Title (5): Development of a Monitoring Framework for Michigan's Wildlife

Development of a Monitoring Framework for Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan: Final Report

Prepared by: Michael Kost

September 30, 2009

Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, Michigan 48909

Report Number 2009-13

Introduction Monitoring the status and condition of species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) and landscape features identified in Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) is essential for examining trends, evaluating changes in condition, and assessing progress and success of conservation actions. However, given the limited availability of resources and large number and vast complexity of SGCN and landscape features, rigorous on-the-ground monitoring for all SGCN and landscape features across the state is not feasible. As a result, monitoring efforts will need to focus on a well defined subset of appropriate indicators, criteria, and/or metrics for assessing status and condition. This approach involves identifying and monitoring indicator, keystone, or umbrella species (i.e., focal species), and appropriate landscape features or other metrics useful for assessing the status of various species, and species groups.

The aim of this project was to develop a monitoring framework for effectively assessing the status and condition of landscape features and SGCN identified as a high priority for the WAP. This effort was envisioned as a four-year project with the convening of a multi-agency partner team during the first year, development of a draft monitoring framework, expert review, and limited field testing in years two and three, and completion of a revised and final monitoring framework in the fourth year of the project. However, due to budget cutbacks, funding to continue this project in future years was eliminated.

Methods At the start of the project, key collaborators were identified and brought together from MNFI, MDNR Wildlife Division, MSU Fisheries and Wildlife Department. Meetings were held to discuss project goals and develop a conceptual framework for monitoring the status and trends of SGCN and landscape features in the WAP. Select team members were assigned to develop a list of current monitoring programs for each terrestrial SGCN and landscape feature. Both SGCN and landscape features were categorized by the current level of available data. Categories for this analysis included inventory, surveillance, and monitoring. Definitions were developed for each of these categories and for several other related terms of reference.

Results Four meetings were held that included staff from MNFI, MDNR Wildlife Division, and MSU Fisheries Wildlife Department. The agendas, meeting notes, and staff in attendance at the meetings are included in Appendix 1. The initial discussions centered on developing a common set of definitions for terms such as inventory, surveillance, monitoring, assessment, etc. (see Appendix 2). The definitions were derived from a presentation delivered by Scott Jones, MDNR WLD, at the second project meeting.

In recognition of Wildlife Division’s focus on terrestrial species (as opposed to Fish Division’s focus on aquatic species) and the need for status and trends information to assess SGCN and landscape features, the group settled on the following objective for the project:

To develop a framework for a status and trends program for terrestrial Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) and landscape features to inform the implementation and revision of the Wildlife Action Plan. A status and trends program will involve inventory, surveillance, assessment, and reporting. The identification of research needs is within the scope of this project.

Monitoring for this project was defined as the collection of specific information for management purposes in response to hypotheses derived from assessment activities. Thus, monitoring as so defined was likely beyond the scope of the project or would be limited to only a few species and or landscape features.

To explore developing a framework for a status and trends program for SGCN and landscape features, the group discussed two approaches, one using an ecosystem representation model and the other based on species. Gary Roloff, MSU, presented a diversity matrix as an example of an ecosystem representation model at the third meeting. In this approach, ecological factors such as climate, moisture, dominant vegetation (e.g., forest vs. grassland), etc., are used to develop a matrix of ecosystems that represent the diversity of ecological conditions known for a given geographic area. Focal species can then be selected to represent each of the major ecosystem types (e.g., upland forests, wetland forests, grasslands, etc.). Assessing the status and trends of these focal species can provide information on the condition of the associated species and ecosystems.

Members of the project team communicated with staff from the Institute for Fisheries Research who are working with MDNR Fish Division in developing and implementing a status and trends program for aquatic SGCN and landscape features. Their approach, which uses both species and habitat data, appears to be a hybrid of the two approaches discussed above.

To gain an understanding of information needs, the group elected to categorize all terrestrial SGCN and natural features as either inventory, surveillance, or monitoring, based on the type of information currently being gathered for these species and features (see Appendices 3a and 3b). For the 285 terrestrial SGCN we reviewed, the current level of survey effort is as follows: 171, inventory; 110, surveillance; and 4, monitoring. For the 171 species listed in the inventory category, no consistent and regular data collection effort currently exists to reliably assess their population status statewide. The 110 species within the surveillance category includes all birds, frogs, and toads, three mammals (snowshoe hare, lynx, least weasel), and two butterflies (Mitchell’s satyr and Poweshiek skipperling). Several ongoing programs collect annual data on the presence and absence of birds, frogs and toads (see Appendix 3a). Some of these efforts include the Breeding Bird Survey, Christmas Bird Count, Marsh Monitoring Program, and Frog and Toad Survey. For the mammals included in the surveillance category, data from annual hunter surveys provides a consistent source for assessing status and trends. The four species included in the monitoring category include moose, grey wolf, American marten, and Karner blue butterfly. These species are actively studied and monitored by the MDNR Wildlife Division. Based on our analysis, the information being collected on all landscape features is best described as inventory (Appendix 3b). Although monitoring is being carried out at a few select sites, none of the landscape features are consistently surveyed or monitored across their range within the state.

Discussion This project set out to develop a process and structure (i.e., framework) by which SGCN and landscape features could be monitored. Early in our discussions, we realized that the information needed for this effort was better characterized as status and trend data rather than monitoring data. The use of standard definitions for terms such as inventory, surveillance, and monitoring proved very helpful in our discussions.

2 Because of the large number of terrestrial SGCN and landscape features, the group agreed that it would be practical to use focal species to represent groups of associated species and or landscape features. Most understood that focal species could be used in a species-based approach, an ecosystem representation model such as diversity matrix, or a hybrid of the two approaches (as Fish Division appears to be using). Some also agreed that data on particular aspects of landscape features (e.g., vegetation structure and composition, canopy closure, etc.) could provide criteria to assess the status of some taxa (also similar to the approach being used by Fish Division). It was widely recognized that for many rare species, especially those that use a broad range of habitats, a focal species approach will not provide reliable status or trend information. For most rare species, reliable status and trend information will require collecting data on each individual species rather than on associated focal species or habitat characteristics.

Appendices

1. Meetings agendas and notes a. March 4, 2009 b. March 23, 2009 c. April 8, 2009 d. April 21, 2009

2. Definitions of key terms

3. Tables a. Status of information for Species of Greatest Conservation Need in relation to inventory, surveillance, and monitoring. b. Status of information for Landscape Features in relation to inventory, surveillance, and monitoring.

4 Appendix 1a.

Meeting Notes WAP Monitoring Framework 4 March 2009 4 Central

Participants: Mike Kost, Gary Roloff, Mike Monfils, Pete Badra, Steve Thomas, Brian Klatt, Kerry Fitzpatrick, Sarah Mayhew, Yu Man Lee, Dave Cuthrell, Brad Slaughter, Amy Derosier, Mike Donovan.

Agenda I. Project Overview (15 minutes) a. Developing a monitoring framework b. Expectations c. Outcomes

II. WAP Goals (Amy) (15 minutes)

III. Developing a Monitoring Net for SGCN and Landscape Features (30 minutes) a. Umbrella species b. Species with very strong ties to specific habitat attributes c. Species that use a very broad range of habitats and very rare species d. Landscape Features

IV. What’s been done elsewhere that is useful to MI (i.e., local, national, international) (30 minutes) a. Data sets for evaluating status of SGCN and Landscape Features b. Monitoring protocols c. Who else needs to be involved (species and/or habitat specialists)? (10 minutes) d. Next Steps (20 minutes) ------Meeting Notes: March 4, 2009

I. Project Overview • Developing a monitoring framework • Expectations: utilize partner interest and reach out to other parties to collect data and determine data gaps • Outcomes: identify key collaborators, determine what (framework) and how (methods). A review of the literature and existing data may help us answer these questions.

II. WAP Goals (Amy) • The main goal of the WAP is to keep common species common to prevent the need to include them on the endangered species list • The WAP utilizes a coarse filter – fine filter approach that focuses on landscape features that support wildlife species, but the ultimate focus must be on the individual species, not the system • The DNR will develop conservation priorities in the coming years to focus efforts. These plans are reviewed every five years. A current focus is on identification of priority landscape features, threats to those features, and actions that can be taken to mitigate those threats.

5 Appendix 1a. (continued)

• We need to assess outcomes of the WAP and need to determine how to do this. We will likely have to report how federal funding has been used to benefit wildlife. • Question: If the purpose of the WAP is to keep common species common, why are so many of the species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) listed species? Response: some states removed or considered removing rare species from their respective WAPs. Because recovery of listed species is a goal in MI, they were included in the WAP. • Question: What are we monitoring? Success of our management efforts or population trends of the individual species? Response: We should do what we think is effective to determine if the funds we use are making a difference. The WAP description of monitoring includes measures of both success and trends. • Question: Are we leaning on WAP for monitoring direction? Response: Likely not, but we need to ensure this process feeds into WAP priorities. Monitoring priorities will likely be independent of WAP priorities. Information on wildlife populations collected as part of the monitoring process will likely feed into and modify WAP priorities over time.

III. Developing a monitoring net for SGCN and Landscape Features IV. Umbrella species (definitions added during development of meetings notes) o Definition: A wide-ranging species whose requirements include those of many other species (Groom et al. 2006); a species with large area requirements for which protection of the species offers protection to other species that share the same habitat (Ozaki et al. 2006) o Examples: large predators that occupy large ranges (e.g., grizzly bear). o Other examples: red-shouldered hawk? Cerulean warbler? • Keystone species (definitions added during development of meetings notes) o Definition: a species that has a disproportionate effect on its environment relative to its abundance (Paine 1995). o Beaver are a classic example, and may indicate the health of populations of a variety of species (e.g., muskrats, otter, Louisiana waterthrush, Hungerford’s crawling water beetle). o We should perform a literature review to determine linkages between umbrella and keystone species and other species. • Species with very strong ties to specific habitat attributes (e.g., red-shouldered hawk?) • Species that use a very broad range of habitats and very rare species (e.g., Mitchell’s satyr, Eastern massasauga, likely many of our listed spp.) • Question: should focal species be SGCN? If we are aiming to keep common species common, should we focus on SGCN? Response: our focus must keep in mind the goal to meet our goals with minimal time and cost • Question: what is the connection between the proposed monitoring protocol focused on landscape features, focal species, and listed species, and biodiversity? We need to establish the connection. Response: Our approach uses identified SGCN and landscape features as a surrogate for biodiversity, with the underlying assumption that these targets are reasonable indicators of biodiversity. We will need to keep this in mind when prioritizing the list of SGCN before beginning the process. Perhaps we should select species for which we already have a reasonable understanding of habitat requirements or species that are especially sensitive to habitat modification, loss, and degradation. This is a coarse filter-fine filter approach, which is well documented in the literature. Conceptually, we should tie species to ecosystems. Gary briefly discussed using an

6 Appendix 1a. (continued)

ecosystem diversity matrix to implement ecosystem management. It will be important to identify the suite of landscape features that we think inform us about the broadest suite of species. • Landscape features • SUMMARY: most people prefer a coarse filter-fine filter approach based largely on landscape features that capture a series of species, but also potentially umbrella species, keystone species, focal/indicator species, and listed species. Kerry will discuss potential flaws in this approach in a future meeting (see VI). V. What’s been done elsewhere that is useful to MI (i.e., local, national, international) • Data sets for evaluating status of SGCN and Landscape Features. Suggestion: determine the framework we want to use before beginning significant literature and data review. • Monitoring protocols: USFS, etc. have protocols available. *We must incorporate detection probabilities in any sample design to ensure scientific credibility. Also, the quality of available survey data available is questionable, and we must be careful to not blindly incorporate bad data. Question: is the assessment of SGCN status linked to this monitoring plan? Response: no, the status assessment and monitoring plan are independent.

VI. Who else needs to be involved (species and/or habitat specialists)? We need to ensure some “crossover” species that utilize terrestrial and aquatic habitats do not fall between the cracks. This may involve working with Fisheries Division. We are all free to reach out and identify people who can help develop plans following conceptualization of the framework.

VII. Action: • Amy will send email to species/habitat specialists to update them on the WAP monitoring process • Amy will communicate pathway for central storage of project materials to group • Mike K. scheduled a follow-up meeting featuring a presentation by Scott Jones on monitoring for Monday, March 23, at 1:30 PM in 4-Central. • Gary forwarded a paper detailing the ecosystem diversity matrix (Haufler et al. 1996) and will discuss this tool at a future meeting, probably in early April. • Yu Man forwarded monitoring-related reports from Scott Jones. • Kerry will offer dissenting view on a landscape feature/ecosystem-based approach to monitoring species and sent out several articles related to this discussion.

*Our overarching focus needs to be on a plan that can be implemented. When we spell out a framework, we need to list and discuss alternatives and explain the advantages and downfalls of each option. We need to be transparent about the assumptions underlying each of the options.

Relevant Literature:

Groom, M.J., G.K. Meffe and C.R. Carroll. 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sunderland, Massachusetts, Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Haufler, J.B., C.A. Mehl, and G.J. Roloff. 1996. Using a coarse-filter approach with species assessment for ecosystem management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: 200-208.

7 Appendix 1a. (continued)

Holthausen, Richard; Czaplewski, Raymond L.; DeLorenzo, Don; Hayward, Greg; Kessler, Winifred B.; Manley, Pat; McKelvey, Kevin S.; Powell, Douglas S.; Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Schwartz, Michael K.; Van Horne, Bea; Vojta, Christina D. 2005. Strategies for monitoring terrestrial animals and habitats. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-161. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 34 p.

Mulder, Barry S.; Noon, Barry R.; Spies, Thomas A.; Raphael, Martin G.; Palmer, Craig J.; Olsen, Anthony R.; Reeves, Gordon H.; Welsh, Hartwell H. 1999. The strategy and design of the effectiveness of monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-437. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 138 p.

Ozaki, K., M. Isono, T. Kawahara, S. Iida, T. Kudo and K. Fukuyama. 2006. A Mechanistic Approach to Evaluation of Umbrella Speices as Conservation Surrogates. Conservation Biology 20: 1507-1515.

Paine, R.T. 1995. A Conversation on Refining the Concept of Keystone Species. Conservation Biology 9: 962–964.

Vesely, D.; McComb, B.C.; Vojta, C.D.; Suring, L.H.; Halaj, J.; Holthausen, R.S.; Zuckerberg, B.; Manley, P.M. 2005. A technical guide for developing USDA Forest Service protocols to inventory or monitor wildlife, fish, and rare plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-xx. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

8 Appendix 1b.

Meeting Notes WAP Monitoring Framework 23 March 2009 4 Central

Participants: Mike Kost, Scott Jones, Mike Donovan, Sarah Mayhew, Kerry Fitzpatrick, Amy Derosier, Mike Monfils, Yu Man Lee, Brian Klatt, Pete Badra, Joelle Gehring, Brad Slaughter, Steve Thomas, Gary Roloff, Dave Cuthrell.

Agenda I. Updates a. Meeting notes from March 4th b. Public directory: S:\Public\WLD_MGT\7_Wildlife_Action_Plan\Monitoring c. Gary Roloff and Kerry Fitzpatrick will present at next meeting

II. Presentation on monitoring by Scott Jones (45 minutes)

III. Discussion of developing a monitoring framework (70 minutes)

Meeting notes: March 23, 2009

Summary The goal of the project is to determine a framework to monitor the status and trends of species (SGCN) and landscape features contained in the WAP. At the next meeting we will consider options for the approach to developing the framework. After establishing an approach, we can identify what information is available for each SGCN and landscape feature and then place these into categories of inventory, surveillance, and monitoring based on the best available information. We can then identify a suite of associated focal species or landscape features that may represent a broader group within each category.

Notes I. Updates a. Meeting notes from March 4th b. Public directory: S:\Public\WLD_MGT\7_Wildlife_Action_Plan\Monitoring c. Gary Roloff and Kerry Fitzpatrick will present at next meeting

II. Scott Jones, Assistant Field Coordinator with MDNR Wildlife Division delivered a presentation on monitoring, highlighting weaknesses of past monitoring efforts and suggesting a seven-step method for development of a monitoring protocol. This PowerPoint file is attached to the accompanying email for reference. Refer to the notes section below each slide for detailed discussion. The following definitions guided discussion in III:

a. Inventory: An intensive or extensive effort to determine location or condition of a resource, including the presence, class, distribution and status of plants, animals, and abiotic components. b. Surveillance: The collection of time-series information that is not hypothesis-driven c. Monitoring: Collection of specific information for management purposes in response to hypotheses derived from assessment activities

9 Appendix 1b. (continued)

d. Assessment: The identification of the status of, and threats to, a resource as a basis for the collection of more specific information through monitoring activities. e. Reporting: Turning information into knowledge by providing context

III. Discussion of developing a monitoring framework • Question: Is monitoring, as defined above, an appropriate framework for assessing outcomes associated with the WAP? Which method(s) listed above should we use to gain understanding on the impacts associated with implementation of the WAP? Inventory? Surveillance? Monitoring? Assessment? Monitoring may not be appropriate for WAP, as there is no associated hypothesis. Response: We should identify inventory needs, keeping a finger on the pulse of more common entities. We have to prioritize which species/guilds we need to focus on. • Question: Is there a specific question or questions we are trying to answer through monitoring? Did we define “monitoring” too loosely/broadly/inappropriately in the proposal? The proposal seems to focus on inventory and assessment, not monitoring. Response: Our goal is to determine a framework to assess the status and trends of species and landscape features (over time). We need to develop a glossary of terms to guide our discussions (see a through e above). Then, we need to decide which approach works best for particular species or guilds. For example, population fluctuations may make monitoring of small mammals difficult. Simple presence/absence inventory (or assessment and surveillance) may be suitable for this group. We could select species and landscape features and assign them to particular category needs (inventory, surveillance, monitoring, etc.). We can then determine what information we have for each entity, and information gaps that need to be filled. • Question: Should we identify individual species that have inventory needs, and define questions we need to answer about species that are of lower priority for inventory? Response: We could place each species in one or more categories (inventory, surveillance, monitoring, assessment) and identify associated focal species or landscape features. The conservation actions defined in the WAP are associated with the landscape features that harbor the species, which may influence how we proceed. • Suggestion: We could form a small subteam to develop a strawman monitoring framework for us to move forward. We can start with a foundation of terms with definitions the group accepts and follows.

IV. Next steps: We will meet on Wednesday, 8 April from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM in 4-Central. Gary Roloff and Kerry Fitzpatrick will discuss ecosystem- and species-based approaches to monitoring.

10 Appendix 1c.

Meeting Notes WAP Monitoring Framework 8 April 2009 4 Central

Participants: Pete Badra, Barb Barton, Amy Derosier, Mike Donovan, Scott Jones, Brian Klatt, Mike Kost, Yu Man Lee, Sarah Mayhew, Mike Monfils, Gary Roloff, Brad Slaughter, Steve Thomas

Agenda

III. Summary recap of last meeting (15 minutes)

IV. Presentation by Gary Roloff followed by Q&A/discussion a. Presentation (45 minutes) b. Q&A/discussion (15 minutes)

V. Presentation by Kerry Fitzpatrick followed by Q&A/discussion (15 minutes) a. Presentation (15 minutes) b. Q&A/discussion (15 minutes)

VI. Next Steps (15 minutes)

Meeting notes: April 8, 2009

I. Summary recap of last meeting

• After the last meeting, Brad, Mike, and Amy developed a list of terms based on Scott’s presentation to facilitate common understanding of the components of a monitoring program. The consistent use of these terms will facilitate and focus discussion.

• We discussed several levels of a successful monitoring program, including inventory, surveillance, monitoring, assessment, and research. We can identify what information we have for specific focal species/landscape features, and what information gaps we have, to assign particular species or groups of species to one or more of the categories.

• We need to determine if monitoring, specifically, is in the scope of this project. Some landscape features are managed by various agencies (e.g., pine barrens by USFS, DNR-WLD, DNR-FMFM), and we could derive hypotheses related to monitoring for those features in those particular areas. As there are no goals and objectives for particular SGCN in the WAP, we do not currently have a reference to develop hypotheses to test via monitoring. However, we could develop clear objectives and goals for particular SGCN within the WAP to frame monitoring questions.

• Question: There are already monitoring plans being developed at the project level (e.g., karner blue, Mitchell’s satyr). Is this project redundant? Can we really develop

Appendix 1c. (continued)

a monitoring program for the WAP/plan? The monitoring activities are at the species/project level. Response: We are trying to determine information needs for the SGCN.

• Question: How is the proposed plan for monitoring the WAP different than what the Habitat Working Group is doing? Response: HWG is developing overall habitat management suggestions/guidelines. Unless we have good guidance for general methods of habitat management, we may compromise non-focal species by managing specifically for focal species or SGCN.

• Question: What does monitoring at the large scale look like? Response: For example, by setting an overall acreage goal for “prairie” at the ecoregional or state level, savanna with lupine for karner blue, etc., we can assess if these goals are being met. Suggestion: Table discussion on monitoring and focus on information needs for the near future.

• Question: How are we determining focal species? Response: We will select species that are good indicators of various aspects of habitat quality.

II. Presentation by Gary Roloff followed by Q&A/discussion

“A Framework for Implementing an Inventory, Surveillance, and Monitoring Program” (see PowerPoint presentation located at: S:\Public\WLD_MGT\7_Wildlife_Action_Plan\Monitoring on S drive).

• Question: Should landscape features be included in the WAP monitoring framework? Are landscape features coarse filters for capturing all wildlife species or good surrogates for SGCN for which we have information gaps?

• Question: Is the ecosystem diversity matrix something we can/should implement in Michigan? We have several data sets available that may be very helpful such as ecoregional map, circa 1800 vegetation map, current landcover map, ecological systems map, LANDFIRE successional models, soils maps, etc. How would we lump natural communities into appropriate landscape feature groupings? Response: The history of the DNR is tied to target species (deer, elk, etc.), and the present WAP is tied to ensuring “everything” continues to exist, an undefined target that makes management decisions difficult to grasp. Current management focuses on (1) game species, (2) best management practices (stand treatments, etc.) or “quality,” and (3) a coarse filter approach to native ecosystems designed to protect biodiversity at the species and genetic level. The WAP is a “keep everything” approach. One consistency is that most management plans use some type of ecoregional framework.

III. Presentation by Kerry Fitzpatrick followed by Q&A/discussion

• Kerry was unable to attend the meeting; his presentation has been rescheduled to April 21, 2009.

