Could this be due to goby-perch 

interactions? Could mussels also be impacting the diet shift? 

o To mitigate this issue we could look at historical data to see what the YOY were eating before 

gobies came. 

• We would like to develop a decision support tool for near shore zone development issues. This 

could help determine the type of near shore habitats that need to be protected and thus how important 

certain near shore and resulting fish communities are. We need to give management the ability to 

protect these areas. 

o We have some isotopic data on what fish we are seeing in near shore areas that we could use to 

mitigate this issue. We also could use diet data since we have yellow perch in different parts of 

Saginaw Bay eating different things. The prey pathways are different. The fish acquire the isotope 

signature of the area that these perch stay in as adults. Thus, we could use this data to inform 

development in terms of where to allow dredging, etc. 

• Lake Whitefish reproductive importance in Saginaw Bay for the Lake Huron population. How 

much of the lake whitefish production in Lake Huron is dependent on Saginaw Bay? How much of a 

source of production is Saginaw Bay? We have little information on the YOY white fish. 

• We need to understand the over-winter mortality of perch. They lose energy over winter, and 

getting eaten is probably the main source of mortality. However, we don’t have these numbers. We 

do, though, have the data from the fall. 

• We also want to understand how Great Lakes water levels are affecting near shore habitat. Does 

the impact change depending on where you are in the great lakes? 

• We would also like to develop a landscape based loading model. 

• We may want to look at riverine habitats in addition to bay reef habitats with respect to spawning 

habitats and the potential construction of new reefs. 

Products: What are some ways that Michigan Sea Grant can help with these research/communication 

needs through the development of materials, products, and services? 

• We would like to develop management strategies based on the data. 

• We could hold a workshop for the public. Workshops could be held with DNR since they connect 

with fisheries around Saginaw Bay. 

• Michigan Sea Grant could create two page factsheets to distill the presentation and journal 

information down. These would be geared towards public and resource managers. We could get the 

science down to bite size chunks. We want to answer, how does this information we have help us? 

Does it help us along in one direction or help us with management decisions? We want to help advise 

resource managers to determine how to use the information from this project. 
24

• We could develop educational work for public schools, at the high school level, such as for students 

taking AP Environmental Science (APES). We could design a cool project or lesson based on this 

complicated issue. 

• We could develop Teaching With Great Lakes Data (TWGLD) lesson plans to get teachers to 

incorporate this information in their lessons, as well as use this information with Project FLOW. 

These lessons could discuss how to pass this information onto your future managers, etc. 

• Priorities: What do you see as the major priority, immediate research/communication needs in this 

theme area?

• We need decision support tools in order to turn data into implementation for management. These 

tools could help show how to get to the goal we want (#’s) if we, for example, reduce fishing by X%; 

how long until we get back to X number. We could apply the data in strategies for management for 

resource managers and policy decisions.

• Spawning reefs and perch. We need to understand if there are spawning habitat (reefs) limitations 

for fish in the bay and how to manage yellow perch so that they can be abundant at the same time as 

walleye. How do we balance the two? Are perch limited by brood stock?

• We need to develop a monitoring plan, especially for the lower food web (forage base) and zebra 

and quagga mussels. We don’t have long-term data on too many variables. We need to tie it all 

together with water quality info; what’s happening based on phosphorus data and chlorophyll data. 

How do we measure whether we are making a difference in terms of land use changes (watershed 

approach)? We need monitoring in order to evaluate success. What metrics can we use as measures 

of success? We need to know how land use change will affect the ecosystem. We need to define what 

our metrics are for measuring success; some metrics are already in place (walleye for example). 

Section B: Water Quality

May 22, 2013

Facilitator – Sonia; Notes- Lynn

State of the Issues

• Identify depositional areas for muck and why. Identify whether Localized vs. systemic sources of 

muck, which could influence management. Identify areas and find ways to address them.

• Muck – Is it naturally occurring? 

• Is Saginaw Bay meeting designated uses? Stakeholders say no, but if this is natural? MDEQ –

meeting designated uses – like warm water fishing etc.

• More research on the effectiveness of different management actions, e.g, weekly muck removal 

etc.

• What are we going to do about it. Short-term solutions to manage it. If is natural, which it seems to 

be, and we want to use it as a beach, then we need options that are responsible but satisfy 

public/users.

• Not sure Sag Bay management option – others would benefit from solutions. Other states allow more 

aggressive grooming (Racine, WI – used to be closed 90 days, Julie Kinzelman, now a great place) 

but not MI. 

• Who has the power to allow beach grooming? State legislatures. Rules depend on where you are on 

beach. Problem is suspended muck, must be removed immediately.

• What to do with removed muck, could it be sold as fertilizer?

• How well attended are beaches? Beaches near Chicago – 1 million visitors a day. What is the 

potential for Sag Bay beaches?

• Beach going is decreasing in popularity all over. Cultural shifts. Avoidance of nature and discomforts. 

State parks have visitor data. Water parks and pools compete with lake beaches.

• Water trails offer a different type of recreation. Unclear how popular it will be.
25

• Anecdotes – people remember time when beaches were really packed and much nicer. We should 

capture vignettes.

• Water depth matters - Sag Bay is very shallow.

• Boaters come and play in water and walk into beach, e.g., Caseville and BCRA

• A net, Gunderboom nets would be a challenge to maintain.

• Residents see BCRA as economic stimulus. Proposals of Santa Monica style pier with restaurants.

• Loading criteria for WQA – judgement of the standards set, in terms of muck, fish etc. Are they the 

right dashboard issues/metrics?

• Numerical nutrient criteria development? Have we met any nutrient criteria? Will it make a 

difference? 

• GLWQA – seems to require a target.

• Retrospective analysis – 15 ppm target. How have we done? Water is constant, but biology seems to 

be getting better.

• Would more P control make a difference? Would it just shift community of plants contributing to 

muck

• Are there any WQ measures that would reduce the muck? TMDL? And control the sources. What 

would be the time to control?

• TMDL – is there a timeframe. Could require decades.

• What is the problem – muck during certain seasons?

• Maybe we should build a pool! Have we put too much into this beach that shouldn’t be there.

• Resident expectations and squeaky wheel.

• If you shut off the P loading, what would change? Bay is a sediment sink for P, which could continue 

to be released?

• How much P comes from each tributary?

• Fertilizer is expensive, farmers are trying to be more targeted about their use of P. Remote sensing 

etc. to decide where to put it. How expensive?

• Muck and algae are part of the food web.

• Where are nutrients coming from that are feeding the algae source area near Linwood.

• Bring to bear coastal dynamics when choosing options.

• Sag Bay is very resilient – will remain a productive system. Will take a big hit to knock it into a low 

nutrient state.

1. New and emerging issues

• Flooding and Climate Change? 

• High water helps.

• CDF (Combined Disposal Facility) impact on circulation and depositional areas? Seems to be a 

minor obstacle to flow? NEED: communicate to stakeholders that CDF doesn’t matter.

• Core Myths – Muck specific factsheet? Problems are a myth. How to talk about the history and dispel 

mis-remembered.

• Documentary of Lake Sturgeon as an example. Video that is done in a story telling way. Talk about 

how a coastal wetland works. Why Sag Bay is so unique and valuable.

• Costs are important to communicate about management options.

• What has Frank Lupi contributed to this project from social sciences? WQ and bacteria levels are 

good at BCRA.

• Bacteria? Measured in knee to chest deep water. Bacteria is high in muck, but is not monitored 

regularly. E. coli.

2. Local knowledge and perceptions

• Perception that Govt. isn’t doing anything. Very personal attacks.
26

• People believe that we can treat symptoms but not causes. Grad students at SBSU piloting.

• Do we know enough to model the solution- at scale, to remove the muck? Volume of muck etc?

• Short term and long term options?

• Macrophytes are only 1 in 4 years, maybe just solving the filamentous algae.

• Scott believes much is worse now than in past. Not sure we know the history. Scott believes that 

macrophyte part of the problem has gotten bigger. But seems to be significant in past.

• Some things are getting better – fish etc.

• Monitoring – more need for WQ samples, including tribs and rain events.

• Trib sampling – last best data early 90s.

• Believe that watershed is the source, but there is an internal dynamic. Sediment P release – not much 

evidence. But are we measuring the interface of water/sediment – hypoxic events that release P in an 

important manner for algae. Probes are just not designed to catch this interface.

• Sag Bay is a hard place to work.

3. Capacity

• What do you need in terms of information and tools? Trib monitoring – prioritize subwatersheds.