12 Appendix 1c. (continued)

IV. Next Steps

• We will modify, clarify, and add terms to the glossary. • We could start looking at placing species into categories of inventory, surveillance, and monitoring. We need to determine if we can use the ecosystem diversity matrix to organize our monitoring approach. We have not yet determined what our foci are going to be- SGCN? Focal species? Landscape features? Limited resources will determine in part which species and/or landscape features we target. • There was general agreement we should invite someone from DNR-FISH to discuss their division’s monitoring framework at a future meeting.

13 Appendix 1d.

Meeting Notes WAP Monitoring Framework 21 April 2009 9:30 AM to 11:30 AM 3 Central

Participants: Pete Badra, Amy Derosier, Mike Donovan, Kerry Fitzpatrick, Brian Klatt, Mike Kost, Yu Man Lee, Sarah Mayhew, Mike Monfils, Gary Roloff, Brad Slaughter

Agenda

VII. Presentation by Kerry Fitzpatrick followed by Q&A/discussion (30 minutes) a. Presentation (15 minutes) b. Q&A/discussion (15 minutes)

VIII. Discuss Potential Approaches for Monitoring Framework (60 minutes) a. Ecosystem Diversity Matrix (30 minutes) b. Species Assessment (30 minutes)

IX. Next Steps (30 minutes) a. Ecosystem b. Species

Meeting notes: April 21, 2009

I. Presentation by Kerry Fitzpatrick followed by Q&A/discussion

“A Tale of Two Paradigms” (see PowerPoint Presentation located at: S:\Public\WLD_MGT\7_Wildlife_Action_Plan\Monitoring)

• Presentation summary: Our understanding of ecology has shifted from the paradigm of ecosystem stability, or “balance of nature,” to a paradigm of lack or stability or change (i.e., “ecosystems” are constantly in flux). The field of conservation is moving toward novel, non-analogue, and emerging ecosystems, the identification of focal species vs. “stable” ecosystems as targets, and the understanding and incorporation of human values and human dimensions in conservation practice.

• Question: Given that some species assemblages are predictable at particular scales (e.g., years or decades in the case of characteristic species of beech – sugar maple forest), can we circumvent uncertainty about stability by defining spatial and temporal boundaries for our work?

o Response: Maintaining a community in a particular configuration in perpetuity is not likely a viable model, despite possible short-term predictability of which species will persist. Our interest is in evaluating or monitoring a target. Monitoring a community that is constantly changing may not be informative.

14 Appendix 1d. (continued)

• Question: How is the discussion of ecosystem stability vs. ecosystem instability relevant to the project goal of designing a plan for inventory, surveillance, and monitoring? o Response: Wildlife species are relatively stable and predictable over time, whereas communities are an abstraction and in constant flux. Because wildlife species are the direct target of the WAP, our monitoring framework should address them specifically, rather than using stable-state concepts of communities as a surrogate target. o Response: We have good evidence for relative stability of human-managed ecosystems over the duration of thousands of years (e.g., oak savanna ecosystems in the Great Lakes region [Walpole Island]). o Comment: We need to specify our goals. Is our target wildlife? Wildlife habitat? Diversity? None of these goals are mutually exclusive. Communities are convenient constructs that allow us to manage for aggregates of species, rather than every single species. Our decisions will be based, in part, on human values and on our ability to measure something related to the potential target(s). o Comment: The discussion is important as we shift our thinking from conservation of exact conditions and species assemblages to a concept of ecosystem resilience, which is the ability of an ecosystem to maintain its function when faced with a novel disturbance (Webb 2007).

• Question: in practice, are the concepts of ecosystem stability and ecosystem instability mutually exclusive? o Response: in theory, these paradigms are mutually exclusive. However, many practitioners combine concepts from both paradigms. We will likely identify species assemblages we feel are linked by landscape features, and other species we must consider individually. o Comment: We should reconcile the flux of nature paradigm with the spatially explicit nature of conservation. How can the concept of ecosystem instability inform our monitoring framework to advance our goals of maintaining healthy populations of SGCN? o Comment: There is still debate as to whether we are developing a monitoring framework or an inventory and assessment framework. Developing monitoring plans for all SGCN in the next 20 years is not realistic. We need to pare down this task in some way (e.g., focal species, identifying specific species to monitor, using ecosystem diversity matrix for some species, etc.) o Comment: We can begin the process by placing SGCN into boxes to identify needs (inventory, assessment, surveillance, etc.). We may be able to use the ecosystem diversity matrix to guide this process. • Question: Will collecting information on SGCN help us make a decision or focus our efforts? o Response: Perhaps we should collect information on stressors and threats for each SGCN. Our targets will depend on what we value and the availability of funding (human dimensions).

II. Discuss Potential Approaches for Monitoring Framework Summary

15 Appendix 1d. (continued)

• Over the course of the past meetings we have generated three ideas for proceeding: o Place species into categories of inventory, surveillance, and monitoring o Develop and present a straw-man ecosystem diversity matrix approach and a straw-man species-based approach to developing a monitoring framework and reconcile these approaches o Determine limiting factors or stressors for each SGCN

III. Next Steps

• We will schedule DNR-FISH to discuss their monitoring framework. • Individuals will be assigned to research information needs (inventory, assessment, surveillance, etc.) and stressors/threats for each SGCN and Landscape Features to help us identify targets • Amy Derosier will prepare a table for the WAP of SGCN and Landscape Features, which may contain information on associated threats and information sources (e.g., breeding bird survey).

Literature Cited

Webb, C.T. 2007. What is the role of ecology in understanding ecosystem resilience? BioScience 57: 470-471.

16 Appendix 2.

WAP Monitoring Project Terms of Reference

Inventory: An intensive or extensive effort to determine location or condition of a resource, including the presence, class, distribution and status of plants, animals, and abiotic components. Often point-in-time data; but, it can also be drawn out over a long time period as new data is contributed to a database.

Surveillance: The collection of time-series information that is not hypothesis-driven. The collection of time-series information that is not hypothesis-driven or in the absence of management context should be termed surveillance rather than monitoring. Examples of surveillance include trend studies, baseline studies or monitoring, and long-term ecological studies.

Monitoring: Collection of specific information for management purposes in response to hypotheses derived from assessment activities. The results of monitoring are used to implement management. Monitoring is driven by objectives and should be limited to situations where there is an opportunity to influence management. Monitoring uses standard methods repeated over time.

Baseline Studies or Monitoring: This type of study or monitoring establishes a baseline reference conditions that can quantify change due to management actions. The assumption here is that differences in measurements taken in reference areas versus managed areas can be attributed to management (in general – if the design is adequate to detect differences and change).

Compliance Monitoring: Tracking to see if management direction is accurately interpreted and followed. Compliance monitoring is concerned with answering the question “did we do what we said we would do?” If something is not working it may be difficult to tell if it is because of non- compliance with direction or because the direction was wrong in the first place.

Effectiveness Monitoring: Intended to measure whether progress is being made towards an objective. This type of monitoring can be used to compare existing conditions to both past conditions and desired future conditions.

Validation Monitoring: Seeks to verify the assumed causal linkages between cause and effect. Validation monitoring requires a more intensive effort. It is intended to validate the basic assumptions under which the management direction was developed. This type of monitoring is usually done in the research realm. Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring are highly complementary if fully integrated.

Assessment: The identification of the status of, and threats to, a resource as a basis for the collection of more specific information through monitoring activities. Used in the development of an influence diagram. Assessment involves the identification of the status of, the threats to, and/or the impact of perturbations to the resource as a result of inventory, surveillance, and/or monitoring activities.

Reporting: Turning information into knowledge by providing context

Research: Performing a methodical study in order to test a hypothesis or answer a specific question.

17 Appendix 3a. Status of information for Species of Greatest Conservation Need in relation to inventory, surveillance, and monitoring.

Surveillance Criteria The surveillance data must meet the following criteria: Minimum of 3 years of survey data. Last date of survey no more than 10 years prior.

Surveillance Data Reliability High, H: Survey technique is appropriate for the species. Correct identification of species is highly reliable. Study design is unbiased and amenable to statistical analysis. Adequate sample size. Medium, M: Survey technique may not be appropriate for the species but provides some trend data. Correct identification of species occasionally varies with observer. Study design is occasionally biased due to species detection for some species. Sample size may be low. Low, L: Survey technique is not appropriate for the species. Correct identification of species frequently varies with observer. Study design is biased. Sample size may be low.

SGCN Level of Info Existing Survey Data

American Sharp- North MDNR Frog Woodcock tailed U.S./ American MDNR Field and Singing- Piping Kirtland's Trumpeter Grouse Midwest Marsh Michigan Michigan Mail MDNR Surveys

Inventory Inventory Toad Ground Plover Warbler Swan Lek Nightjar Bird Lepidoptera Odonata Harvest Mandatory (wolf & Monitoring Common Name Surveillance Survey Surveys Surveys Census Survey Surveys Survey Survey Survey Survey Surveys Registration moose) Blanchard's cricket frog - 1 - M ------blue-spotted salamander 1 ------spotted salamander 1 ------marbled salamander 1 ------smallmouth salamander 1 ------eastern tiger salamander 1 ------Fowler's toad - 1 - L ------four-toed salamander 1 ------boreal chorus frog - 1 - L ------western chorus frog - 1 - M ------pickerel frog - 1 - L ------northern leopard frog - 1 - L ------Cooper's Hawk - 1 ------Northern Goshawk - 1 ------Spotted Sandpiper - 1 ------Henslow's Sparrow - 1 ------Le Conte's Sparrow - 1 ------Grasshopper Sparrow - 1 ------Blue-winged Teal - 1 ------M - - - - - American Black Duck - 1 ------M - - - - - Great Blue Heron - 1 ------Short-eared Owl - 1 ------Long-eared Owl - 1 ------Upland Sandpiper - 1 ------American Bittern - 1 ------H - - - - - Red-shouldered Hawk - 1 ------Green Heron - 1 ------H - - - - -

18 American Sharp- North MDNR Frog Woodcock tailed U.S./ American MDNR Field and Singing- Piping Kirtland's Trumpeter Grouse Midwest Marsh Michigan Michigan Mail MDNR Surveys

Inventory Inventory Toad Ground Plover Warbler Swan Lek Nightjar Bird Lepidoptera Odonata Harvest Mandatory (wolf & Monitoring Common Name Surveillance Survey Surveys Surveys Census Survey Surveys Survey Survey Survey Survey Surveys Registration moose) Chuck-will's-widow - 1 ------L ------Whip-poor-will - 1 ------L ------Piping Plover - 1 - - - H ------Killdeer - 1 ------Black Tern - 1 ------M - - - - - Common Nighthawk - 1 ------L ------Northern Harrier - 1 ------L - - - - - Marsh Wren - 1 ------M - - - - - Sedge Wren - 1 ------M - - - - - Evening Grosbeak - 1 ------Yellow-billed Cuckoo - 1 ------Black-billed Cuckoo - 1 ------Northern Flicker - 1 ------Northern Bobwhite - 1 ------Olive-sided Flycatcher - 1 ------Yellow Rail - 1 ------M - - - - - Trumpeter Swan - 1 - - - - - H - - L - - - - - Black-throated Blue Warbler - 1 ------Cerulean Warbler - 1 ------Prairie Warbler - 1 - - - - L ------Yellow-throated Warbler - 1 ------Blackburnian Warbler - 1 ------Kirtland's Warbler - 1 - - - - H ------Palm Warbler - 1 ------Bobolink - 1 ------Least Flycatcher - 1 ------Acadian Flycatcher - 1 ------Spruce Grouse - 1 ------Merlin - 1 ------Peregrine Falcon - 1 ------American Coot - 1 ------H - - - - - Wilson's Snipe - 1 ------H - - - - - Common Moorhen - 1 ------H - - - - - Common Loon - 1 ------Bald Eagle - 1 ------Worm-eating Warbler - 1 ------Wood Thrush - 1 ------Yellow-breasted Chat - 1 ------Least Bittern - 1 ------H - - - - - Northern Shrike - 1 ------Migrant Loggerhead Shrike - 1 ------

19 American Sharp- North MDNR Frog Woodcock tailed U.S./ American MDNR Field and Singing- Piping Kirtland's Trumpeter Grouse Midwest Marsh Michigan Michigan Mail MDNR Surveys

Inventory Inventory Toad Ground Plover Warbler Swan Lek Nightjar Bird Lepidoptera Odonata Harvest Mandatory (wolf & Monitoring Common Name Surveillance Survey Surveys Surveys Census Survey Surveys Survey Survey Survey Survey Surveys Registration moose) Red Crossbill - 1 ------White-winged Crossbill - 1 ------Red-headed Woodpecker - 1 ------Northern Mockingbird - 1 ------Black-crowned Night-heron - 1 ------M - - - - - Connecticut Warbler - 1 ------Kentucky Warbler - 1 ------Osprey - 1 ------Northern Parula - 1 ------Savannah Sparrow - 1 ------American White Pelican - 1 ------Gray Jay - 1 ------Wilson's Phalarope - 1 ------M - - - - - Black-backed Woodpecker - 1 ------Eastern Towhee - 1 ------Pied-billed Grebe - 1 ------H - - - - - Boreal Chickadee - 1 ------Vesper Sparrow - 1 ------Sora - 1 ------Purple Martin - 1 ------Prothonotary Warbler - 1 ------King Rail - 1 ------H - - - - - Virginia Rail - 1 ------H - - - - - Ruby-crowned Kinglet - 1 ------American Woodcock - 1 - - H ------Louisiana Waterthrush - 1 ------Dickcissel - 1 ------Field Sparrow - 1 ------Caspian Tern - 1 ------M - - - - - Forster's Tern - 1 ------M - - - - - Common Tern - 1 ------Eastern Meadowlark - 1 ------Western Meadowlark - 1 ------Brown Thrasher - 1 ------Sharp-tailed Grouse - 1 ------H ------Eastern Kingbird - 1 ------Barn Owl - 1 ------Golden-winged Warbler - 1 ------Blue-winged Warbler - 1 ------White-eyed Vireo - 1 ------Canada Warbler - 1 ------

20 American Sharp- North MDNR Frog Woodcock tailed U.S./ American MDNR Field and Singing- Piping Kirtland's Trumpeter Grouse Midwest Marsh Michigan Michigan Mail MDNR Surveys

Inventory Inventory Toad Ground Plover Warbler Swan Lek Nightjar Bird Lepidoptera Odonata Harvest Mandatory (wolf & Monitoring Common Name Surveillance Survey Surveys Surveys Census Survey Surveys Survey Survey Survey Survey Surveys Registration moose) Hooded Warbler - 1 ------Yellow-headed Blackbird - 1 ------M - - - - - Cicindela hirticollis rhodensis 1 ------little white tiger beetle 1 ------Cicindela limbalis 1 ------Cicindela macra 1 ------six-banded longhorn beetle 1 ------black lordithon rove beetle 1 ------American burying beetle 1 ------corylus dagger moth 1 ------dusted skipper 1 ------gold moth 1 ------pipevine swallowtail 1 ------freija fritillary 1 ------frigga fritillary 1 ------boreal fan moth 1 ------swamp metalmark 1 ------Henry's elfin 1 ------frosted elfin 1 ------three-staff underwing 1 ------quiet underwing 1 ------magdalen underwing 1 ------Robinson's underwing 1 ------gorgone checkerspot 1 ------pine imperial moth 1 ------red-disked alpine 1 ------early hairstreak 1 ------wild indigo duskywing 1 ------persius duskywing 1 ------large marble 1 ------Dukes' skipper 1 ------dune cutworm 1 ------northern hairstreak 1 ------barrens buckmoth 1 ------ottoe skipper 1 ------small heterocampa 1 ------riley's lappet moth 1 ------northern blue 1 ------Karner blue - - 1 ------Doll's merolonche 1 ------Newman's brocade 1 ------

21 American Sharp- North MDNR Frog Woodcock tailed U.S./ American MDNR Field and Singing- Piping Kirtland's Trumpeter Grouse Midwest Marsh Michigan Michigan Mail MDNR Surveys

Inventory Inventory Toad Ground Plover Warbler Swan Lek Nightjar Bird Lepidoptera Odonata Harvest Mandatory (wolf & Monitoring Common Name Surveillance Survey Surveys Surveys Census Survey Surveys Survey Survey Survey Survey Surveys Registration moose) Mitchell's satyr - 1 ------poweshiek skipperling - 1 ------Macoun's arctic 1 ------3-striped oncocnemis 1 ------three-horned moth 1 ------aweme borer 1 ------blazing star borer 1 ------golden borer 1 ------maritime sunflower borer 1 ------Culvers root borer 1 ------silphium borer moth 1 ------regal fern borer 1 ------tawny crescent 1 ------hoary comma 1 ------yellow-banded day-sphinx 1 ------Sprague's pygarctia 1 ------grizzled skipper 1 ------phlox moth 1 ------leadplant flower moth 1 ------spartina borer moth 1 ------regal fritillary 1 ------Dorydiella kansana 1 ------Flexamia delongi 1 ------Huron River leafhopper 1 ------Flexamia reflexus 1 ------angular spittlebug 1 ------great plains spittlebug 1 ------Philaenarcys killa 1 ------red-legged spittlebug 1 ------sedge darner 1 ------spatterdock darner 1 ------zigzag darner 1 ------muskeg darner 1 ------ocellated darner 1 ------subarctic bluet 1 ------arrowhead spiketail 1 ------smoky rubyspot 1 ------lake emerald 1 ------Hine's emerald 1 ------incurvate emerald 1 ------russet-tipped clubtail 1 ------

22 American Sharp- North MDNR Frog Woodcock tailed U.S./ American MDNR Field and Singing- Piping Kirtland's Trumpeter Grouse Midwest Marsh Michigan Michigan Mail MDNR Surveys

Inventory Inventory Toad Ground Plover Warbler Swan Lek Nightjar Bird Lepidoptera Odonata Harvest Mandatory (wolf & Monitoring Common Name Surveillance Survey Surveys Surveys Census Survey Surveys Survey Survey Survey Survey Surveys Registration moose) grey petaltail 1 ------ebony boghaunter 1 ------ringed boghaunter 1 ------secretive locust 1 ------Davis's shield-bearer 1 ------woodland camel cricket 1 ------woodland camel cricket 1 ------woodland meadow katydid 1 ------post-oak grasshopper 1 ------melodious ground cricket 1 ------elanoplus eurycercus 1 ------blue-legged locust 1 ------Hebard's green-legged locust 1 ------bog conehead 1 ------conehead grasshopper 1 ------tamarack tree cricket 1 ------pine tree cricket 1 ------red-faced meadow katydid 1 ------delicate meadow katydid 1 ------barrens locust 1 ------Hoosier locust 1 ------Atlantic-coast locust 1 ------pine katydid 1 ------Lake Huron locust 1 ------banded globe 1 ------spike-lip crater 1 ------pleistocene catinella 1 ------domed disc 1 ------Euconulus alderi 1 ------lambda snaggletooth 1 ------Guppya sterkii 1 ------proud globe 1 ------copper button 1 ------pale mantleslug 1 ------Foster mantleslug 1 ------redfoot mantleslug 1 ------Carolina mantleslug 1 ------eastern flat-whorl 1 ------widespread column 1 ------Vallonia gracilicosta albula 1 ------delicate vertigo 1 ------

23 American Sharp- North MDNR Frog Woodcock tailed U.S./ American MDNR Field and Singing- Piping Kirtland's Trumpeter Grouse Midwest Marsh Michigan Michigan Mail MDNR Surveys

Inventory Inventory Toad Ground Plover Warbler Swan Lek Nightjar Bird Lepidoptera Odonata Harvest Mandatory (wolf & Monitoring Common Name Surveillance Survey Surveys Surveys Census Survey Surveys Survey Survey Survey Survey Surveys Registration moose) Vertigo cristata 1 ------tapered vertigo 1 ------Hubricht's vertigo 1 ------cross vertigo 1 ------Vertigo modesta parietalis 1 ------six-whorl vertigo 1 ------deep-throat vertigo 1 ------Vertigo paradoxa 1 ------crested vertigo 1 ------velvet wedge 1 ------moose - - 1 ------H gray wolf - - 1 ------H southern red-backed vole 1 ------least shrew 1 ------northern flying squirrel 1 ------silver-haired bat 1 ------red bat 1 ------hoary bat 1 ------snowshoe hare - 1 ------M - - lynx - 1 ------American marten - - 1 ------H H - prairie vole 1 ------woodland vole 1 ------least weasel - 1 ------M - - northern bat or northern myotis 1 ------Indiana bat or Indiana myotis 1 ------woodland jumping mouse 1 ------evening bat 1 ------deer mouse 1 ------eastern pipistrelle 1 ------cougar 1 ------arctic shrew 1 ------smoky shrew 1 ------pygmy shrew 1 ------water shrew 1 ------southern bog lemming 1 ------least chipmunk 1 ------six-lined racerunner 1 ------spotted turtle 1 ------Kirtland's snake 1 ------blue racer 1 ------

24 American Sharp- North MDNR Frog Woodcock tailed U.S./ American MDNR Field and Singing- Piping Kirtland's Trumpeter Grouse Midwest Marsh Michigan Michigan Mail MDNR Surveys

25 Appendix 3b. Status of information for Landscape Features in relation to inventory, surveillance, and monitoring.

Landscape Feature Inventory Surveillance Monitoring Prairie 1 - - Idle/old field 1 - - Hayland 1 - - Pasture 1 - - Row crop 1 - - Right-of-way 1 - - Fence row 1 - - Savanna 1 - - Orchard 1 - - Lowland shrub 1 - - Upland shrub 1 - - Lowland hardwood 1 - - Mesic hardwood 1 - - Dry hardwood 1 - - Lowland conifer 1 - - Mesic conifer 1 - - Dry conifer 1 - - Forest opening 1 - - Bog 1 - - Inland emergent wetland 1 - - Submergent wetland 1 - - Fen 1 - - Ephemeral wetland 1 - - Swamp 1 - - Pond 1 - - Inland lake 1 - - Inland island 1 - - River/stream/riparian/ floodplain corridor 1 - - Great Lakes offshore 1 - - Great Lakes nearshore 1 - - Coastal emergent wetland 1 - - Coastal dune/beach 1 - - Alvar/rock 1 - - Great Lakes island 1 - - Edge 1 - - Inland rock/cliff/ledge 1 - - Urban 1 - - Suburban/small town 1 - - Cave/mine 1 - - Snag/cavity 1 - - Large contiguous unfragmented landscape 1 - - Late successional forest 1 - - Down woody debris 1 - - Total 43 0 0

26 Southern Lower Peninsula Eco-Team Assistance: Development of an ecosystem management strategy for Southern Michigan

Prepared by: John J. Paskus, Peter J. Badra, David L. Cuthrell, Michael R. Penskar, and Bradford S. Slaughter

Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944

For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Widlife Division

December, 2009

Report Number 2009-22 Southern Lower Peninsula Eco-Team Assistance: Development of an Ecosystem Management Strategy for Southern Michigan

December 2009

Prepared by: John J. Paskus, Senior Conservation Scientist, Conservation Planning Section Leader Bradford S. Slaughter, Conservation Associate, Ecology Section David L. Cuthrell, Conservation Scientist, Zoology Section Michael R. Penskar, Senior Conservation Scientist, Botany Section Leader Peter J. Badra, Conservation Scientist, Aquatic Ecology Section

Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Mason Bldg. Lansing, MI 48909-7944

MNFI maintains an updated information base, the only comprehensive, single source of data on Michigan's endangered, threatened, or special concern plant and animal species, natural communities, and other natural features. MNFI has responsibility for inventorying and tracking the State's rarest species and exceptional examples of the whole array of natural communities. MNFI also provides information to resource managers for many types of permit applications regarding these elements of diversity.

Prepared for: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division

For additional information contact: Mark Mackay, Wildlife Division

i Table of Contents Introduction………….…………………………………………………………………….1 Lessons Learned/Key Components of Large Scale Ecosystem Projects...…….…….…....3 Considerations for Collaboration in Southern Michigan………………..…….…...….....13 SLP Natural Resource Assessment Overview…………………...…………..….…..…...22 Ecology Information, Priorities, and Information Gaps...... 24 Botany Information, Priorities, and Information Gaps...... 46 Zoology Information, Priorities, and Information Gaps...... 59 Aquatic Information, Priorities, and Information Gaps...... 74 Summary of Information Gap Priorities……………………………………………...….86 Literature Cited ………...………………………………………………….…………….90

Appendix A Initiative Charter…………………………………..……....………...……………...A-1 Appendix B Initiative Implementation Strategy………….…………………...………B-1 Appendix C Detailed recommendations for collaboration (Coughlin et al 1999)….…C-1

Tables Table 1. Conservation Projects in the SLP Region (preliminary table)…………..….....17 Table 2. Potential Collaborators in the SLP Region (preliminary table)……...…..……19 Table 3. Summary of natural communities in the SLP……..…………………..………39 Table 4. Rare plants in the SLP region classified as G1-G3……………………………48 Table 5. Priority rare terrestrial animal species for addressing information gaps...... 63 Table 6. Priority rare aquatic animal species for addressing information gaps……....…….79 Table 7. Recommended GIS based assessments for the SLP region……………...……88

Figures Figure 1. Natural Community acreage by ecological grouping…………………………41 Figure 2. Number of natural community EOs in the SLP by EO rank………………….42 Figure 3. Acreage by EO rank of natural communities in the SLP……………………...... 42 Figure 4. Percentage of natural community EOs in the SLP by global rank…………....43 Figure 5. Percent acreage of natural community EOs in the SLP by global rank……...... 43 Figure 6. Percent of natural community EOs in the SLP by state rank………………....44 Figure 7. Percent acreage of natural community EOs in the SLP by state rank...... 44 Figure 8. Percent of rare plant EOs in the SLP by EO rank…………………………….46 Figure 9. Number of rare plant species in the SLP by global rank……………………..47 Figure 10. Percent of rare animal species in the SLP by EO rank……………………….59 Figure 11. Number of rare terrestrial animal EOs in the SLP by EO rank………………….60 Figure 12. Number of rare terrestrial animal species by grouping……………………………60 Figure 13. Percent of rare terrestrial animal species by global rank………………...... 61 Figure 14. Percent of rare terrestrial animal species by state rank…………………...... 62 Figure 15. Percent of rare aquatic animal species by grouping………………………………..77 Figure 16. Percent of rare aquatic animal species in the SLP by global rank……...... 77 Figure 17. Percent of rare aquatic animal species in the SLP by state rank………….……..78 Figure 18. Number of rare aquatic animal species in the SLP by EO rank………….……...79

Introduction

The Southern Lower Peninsula (SLP) Eco-Team began meeting in March of 2006. This team was formed to plan and coordinate the management of Michigan’s natural resources, utilizing ecosystem principles. Major charges of the SLP Eco-Team include Phase II land review, holistic review of division management plans, and development of an ecosystem plan for southern Michigan using a collaborative approach. The Eco-Team has functioned very well in the capacity of reviewing and approving management plans and land sales, but has struggled for two years with the ecosystem planning process. The large size of the SLP section, inexperience with the collaborative process, and knowledge of past failed attempts, such as the southeast Michigan ecosystem planning process, has challenged the SLP Eco-Team to date. Furthermore, the SLP Eco-Team has been charged to come up with an ecosystem planning process that will be used as a template for other eco-teams in the state. The team continues to seek examples of and study other collaborative efforts to assist them in the development of a process that will work for an area that is as economically, culturally, and ecologically diverse and complex as southern Michigan.

The primary goal of the SLP ecosystem management project is that it will be a large scale effort that will result in a strategic, adaptable framework and process for ecosystem planning at the regional scale that can be applied to other regions in the state. It is anticipated that this initial work will lead to stronger connections to related initiatives in the SLP, a broader base of support, and ultimately a more sustainable landscape ecosystem in the SLP. Mark MacKay, the SLP Ecosystem management project lead, approached The Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) to assist the team with several tasks to help reach their goals. Specifically, MNFI agreed to: 1) help develop a repeatable framework and process for ecosystem planning at the regional scale, 2) summarize information about similar ecosystem management efforts, 3) help identify potential collaborators and related initiatives in the SLP, and 3) provide a synopsis of information related to the natural features of the SLP region.

In regards to the repeatable framework and process for ecosystem planning at the regional scale, MNFI staff began working with the scoping team and Eco-Team members in October, 2008 via conference calls, meetings, and workgroups. In the end, a repeatable process was developed to help guide the SLP ecosystem management effort and be applied to any other large scale, Department of Natural Resources led ecosystem management effort in Michigan. One of the first major decisions made by the scoping group was to change the overall direction of the ecosystem management effort from a management plan to the Southern Michigan Natural Resource Initiative. The initiative includes a management plan, but isn’t defined just by the plan. The initiative incorporates planning, implementation, evaluation, and adaptation.

To help define the initiative and communicate it internally and externally, the scoping team developed a charter for the initiative that included: 1) challenges, 2) items in scope, 3) items out of scope, 4) assumptions, 5) risks, and 6) benefits (Appendix A). The scoping team also developed a detailed implementation strategy to provide the initiative with an initial structure and process (Appendix B). The strategy consists of seven key steps. The heart of the implementation strategy revolves around the creation of a collaborative council and group of key partners (Initiative Partnership) to sustain the effort. In the future, the scoping group and communication and collaborative workgroup will develop and implement a process for establishing the Initiative Partnership. According to the implementation strategy, the department will act as a partner, catalyst, facilitator, and information and technology broker in this collaborative effort that will hereafter be referred to as an Initiative.

Once the Collaborative Council and Initiative Partnership are established, the next steps will include: 1) conducting key natural and human systems assessments, 2) identifing and prioritizing strategic issues, 3) developing and integrating strategic action plans, 4) implementing strategic issue action plans, 5) evaluating and monitoring progress, and 6) modifying strategic action plans as necessary. In September, 2009 the Department of Natural Resources Statewide Council approved both the charter and implementation strategy as developed by the scoping team and approved by the SLP eco-team. The documents as submitted can be found in appendix A and B respectively.

2 Lessons Learned: Key Components of Ecosystem Management Projects

The SLP Ecoteam was specifically charged with developing a collaboratively based ecosystem management plan by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Statewide Council. But what exactly does this term “collaboratively based “mean? Before allocating a significant amount of resources towards such an endeavor, it is critical to evaluate and develop a common understanding of the term “collaboratively based” particularly as it relates to ecosystem management. One way to approach this process is to break the full phrase “collaboratively based ecosystem management” down into its basic components.

The first part of the phrase is collaboratively based. Collaboration reflects several parties that have at least a minimal level of involvement in an endeavor, effort, or decision. Collaboration can take the form of a formalized process with clear decision making authority, or it can be more informal and organic with parties coming together when important issues emerge. According to Yaffee and Wondolleck (2003), collaboration regarding natural resource management is most important when there is a high amount of fragmentation geographically, politically, and/or by ownership across landscapes. This is especially true in southern Michigan. When collaboration is done well, it promotes information sharing as well as creative win-win solutions, and it improves the chances that decisions will get implemented (Yaffee and Wondolleck 2003).

What about ecosystem management? Although this term has been around for approximately 20 plus years, there has never been any real consensus on its definition or how it gets implemented in the real world. Christensen et al (1996) documented a total of 18 federal agencies, and numerous state agencies, non governmental organizations, and local land managers that had committed to the principles of ecosystem management in the mid 1990’s. However, each of these entities had its own definition or perception of what ecosystem management was. One of the first definitions of ecosystem management documented in the literature appeared in 1988. Agee and Johnson (1988) defined it as something that regulates internal ecosystem structure and function, plus inputs and outputs, to achieve socially desirable conditions. One of the most cited definitions of ecosystem management is by Grumbine (1994) who defined it as integrating scientific knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and values framework toward the general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long-term. Yet a more integrated definition is provided by Wood (1994) who defined it as the integration of ecological, economic, and social principles to manage biological and physical systems in a manner that safeguards the ecological sustainability, natural diversity, and productivity of the landscape.

In a report developed by the Ecological Society of America (Christensen et al 1996), the ESA states that ecosystem management is management that is driven by explicit goals, executed by policies, protocols, and practices, and made adaptable by monitoring and research based on our best understanding of the ecological interactions and processes necessary to sustain ecosystem structure and function. Ecosystem management focuses on the sustainability of ecosystem structures and processes necessary to deliver goods and services. The ESA goes on to further state that true ecosystem management must include the following eight elements:

1. long-term sustainability as a fundamental value that takes into account future generations 2. clear operational goals stated in terms of future desired conditions 3. sound ecological models and understanding at all levels of organization 4. understanding complexity and interconnectedness of ecosystems 5. recognition of the dynamic character of ecosystems

3 6. attention to context and scale – ecosystem processes operate over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales 7. acknowledgement of humans as ecosystem components 8. commitment to adaptability and accountability – management objectives must be tested by carefully designed monitoring programs

Lastly, Yaffee (1998) recognized that each ecosystem management effort is different, and as a result people mean different things when they use the term ecosystem management. Despite these differences, he did find that there was a remarkable degree of consensus regarding ecosystem management. Consistent elements of the ecosystem management efforts his team studied included:

1. systems thinking 2. deeper understanding of the complexity and dynamism of both ecological and social systems 3. more extensive consideration of different spatial and temporal scales 4. ecologically derived boundaries 5. adaptive management to deal with uncertainty 6. collaborative decision-making

Despite these commonalities, the way organizations operationalize these terms and value the choices to be made differ significantly from project to project. To help make sense of these operational differences, Yaffee (1998) developed a typology to organize the different conceptualizations of ecosystem management into three categories:

1. environmentally sensitive, multiple use management plans 2. ecosystem based approaches to resource management 3. ecoregional management

Environmentally sensitive multiple use management aims at satisfying a diverse set of human needs and values by being more sensitive to the limits of ecological systems. It focuses on satisfying human interests while recognizing that ecosystems have constraints or thresholds.

Ecosystem based approaches to resource management seeks to protect biological diversity while fostering diversified human economic systems. Yaffee explains that this is typically expressed by recognizing the interconnectedness of adjacent landowners or having wildlife managers consider the habitat needs of multiple species rather than a single species focus.

Ecoregional management on the other hand emphasizes landscape scale projects, a well defined geographic area, and the maintenance and restoration of ecological functions. It proceeds with a sense of strong interconnections among all components of the ecosphere, and takes more of a place based approach (Yaffee, 1998).

When reviewing the literature, it becomes apparent that collaboration is an essential but not required component of ecosystem management. Putting these two concepts together is not a radical idea nor is it a new idea. There has actually been strong interest in evaluating and gaining a better understanding of what has been termed collaboratively based natural resource management efforts, which essentially is what the SLP ecoteam was charged with developing.

Recently, graduate students at the University of Michigan evaluated a collection of what they described as collaborative natural resource management efforts. This study describes the

4 landscape of collaborative partnerships in the United States based on a database of over 450 projects (Coughlin et al 1999). Collaborative resource management partnerships (collaborative partnerships) are initiatives in which diverse stakeholders work together to address the management of natural resources. Using processes that promote problem-solving and that focus on individual interests and shared concerns, collaborative partnerships are taking root across the United States addressing issues as varied as watershed management, riparian restoration, forest management, endangered species recovery, and grazing management (Jones 1996, McClellan 1996). According to (Coughlin et al 1999) collaborative natural resource efforts fit into several categories: 1) sustainable communities, 2) ecosystem management, 3) watershed initiatives, 4) coordinated resource management, and 5) conservation habitat planning.

What are the benefits of collaboration? According to Yaffee (1998) cooperation between stakeholders can “overcome the inherent fragmentation in our society between multiple agencies, levels of government, public and private sectors, diverse interest groups, and different disciplines and value structures.” Decision-making can be improved by the new knowledge created within a collaborative initiative. With more issues and perspectives on the table, groups can combine management strategies in new ways, or imagine new ways to solve problems. Dewitt (1994) emphasizes that new kinds of environmental challenges, such as nonpoint pollution, pollution prevention, and ecosystem management can only be addressed through collaboration among the various actors. In these cases, he asserts, federal regulation is neither as effective nor sufficient to solve the problems (Dewitt, 1994). Even elected officials and agency representatives have become aware that without the backing of local communities, decisions will not have the same impact as those that have included citizens’ input throughout the process (Coughlin et al 1999).

Proponents of collaborative partnerships claim that they produce the most effective results in the long term (Coughlin et al 1999). They maintain that involving stakeholders in planning, implementation and monitoring of management projects encourages ownership by all participants, which in turn facilitates implementation. According to Selin and Chavez (1995 in Yaffee et al 1997) “collaborative designs can be a powerful tool for resolving conflict and advancing a shared vision of how a resource should be managed”. Collaboration also can provide a gauge of what is politically possible to achieve (Brick, 1998) within a given community. Supporters testify that collaboration encourages participants to focus on their personal role in the management of a resource and the search for solutions, rather than pointing fingers (Yaffee et al 1997; Erickson 1998). Supporters also allege that until people talk to each other, neither understanding nor problem solving can occur; personal relationships and dialogue are vital to success. New relationships can “defuse future conflicts and promote future bridging (Yaffee et al 1997). Yaffee and Wondolleck (1995) have dubbed these information and relationship networks “knowledge pools and relationsheds.”

Collaborative partnerships involve different people and groups, have different goals, organizational structures and operating procedures. They often represent innovation adapted to local situations and have unique characteristics. In the words of one Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) chair, “CRMs are like snowflakes; no two are alike” (Weeter 1999 in Coughlin et al 1999). The same may be said of watershed councils, sustainable community initiatives, habitat conservation planning processes, ecosystem management projects, land trust planning projects and other collaborative partnerships.

Collaborative partnerships are a fairly recent phenomenon in the field of natural resource management. As a result, they struggle to define participants, appropriate limits and the interface between communities, agencies and the resources that ultimately are in the hands of both. Contrary to perceptions in the literature that view collaboration as a static process, numerous

5 cases exhibited that groups are constantly changing and adapting to the nature of their problems, participants, and community resources. Similar to the notion that no two partnerships are alike, no two partnerships adapt to changes in a similar manner (Coughlin et al 1999).

The four main categories of recommendations from the ten case studies studied by Coughlin et al (1999) are: 1) ensure representation, 2) accommodate diverse interests, 3) accommodate diverse capabilities, and 4) fully address the scientific dimensions of the project (for more a detailed description of these four recommendations please refer to Appendix C). In addition, Yaffee et al (1996) provided a set of four suggestions for future collaborative ecosystem based projects based on a survey of ecosystem management project leaders. They are as follows:

All stakeholders should be involved early on in the project’s process Use a clear, open, and collaborative process Land management and planning should incorporate more holistic concepts, larger geographic scales and longer time periods Ensure decision makers have adequate scientific knowledge about ecological and social systems Adequate resources (funding and staff) and strong support from agency upper management are critical to the long-term success of the project

Other large scale natural resource planning/restoration efforts In 1996, a University of Michigan study examined and evaluated a total of 651 different ecosystem management projects in the U.S. Unfortunately, only a few of these projects were conducted at a scale equivalent to or larger than the Southern Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The vast majority of collaborative natural resource management projects that they documented occurred at the scale of a small watershed, public land holding such as a park, large city, county, or a site containing unique natural features. Based on the full list of 651 ecosystem management projects identified by Yafee et al (1996), only 74 (11%) appear to be efforts larger than a county or small watershed. Less than 25% of the 74 might be of similar size to the SLP region. More importantly, according to Gerlak and Heikkila (2006) few studies have looked at the design of large scale multi-jurisdictional arrangements, which developed to address the management of regional watersheds and ecosystems. Documented examples of large scale collaborative ecosystem efforts include: 1) San Francisco Bay-Delta, 2) Florida Everglades, 3) Lake Tahoe, 4) along the Columbia, Colorado, Delaware, and Platte Rivers, 5) coastal Lousiana, 6) Chesapeake Bay 7) Great Lakes, and 8) Upper Mississippi River System. To help gain a better understanding of what a large scale ecosystem based project might entail, a brief summary of some of the known large scale ecosystem management projects is provided below. Collaborative projects are divided into three categories: 1) Large scale ecosystem restoration, 2) large to moderate scale regional planning, and 3) large scale cooperative biosphere reserve.

1. Large Scale Ecosystem Restoration

Chesapeake Bay www.chesbay.state.va.us The Chesapeake Bay watershed is approximately 64,000 square miles (almost twice the size of the state of Michigan) and contains portions of six states and the District of Columbia. There are about 150 major rivers and streams in the Chesapeake drainage system and the region is home to roughly 16 million people. The Bay is also the largest estuary in the United States and is a major area for shipping, commerce, and commercial fisheries, which produce over 500 million tons of seafood each year (Heikkila and Gerlak 2005). The Chesapeake Bay Agreement, formed in 1983, aimed to coordinate plans to improve and protect the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine systems. It was expanded in 1987 to include 28 specific goals for water

6 quality, aquatic species, population growth and development, public information and participation, and governance of its members. The agreement was modified again in 2000 to incorporate over 100 strategic goals.

The Chesapeake Bay Program is run by an Executive Council which consists of the governors of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania; the Mayor of Washington, D.C.; a representative from the US EPA, and the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The Council is supported by an Implementation Committee, a Federal Agencies Committee, and a Budget Steering Committee. The Program also has eight subcommittees (Nutrients, Toxics, Monitoring, Modeling, Living resources, Land-growth, Communications, and Information management) as well as numerous workgroups (Gerlak and Heikkila 2006). To facilitate external input and communication, the Program also has three advisory committees: Citizens, Scientific and Technical, and Local Government.

Florida Everglades www.evergladesplan.org/index.aspx The Florida Everglades covers 16 counties and 18,000 square miles (11.5 million acres or almost the size of the SLP region) and serves over 12 million people. As a result of a complicated system of levees for water control, the Everglades have been reduced by 70 percent. One of the biggest changes in the landscape has been the conversion of shallow wetlands to fields of rice, sod, and sugarcane. Today, south Florida is considered to be the largest hydrologically controlled system in the world (Gerlak and Heikkila 2006). As a result the area has experienced a dramatic decline in wading birds and fisheries, water degradation, and a severe problem with invasive species.

In 1992, congress authorized the creation of the Interagency South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and directed the US Army Corps of Engineers to initiate a comprehensive study of the area. The Task Force was charged with coordinating restoration efforts. The goals of the Task Force were: 1) restoring more natural hydrologic functions of the everglades ecosystem while still providing adequate water supply and flood control, 2) restoring and enhancing the natural system, including lost habitats, halting the spread of invasive species, and recovering threatened and endangered species, and 3) transforming the built environment by rebuilding and revitalizing urban cores to curtail urban sprawl (Gerlak and Heikkila 2006). In 1999, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan was completed and formally approved in 2000. The Plan calls for capturing and storing freshwater to replicate natural flow. Implementation of the plan is expected to continue until 2038 with a total cost of $8 billion. This is considered to be the largest ecosystem restoration effort in the United States (Vigmostad et al 2005). The Task Force is served by a Working Group, Special Issue Teams and three Regional Restoration Coordination Teams. To facilitate stakeholder input, the South Florida Water Management District Governing Board established the Water Resources Advisory Committee in 2001. It consists of citizens, and business, agriculture, state, federal, local, and Indian Tribal government representatives. There are also two scientific advisory committees: the Ecosystem Restoration Science Coordination Group (established in 2003) to coordinate research, and the REstoration COordination and VERification Team (RECOVER) to assist with assessment, evaluation, and planning.

2. Large to Moderate Scale Regional Planning

New Jersey Pineland National Reserve www.state.nj.us/pinelands/ In 1978, congress created the Pinelands National Reserve (the first in the US). It was recognized after years of study that the Pinelands was an environmental asset of national and international significance and it required protection from large metropolitan areas along the east coast. The Pinelands contains an aquifer containing over 17 trillion gallons of potable water, an economically significant berry industry, over 50 listed plants, and over 1,000 known prehistoric

7 archeological sites. The Pinelands Commission, which consists of 15 members, is responsible for balancing new development with resource protection. The reserve totals 1.1 million acres and covers all or parts of seven counties. The Reserve is divided into two main areas: 1) the Preservation Area which comprises 32% of the reserve, and 2) the Protection Area which contains a mix of environmental features, farmlands, hamlets, subdivisions, and towns. The Commission further divided the reserve up into eight areas of different land use capability that are subject to environmental standards.