• Use existing models. If we can achieve 50% loading reduction, what would happen? Come up with 

scenarios.

• Need a different model for muck.

• We need calculations about volume of water, or tons of muck. Timing of contribution. 

• What would it look like – spell it out – pilot needed. Move people slowly towards realistic picture.

• What are we using for tools – site specific criteria for TMDL watersheds. Doesn’t apply to Sag Bay? 

• We need new tools! Sag Bay is listed as impaired water. Mike not enough info to list as impaired. 

Many things seem to be getting better? All waters of the state have designated use – contact, fish 

consumption, navigation etc. Beach is listed but is about to be delisted because E. coli is getting 

better.

• Huron county did do shallow water/muck testing. Very hard to correlate E. coli numbers in swash 

zone are all high, but not correlated with health. Wet sand is a happy home for bacteria, always.

• It’s more than just a technical issue. People want a clean beach and will force state to do it. Compare 

beach to Lake MI or FL. 

• What is the economic threshold for management?

• What are the impacts of controlling P for the rest of the Bay – trade-off for fish.

• Visualization as a tool – tied to model and management scenarios, out put graphs etc., translation 

tools.

• SAEGM model is not adequate. It’s based on cladophora growing on Lake MI, but we know SB is 

more.

Information Needs (low hanging fruit)

• Quantity of muck. Costs associated with management options. Timing of pulses. 

Research Needs (bigger issues)

• What will be the benefits? Will people come if it becomes more pristine?

Public perceptions of what’s bad or good? Need to get ahead of it. And control perceptions.

Agency groups and stakeholder groups have different opinions. Lots of local politics. People don’t all get 

along. More synergy need among experts and agency groups etc.

Need to be able to explain what nutrient models mean to the public and outcomes people can see.
27

Parks –

Speaker series organized by Charlie – did seem to have an impact for interested public. More promotion 

would help. Most popular topic – dioxins, hot topics. Muck speaker series – identified clean up and 

disposal options.

Pilot projects would have value for public perceptions. Some already in place – regional funding sources. 

Charlie will help get things permitted and applications. People need to see that we care about their issues.

Control expectations for what Bay should be – it didn’t respond the way other lakes did. 

Teach people about uniqueness of bay. They have responded well in the past.

Specific Meetings – where we could be present?

Next phase of management plan – shoreline and muck issues for BCRA, Birchler Arroyo. Method of 

communicating is important. One on one is important. Need to understand best communication medium. 

SBVSU – more local stuff. More local university people. People get excited about scientists studying 

their stuff. Kawkalin River – Walleye Dinner, River Clean up etc. Sag Bay Environmental Science 

Institute. Delta College.

Partnership for the Sag Bay Watershed

Sag Bay Coastal Initiative

Opp to host a conference. 

Sag Bay Watershed Initiative Network Group WIN – suite of funders. In ppt include slides about what 

could be done, projects to be funded.
28

APPENDIX C: WORKSHOP AGENDA

Saginaw Bay: Multiple Stressors and Beyond Workshop

May 22, 2013

Constitutional Hall (South Tower), 6th Floor

525 West Allegan Street

P.O. Box 30473

Lansing, MI 48909-7973

Agenda

9:00am: Welcome- Presentations of Key Findings from the Saginaw Bay Multiple 

Stressors Project

9:10am-10:20 am: Dr. Craig Stow, NOAA GLERL

Multiple Stressors Project Overview and Water Quality Findings

10:20am-11:10 am: Dr. Scott Peacor, Michigan State University

Saginaw Bay Muck: What We’ve Learned and What’s Unknown

11:10am-11:30 am: BREAK

11:30am-12:20 pm: Dr. Tomas Höök, Purdue University

Fisheries and Invertebrate Findings Project

12:20pm-1:00 pm: LUNCH (Provided)

1:00pm-2:30 pm: Breakout Discussions: Participants will self select into one of two breakouts: 

Fisheries/ Inverts and Water Quality

GOAL OF BREAKOUT DISCUSSIONS: Identify remaining gaps related to research and outreach 

efforts in Saginaw Bay. Where should NOAA and Michigan Sea Grant begin prioritizing research and 

outreach and education programs? 

2:30pm-3:00 pm: BREAK

3:00pm-3:30 pm: Report out From Breakouts

3:30pm-4:00 pm: Wrap up and Next Steps