Cape Cod Commission www.capecodcommission.org/ Cape Cod is approximately 416 square miles in size (the size of a county), serves over 220,000 people and is located at the very eastern edge of Massachusetts along the Atlantic Ocean. The Cape Cod Commission was established in 1990 by the Massachusetts state legislature and Barnstable County to protect Cape Cod’s unique environment and character and to foster a healthy community for present and future generations. State and local leaders felt that this region possessed unique natural, coastal, historical, cultural, and other values that were threatened by uncoordinated or inappropriate uses of the region's land and other resources. The Commission was established as a regional planning and regulatory agency to prepare and implement a regional land use policy plan, to review and regulate developments of regional impact, and to recommend designations of certain areas as districts of critical planning concern. The Commission's work is divided into three major areas: planning, technical assistance, and regulation. The Commission is made up of 19 members representing each of Barnstable County's 15 towns as well as the County Commissioners, minorities, Native Americans, and a governor's appointee. The members are citizen volunteers who guide a professional staff to plan for Cape Cod's future growth, provide technical assistance to towns, review and vote on major developments and act as the Commission's liaison to their communities.

The Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan (RPP) is a planning and a regulatory document, required by the Cape Cod Commission Act that serves several purposes. As a planning document, the RPP develops a growth policy for Cape Cod, identifies key resources of regional importance, and provides the framework for town local comprehensive planning efforts. As a regulatory document, the RPP contains the "Minimum Performance Standards" that are required of all Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) that fall within the Commission's jurisdiction. The Cape Cod Commission Act calls for an update to the plan every five years.

Lake Tahoe www.trpa.org Lake Tahoe is the largest freshwater Lake in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and at 191 square miles it is the largest alpine lake in the United States. It is also the 10th deepest lake in the world and is one of only three lakes in the U.S. designated as an Outstanding Natural Resource Water. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (or TRPA) was formed in 1969 through a bi-state compact between California and Nevada which was ratified by the U.S. Congress. The agency is mandated to protect the environment of the Lake Tahoe Basin through land-use regulations. In 1987 the first regional plan was adopted by the Governing Board. TRPA is primarily an environmental agency, but recognizes the interdependency of environmental, economic and social well being in the Tahoe Region. Environmental groups, property rights advocates, business interests and numerous government agencies agree that tourism and successful, locally-owned businesses are the key to economic vitality at Lake Tahoe and are dependent upon the attractiveness of the region’s environment. The TRPA Regional Plan allows for a certain rate of residential, commercial and recreational growth, the impacts of which are controlled through mitigation measures. TRPA has been collecting scientific research on the effects of development on Lake Tahoe’s clarity for more than 35 years, and regulating land use has been one of the most effective tools in protecting water quality, scenery, air quality, wildlife, forests, and in providing better recreation opportunities.

Adirondack State Park www.apa.state.ny.us The Adirondack Park was created in 1892 by the state of New York to protect the valuable water and timber resources in the region. At six million acres in size, it is the largest publically protected area in the contiguous United States. Approximately 48% of the park is in public ownership while the remaining 52% is privately owned. The Adirondack Park Agency (1971) created the Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan in 1975 to conserve the Park’s natural resources and assure future development is well planned. As part of the Plan, a classification system was developed to channel growth into the most appropriate areas. The classification of a particular area depends on a number of factors: 1) existing land use and population patterns, 2) physical limitations, 3) unique geologic features, 4) wildlife habitat, rare species, fragile ecosystems, and 5) other public considerations (historic sites, rural character, etc.). Extra protection is provided to critical environmental areas (wetlands, high elevations, shorelines, and proximity to certain public lands).

3. Large Scale Cooperative Biosphere Reserve

Southern Appalachian Man and Bioreserve http://samab.org/ In 1968, the UNESCO Conference on the Conservation and Rational Use of the Resources of the Biosphere launched the international Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme. This program proposed a network of biosphere reserves around the world, which were intended to demonstrate, by example, how to maintain a balance between conserving biodiversity and fostering economic and social development. The Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Reserve was officially designated a multi-unit regional biosphere reserve in 1988, and a “cooperative and interagency agreement was signed to establish the SAMAB Cooperative. The Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB) Program is a public/private partnership that focuses its attention on the Southern Appalachian Biosphere Reserve. The program encourages the utilization of ecosystem and adaptive management principles. Its mission is to promote the environmental health and stewardship of natural, economic, and cultural resources in the Southern Appalachians. It encourages community-based solutions to critical regional issues through cooperation among partners, information gathering and sharing, integrated assessments, and demonstration projects.

The SAMAB program is organized into both a cooperative and a foundation. The SAMAB Cooperative is made up of 11 federal and 3 state natural resource agencies. The work of SAMAB is done by participating agencies, guided by an interagency Executive Committee and carried out by the Executive Director, the Coordinating Office, and several committees and initiatives. The SAMAB Foundation was established in 1989 to give private individuals, firms, academic institutions, and communities an opportunity to participate in SAMAB projects. The Foundation was established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation to help channel private-sector funding into the SAMAB program.

Goals of the SAMAB

Establish and maintain cooperative relationships with state, local, and other federal entities within the region. Identify principal environmental and developmental issues for the region (a strategic view) and in this context identify sustainable and ecologically sound economic development opportunities. Undertake regional cooperative research and resource-management initiatives and disseminate the results.

9 Develop a land ethic that recognizes the importance of ecologically sound management of natural and cultural resources.

Key focus areas of SAMAB include: air quality, cultural resources, invasive species, ecosystem restoration, information management, sustainable communities, and volunteer monitoring.

Several of the projects listed above were also included in a study by Vigmostad et al (2005) focused on large scale ecosystem restoration projects (Coastal Louisiana, Great Lakes, South Florida Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, Upper Mississippi, andColumbia River). All seven of the projects they analyzed share similar characteristics. First, all of these efforts are very large in scale and serve a large number of people. Each project is focused on a nationally and globally significant ecological resource whose long-term health is critical to the well-being of the human communities that live in the region. All of these case studies clearly demonstrate the importance of highlighting the uniqueness of the system. Competing demands for ecosystem resources in all seven regions have led to serious ecological dilemmas that threaten many of the resource-dependent communities and industries in these areas (Vigmostad et al 2005). Each of these regions also has problems associated with reduced water quality, water quantity issues, declining fish and wildlife populations, endangered species, destruction and loss of habitat (primarily wetlands) and invasive species (Vigmostad et al 2005). Importantly, data and information on the existence of resource problems – particularly species population declines and water-quality degradation – were widespread in the years leading up to the inception of each of the ecosystem management institutions (Heikkila and Gerlak 2005)

In addition, each project established numerous councils, task forces, and advisory commissions to oversee, coordinate and facilitate the restoration process. All seven have a designated federal and state agency leading the restoration effort. Interestingly, most of the restoration project areas studied by Vigmostad et al (2005) are an important source of drinking water for large populations. Lastly, due to the large size, degree and duration of degradation, and complexity of the issues, the average cost of each of the seven restoration efforts is projected to be $10 billion (range is $8 - 14 billion) and will take decades to achieve.

Below is a list and description of lessons learned from the seven large scale restoration projects assessed in the Vigmostad et al report (2005) (for more details please see Appendix D).

1. Support: Large scale ecosystem restorations involve complex and lengthy negotiations among scientists, government agency staff, and stakeholders. Dynamic political leadership derived from consensus in the most important component to securing adequate resources. Who is involved in the project is critical to success. 2. Governance: Need to understand how the various federal, state, and local governments and agencies function. It is important to know the laws, regulations, and policies, and to know how to develop new innovative policies. 3. Planning: Comprehensive, detailed, science based plans are critical to the success of long scale projects. These plans require a lot of time and resources and should include such details as costs, deadlines, and responsible parties to gain support and move to the implementation stage. 4. Adaptive Management: Changing conditions and information are a large part of ecosystem management and restoration efforts. Adaptive management needs to be a core component of the process to respond to these changes.

10 5. Accounting: Well thought out accounting systems need to be established to a) project and track expenses, b) enforce mandatory actions and track voluntary performance, c) evaluate ecosystem outcomes, and d) report on the status of ecosystem health. 6. Transforming Complex Human Systems: Human society is an integral part of the landscape and ecosystems being addressed. In order to have long-term ecological success, ecosystem management and restoration efforts require the transformation of complex human systems such as those supplying energy, transportation, food, and commerce. 7. Long-term Commitment: Large scale complex ecosystem management/restoration projects require decades and billions of dollars to achieve results.

Proposed Guiding Principles and Desired Future Conditions for the SMNRI

Collaborative and Inclusive: The initiative consists of numerous organizations representing a variety of interests working in concert towards a common set of goals: long-term natural resource, community, and economic prosperity in the SLP region. Values that reinforce the idea of collaboration include accountability, transparency, inclusiveness, and open communication.

Holistic: The initiative is taking a comprehensive approach to improving the long-term health of the SLP’s natural resource assets. Due to the complexity of the SLP’s landscape, the initiative incorporates other important issues that impact natural resources such as economic development, agricultural viability, and urban revitalization into the development of strategies, goals, and objectives. As a result of taking a multi-disciplinary approach, the initiative is much more creative and innovative in the development of strategies and actions.

Issues focused and Goal driven: The initiative is oriented around a set of strategic issues critical to the long-term ecological health of the SLP region. One of the benefits of taking an issues approach is that it gives the initiative the flexibility of addressing emerging issues or changing focus based on new information or changing conditions. Regardless of which issues are chosen, goals and objectives are identified for each issue that focus on clear, specific, quantitative, and meaningful outcomes.

Science-based: Information used in the development of the plan was based on the best available scientific research, analyses, and knowledge. Research priorities were also identified, and several critical research projects are already underway to help guide future direction and test current hypotheses.

Hierarchical: The SLP is a large complex unit of land that consists of a variety of landscape ecosystems, glacial landforms, natural communities, habitats, species, watersheds, subwatersheds, water bodies, economic regions, and governmental jurisdictions. In order to simplify the organization of the plan, the initiative is using a hierarchical system for determining goals, objectives and priorities, developing strategies, and assigning actions.

Long-term and Adaptive: The initiative is viewed as an adaptive or “living” project that continues to monitor progress, evaluate results, and modify strategies, goals, and objectives based on new information. There is also a strong commitment by the eco-team to ensure there are adequate resources and strong leadership to continue making progress over several decades or even centuries.

11 Strong Public, Political and Financial Support: Due to good scientific documentation and research, the team was able to develop and implement a strong communication strategy. Communication emphasizes the most significant ecological issues in the SLP region, how those problems impact Michigan’s communities and economy, and the benefits of a healthier ecosystem. As a result, the project has gained broad public support which has lead to strong political support from the governor’s office, state legislature, and Congress.

Operational and Accountable: Based on the goals, objectives and strategies previously identified for each issue, a set of clear actions have been identified for achieving success Each action has a specific timeframe, resources required, and responsible parties. In addition, an accounting system has been established to track progress on actions, goals, and ecosystem health which is helping to build trust and confidence within the partnership.

12 Considerations for Collaboration in Southern Michigan

As stated in the implementation strategy document (Appendix B), once the Initiative is established, a partnership, composed of a broad range of stakeholders will further develop and implement the SMNRI. The partnership may be led by a Coordinating Council that identifies, defines, and prioritizes strategic issues for the SLP region, and then sets related goals and objectives for each issue. A key step is determining which agencies and organizations should be represented both in the partnership and on the collaborative council. In order to fairly determine which agencies and organizations should be invited to participate in the SMNRI, we propose a thoughtful, transparent, and logical process for identifying key collaborators that could make a significant contribution towards the success of the effort. Suggested categories of stakeholders include: state agencies, 2) federal agencies, 3) local government, 4) non governmental organizations, 5) private citizens, 6) business sector, 7) universities, and 8) sovereign nations. Once this is completed, projects related to or having a significant impact on the SMNFI in the SLP should be identified and categorized. This list should include both large and small scale projects and efforts.

Collaborative natural resource management efforts are complex by nature. Ecosystem processes and functions occur at a variety of scales and natural transcend political and management boundaries. Partnerships are critical in any ecosystem management project, but they are particularly critical in a landscape such as the SLP that is highly fragmented politically, culturally, ecologically and by land ownership. In order to successfully transcend the numerous obstacles and challenges posed by this landscape, this project will need to move beyond traditional conservation partners and incorporate additional entities relevant to human society.

The impetus behind the development of the Southern Michigan Natural Resource Initiative is to protect and enhance the natural resources found in this region. However, in order to realistically achieve this goal, a strong connection needs to be made between a healthy environment and human prosperity. As the Ecological Society of America pointed out, sustainability is the gravitational force of ecosystem management, and we need to recognize upfront that humans and human activities are a component of the ecosystem (1999). Although many of the issues facing Michigan are interrelated, key issues were divided into four major categories (economic, political, social, and environmental) to provide a clearer understanding of who should be involved in the initiative. Challenges and opportunities were identified within each of the three categories, and chosen based on their potential impact to the long-term ecological integrity or heath of the SLP region.

Economic Economic progress is traditionally considered at odds with the goals of a healthy natural environment. During the industrial era, this traditional view was strongly supported by the evidence of poor air quality, polluted water bodies, major declines in wildlife species and habitat, and large scale fragmentation of the landscape. The recent shift towards a more knowledge based economy however has seemingly brought the two historically disparate goals of economic growth and environmental health together. Despite this shift, there remain a number of economically related challenges to garnering support for a long-term healthy environment in the SLP region.

Economic Challenges recent interest in biofuel production recent interest in wind energy development

13 economic crisis - high unemployment, high foreclosure rate, decreased tax base, increased global competitiveness loss of manufacturing base - decline in domestic automotive industry urban decay brownfields

Economic Opportunities tourism is the number one economic sector in Michigan agriculture is currently number two economic sector in the state abundance of natural assets increased interest in promoting knowledge based economic growth recent success of “Pure Michigan” tourism campaign recent study shows correlation between natural assets and economic growth in Michigan

Political Political Challenges very high number of local units of government, drain commissioners, and road commissions archaic dysfunctional tax structure home rule – counties and regions do not have regulatory authority over smaller jurisdictions lack of a statewide growth management strategy

Political Opportunities difficult economic conditions may lead to increased support for regional cooperation Land Policy Institute is developing a grant to the Economic Development Authority focused on placemaking for prosperity regional planning councils have ability to facilitate local collaborative efforts and provide information to a large number of local units quickly.

Social Social Challenges high unemployment cuts in community services – schools, health, welfare, adult education, etc. decreasing population due to lack of jobs “brain drain” of college graduates decreasing number of hunters and anglers sprawling development patterns continued inner city decline

Social Opportunities conservation stewards program The Stewardship Network – volunteer clusters MDNR Parks – numerous themes at parks to increase state park activity and support increased interest in the environment by society (go green movement) increased knowledge of environmental issues by society highest population in state to solicit volunteers strong support for conserving open space (based on millages, ballot initiatives past)

Environmental Environmental Challenges funding cuts to conservation organizations such as DNR, DEQ, TNC, MSUE, MNFI fewer natural resource professionals and financial support

14 possibility of cutting state wetlands program in future save our shoreline movement (beach grooming) weak or unenforced environmental laws high degree of surface and ground water degradation high natural land cover fragmentation high number and extent of both aquatic and terrestrial invasive species over abundance of deer and Canada geese populations relatively low access to outdoor recreation opportunities global climate change - predicted decreased Great Lake water levels lack of an integrated statewide natural resource plan lack of statewide place-based conservation priorities lack of a strong statewide environmental lobby lack of stable conservation funding sources

Environmental Opportunities farm bill program MSU Extension’s new Greening Michigan Institute Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Great Lakes biodiversity conservation strategies MNRTF NAWCA LandScope Michigan The Stewardship Network and its volunteer clusters numerous land conservancies, watershed councils, and nature centers invasive species control by MDNR on state lands MDNR Landowner Incentive Program Numerous universities colleges, and community colleges with expertise and students (research, group projects, data collection) Karner blue butterfly HCP Prairie fen/Mitchell’s satyr HCP Relatively high number and rare species and element occurrences MDOT’s interest in enhancing natural resource conservation

Since this effort is ultimately focused on key issues related to how humans interact with, view, and utilize land and water resources, another way of identifying and organizing issues important to the SLP region is to understand what the different set of goals might be from the perspective of different land uses. For the purposes of this project, land use is divided into three main categories: 1) Urban, 2) agriculture, and 3) conservation.

Potential Goals for Urban Areas sustainable economic development restoring urban vitality attracting the creative class mass transit walkable communities LEED building certification historic building preservation affordable housing access to outdoor recreation integration of renewable energy sources (wind, solar) energy conservation

15 low impact development practices

Biggest Challenges for Urban Areas urban sprawl decay of urban core areas poor road conditions lack of public transit options high unemployment high foreclosure rate loss of manufacturing base - particularly in automobile industry climate change brownfields abandoned buildings environmental justice

Potential Goals for Agricultural Areas local food harvesting profitable agriculture –value added products agricultural preservation agricultural tourism wind energy development

Biggest Challenges for Agricultural Areas urban sprawl (fragmentation) global competition climate change (intense rain storms; droughty summers; early season warm up and late frost) low commodity prices high taxes

Potential Goals for Conservation Areas enhancing and protecting water quality in critical watersheds protecting and restoring the most significant ecological areas increasing outdoor recreational opportunities within and around urban centers conserving and restoring natural areas within and around urban centers protecting key corridors between significant ecological areas promoting the development of green infrastructure plans for urban areas identifying and protecting areas that have not been invaded by invasive species decreasing the impact of white tailed deer (crop damage, vehicular collisions, overbrowsing) decreasing the impact of Canada geese (large lawn areas and beaches) controlling existing invasive species eliminating the introduction of new invasive species

Biggest Challenges for Conservation Areas invasive species urban sprawl over abundance of deer lack of hunting opportunities small isolated natural areas high degree of ownership and parcel fragmentation high degree of habitat fragmentation poor water quality

16 moderate to poor air quality (poor quality in high density urban areas) high agricultural runoff (sedimentation, nutrients)

Table 1. Conservation Projects in the SLP Region (preliminary table).

Conservation Projects/Plans Organization Lead Contact Name

National LandScope America NatureServe Rob Riordan National Habitat Classification NatureServe Pat Comer

Great Lakes Region Climate Change Initiative DNR Chris Hoving Great Lakes Ecoregional Plan (1st iteration) TNC Doug Pearsall Great Lakes Regional Aquatic GAP analysis USGS Great Lakes Restoration Initiative EPA, USFWS, NOAA Lake Erie LAMP Lake Huron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy TNC Patrick Doran Lake Huron Biodiversity Conservation Strategy TNC Patrick Doran Lake Huron LAMP Lake Michigan LAMP Lake St. Clair Coastal Habitat Assessment MNFI; Great Lakes John Paskus; Commission Victoria Pebbles Lake St. Clair Management Plan Great Lakes Commission Matt Doss Michigan Aquatic GAP analysis USGS Significant Areas of Biological Diversity in the Great TNC Lakes Basin USFWS Region 3 Wind Energy HCP? DNR Chris Hoving

Statewide Biodiversity Assessment of Michigan Technical Report MNFI John Paskus; Amy Derosier Biodiversity Stewardship Areas DNR Mike Donovan Forest Certification DNR Cara Boucher Important Bird Areas Michigan Audubon Society Caleb Putnam Michigan GAP Analysis DNR Mike Donovan Michigan Wildlife Action Plan DNR Amy Derosier TNC Ecoregional Plan TNC Doug Pearsall; Patrick Doran

Regional Berrien, Cass, and Van Buren Green Infrastructure MNFI; Southwest Planning John Paskus plan Commission Black River Watershed Plan Clinton River AOC

17 Conservation Projects/Plans Organization Lead Contact Name

Detroit River AOC Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge USFWS Dune Alliance: Site Ecological Summaries MNFI; The Conservation John Paskus; Fund Peg Kohring GLS Greenlinks Green Infrastructure Plan MNFI; U of M Flint Jonathon Jarosz Headwaters Protection of Southeastern MI TNC Doug Pearsall Huron River watershed plan/PCA assessment Huron River Watershed Kris Olson Council Kalamazoo River AOC Kalamazoo Watershed Plan Karner blue butterfly HCP MDNR Chris Hoving Macatawa Watershed Plan Muskegon Lake AOC Paw Paw River watershed plan TNC John Legge Prairie fen/Mitchell’s satyr HCP MDNR Chris Hoving River Raisin AOC Rouge River AOC Rouge River watershed plan Saginaw Bay Green Infrastructure Plan UofM Flint Jonathon Jarosz Saginaw Bay watershed CAP TNC Doug Pearsall Saginaw River/Saginaw Bay AOC Southeast Michigan Greenways Collaborative Tom Woiwode

St. Clair River AOC Tri-County (Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton) Green MNFI; Tri-County Regional Harmony Gmazel: Infrastructure plan Planning Commission John Paskus

Watershed or River System West Michigan Green Infrastructure Plan West Michigan Strategic Alliance Western Lake Erie CAP TNC Doug Pearsall

County or smaller Barry County PCA assessment MNFI; Barry County John Paskus Livingston County PCA assessment MNFI; Livingston County John Paskus Macomb County PCA assessment MNFI; Macomb County John Paskus Oakland County PCA assessment and Green MNFI; Oakland County Jim Keglovitz Infrastructure plan Ottawa County Parks and recreation plan Ottawa County Parks

18 Based on the information provided above and the table containing a preliminary list of recent and existing conservation based projects in the SLP region (Table 1), a list of potential collaborators in the SLP region was created (Table 2). Since the proposed Southern Michigan Natural Resource Initiative is focused on natural resource conservation and restoration, this list reflects a bias towards conservation organizations and agencies. However, the information covered in this chapter points towards the importance of non-traditional partners of the MDNR. The SLP region is not a pristine environment and probably never will be. Approximately 95% of the landscape is in private ownership, and very little area can be considered high quality natural land and water. As a result, this Initiative will need to successfully bring together a collection of diverse interests in order to achieve desired future conditions. Other categories of organizations included in the table are: regional planning commissions, political organizations, economic and development groups, and agricultural agencies. It is recognized that these additional categories need to be fleshed out further by organizations who are more familiar with those areas.

Table 2. Potential Collaborators in the SLP (preliminary table).

Potential Collaborators in the SLP

Statewide Environmental Groups/Agencies Ducks Unlimited Great Lake Commission Heart of the Lakes Center for Land Conservation Policy MDEQ MEC Michigan Association of Conservation Districts (each county) Michigan Audubon Society Michigan Land Use Institute Michigan Natural Areas Council MSU Land Policy Institute MSUE (newly aligned districts, campus specialists) MSUE Citizen Planner Program MUCC North Central Regional Center for Rural Development (MSUE, MAES, and ANR) Pheasants Forever Public Sector Consultants, Inc Sierra Club The Stewardship Network Trout Unlimited Whitetails Unlimited Wild Turkey Federation

Resource Conservation and Development Councils (RC&Ds) Potowatomi Saginaw Bay Sauk Trials Southeast Michigan (Pending) Timberland

19 Potential Collaborators in the SLP

Regional Planning Commissions (9) East Central Michigan Planning and Development Regional Commission GLS Region V Planning Commission Region 2 Planning Commission Southcentral Michigan Planning Council Southeast Michigan Council of Government Southwest Michigan Commission Tri-County Regional Planning Commission West Michigan Regional Planning Commission West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission

Land Conservancies (19) Blue Water Land Conservancy Chippewa Watershed Conservancy Great Lakes Bioregional Land Conservancy Grosse Ile Nature and Land Conservancy Land Consevancy of West Michigan Legacy Land Trust Little Forks Conservancy Livingston Land Conservancy Macomb Land Conservancy Michigan Nature Association Mid-Michigan Land Conservancy North Oakland Headwaters Land Conservancy Oakland Land Conservancy Raisin Valley Land Trust Sagniaw Basin Land Conservancy Six Rivers Land Conservancy Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy Southwest Michigan Land Conservancy The Nature Conservancy

Federal Natural Resource Agencies EPA -GLNPO NRCS US Corps of Engineers USFS USFWS

Political/Policy Organizations Michigan Association of Counties Michigan Association of Planners Michigan Municipal League Michigan Township Association

Economic/Development Groups Chambers of Commerce Michigan Association of Homebuilders

20 Potential Collaborators in the SLP

Michigan Department of Transportation Michigan Economic Development Corporation

Regional Environmental Groups Saginaw Bay Watershed Information Network Southeast Michigan Greenways Collaborative West Michigan Strategic Alliance

Agricultural Organizations Michigan Department of Agriculture Farm Bureau Farm Service Agency

Tribal Organizations Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Potowatomi Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potowatomi Pokagon Band of Potowatomi Saginaw Chippewa Tribe

Watershed Councils (13) Clinton River Watershed Council Coldwater River Watershed Council Flint River Watershed Coalition Friends of the Detroit River Friends of the St. Joe River Association Huron River Watershed Council Kalamazoo River Watershed Council Lower Grand River Organization of Watersheds Mona Lake Watershed Council River Raisin Watershed Council Rouge River Watershed Council Thornapple River Watershed Council Upper Grand River Watershed Council

Nature Centers (select large centers) Chippewa Valley Nature Center Fernwood Botanical Garden and Nature Preserve For-Mar Nature Preserve Kalamazoo Nature Center Pierce Cedar Creek Institute Sarett Nature Center Seven Ponds Nature Center

21 SLP Natural Resource Assessment Overview

At over 15.5 million acres, the Southern Lower Peninsula ecoregion is the largest ecoregion in Michigan. It has also undergone the most significant land alterations in the entire state. Compared to circa 1800 time period, only 31.5% of the landscape remains in some kind of a natural state, and the majority of these remaining natural lands are considered to be in low quality condition. If you remove a 100 meter buffer from all roads, This percentage of natural lands decreases to x%. Circa 2000, the primary land cover was agriculture which comprised approximately 50.6% of the landscape. With Michigan being at the northern edge of the United States, it is not surprising that the southern region was the first to be settled by European settlers. One of the first areas in Michigan to be settled by European settlers was the Lake St. Clair area due to its abundance of natural resources. Farmers were attracted to this region of Michigan due to the relatively rich soils and long growing season. Once the federal Swamp Lands Act became enacted in 1849 and the first plow and drains were introduced to the upper Midwest, it was only a matter of time before the southern Lower Peninsula was transformed from a predominately forested wilderness occupied by several Native American tribes, to an agriculturally dominated landscape. Today, the SLP is the most heavily farmed region in the state. In addition, the heaviest urban, industrial, and residential development occurred in this ecoregion, particularly along the Great Lakes shoreline (Albert, 1995). In 2000, approximately 9.5% of the SLP was urbanized. All of the most significant European settlements in the 1800’s were located somewhere along one of the major river systems to take advantage of the readily established transportation routes and water resources. The largest river systems in the SLP include: Detroit River, Huron River, Grand River, Saginaw River, Kalamazoo River, and St. Joseph River. Today, these early settlements are still where the majority of the population, industry, and commercial businesses are located.

Based on a predictive land use model created by researchers at Michigan State University, urban development is projected to grow by 176% between 1990 and 2040 (Public Sector Consultants, Inc. 2001). The vast majority of that growth is predicted to occur in the SLP particularly in the eastern portion of the section in the regions surrounding the cities of Detroit, Flint, Ann Arbor, Saginaw and Bay City. Given the large percentage of urban landuse, it isn’t surprising that the SLP also contains the most miles of roads in the state with 88,361 miles, or 62% of the roads for the entire state. Due to the tremendous impacts of urban land use, roads, stream crossings, and industrial agricultural practices, the SLP section also contains the least functional (most modified) watersheds in the state (Paskus et al 2008).

Despite these dramatic changes to the landscape, the SLP still contains high quality remnants of natural communities, and viable populations of both unique and common plant and animal species. In fact, the majority of the rare species known to occur in Michigan can be found in the SLP region. Rare plant communities found in the SLP section primarily fall in to the categories of savanna, prairie, and non-forested wetlands. In fact, fourteen out of the 42 plant communities found in the SLP (33%) are considered either globally imperiled or globally critically imperiled. Not surprisingly, many of the rare species found in the SLP are associated with these unique natural communities. Federally listed or candidate terrestrial animal species found in the SLP include: Karner blue butterfly, Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, copperbelly watersnake, eastern fox snake, piping plover, massasauga rattlesnake, and Indiana bat. Federally listed plants include: Pitcher’s thistle, white prairie fringed orchid, and Hall’s bulrush. Federally listed or candidate aquatic animal species include four bivalves: clubshell, white catspaw, rayed bean, and northern riffleshell.

22 This chapter is divided into four main sections: 1) ecology, 2) botany, 3) zoology, and 4) aquatics. Although each section is organized slightly differently due differences in subject matter, they each address several categories of information, namely: 1) element occurrence ranks and distribution, 2) inventories, and 3) research. Information for each of these categories is organized by 1) summary of existing information, 2) information gaps and priorities, and 3) resources. The chapter ends with a table summarizing priorities for GIS analyses based on available digital data sets.

23 Ecology Priorities, Information, and Information Gaps for the SLP

Regional Landscape Ecosystems and Landtype Associations of Michigan

Information Summary A nested hierarchical approach to ecosystem classification for Michigan utilizes shared abiotic and biotic factors to define subdivisions of the landscape (Albert et al. 1986, Albert 1995). This approach divides the state into four sections, 22 subsections, and 38 sub-subsections that provide a framework for natural resource management and planning and conservation of biological diversity. The regional landscape ecosystems were last revised in 1994.

The Southern Lower Peninsula of Michigan section contains six subsections and an additional twelve sub-subsections. Compared to the rest of Michigan, this section has more warm humid air masses from the Gulf of Mexico and fewer cold dry air masses of continental origin. As a result, the growing season is longer than that of the other three sections (Albert 1995).

Wisconsonian age glacial and post glacial landforms cover the entire land surface of the section. Major landforms found in this section include: lakeplain, outwash, ground moraine, and end moraine. Broad luscustrine plains occur along all of the Great Lakes extending as far inland as 50 miles. Sand dunes form a 1-5 mile band along much of Lake Michigan. The interior consists of relatively low ground and end moraines with a broad interlobate outwash plain occupying the southern half of the section. Similar to the northern sections of Michigan, approximately 83% of the section was forested in the mid 1800’s. The majority of the forested landcover was dominated by mesic deciduous forest (beech-sugar maple). However, this was the only section of Michigan that supported tall grass prairie (Albert 1995), and 11.6% of the landscape, primarily the interlobate region, was covered by savanna (a unique grassland community with scattered trees and shrubs). Wetlands included extensive great lakes marshes, wet prairies, fens, and swamp forests (Comer et al 1993a, 1993b).

The vast majority of remaining natural lands are found in small fragments scattered across the landscape. It is a stretch to classify any portion of the SLP section as a functional landscape. Some areas that could be considered candidates for a functional landscape include: 1) Allegan State Game Area, 2) Pinckney-Waterloo Recreation Area, 3) St. Clair flats area, and 4) the combination of Barry State Game Area and Yankee Springs Recreation Area. It appears that major restoration will be required if large, functional landscapes are to persist in the section compared to other three regions of the state.

Information Gaps and Priorities

The Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan should be revised and published to increase their use as a framework for conservation planning projects. Currently, information on Michigan’s RLE is available in an outdated web format and dated MNFI reports. An interactive application on the MNFI website linking RLE to Michigan’s natural communities and rare biota is one possibility for distributing this tool. Landtype associations (LTAs) have been identified and delineated in northern Lower Michigan and are in the process of being developed for Upper Michigan. To date, LTAs have not been developed for southern Lower Michigan. However, an LTA assessment might not be an appropriate analysis for the SLP due to the high degree of fragmentation, degradation of habitat, and loss of natural land cover. The regional landscape ecosystem framework is currently being utilized by the Michigan DNR to develop a network of

24 functional representative ecosystems on DNR-administered lands (Cohen 2009). This process will be applied to the SLP region in the near future.

Priorities Explore development of an LTA map of the SLP Define and identify functional landscapes (Biodiversity Stewardship Areas) Develop a wildlife travel corridor model (work with zoology) Research and summarize land use history, ecological information, conservation status, ownership, viewable areas by subsection and sub-subsection

Resources

Albert, D.A., S.R. Denton and B.V. Barnes. 1986. Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan. University of MI, School of Natural Resources. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1986-01. 32pp.

Albert, D.A. 1992. Draft Ecoregion Map and Classification of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Report to the Upper Great Lakes Biodiversity Committee. Funding from USFS Northcentral Forest Experiment Station. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1992-02. 99pp.

Albert, D.A. 1993. Draft Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Report to the Upper Great Lakes Biodiversity Committee, funding from USFS Northcentral Forest Experiment Station. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1993-01. 245pp.

Albert, D.A. 1995. Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: A Working Map and Classification (Fourth Revision: July 1994). Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-01. 250pp.

Albert, D.A., R.A. Corner, J.B. Raab and C.J. Delain. 1996. The Landtype Associations of District 9, Northern Lower Michigan. Report for the USDI Bureau of Land Management. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-01. 36pp.

Corner, R.A., and D.A. Albert. 1999. Landtype Associations of The Arenac Subsection: Subsection VII.1. Report for the Northern Lower Michigan Ecosystem Management Project. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1999-02. 69pp. + maps.

Corner, R.A., and D.A. Albert. 1999. Landtype Associations of The High Plains: Subsection VII.2. Prepared for the Northern Lower Michigan Ecosystem Management Project. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1999-03. 177pp. + maps.

Corner, R.A., and D.A. Albert. 1999. Landtype Associations of The Newaygo Outwash Plain: Subsection VII.3. Prepared for the Northern Lower Michigan Ecosystem Management Project. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1999-04. 76pp. + maps.

Corner, R.A., and D.A. Albert. 1999. Landtype Associations of The Manistee Subsection: Subsection VII.4. Prepared for the Northern Lower Michigan Ecosystem Management Project. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1999-05. 84pp. + maps.

25 Corner, R.A., and D.A. Albert. 1999. Landtype Associations of The Leelanau and Grand Traverse Peninsula: Subsection VII.5. Prepared for the Northern Lower Michigan Ecosystem Management Project. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1999-06. 47pp. + maps.

Corner, R.A., and D.A. Albert. 1999. Landtype Associations of The Presque Isle Subsection: Subsection VII.6. Prepared for the Northern Lower Michigan Ecosystem Management Project. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1999-07. 137pp. + maps.

Historical and Current Land Cover

Summary of Existing Information

Landcover maps and imagery are a critical resource for natural resource management and planning and conservation of biological diversity. In particular, these resources permit the identification of sites of potential conservation significance and/or restoration potential. The circa 1800 vegetation map was created based on the notes of surveyors of the General Land Office, and depicts hypothesized land cover at the time of European settlement. This map is used in conjunction with aerial photographs and more recent land cover data sets (e.g., 1978 MIRIS, 1992 USGS, 2000 IFMAP) to target surveys for specific features and natural communities.

Circa 1800, The SLP section was a predominately forested region. Eighty three percent of the landscape was forested with upland forest covering a total of 67.6% of the section. The most common type of forest in the SLP was mesic deciduous forest (beech-sugar maple) at 37.4%, followed by dry and dry mesic deciduous forest (oak-hickory and mixed oak forest) at 14.85%. Mesic deciduous forest was found in all areas of the section, but was most prevalent on the sandy lakeplains, and fine textured moraines. Dry and dry mesic forests were primarily located on well drained sandy ice contact landforms particularly in the interlobate region. Fire dependent systems such as oak savannas and prairies, covering approximately 12% of the landscape, were found scattered throughout the interlobate region particularly on very well drained, sandy ice contact landforms and outwash plains, as well as sandy moraines. Small wetlands were found scattered throughout the section in small depressions, outwash channels, and along waterways. Calcareous seepages along the edges of well drained moraines often supported prairie fens and tamarack swamps. A unique type of wetland called lakeplain prairie was found in rather large pockets on the eastern flat lakeplain (Maumee lakeplain) from Monroe County north to Bay County. A band of sand dunes stretching 1 to 5 miles inland was found all along the Lake Michigan shoreline. In addition, vast seas of emergent and submergent wetland were found along the coastal areas particularly in protected bays and drowned river mouths. Several large Great Lakes marsh complexes were found in Lake St. Clair, western Lake Erie, and Saginaw Bay.

Today, the vast majority of the landscape has been dramatically modified due to human activities. The vast majority of mesic deciduous forest has been converted to agriculture, numerous wetlands have been destroyed (in some counties as much as 70% has been lost), and fire dependent systems of savanna and prairie have been converted to other natural communities due to fire suppression policies and fragmentation. Only 26% of the circa 1800 upland forests remain. It is estimated that only .5% of the circa 1800 savanna, prairie, and wet prairie systems remain with the vast majority in extremely small isolated patches.

26 Information Gaps and Priorities

Wide-scale inventory and conservation planning efforts suffer from a lack of a sufficiently detailed, accurate landcover layer for Michigan. Use of new remote sensing technologies should be considered to map and classify landcover units in the SLP and throughout Michigan. Improving technology is increasing our ability to capture fine-scale aerial and oblique digital photographs of land surfaces. Accurate data on acreage of various land cover types will foster the ability to monitor trends.

Resources

Comer, P.J., D.A. Albert, L.J. Scrimger, T. Leibfreid, D. Schuen, and H. Jones. 1993. Historical Wetlands of Michigan's Coastal Zone and Southeastern Lakeplain. Report for Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division, Coastal Zone Management Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1993-06. 110pp.

Comer, P.J. et al. 1995. Michigan's Presettlement Vegetation, as Interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816-1856. A report funded by USEPA, Water Division; Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division; MDNR, Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative; MDNR Land and Water Mgmt. Division, Coastal Zone Program; Hiawatha National Forest and Michigan Department of Military Affairs. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-06. 17pp.

Comer, P.J., D.A. Albert, H.A. Wells, B.L. Hart, J.B. Raab, D.L. Price, D.M. Kashian, R.A. Corner and D.W. Schuen. 1995. Michigan's Native Landscape as Interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816-1856. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Division; Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Div.; MDNR Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative; MDNR Land and Water Mgmt. Div., Coastal Mgmt. Program; Hiawatha National Forest and Michigan Dept. of Military Affairs. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-07. 78pp.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Resource Inventory Program (MRIP). 1978. Michigan Resource Information System (MIRIS) Landcover 1978. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. Digital dataset.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 2001. IFMAP/GAP Lower Peninsula Land Cover (produced as part of the IFMAP natural resources decision support system). Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. Digital dataset and report.

Black-and-white, infrared, and true color aerial photos (1940, 1978, 1992, 1998, 2005, etc.)

Classification and Descriptions of Natural Communities

Summary of Existing Information

A draft list and descriptions of Michigan’s natural communities was revised and expanded in 2007 (Kost et al. 2007). The updated natural community classification identifies 76 natural community types for Michigan, 46 of which occur in the SLP. The classification provides a framework for the identification and ecological assessment of native habitats in the region, and

27 assists the development of conservation and management priorities by assessing the statewide and global status of each natural community type.

Information Gaps and Priorities

Conservation efforts in the SLP and throughout Michigan would benefit from the development of a hierarchical, landscape-driven ecological classification that incorporates quantitative vegetation data in addition to consistently collected and analyzed information on landforms, soils, hydrology, and other abiotic and biotic variables. A hierarchically scaled classification will allow “typing” of sites that do not neatly fit the 76 currently defined types.

Resources

Albert, D.A. and L.D. Minc. 2001. Abiotic and Floristic Characterization of the Laurentian Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands. Proceedings of the International Association of Theoretical and Applied Limnology. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol., Stuttgart, Germany. (27):3413-3419.

Albert, D.A., D.A. Wilcox, J.W. Ingram and T.A.Thompson. 2006. Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands. Journal of the Great Lakes Res. 31 (Supplement 1):129-146. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2006-08.

Jude D., D.A. Albert, D.G. Uzarski and J.Brazner. 2005. Lake Michigan's coastal wetlands: Distribution, biological components with emphasis on fish, and threats. Pages 439-477 in T. Edsal and M. Munawar's State of Lake Michigan: Ecology, Health, and Management. Printed by Goodwork Books, New Delhi, India. ISBN: 81-7898-458-X. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2005-26.

Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report No. 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp.

Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 2006. Michigan’s Natural Communities: Draft List and Descriptions. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 36 pp.

Minc, L.D. and D.A. Albert. 1990. Oak-dominated Communities of Southern Lower Michigan: Floristic and Abiotic Comparisons. A report to Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1990-05. 103pp.

Minc, L.D. 1996. Michigan's Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands, Part 1: An Overview of Abiotic Variability. Report to EPA Great Lakes National Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-14. 143pp.

Minc, L.D. 1997. Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands: An Overview of Abiotic Factors Affecting their Distribution, Form, and Species Composition (In 3 Parts). A report to Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1997-12. p. 1-188.

Minc, L.D. 1997. Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands: An Overview of Controlling Abiotic Factors, Regional Distribution, and Species Composition. A report to Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1997-01. 307pp.

28 Minc, L.D. 1997. Vegetation of the Great Lakes Coastal Marshes and Wetlands of MN, WI, OH, PA, and NY. Report to Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1997-14. 60pp.

Minc, L.D.and D.A. Albert. 1998. Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands: Abiotic and Floristic Characterization. A Summary of Reports Prepared for Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1998-05. 13pp. + appendices.

Tepley, A.J., J.G. Cohen & D.A. Albert. 2003. Ecological Classification and Analysis of Swamp Forests Along the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron Shorelines. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, MI Coastal Mgmt. Program (EPA project number 03-309-06b). Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2004-12. 123pp.

Regional Inventories

Summary of Existing Information

Regional inventories, often at the county level, have been conducted intermittently by the MNFI since its inception in 1980. Only Kent, Ottawa, and Oakland Counties have been inventoried and described in official reports. Other counties that received inventories in the 1980s, which consisted primarily of aerial photo interpretation, aerial reconnaissance, and rapid ecological assessments, include Cass and Macomb Counties. Other systematic inventory projects have focused on specific parks or public lands and the Great Lakes shoreline.

Information Gaps and Priorities

Few counties in the SLP have been adequately surveyed for natural communities. Systematic surveys of the entire region, whether done by county or by ecoregion, are warranted to gain a full understanding of high priority sites throughout the SLP. The availability of several resources that were not available during the original surveys in the 1980s, including GIS, will improve our ability to identify and adequately survey high quality ecological areas. Until the region is systematically surveyed, we will continue to rely on data collected in an opportunistic, non- methodical manner, which hampers our ability to prioritize conservation and management efforts.

Priorities Restoring and expanding coastal wetlands are very high priorities not only within the section but within the Great Lakes region 96% of the SLP region is in private ownership, but very little survey work has been conducted on private land

Resources

Albert, D.A. and P.J. Comer. 1992. A Natural Areas Inventory of Kent County, Michigan. Report to the Kent County planner. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1992-03. 138pp.

Chapman, K.A., S.R. Crispin, L.A. Wilsmann, and S.J. Ouwinga. 1985. A Natural Features Inventory of the Grand River Valley in Ottawa County, Michigan. Report to the Natural Areas Conservancy of West Michigan, Inc. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1985-03. 39pp.

Chapman, K.A., S.R. Crispin, L.A. Wilsmann, and S.J. Ouwinga. 1985. Natural Area Inventory of Designated Sand Dune Areas in Michigan. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land Resource Programs Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1985-04. 46pp.

Cooper, J.L., P.J. Higman, W.A. MacKinnon, M.R. Penskar, D.L. Cuthrell, Y. Lee, D.A. Albert and L. Peltz-Lewis. 2000. Inventory and Management Recommendations for Brighton State Recreation Area’s Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Rare Wildlife. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2000-03. 57pp.

Cooper, J.L., P.J. Higman, J.B. Spieles, M.R. Penskar, D.L. Cuthrell, D.A. Albert and L. Peltz- Lewis. 2000. Inventory and Management Recommendations for Fayette State Park’s Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Rare Wildlife. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2000-05. 21pp.+ appendices.

Cooper, J.L., P.J. Higman, J.B. Spieles, M.R. Penskar, D.L. Cuthrell, Y. Lee, D.A. Albert and L. Peltz-Lewis. 2000. Inventory and Management Recommendations for Pinckney and Waterloo State Recreation Areas’ Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Rare Wildlife. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2000-07. 98pp.

Cooper, J.L, D.L. Cuthrell, P.J. Higman, G.R. Palmgren, M.R. Penskar and H.D. Enander. 2001. Inventory and Management Recommendations for Algonac State Park’s Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Rare Wildlife. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-01. 26pp. + appendices.

Cooper, J.L, P.J. Higman, J.B. Spieles, M.R. Penskar, D.L. Cuthrell, G. R. Palmgren, Y. Lee and H.D. Enander. 2001. Inventory and Management Recommendations for Highland State Recreation Area’s Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Rare Wildlife. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-03. 65pp.

Crispin, S.R., K.A. Chapman, J.D. Soule, L.L. Master, and S.J. Ouwinga. 1982. A Natural Features Inventory of the Great Lakes Coastal Zone of Michigan. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land Resource Programs Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1982-02. 37pp.

Cuthrell, D.L., P.J. Higman, M.A. Kost, H.D. Enander, R.R. Goforth and Y. Lee. 2002. An Inventory of Warren Woods State Park to Identify Significant Natural Features. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2002-14. 36pp.

Higman, P.J., J.L. Cooper, Y. Lee, D.L. Cuthrell, H.D. Enander, D.A. Albert, J.B. Spieles and E.H. Schools. 2001. Inventory and Management Recommendations for Island Lake State Recreation Area’s Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Rare Wildlife. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-14. 64pp.

Higman, P.J., J.L. Cooper, Y. Lee, E.H. Schools, M.R. Penskar, D.L. Cuthrell, D.A. Albert, G.R. Palmgren, Y. Lee and H.D. Enander. 2001. Inventory and Management Recommendations for Holly State Recreation Area’s Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Rare Wildlife. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-15. 57pp.

Kost, M.A. and E.G. Choberka. 2002. Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for Delhi, Dexter-Huron, Hudson Mills, and Stony Creek Metroparks. Report for the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2002-01. 94pp.

Kost, M.A., D.L. Cuthrell, P.J. Higman, H.D.Enander, R.R. Goforth and Yu Man Lee. 2002. An Inventory of Warren Dunes State Park to Identify Significant Natural Features. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2002-16. 54pp.

Kost, M.A. and R.P. O'Connor. Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for Kensington and Oakwoods Metroparks. Report for the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2003-10. 90pp.

Kost, M.A., R.P. O'Connor and H.D. Enander. 2004. Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for Indian Springs, Lower Huron, and Willow Metroparks. Report for Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2004-02. 74pp.

Kost, M.A., J.G. Cohen, R.P. O'Connor and H.D. Enander. 2005. Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for Huron Meadows and Lake Erie Metroparks. Report for the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, Brighton, Michigan. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2005-05. 57pp.

Kost, M.A., J.G. Cohen, B.S. Walters, H.D. Enander, D.A. Albert and J.G. Lee. 2006. Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for Wolcott Mill and Metro Beach Metroparks. Report for the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2006-03. 50pp.

Kost, M.A., J.G. Cohen, A.L. Bozic, R.P. O'Connor, B.S. Walters and H.D. Enander. 2006. Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for Independence Oaks, and Rose Oaks, Oakland County Parks. Report for Oakland County Parks. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2006-04. 91pp.

Lee, Y., D.L. Cuthrell, G.R. Palmgren, P.J. Higman, D.A. Albert, M.R. Penskar, J.L. Cooper and E.H. Schools. 2001. Inventory and Management Recommendations for Yankee Springs State Recreation Area’s Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Rare Wildlife. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-18. 68pp.

Legge, J.T., P.J. Higman, P.J. Comer, M.R. Penskar and M.L. Rabe. 1995. A Floristic and Natural Features Inventory of Fort Custer Training Center, Augusta, Michigan. Report to Michigan Dept. of Military Affairs and Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-13. 151pp. + 8 appendices.

Master, L.L., W.M. Rose, S.R. Crispin, S.J. Ouwinga, J.F. Gereau, and H.T. Kuhn. 1981. A Natural Features Inventory of the Upper and Lower Portions of the Clinton River Watershed. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1981-02. 27pp. + appendices.

Penskar, N.R., E.H. Schools, D.A. Albert, P.J. Higman, J.L. Cooper, J.B. Spieles, D.L. Cuthrell, G.R. Palmgren, Y. Lee, and H.D. Enander. 2001. Inventory and Management Recommendations for Bald Mountain State Recreation Area’s Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Rare Wildlife. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-16. 54pp.

Reese, G.A., D.A. Albert, S.R. Crispin, L.A. Wilsmann, and S.J. Ouwinga. 1986. Final Report on a Natural Areas Inventory of Michigan's Designated Sand Dune Areas. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land Resource Programs Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1986-04. 67pp.

Reese, G.A., D.A. Albert, S.R. Crispin, L.A. Wilsmann, and S.J. Ouwinga. 1988. A Natural Areas Inventory of Oakland County, Michigan; Vol. 1, Technical Report; Vol. 2. Maps. Report to the Oakland County Planning Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1988-14. 242pp.

Reese, G.A., D.A. Albert, S.R. Crispin, L.A. Wilsmann, J.A. Bess, M.R. Penskar and S.J. Ouwinga. 1988. A Natural Areas Inventory of Ottawa County, Michigan. Report to the Ottawa County Planning Commission. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1988-13. 175pp.

Schools, E.H., J.L. Cooper, Y. Lee, P.J. Higman, D.C. Cuthrell, H.D. Enander, D.A. Albert and J.B. Spieles. 2001. Inventory and Management Recommendations for Proud Lake State Recreation Area’s Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Rare Wildlife. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-13. 58pp.

Slaughter, B.S., B.S. Walters, and E.H. Schools. 2007. A Natural Features Inventory of Newaygo County, Michigan. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2007-01, Lansing, MI. 55 pp.

Systematic Inventories of Natural Communities and Groups of Communities

Summary of Existing Information

In addition to inventories targeting a specific jurisdiction or ecoregion, systematic inventories of particular natural community types or groups of associated natural communities have been conducted, primarily along the Great Lakes shoreline, where surveys have targeted lakeplain wet- mesic prairie, lakeplain wet prairie, lakeplain oak openings, Great Lakes marsh, wooded dune and swale complex, open dunes, and interdunal wetlands. Imperiled habitats, such as upland prairies and oak savannas, and habitats that support rare or imperiled species, such as prairie fen, have also been targeted for inventory.

32 Information Gaps and Priorities

There is a continued need to study natural communities throughout the region to improve our understanding of their landscape context, soils, natural processes, vegetation, associated animals, and management strategies that can be used to restore degraded occurrences. In the SLP, research on natural communities has focused on abiotic and biotic characteristics of coastal systems and prairies and oak savanna. Systematically collected plot data are not available for most natural community types in the SLP, hampering efforts to refine and improve the natural community classification.

Resources

Albert, D.A., G.A. Reese, S.R. Crispin, M.R. Penskar, L.A. Wilsmann, and S.J. Ouwinga. 1988. A Survey of Great Lakes Marshes in the Southern Half of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1988-07. 116pp.

Brodowicz, W.W. 1989. Report on the Coastal Plain Flora of the Great Lakes Region. Report to Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1989-03. 29pp. + maps.

Chapman, K.A. 1985. Results of a Survey of Southwestern Upper Michigan Rivers for Native Grassland. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1985-01. 3pp.

Chapman, K.A., et al. 1985. A Survey for Prairie Remnants in the Grand River Valley Between Ionia and Grand Rapids, Michigan. Report to the Natural Areas Conservancy of West Michigan, Inc. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1985-06. 4pp.

Comer, P.J. and D.A. Albert. 1993. A Survey of Wooded Dune and Swale Complexes in Michigan. Report to Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division, Coastal Zone Management Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1993-04. 159pp.

Comer, P.J., W.A. MacKinnon, M. L. Rabe, D. L. Cuthrell, M. R. Penskar and D. A. Albert. 1995. A Survey of Lakeplain Prairie in Michigan. Report to Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division, Coastal Zone Management Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-08. 234pp.

Comer, P.J., W.A. MacKinnon, M.L. Rabe, D.L. Cuthrell, M.R. Penskar and D.A. Albert. 1995. Project Summary: A Survey of Lakeplain Prairie in Michigan. Report to Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division, Coastal Zone Management Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-08a. 8pp.

MacKinnon, W.A. 1996. The Known Critical Non-Contiguous Wetlands of Michigan, Final report Vol I & II. Report to Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Land and Water Mgmt. Division, State Wetland Conservation Plan. Vol. I, 217pp. Vol. II, 218pp. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-13.

Tepley, A.J., J.G. Cohen & D.A. Albert. 2003. Swamp Forests of the Lake Huron Shoreline. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, MI Coastal Mgmt. Program (EPA

33 project number 02-309-01b). Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2003-06. 77pp.

Assessments of Natural Community Quality

Summary of Existing Information

Since the inception of MNFI in 1980, several approaches have been developed to assess natural community quality and viability. The primary resource for assessing conservation significance and viability of natural community occurrences has been the natural community ranking criteria, last updated in the 1980s. Recent and ongoing projects have focused on developing repeatable, often quantitative methods for assessing natural community integrity.

Information Gaps and Priorities

One of the primary needs is the development and/or incorporation of consistently applied element occurrence specifications for all 76 natural community types. NatureServe is in the process of developing an Ecological Integrity Assessment methodology to be used in ranking ecological systems (although the scale of classification and geography to which the rank specs will apply has yet to be finalized). Currently, MNFI uses a dated 1988 EORANKSPECS document to guide ranking of natural community element occurrences. Since that time, evolving conservation science and natural community classification have necessitated the development of new EORANKSPECS for Michigan. An additional need is increased collection of “negative data” for sites that are classifiable, but do not meet EO specifications, to develop better guidelines for the management and stewardship of conservation sites that do not necessarily merit inclusion in the MNFI database.

Priorities The updated classification requires that existing natural community occurrences need to be updated to cross walk to the new classification. All natural community EO’s should be revisited to update element occurrence rank. Once EO’s and EO ranks are updated, the best occurrences of each type should be identified at multiple scales: statewide, section, subsection, and sub-subsection. The assessment was conducted in 2008 based on 2006 data, and needs to be updated. Develop new EO rank specifications for each of the 42 natural community types found in the SLP

Resources

Albert, D.A. and A.J. Tepley. 2005. Development of Bioassessment Procedures for Non-Forested Depressional Wetlands in Michigan. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and EPA Grant Number 03-WL-07. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2005-09. 108pp.

Albert, D.A., P. Adamus, D. Campbell, J. Christy, J.G. Cohen, T. Cook, H. Enander, L. Hardison, M.A. Kost, K. Mitchell, J. Sackinger, and B.S. Slaughter. Rapid Wetland Assessment for Michigan Section 1: Biological Framework. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report No. 2008-06, Lansing, MI. 204 pp.

34 Goforth, R.R., D.M. Stagliano, J.G. Cohen, M.R. Penskar, Y. Lee and J.L. Cooper. 2001. Biodiversity Analysis of Selected Riparian Ecosystems within a Fragmented Landscape. Report for Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund and Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Office of the Great Lakes. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001- 06. 148pp.

Herman, K. D., L. A. Masters, M. R. Penskar, A. A. Reznicek, G. S. Wilhelm, W. W. Brodowicz. 1996. Floristic Quality Assessment with Wetland Categories and Computer Application Programs for the State of Michigan. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Natural Heritage Program in partnership with U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rose Lake Plant Materials Center, MI. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-05. 50pp.

Herman, K, L. A. Masters, M.R. Penskar, A.A. Reznicek, G. S. Wilhelm and W. W. Brodowicz. Floristic Quality Assessment for Michigan. Great Lakes Wetlands Vol.7(4): 1-5. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-16.

Herman, K.D., L.A Masters, M.R. Penskar, A.A. Reznicek, G.S. Wilhelm, W.W. Brodovich and K.P. Gardiner. 2001. Floristic Quality Assessment with Wetland Catagories and Examples of Computer Applications for the State of Michigan. Report by the MI Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Natural Heritage Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-17. 19pp. + appendices.

Kost, Michael A. 2000. Potential Indicators for Assessing Biological Integrity of Forested, Depressional Wetlands in Southern Michigan. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-10. 69pp.

Lee, Y., E.H. Schools, B.S. Slaughter, M.R. Penskar, P.J. Badra, J.L. Gehring, A.L. Derosier, M.A. Kost, and P.W. Brown. 2009. Statewide analysis and surveys to develop an approach for identifying priority conservation areas in Michigan: 2008 progress report. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report no. 2009-02, Lansing, MI. 49 pp.

Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 1988. Draft criteria for determining natural quality- and condition-grades, element occurrence size-classes and significance levels for palustrine and terrestrial natural communities in Michigan. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 39 pp.

Minc, L.D. 2004. Multi-Metric Plant-Based IBIs for Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands. Report for EPA Great Lakes . Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2004-24. 31pp.

Research on Management and Restoration of Natural Communities

Summary of Existing Information Research on management of natural communities has focused primarily on fire-dependent grassland and savanna communities, especially those that harbor imperiled species (e.g., Karner blue butterfly). A recent project on abiotic and biotic factors associated with oak regeneration was conducted in southern Lower Michigan at behest of land managers interested in wildlife habitat and timber production (Lee and Kost 2008).

35 Information Gaps and Priorities

The development of effective conservation and management plans for conservation lands requires a full understanding of ecological systems, biotic (species) and abiotic components of these systems, and natural processes. Management plans should incorporate monitoring protocols to objectively assess management impacts and to determine if management goals are appropriate or realistic. MNFI has several research priorities in this general area, including oak regeneration and red maple colonization of oak forests (see Lee 2008), altered successional pathways of uplands and wetlands due to fire suppression, continued work on savanna and grassland restoration and management, and fire management of wetlands.

Priorities Evaluate ecosystem services of each natural community type Develop a natural community restoration model for all lands in the SLP

Resources

Albert, D. A. 1994. Ecosystem Management: Saginaw Bay. Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, Symposium on the Federal Role in Ecosystem Management, Washington, D. C., pp. 147-151. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1994- 01.

Albert, D. A., D. L. Cuthrell, D. A. Hyde, J. T. Legge, M. R. Penskar and M. L. Rabe. 1996. Sampling and Management of Lakeplain Prairies in Southern Lower Michigan. Report to US Environmental Protection Agency. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996- 02. 93pp.

Albert, D.A. 2005. The Impacts of Various Types of Vegetation Removal on Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands of Saginaw Bay and Grand Traverse Bay. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality and National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2005-16. 38pp.

Comer, P. J. and M.L. Rabe. 1994. Restoration of Oak-Pine Savanna Aids Karner Blue Butterfly (Michigan). Restoration and Management Notes. 12(1):103. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1994-06.

Herman, K. D. 1993. Uncharted Territory - Relocating Threatened Plants and Reconstructing Lakeplain Prairie Habitat. Pages 143-154 in proceedings of USEPA Symposium on Ecological Restoration, March 1993. EPA841-B-94-003. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1993-12.

Lee, J.G., and M.A. Kost. 2008. Systematic evaluation of oak regeneration in Lower Michigan. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division. Report Number 2008-13. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 127 pp + appendices.

Olson, J.A. and J.D. Soule. 1998. Cumulative Impacts of Great Lakes Shoreline Development on Natural Features. Report to Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Land and Water Mgmt. Division, Michigan Coastal Management Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1998-06. 47pp. + appendices.

36 O'Connor, R.P. 2006. A Land Managers Guide to Prairies and Savannas in Michigan: History, Classification, and Management. Report for the MI Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Landowner Incentive Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2006-18. 58pp.

O'Connor, R.P. 2007. Development of Monitoring Strategies and Methods for the DNR Landowner Incentive Program. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Landowner Incentive Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2007-15. 20pp.

O’Connor, R.P., M.A. Kost, and J.G. Cohen. 2009. Prairies and Savannas in Michigan: Rediscovering Our Natural Heritage. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI. 152 pp.

Rabe, M.L., P.J. Comer and D.A. Albert. 1993. Enhancing Habitat for the Karner Blue Butterfly: Restoration of the Oak-Pine Barrens in Southwest Michigan. Proceedings of the Midwest Oak Savanna Conference 1993 Chicago. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1993-13. 9pp.

Wilsmann, L.A. and J.J. Paskus. 1997. Saginaw Bay: A Coastal Wetland Restoration Feasibility Study. Report to Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Office of the Great Lakes, Coastal Zone Mgmt. Program and Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1997-01. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1997-20. 15pp. + appendices.

Research on Natural Processes

Summary of Existing Information

MNFI has conducted relatively few basic research studies of natural processes and how these processes structure ecosystems/natural communities. Research efforts have tended to be directed to the impacts of management on natural communities (see above).

Information Gaps and Priorities

The primary need is for MNFI to develop collaborative partnerships with university faculty and students interested in conducting publishable research on the natural processes and ecosystem functions associated with each of the 42 natural communities found in the SLP.

Resources

Minc, L.D. 1997. Vegetative Response in Michigan's Great Lakes Marshes to Great Lakes Water- Level Fluctuations. A report to Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1997-15. 65pp.

37 Regional Analyses

Summary of Existing Information

An increase in technological capacity and the development of statewide data layers has, in recent years, facilitated the development of statewide models and analyses of biodiversity and habitat quality. To date, these analyses have focused primarily on identifying potential conservation areas at the watershed, regional, and statewide levels. Additional models have been developed to predict locations of specific habitat types, including prairie, savanna, and prairie fen communities.

Information Gaps and Priorities

While there have been a number of regional on-the-ground inventory projects, there are relatively few regional GIS analyses, particularly analyses that include a field survey component. First priority is to complete analysis of data collected for a project centered on Newaygo County (see Lee et al. 2009) and determine next steps for improving methods for using a GIS approach for identifying areas of conservation significance. Field surveys associated with recently completed multi-county PCA analyses (e.g., Hyde et al. 2009) would help determine the accuracy and efficacy of the PCA approach for predicting levels of biodiversity significance. In addition, an updated assessment of the three best occurrences of each natural community type at the statewide, section, subsection, and sub-subsection scales (Paskus et al. 2008) should be conducted due to the recent revision of the natural community classification and the identification and update of numerous natural community element occurrences across the state over the past few years.

Resources

Hyde, D.A., H.D. Enander, B.S. Slaughter, M.J. Monfils, M.R. Penskar, P.J. Badra, and J.J. Paskus. 2009. Significant natural features in the Tri-County Region (Clinton, Eaton and Ingham counties): Providing ecological information for a green infrastructure plan (Phase 2). Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2009-07. 85 pp.

Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 2007. Barry County Potential Conservation Areas. Report for Barry Conservation District. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2007- 09. 23pp.

O'Connor, R.P. and R.L. Rogers. 2006. A GIS Model for Prairie and Savanna Restoration: Prioritizing Areas at State, Regional and Local Scales. Report for Michigan DNR Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2006-24. 8pp.

Paskus, J.J, A.L. Derosier, E.H. Schools, H.D. Enander, B.S. Slaughter, M.A. Kost, and R.L. Rogers. 2007. Biodiversity Assessment of Michigan Technical Report. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2007-11. 232pp.

Soule, J.D., L. Prange-Gregory, D.A. Albert, P.J. Comer, J.J.Paskus, L.J. Scrimger, M.R. Penskar and M.L. Rabe. 1998. Watershed-level Biodiversity Assessment of the Saginaw Bay

38 Watershed. A Report to the Great Lakes National Program Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1998-07. 136pp. + appendices.

Natural Community Data

Summary of Existing Information

A total of 621 natural community element occurrences exist in the SLP (Section VI), representing 42 natural community types (Table 1). Prairie fen, a state and globally vulnerable wetland type, accounts for 146 of these occurrences, or nearly 25% of natural community element occurrences in southern Lower Michigan. Total acreage of natural community occurrences in the SLP region is 63,639 acres. This represents only .4% of the total SLP area. By acreage, Great Lakes marsh comprises the most area, with 13,400 ac (5,400 ha). By ecological grouping, the majority of acreage associated with natural community element occurrences fall into the category of non- forested wetlands followed by Great Lakes coastal systems and lowland forests (Figure 1). Only 5% of the acreage is comprised of upland savanna systems, and less than 1% of the acreage is associated with grassland or primary systems. The tables and figures in this section depict natural community element occurrence number and acreage by G-rank, S-rank, and EO Rank (Kost et al. 2007, MNFI 2009).

Within southern Lower Michigan, natural community surveys have primarily targeted coastal systems such as lakeplain wet-mesic prairie, lakeplain wet prairie, lakeplain oak openings, Great Lakes marsh, wooded dune and swale complex, open dunes, and interdunal wetlands. Imperiled habitats, such as upland prairies and oak savannas, and habitats that support rare or imperiled species, such as prairie fen, have also been targeted for inventory.

Table 3. Number of natural community element occurrences and acreage in southern Lower Michigan (Ecoregional Section VI) by natural community type. For information on G- and S- ranks, see Figure 4 and Kost et al. (2007).

Natural Community G-rank S-rank # of EOs Acres

Bog G3G5 S4 31 7,340 Coastal plain marsh G2 S2 34 1,790 Dry southern forest G4 S3 2 227 Dry-mesic northern forest G4 S3 3 430 Dry-mesic prairie G3 S1 10 50 Dry-mesic southern forest G4 S3 47 4,070 Emergent marsh GU S4 13 1,080 Floodplain forest G3? S3 31 7,590 Great Lakes barrens G3 S2 1 53 Great Lakes marsh G2 S3 20 13,400 Hardwood-conifer swamp G4 S3 15 1,440 Hillside prairie G3 S1 8 46 Inland salt marsh G1 S1 3 13

39 Natural Community G-rank S-rank # of EOs Acres Interdunal wetland G2? S2 5 257 Intermittent wetland G2 S3 2 124 Inundated shrub swamp G4 S3 2 46 Lakeplain oak openings G2? S1 11 1,550 Lakeplain wet prairie G2 S1 15 613 Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie G1? S1 25 641 Mesic northern forest G4 S3 8 2,260 Mesic prairie G2 S1 3 6 Mesic sand prairie G2 S1 9 153 Mesic southern forest G2G3 S3 46 4,050 Oak barrens G2? S1 11 653 Oak openings G1 S1 2 9 Oak-pine barrens G3 S2 9 1,160 Open dunes G3 S3 7 1,050 Poor conifer swamp G4 S4 9 468 Prairie fen G3 S3 146 4,780 Rich conifer swamp G4 S3 3 94 Rich tamarack swamp G4 S3 13 643 Sand and gravel beach G3? S3 1 37 Sandstone cliff G4G5 S2 1 2 Southern hardwood swamp G3 S3 15 1,360 Southern shrub-carr GU S5 2 213 Southern wet meadow G4? S3 22 1,200 Submergent marsh GU S4 4 293 Wet prairie G3 S2 8 163 Wet-mesic flatwoods G2G3 S2 6 237 Wet-mesic prairie G2 S2 10 73 Wet-mesic sand prairie G2G3 S2 6 65 Wooded dune and swale complex G3 S3 2 3,910 Total acres 63,639

40 0% 5%

29% 17% Grassland Savanna Upland forest Lowland forest Non-forested wetland Great Lakes coastal system 19% Primary

30%

Figure 1. Natural community acreage by ecological grouping (grassland: dry-mesic prairie, hillside prairie, mesic prairie, mesic sand prairie; savanna: lakeplain oak openings, oak barrens, oak openings, oak-pine barrens; upland forest: dry southern forest, dry-mesic northern forest, dry-mesic southern forest, mesic northern forest, mesic southern forest; lowland forest: floodplain forest, hardwood-conifer swamp, poor conifer swamp, rich conifer swamp, rich tamarack swamp, southern hardwood swamp, wet-mesic flatwoods; non-forested wetland: bog, coastal plain marsh, emergent marsh, inland salt marsh, interdunal wetland, intermittent wetland, inundated shrub swamp, lakeplain wet prairie, lakeplain wet-mesic prairie, prairie fen, southern shrub-carr, southern wet meadow, submergent marsh, wet prairie, wet-mesic prairie, wet-mesic sand prairie; Great Lakes coastal system: Great Lakes barrens, Great Lakes marsh, open dunes, sand and gravel beach, wooded dune and swale complex; primary: sandstone cliff).

41 350

300

250

200

# EOs 150

100

0 A-AB B-BC C-CD D H U EO Rank

Figure 2. Number of natural community element occurrences in southern Lower Michigan (Ecoregional Section VI) by element occurrence rank.

35000

30000

25000

20000

Acres 15000

10000

5000

0 A-AB B-BC C-CD D H U EO Rank

Figure 3. Acreage by element occurrence rank of natural community element occurrences in southern Lower Michigan (Ecoregional Section VI).

5% 0%

20%

29% G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 GU

43%

Figure 4. Percentage of natural community element occurrences in southern Lower Michigan (Ecoregional Section VI) by rounded natural community global rank (G1: critically imperiled; G2: imperiled; G3: vulnerable; G4: apparently secure; G5: secure, common, widespread; GU: unranked; see Kost et al. [2007]).

0%1% 10% 18%

G1 G2 G3 29% G4 G5 GU

42%

Figure 5. Percentage acreage of natural community element occurrences in southern Lower Michigan (Ecoregional Section VI) by rounded natural community global rank (G1: critically imperiled; G2: imperiled; G3: vulnerable; G4: apparently secure; G5: secure, common, widespread; GU: unranked; see Kost et al. [2007]).

43 9% 0% 16%

S1 13% S2 S3 S4 S5

62%

Figure 6. Percentage of natural community element occurrences in southern Lower Michigan (Ecoregional Section VI) by natural community state rank (S1: critically imperiled; S2: imperiled; S3: vulnerable; S4: apparently secure; S5: secure, common, widespread; see Kost et al. [2007]).

2% 0%

S1 43% S2 42% S3 S4 S5

13%

Figure 7. Percentage acreage of natural community element occurrences in southern Lower Michigan (Ecoregional Section VI) by natural community state rank (S1: critically imperiled; S2: imperiled; S3: vulnerable; S4: apparently secure; S5: secure, common, widespread; see Kost et al. [2007]).

Information Gaps and Priorities

Many natural community occurrences in southern Lower Michigan were surveyed in the mid- 1990s or earlier, highlighting the need for more current data. Several natural communities that are ranked as vulnerable or imperiled in the state have not been adequately surveyed in southern Lower Michigan. Examples of undersurveyed communities are dry southern forest, intermittent wetland, inundated shrub swamp, and wet-mesic flatwoods.

Resources

Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI). 2009. Biotics Database. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.

45 Botany Priorities, Information, and Information Gaps for the SLP

Rare Vascular Plant Element Occurrence Ranks

Summary of existing information

As discussed below, the MNFI Biotics database has been comprehensively reviewed with respect to occurrence rank assignment. Of the 2,824 rare plant occurrence records known for the SLP region, a significant percentage (973 or 35%) are classified as historical, which is not unexpected in the region of the state that has experienced the greatest degree of natural habitat loss, conversion, and degradation. Of the remaining extant records, the majority (1,137 or 40%) consists of rare plant populations classified as viable (i.e. C ranked or higher), whereas 12% (CD and D ranked occurrences) are considered to be non-viable, with the remainder largely ranked as E (extant, without an estimate of viability), and with a small percentage (1%) ranked as F, indicating that a survey failed to relocate an occurrence.

Rare Plants SLP EO Rank Summary (excluding extirpated records), December, 2009

A AB U 3% 3% 0% B 10%

H 35% BC 7%

C 17% F 1% E CD 12% D 7% 5%

Figure 8. Percentage of rare plant element occurrences in the SLP by element occurrence rank.

Information Gaps and Priorities The MNFI Biotics database has been thoroughly reviewed in recent years and virtually no element occurrence records (EORs) plants lack occurrence ranks due to ongoing quality control reviews. At present, however, there remain two data gaps, both of which are considered to be priority tasks, comprised of: 1) identifying and processing occurrences for all new taxa recently added to the state Technical List as of April 9, 2009 and 2) processing a backlog of species data. With respect to newly listed species, a significant portion (approximately 50%) of the new taxa have had records entered into the statewide database, with an estimated 11 species remaining for entry. Backlogged species data are comprised of accumulated reports and field forms from MNFI staff biologists, specimen data acquired from the University of Michigan herbarium Michigan

46 Flora Project, and numerous reports and field forms compiled from federal and state agency staff (e.g. USDA-USFS, NPS, MDEQ, MDNR), consultants, and biologists from partner organizations, such as land trusts/conservancies, local park staff, naturalists, and others. The statewide backlog for plants is conservatively estimated to consist of at least 300 separate reports or sets of field forms. It is not known what portion of these data comprises information for the SLP region, although it is expected to be significant.

Rare Vascular Plant Distributions

Summary of existing information

Of the 268 rare plant species documented in the Southern Lower Peninsula, the vast majority (248 or 93%) constitute those species considered to be globally secure, i.e. those elements with ranks of G4 and G5, as shown above. A small number of species (20 or 7%) comprise those taxa that are considered to be globally critically imperiled to globally rare (G1 to G3). These respective proportions largely reflect the origin and distribution patterns of the species that make up the state flora, and show that the rare plants of Michigan are largely taxa occurring along a periphery of their range, particularly for plants of a predominantly boreal or southern/southeastern distribution. Of the 268 rare plant species known to occur in the SLP, the priority species are identified as the 20 taxa classified G1-G3 (Table – below), as these include endemics of the Great Lakes or Midwest region as well as plants experiencing severe decline and threats throughout their global range. Of the 20 priority species, virtually all are in need of status surveys, both to determine the condition of known occurrences as well as to survey for additional populations where suitable habitat remains.

SLP Rare Plant Species Summarized by Global Rank

200 176 180 160 140 120 100 Number of species Taxa 80 72 60 40 14 20 1 5 3 0 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 Unranked Global Rank (rounded)

Figure 9. Number of rare plant species in the SLP by element occurrence rank.

47 Table 4. Rare plant species in the SLP classified as G1-G3.

Scientific name Common name USESA SPROT GRANK SRANK Betula murrayana Murray birch SC G1Q S1 Lycopodiella subappressa Northern appressed clubmoss SC G2 S2 Lycopodiella margueritae Northern prostrate clubmoss T G2 S2 Isotria medeoloides Smaller whorled pogonia LT X G2 SX Schoenoplectus hallii Hall's bulrush T G2G3 S2 Sisyrinchium strictum Blue-eyed-grass SC G2Q S2 Platanthera leucophaea Prairie white-fringed orchid LT E G3 S1 Besseya bullii Kitten-tails E G3 S1 Aster furcatus Forked aster T G3 S1 Poa paludigena Bog bluegrass T G3 S2 Cypripedium arietinum Ram's head lady's-slipper SC G3 S3 Cirsium hillii Hill's thistle SC G3 S3 Cirsium pitcheri Pitcher's thistle LT T G3 S3 Tomanthera auriculata Eared foxglove X G3 SX Agalinis skinneriana Skinner's gerardia E G3G4 S1 Triphora trianthophora Nodding pogonia T G3G4 S1 Panax quinquefolius Ginseng T G3G4 S2S3 Prosartes maculata Nodding mandarin X G3G4 SX Valerianella umbilicata Corn salad T G3G5 S2 Bromus nottowayanus Satin brome SC G3G5 S3

Information Gaps and Priorities • Status surveys for numerous historical records (>40 years since last observed) where suitable habitat remains • Status surveys for numerous extant records with last observation dates of between 20-40 years • Status surveys for newly listed species • Lack of species niche models for predicting suitable habitat areas • Status surveys for high priority plant species identified in Table 4

Resources

• Biotics Database: MNFI database and associated GIS layers

Resources: Web

• MNFI Web page: County element lists, species abstracts (117) http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/

• MNFI Rare Species Explorer: Species summary, state distribution by county, links to available abstracts http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/explorer/index.cfm

48 • NatureServe Explorer: Rangewide and state/provincial distributions http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/

• University of Michigan Herbarium: Michigan plant databases and online atlas of statedistribution by county as developed by the Michigan Flora Project http://herbarium.lsa.umich.edu/

• University of Wisconsin herbarium: web site for Wisconsin's vascular plant species, many of which are shared with Michigan, including distribution maps, habitat information, and photos http://www.botany.wisc.edu/wisflora/

• USDA Plants Database: Well known national plants database maintained by NRCS, providing useful summaries by species, including rangewide and state/provincial distribution and status maps and additional related information http://plants.usda.gov/

• Flora of North America: Access to published volumes (currently 14 in number), including illustrations and coarse level distribution maps, of the North America flora http://www.fna.org/

Resources: Publications

Higman, P. J. and M. R. Penskar. 1995. Monitoring and Management Plan for Corydalis flavula (pale corydalis, state threatened) in Fort Custer Training Center with a Status Survey for Southwestern Lower Michigan, Progress Report. Report to Michigan Department of Military Affairs. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-11. 27pp.

Higman, P.J. and M.R. Penskar. 2004. Hall's Bulrush Habitat Characterization and Monitoring Project 2003 Report. Report for U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3, Minneapolis MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2004-14. 22pp.

Pavlovic, N.B., M.L. Bowles, S.R. Crispin, T.C. Gibson, K.D.Herman, R.T. Kavetsky, A.K. McEachern and M.R. Penskar. 2002. Recovery Plan for the Pitcher’s Thistle (Cirsium pitcheri). Report prepared by the Pitcher’s Thistle Recovery Plan for Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2002-28. 91pp

Penskar, Michael R. and Patrick J. Comer. 1996. Status Survey for Michigan Populations of Skinner's Gerardia (Agalinis skinneriana) and Inland Populations of Houghton's Goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii) Using a Landscape Approach. Report for USFWS, Region 3 Endangered Species Office. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-15. 17pp.

Penskar, Michael R. 1997. Rangewide Status Assessment of Cirsium hillii (Canby) Fern. Report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1997-18. 17pp.

Penskar, M.R. and P.J. Higman. 2003. Hall's Bulrush Habitat Characterization and Monitoring Project: 1999-2002 Report. Report to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3,

49 Minneapolis MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2003-16. 27pp. + appendices

Penskar, M.R. and P.J. Higman. 2008. Hall’s bulrush Habitat Characterization and Monitoring Project: 2004-2006 Final Report. Report to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3, Minneapolis MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2007-14. 38 pp. + appendix.

Regional Inventories

Existing Information, Gaps and Priorities

A number of regional inventories have been conducted, primarily through county surveys as cited above, with few regional inventories conducted at broader scales (e.g. assessment of the Clinton River watershed by Master et al. 1981), though these have often focused on specific natural community elements of interest (e.g. Great Lakes marsh surveys by Albert et al. 1988, lakeplain prairie surveys by Comer et al. 1995), from which several plant occurrences have been identified. Owing to the paucity of large contiguous tracts of natural vegetation cover in upland areas, wetlands are a high priority for inventory, and in particular floodplain forests, which are known to support high numbers of rare plant taxa. Few stream and river drainages have been studied and catalogued in detail. Most data throughout the region derive from spot surveys and collection records, with the exception of the few counties inventoried. Some methodical surveys have taken place on state lands, such as state parks and state game areas, but these tracts comprise a small portion of the SLP.

Resources

Albert, D.A., G. A. Reese, S. R. Crispin, M. R. Penskar, L. A. Wilsmann, and S. J. Ouwinga. 1988. A Survey of Great Lakes Marshes in the Southern Half of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1988-07. 116pp.

Albert, D. A. and P. J. Comer. 1992. A Natural Areas Inventory of Kent County, Michigan. Report to the Kent County planner. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1992-03. 138pp.

Albert, D.A., J.G. Cohen, J.L. Cooper, D.L. Cuthrell, R.R. Goforth, M.R. Penskar and H.D. Enander. 2001. Natural Areas Report for 1999-2000. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Natural Areas Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-08. 52pp.

Chapman, K. A., S. R. Crispin, L. A. Wilsmann, and S. J. Ouwinga. 1985. A Natural Features Inventory of the Grand River Valley in Ottawa County, Michigan. Report to the Natural Areas Conservancy of West Michigan, Inc. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1985-03. 39pp.

Comer, P. J., W. A. MacKinnon, M. L. Rabe, D. L. Cuthrell, M. R. Penskar and D. A. Albert. 1995. A Survey of Lakeplain Prairie in Michigan. Report to Michigan Department of Natural

50 Resources, Land and Water Management Division, Coastal Zone Management Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-08. 234pp.

Cuthrell, D.L., M.R. Penskar and P. J. Higman. 2000. St. Clair Lakeplain Prairie and Oak Savanna Ecosystem Project: Rare Plant and Insect Surveys 2000. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural resources, Natural Areas Program and State Parks Division, Lansing, MI. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2000-04. 27pp. + color plates & appendices.

Goforth, R.R., D.M. Stagliano, J.G. Cohen, M.R. Penskar, Y. Lee and J.L. Cooper. 2001. Biodiversity Analysis of Selected Riparian Ecosystems within a Fragmented Landscape. Report for Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund and Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Office of the Great Lakes. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001- 06. 148pp.

51 Higman, P.J., J.L. Cooper, Y. Lee, E.H. Schools, M.R. Penskar, D.L. Cuthrell, D.A. Albert, G.R. Palmgren, Y. Lee and H.D. Enander. 2001. Inventory and Management Recommendations for Holly State Recreation Area’s Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Rare Wildlife. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-15. 57pp.

Higman, P.J., D.A. Albert, D.L. Cuthrell, H.E. Enander, R.R. Goforth and Yu Man Lee. 2002. An Inventory of P. J. Hoffmaster State Park to Identify Significant Natural Features. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2002-17. 69pp.

Higman, P.J., D.L. Cuthrell and M.J. Monfils. 2005. Re-assessment of Known Occurrences and Additional Surveys for Rare Species at Camp Grayling Maneuver Training Center. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs, Camp Grayling, Michigan. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2005-07. 16pp + appendices.

52 Lee, Y., D.L. Cuthrell, G.R. Palmgren, P.J. Higman, D.A. Albert, M.R. Penskar, J.L. Cooper and E.H. Schools. 2001. Inventory and Management Recommendations for Yankee Springs State Recreation Area’s Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Rare Wildlife. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-18. 68pp.

Legge, J. T., P. J. Higman, P. J. Comer, M. R. Penskar and M. L. Rabe. 1995. A Floristic and Natural Features Inventory of Fort Custer Training Center, Augusta, Michigan. Report to Michigan Dept. of Military Affairs and Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-13. 151pp. + 8 appendices.

Master, L. L., W. M. Rose, S. R. Crispin, S. J. Ouwinga, J. F. Gereau, and H. T. Kuhn. 1981. A Natural Features Inventory of the Upper and Lower Portions of the Clinton River Watershed. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1981-02. 27pp. + appendices.

Reese, G. A., D. A. Albert, S. R. Crispin, L. A. Wilsmann, J. A. Bess, M. R. Penskar and S. J. Ouwinga. 1988. A Natural Areas Inventory of Ottawa County, Michigan. Report to the Ottawa County Planning Commission. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1988-13. 175pp.

Reese, G. A., D. A. Albert, S. R. Crispin, L. A. Wilsmann, and S. J. Ouwinga. 1988. A Natural Areas Inventory of Oakland County, Michigan; Vol. 1, Technical Report; Vol. 2. Maps. Report to the Oakland County Planning Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1988-14. 242pp.

Systematic Inventories of Natural Communities and associated rare plants

Existing Information, Gaps and Priorities

Natural communities of high priority for inventory, based on the large number of rare plant species known to be associated with them, include oak barrens/oak savanna, floodplain forest, and coastal plain marsh. Although more rare plants are known to be associated with oak barrens and oak savanna communities, little of these community types remain in other than small, isolated patches, yet such patches are important and may serve as core areas for assisting in restoration and management. Large and relatively contiguous tracts of floodplain forest occur in SLP, but as noted above most of these systems have not been systematically surveyed and thus there are

53 many gaps. Coastal plain marshes, as well as intermittent wetlands, a closely allied community, occur principally in southwest Lower Michigan, and are known to harbor numerous rarities, but have not been systematically inventoried with the exception of selected state lands, such as state game areas.

Resources

Albert, D.A., G. A. Reese, S. R. Crispin, M. R. Penskar, L. A. Wilsmann, and S. J. Ouwinga. 1988. A Survey of Great Lakes Marshes in the Southern Half of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1988-07. 116pp.

Albert, Dennis, Patrick Comer, David Cuthrell, Daria Hyde, Will MacKinnon, Michael Penskar, and Mary Rabe. 1997. The Great Lakes Bedrock Lakeshores of Michigan. Report to Land and Water Mgmt. Division, Coastal Zone Mgmt. Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1997-01. 218pp.

Albert, Dennis, Patrick Comer, David Cuthrell, Daria Hyde, Will MacKinnon, Michael Penskar, and Mary Rabe. 1997. Great Lakes Bedrock Shores of Michigan. Report to Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Land and Water Mgmt. Division, Coastal Zone Mgmt. Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1997-02. 58pp.

Chapman, K. A., S. R. Crispin, L. A. Wilsmann, and S. J. Ouwinga. 1985. Natural Area Inventory of Designated Sand Dune Areas in Michigan. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land Resource Programs Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1985-04. 46pp.

Comer, P. J., W. A. MacKinnon, M. L. Rabe, D. L. Cuthrell, M. R. Penskar and D. A. Albert. 1995. A Survey of Lakeplain Prairie in Michigan. Report to Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division, Coastal Zone Management Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-08. 234pp.

Comer, P. J., W. A. MacKinnon, M. L. Rabe, D. L. Cuthrell, M. R. Penskar and D. A. Albert. 1995. Project Summary: A Survey of Lakeplain Prairie in Michigan. Report to Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division, Coastal Zone Management Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-08a. 8pp.

Lee, Yu Man, Lyn J. Scrimger, Dennis A. Albert, Michael R. Penskar, Patrick J. Comer, and David L. Cuthrell. 1998. Alvars of Michigan. Report for The International Alvar Conservation Initiative. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1998-04. 30pp.

Lee, Y, E.H. Schools, B.S. Slaughter, M.R. Penskar, P.J. Badra, J.L. Gehring, A.L. Derosier, M.A. Kost and P.W. Brown. 2009. Statewide Analysis and Surveys to Develop an Approach

54 for Identifying Priority Conservation Areas in Michigan: 2008 Progress Report. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2009-02. 49pp.

Legge, John T., Jodi B. Raab, Phyllis J. Higman, Patrick J. Comer, Michael R. Penskar, and Mary L. Rabe. 1996. Progress Report: Natural Features Inventory of Michigan's State Parks and Recreation Areas, 1996 (Year 2). Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-08. 17pp.

Penskar, M. R., T. R. Leibfreid, and L. J. Scrimger. 1993. A Survey of the Lake Michigan Coastal Zone for Great Lakes Endemic Plant Species. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division, Michigan Coastal Management Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1993-09. 38pp. + appendices.

Penskar, Michael R, Phyllis J. Higman, Judith D. Soule and Lyn J. Scrimger. 1997. A Survey of the Lake Huron and Lake Michigan Coastal Zones for Great Lakes Endemic Plant Species. Report to Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Land and Water Management, Coastal Mgmt. Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1997-19. 80pp. + appendices.

Reese, G. A., D. A. Albert, S. R. Crispin, L. A. Wilsmann, and S. J. Ouwinga. 1986. Final Report on a Natural Areas Inventory of Michigan's Designated Sand Dune Areas. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land Resource Programs Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1986-04. 67pp.

Research on Management/Restoration of Natural Communities or Habitats and the Effects on Rare Plant Species

Information Gaps and Priorities

Although considerable management and restoration work has taken place for selected natural communities, such as prairie fens (including southern wet meadow) and lakeplain prairie communities (the latter including lakeplain wet prairie and lakeplain oak openings), the effects on rare plants appear to known largely through anecdotal reports, and primarily with respect to fire management. Thus better monitoring is necessary for all forms of management activities to determine the specific effects on rare plants (and natural communities) and to better understand both the type and optimal regime of management necessary to perpetuate rare plant populations. Research linked to long-term monitoring is required in order to understand the effects of management.

55 Resources:

Herman, K, L. A. Masters, M.R. Penskar, A.A. Reznicek, G. S. Wilhelm and W. W. Brodowicz. Floristic Quality Assessment For Michigan. Great Lakes Wetlands Vol.7(4): 1-5. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-16.

Minc, L. D. and D. A. Albert. 1990. Oak-dominated Communities of Southern Lower Michigan: Floristic and Abiotic Comparisons. A report to Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1990-05. 103pp.

Rare Plant Monitoring and Research

Information Gaps and Priorities

Little long-term monitoring of rare plant species in the SLP has taken place. Priority should be given to addressing plant species of high conservation value (e.g. G1-G3 ranked taxa), and secondarily to high state ranked species (S1-S3 ranked taxa), such as the 20 priority SLP rare plant species identified in Table 4 above. Monitoring can be of many types, depending on the management objective, such as determining the effects of experimental management activities (e.g. the use of prescribed fire) or monitoring populations to better understand life cycles, environmental cues for emergence, flowering and fruiting, or other life history traits. Monitoring rare plants in natural communities of similarly high conservation value (e.g. coastal plain marsh, prairie fen, lakeplain prairie, oak barrens) is highly desirable.

Resources

Brodowicz, W. W. 1989. Report on the Coastal Plain Flora of the Great Lakes Region. Report to Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1989-03. 29pp. + maps.

Chapman, K. A., V. L. Dunevitz and H. T. Kuhn. 1985. Vegetation and Chemical Analysis of a Salt Marsh in Clinton County, Michigan. Mich. Bot. 24:135-144. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1985-05.

Cuthrell, D. L., P. J. Higman, M. R. Penskar and J, L, Windus. 1998. The Pollinators of Ohio and Michigan populations of Eastern prairie fringed orchid (Plantanthera leucophaea). Report to U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1999-08. 19pp.

56 Goforth, R.R., D.M. Stagliano, J.G. Cohen, M.R. Penskar, Y. Lee and J.L. Cooper. 2001. Biodiversity Analysis of Selected Riparian Ecosystems within a Fragmented Landscape. Report for Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund and Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Office of the Great Lakes. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001- 06. 148pp.

Goforth, R.R., D. Stagliano, Y. Lee, J. Cohen and M. Penskar. 2002. Biodiversity Analysis of Selected Riparian Ecosystems within a Fragmented Landscape. Report for the Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund and MI Dept. of Environmental Quality, Office of the Great Lakes. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2002-26. 126pp.

Herman, K, L. A. Masters, M.R. Penskar, A.A. Reznicek, G. S. Wilhelm and W. W. Brodowicz. 1996. Floristic Quality Assessment For Michigan. Great Lakes Wetlands Vol.7(4): 1-5. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-16.

Herman, K.D., L.A Masters, M.R. Penskar, A.A. Reznicek, G.S. Wilhelm, W.W. Brodovich and K.P. Gardiner. 2001. Floristic Quality Assessment with Wetland Categories and Examples of Computer Applications for the State of Michigan. Report by the MI Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Natural Heritage Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-17. 19pp. + appendices.

Higman, P.J. & M.R. Penskar. 2004. Hall's Bulrush Habitat Characterization and Monitoring Project 2003 Report. Report for U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3, Minneapolis MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2004-14. 22pp.

Higman, P.J. and M.R. Penskar. 1999. Monitoring pale corydalis (Corydalis flavula), a winter annual. Fifteenth North American Prairie Conference Proceedings. Edited by Charles Warwick. Natural Areas Association, Bend, OR. Pp. 119-123.

Pearman, P.B., M.R. Penskar, E.H. Schools and H.D. Enander. 2006. Identifying Potential Indicators of Conservation Value Using Natural Heritage Occurrence Data. Ecological Applications Vol. 16(1): 186-201. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2006-06

Penskar, M.R. and P.J. Higman. 2003. Hall's Bulrush Habitat Characterization and Monitoring Project: 1999-2002 Report. Report to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3, Minneapolis MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2003-16. 27pp. + appendices

Penskar, M.R., E.H. Schools, H.D. Enander, M.A. Kost, D.L. Cuthrell and P.B.Pearman. 2003. The Potential for Using Rare Species as Great Lakes Environmental Indicators: A Methodology Using Natural Heritage Program Data. Report for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2003-20. 106pp.

57 Penskar, M.R. and P.J. Higman. 2008. Hall’s bulrush Habitat Characterization and Monitoring Project: 2004-2006 Final Report. Report to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3, Minneapolis MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2007-14. 38 pp. + appendix.

Soule, Judith D., Laurie Prange-Gregory, Dennis A. Albert, Patrick J. Comer, John J.Paskus, Lyn J. Scrimger, Michael R. Penskar and Mary L. Rabe. 1998. Watershed-level Biodiversity Assessment of the Saginaw Bay Watershed. A Report to the Great Lakes National Program Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1998-07. 136pp. + appendices.

58 Zoology Priorities, Information, and Information Gaps for the SLP

Rare Terrestrial Animal Element Occurrence Ranks

Existing Information, Gaps and Priorities

The MNFI Biotics database should be updated/reviewed to assign EO ranks and inferred extents to increase their use as a framework for conservation planning projects. Ideally, all animal EOs should be assigned a rank of A, B, C, D, H or X. Currently, of the 5,873 rare terrestrial animal Occurrences statewide, 66% contain an E (or extant rank). In the SLP, of the 2,089 rare terrestrial animal Occurrences, over half (51%) contain an E rank. This rank has little value when prioritizing sites for conservation action, determining impact to a species during the environmental review process, or for modeling purposes. In addition, another 24% of the element occurrences in the SLP region are considered historical records. Currently, only 13% of the element occurrences in the SLP region have a ranking that is considered viable (C rank or higher).

Enter existing occurrence data (backlog) into the Biotics database. Assign EO Ranks to the existing occurrence records in the database. Produce an inferred extent layer to be used for conservation planning purposes including looking at ways to help minimize species extinctions due to global climate change.

Terrestrial Animals SLP EO Rank Summary (except landsnails), 1 August 2009

A 2% B 3% U A/B B/C

1% 2% C 1% H 5% 24% C/D 1%

D 9% F 1%

E 51%

Figure 10. Percentage of rare terrestrial animal element occurrences in the SLP by element occurrence rank.

Terrestrial Animals SLP EO Rank Summary (except landsnails) 1 August 2009

1200 1047 1000

800

600 503

400

193 200 105 39 33 59 31 30 2 28 5 14 0 AA/BA/CBB/CCC/DDE F H X U

Figure 11. Number of rare terrestrial animal element occurrences in the SLP by element occurrence rank.

Number of EOs in the SLP by Animal Group

Amphibians, 146

Turtles, 529

Birds, 623

Reptiles, 267

Mammals, 59

Insects, 465

Figure 12. Number of rare terrestrial animal element occurrences by groupings.

60 Resources

Biotics Database Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas I and II Michigan Herp Atlas

Rare Terrestrial Animal Distributions

Summary of Existing Information

Of the 174 rare terrestrial animal species (not including landsnails) that are tracked by MNFI for the state of Michigan, the vast majority (101 or 58%) are found in the SLP. Almost half of the rare terrestrial animal taxa in the SLP (49 or 48%) are insects, followed by birds (35 or 35%) and reptiles (10 or 10%) (Table x). Of the 101 rare terrestrial species documented in the SLP, the vast majority (68 or 67%) are considered to be globally secure by NatureServe (G4 or G5). A relatively significant number of rare animal species in the SLP however (27 or 27%) are considered to be globally critically imperiled to globally rare (G1 to G3) (Figure x). Not surprisingly, the majority of G1, G2, and G3 animal species in the SLP (81%) are insects. On the other hand, 76% of the rare aquatic animal species found in the SLP are considered to be state critically imperiled to imperiled (S1 to S2) (Figure x). Similar to the global rank results, almost half of the S1 and S2 rare aquatic species in the SLP (46 or 46%) are insects.

GNR G1 G2 6% 3% 7% G3 17%

G5 46% G4 21%

Figure 13. Percentage of rare terrestrial animal species in the SLP by Global Rank.

61 SU S4 2% SH 3% 1% S3 19% S1 47%

S2 28%

Figure 14. Percentage of rare terrestrial animal species in the SLP by state rank.

Information Gaps and Priorities

For rare terrestrial animal species there are more gaps than well monitored species. Some species such as Kirtland’s snake, Eastern fox snake, and Indiana bat, are poorly known primarily due to lack of survey effort. Of the 101 rare terrestrial animal species known to occur in the SLP region, the priority species are identified as the 45 taxa classified as G1to G3 or S1 to S2 (Table x). In addition, very little is known about the distribution, viability, life history, and threats of these species. For example, the Karner blue butterfly, a federally endangered species which is considered state imperiled (S2), is not included in the list below due to the extensive field survey work and research that has occurred since the early 1990’s.

Gaps in lesser known species, i.e. majority of insects. Distributions of some rare birds are not well studied especially the hard to detect species such as nocturnal species. There is a lack of small mammal studies looking at species distributions in Michigan in the last 20-30 years. More emphasis should be placed on developing and testing more robust species distribution models for both rare and common animal species.

Resources: Web

• MNFI Web page: County element lists, species abstracts http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/

• MNFI Rare Species Explorer: Species summary, state distribution by county, links to available abstracts http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/explorer/index.cfm

• NatureServe Explorer: Rangewide and state/provincial distributions http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/

62 Table 5. Priority rare animal species in the SLP for addressing information gaps.

Group Scientific Name Common Name Fed State G Rank S Status Status Rank Amphibians Acris crepitans blanchardi Blanchard's cricket frog T G5T5 S2S3 Amphibians Ambystoma opacum Marbled salamander E G5 S1 Amphibians Ambystoma texanum Smallmouth salamander E G5 S1 Birds Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow E G4 S2S3 Birds Asio flammeus Short-eared owl E G5 S1 Birds Asio otus Long-eared owl T G5 S2 Birds Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler E G5 S1 Birds Dendroica dominica Yellow-throated warbler T G5 S1 Birds Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon E G4 S1 Birds Ixobrychus exilis Least bittern T G5 S2 Birds Rallus elegans King rail E G4 S1 Birds Seiurus motacilla Louisiana waterthrush T G5 S2S3 Birds Sterna caspia Caspian tern T G5 S2 Birds Sterna forsteri Forster's tern T G5 S2 Birds Sterna hirundo Common tern T G5 S2 Birds Tyto alba Barn owl E G5 S1 Insects Basilodes pepita Gold moth SC G4 S1S2 Insects Calephelis mutica Swamp metalmark SC G3 S1S2 Insects Catocala amestris Three-staff underwing E G4 S1 Insects Catocala dulciola Quiet underwing SC G3 S1S2 Insects Dorydiella kansana Leafhopper SC GNR S1S2 Insects Euphyes dukesi Dukes' skipper T G3 S1 Insects Flexamia delongi Leafhopper SC GNR S1S2 Insects Flexamia huroni Huron River leafhopper T GNR S1 Insects Flexamia reflexus Leafhopper SC GNR S1 Insects Gomphus lineatifrons Splendid clubtail SC G4 S2S3 Insects Hesperia ottoe Ottoe skipper T G3G4 S1S2 Insects Incisalia irus Frosted elfin T G3 S2S3 Insects Lepyronia angulifera Angular spittlebug SC G3 S1S2 Insects Liodessus cantralli Cantrall's bog beetle SC GNR S1S3 Insects Meropleon ambifusca Newman's brocade SC G3G4 S1S2 Insects Oarisma poweshiek Poweshiek skipperling T G2G3 S1S2 Insects Oecanthus pini Pinetree cricket SC GNR S1S2 Insects Papaipema beeriana Blazing star borer SC G2G3 S1S2 Insects Papaipema cerina Golden borer SC G2G4 S1S2 Insects Papaipema maritima Maritime sunflower borer SC G3 S1S2 Insects Papaipema sciata Culvers root borer SC G3G4 S2S3 Insects Papaipema silphii Silphium borer moth T G3G4 S1S2 Insects Papaipema speciosissima Regal fern borer SC G4 S2S3 Insects Prosapia ignipectus Red-legged spittlebug SC G4 S2S3 Insects Schinia lucens Leadplant moth E G4 S1 Insects Spartiniphaga inops Spartina moth SC G3G4 S1S2 Insects Stylurus amnicola Riverine snaketail SC G4 S1S2 Insects Stylurus laurae Laura's snaketail SC G4 S1S2 Insects Stylurus notatus Elusive snaketail SC G3 S1S2 Insects Tachopteryx thoreyi Grey petaltail T G4 S1S3 Insects Trimerotropis huroniana Lake Huron locust T G2G3 S2S3

63 Group Scientific Name Common Name Fed State G Rank S Status Status Rank Mammals Cryptotis parva Least shrew T G5 S1S2 Mammals Microtus ochrogaster Prairie vole E G5 S1 Mammals Myotis sodalis Indiana bat LE E G2 S1 Reptiles Aspidoscelis sexlineata Six-lined racerunner T G5 SU Reptiles Clonophis kirtlandii Kirtland's snake E G2 S1 Reptiles Nerodia erythrogaster Copperbelly water snake LT E G5T3 S1 neglecta Reptiles Pantherophis gloydi Eastern fox snake T G3 S2 Reptiles Sistrurus catenatus Eastern massasauga C SC G3G4T3T4Q S3S4 catenatus

Resources: Publications

Biotics Database, GAP animal models, species distribution models (i.e., grassland birds, Red- shouldered Hawk, copperbelly water snake, massasauga, Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas, Herp Atlas and other reports:

Barton, J.B. 2005. Whip-poor-will and Common Nighthawk Surveys in Support of the Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas II. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2005-18. 28pp.

Barton, B.J. 2006. Whip-poor-will and Common Nighthawk Surveys in Support of the Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas II – 2006. Report for the MI Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Natural Heritage Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2006-20. 20pp.

Barton, B.J. 2007. Whip-poor-will and Common Nighthawk Surveys in Support of the Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas II – 2007 Final Report. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Natural Heritage Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2007-17. 30pp.

Bess, J. A. 1988. An Insect Survey of Eight Fens in Southern Michigan. Report to The Nature Conservancy and Michigan Department of Natural Resources Nongame Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1988-08. 116pp

Comer, P. J., W. A. MacKinnon, M. L. Rabe, D. L. Cuthrell, M. R. Penskar and D. A. Albert. 1995. A Survey of Lakeplain Prairie in Michigan. Report to Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division, Coastal Zone Management Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-08. 234pp.

Cuthrell, David L, and Mary L. Rabe. 1996. Status of the Karner Blue Butterfly, Lycaeides melissa samuelis, in the Ionia Recovery Unit of Michigan. Report to the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 Endangered Species Office. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996- 04. 18pp.

Cuthrell, David L and Mary L. Rabe. 1998. Status of the Karner Blue Butterfly, Lycaeides melissa samuelis, in the Allegan Recovery Unit of Michigan. Report to the USFWS, Region 3

64 Endangered Species Office. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1998-02. 19pp. + appendices.

Cuthrell, D.L. and M.A. Kost. 2001. Assessing the use of Tamarack Tree Cricket (Oecanthus laricis T.J. Walker), a rare species, as an Indicator of Biological Integrity. Report to the US EPA, MI Dept. of Environmental Quality, The Nature Conservancy and MI Dept of Nat. Resources. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-09. 3pp.

Cuthrell, D.L. 2003. Woodland Raptor Surveys on Southern Michigan State Game Areas with an Emphasis on the Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2003-04. 23pp.

Fettinger, J.L. 2002. Comprehensive Population and Habitat Surveys for the Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) in Michigan: Year One Progress Report. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2002-23. 12pp.

Fettinger, J.L. 2003. Comprehensive Population and Habitat Surveys for the Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) in Michigan: 2003 Progress Report. Report to the Michigan Dept. of Nat. Resources. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2003-19. 51pp. + appendices

Fettinger, J.L. 2004. Comprehensive Population and Habitat Surveys for the Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) in Michigan: 2004 Progress Report. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2004-23. 58pp.

Fettinger, J.L. 2005. Comprehensive Population and Habitat Surveys for the Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) in Michigan: Final Report. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2005-08. 36pp.

Gibson, J.M. 2005. Grassland Bird Surveys in Support of the Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas II: Year One Progress Report. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2005-23. 75pp

Gibson, J.M. 2006. Grassland Bird Surveys in Support of the Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas II: Year Two Progress Report. Report for the MI Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2006-15. 16pp.

Gibson, J.M., and H.D. Enander. 2007. Grassland Surveys in Support of the Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas II: Final Report. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Natural Heritage Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2007-20. 81pp.

Hyde, D.A., M.L. Rabe, D.L. Cuthrell and J.L. Cooper. 1999. Surveys for the recovery of Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) in Michigan: Year One Progress Report – 1998. Report to the USFWS, Region 3 Endangered Species Office. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1999-09. 22pp. + appendices.

Hyde, D.A. and D.L. Cuthrell. 2005. Surveys, assessing impacts of management, and conservation plans for Mitchell’s satyr (Neonympha mitchellii) in southern Michigan: 2004 progress report. Report for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 Endangered Species Office, Twin Cities MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2005-01. 7pp.

65 Hyde, D.A and B.J. Barton. 2005. Surveys, assessing impacts of management, and conservation plans for Mitchell’s Satyr (Neonympha mitchellii) in southern Michigan: 2005 progress report. Report for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3, Twin Cities MN Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2005-21. 19pp.

Hyde, D.A., M.L. Rabe, D. L. Cuthrell and M.A. Kost. 2001. Surveys for the Recovery of Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha m. mitchellii) in Michigan: Final Report – 2000. Report for the US Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3 Endangered Species Office, Twin Cities MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-05. 98pp.

Hyde, D.A., M. L. Rabe and D. L. Cuthrell. 2000. Surveys for the Recovery of Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha m. mitchellii) in Michigan: Year Two Progress Report – 1999. Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2000-09. 14pp. + appendices.

Hyde, D.A., B.J.Barton and D.L.Cuthrell. 2007. Surveys, assessing impacts of management, and conservation plans for Mitchell’s satyr (Neonympha mitchellii) in southern Michigan: 2006 final report. Report for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2007-05. 54pp.

Lee, Yu Man. 1998. Final Report on Blanchard’s Cricket Frog (Acris creptans blanchardi) Surveys in Southern Michigan. A Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Wetland Enhancement Grant and Critical Small Non-Contiguous Wetlands Project and Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1998-03. 13 pp. + appendices.

Lee, Y., E.H. Schools and M.A. Kost. 2002. Surveys for the Copperbelly Water Snake (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta) in Michigan: Year One Progress report – 2001. Report to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3 Endangered Species Office, Twin Cities, MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2002-06. 45 pp.

Legge, J. T., and M. L. Rabe. 1994. Summary of the Recent Sightings of the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake (Sistrurus c. catenatus) in Michigan and Identification of Significant Population Clusters. Report to the USFWS Region 3 Endangered Species Office, Twin Cities, MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1994-10. 7pp + maps and appendices.

Legge, John T. 1996. Final Report on the Status and Distribution of the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus) in Michigan. Report to the USFWS, Region 3 Endangered Species Office. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-06. 17pp. + appendices.

Monfils, M.J. & P.B. Pearman. 2004. Woodland Owl Surveys in Support of the Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas II: Distribution, Abundance, and Survey Effectiveness. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2004-18. 53pp.

Monfils, M.J. 2005. Woodland Owl Surveys in Support of the Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas II: Year 2. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2005-19. 45pp.

66 Monfils, M.J. 2006. Woodland Owl Surveys in Support of the Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas II: Year 3. Report for the MI Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Natural Heritage Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2006-19. 20pp.

Pike, E., T. Allan, D. Ewert, M. Holden, J. Weinrich, T Weise, L. Wilsmann, R. Wolinski. 1988. Piping Plover Recovery Plan for the State of Michigan. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1988- 11. 41pp.

Sanders, M.A., B.J. Yocum, R.L. Rogers and D.L. Cuthrell. 2006. Identification of Critical Nesting Habitat for Wetland Birds in Michigan: Western Lower Peninsula – Year Three Progress Report. Report for Michigan Dept of Environmental Quality, Michigan Coastal Management Program, Environmental Science and Services Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2006-05. 61pp.

Wilsmann, L. A. and D. F. Schweitzer. 1991. A Rangewide Status Survey of Mitchell's Satyr, Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Report to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 Endangered Species Office. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1991-08. 25pp.

Wilsmann, L. A., L. J. Scrimger, M. Donovan, and L. Sargent. 1994. Incorporation of Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas Data into the Michigan D.N.R.'s Geographic Information System, final report. Submitted to Region 3 Nongame Bird Program, USFWS, Twin Cities, MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 23pp.

Regional Inventories

Summary of Existing Information, Gaps and Priorities

Few counties in the southern Lower Peninsula have been adequately surveyed for rare terrestrial animals. Only Kent, Ottawa, and Oakland counties have been inventoried and described in official reports. Systematic surveys of the entire region, whether done by county or by ecoregion, are warranted to gain a full understanding of high priority sites throughout the SLP. The availability of several resources that were not available during the original surveys in the 1980s, including GIS and GAP models, will improve our ability to identify and adequately survey high quality ecological areas and other areas important for rare animal species. Until the region is systematically surveyed, we will continue to rely on data collected in an opportunistic, non-methodical manner, which hampers our ability to prioritize conservation and management efforts.

Resources

Crispin, S. R., K. A. Chapman, J. D. Soule, L. L. Master, and S. J. Ouwinga. 1982. A Natural Features Inventory of the Great Lakes Coastal Zone of Michigan. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land Resource Programs Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1982-02. 37pp.

Reese, G. A., D. A. Albert, S. R. Crispin, L. A. Wilsmann, J. A. Bess, M. R. Penskar and S. J. Ouwinga. 1988. A Natural Areas Inventory of Ottawa County, Michigan. Report to the Ottawa County Planning Commission. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1988-13. 175pp.

Albert, D. A. and P. J. Comer. 1992. A Natural Areas Inventory of Kent County, Michigan. Report to the Kent County planner. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1992-03. 138pp.

Legge, J. T., P. J. Higman, P. J. Comer, M. R. Penskar and M. L. Rabe. 1995. A Floristic and Natural Features Inventory of Fort Custer Training Center, Augusta, Michigan. Report to Michigan Dept. of Military Affairs and Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-13. 151pp. + 8 appendices.

68 Penskar, N.R., E.H. Schools, D.A. Albert, P.J. Higman, J.L. Cooper, J.B. Spieles, D.L. Cuthrell, G.R. Palmgren, Y. Lee, and H.D. Enander. 2001. Inventory and Management Recommendations for Bald Mountain State Recreation Area’s Natural Communities, Rare Plants, and Rare Wildlife. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2001-16. 54pp.

Systematic Inventories of Natural Communities and Associated Fauna

Information Gaps and Priorities

There is a continued need to study natural communities throughout the region to improve our understanding of their associated animals, and management strategies that can be used to restore degraded occurrences. In the SLP, research on natural communities and associated fauna has focused on lakeplain prairie, prairie fens, and oak savanna. Systematically collected distributional data are not available for most communities in the SLP, hampering efforts to refine and improve our understanding of plant communities and their associated fauna.

Resources

Comer, P. J., W. A. MacKinnon, M. L. Rabe, D. L. Cuthrell, M. R. Penskar and D. A. Albert. 1995. A Survey of Lakeplain Prairie in Michigan. Report to Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division, Coastal Zone Management Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-08. 234pp.

69 Comer, P. J., W. A. MacKinnon, M. L. Rabe, D. L. Cuthrell, M. R. Penskar and D. A. Albert. 1995. Project Summary: A Survey of Lakeplain Prairie in Michigan. Report to Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division, Coastal Zone Management Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-08a. 8pp.

Research on Management/Restoration of Natural Communities or Habitats and the Effects on Rare Animals

Summary of Existing Information, Gaps and Priorities

There appears to be a real gap in knowledge or research into the effects of management, and more specifically prescribed burning, and its effects on invertebrates, herps, and other animal groups specific to Michigan. There are studies in other parts of the country that may be pertinent and there are some technical bulletins/manuals that could be referenced.

Resources

Barton, B. J. 2007. Population ecology of the Mitchell’s satyr (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) at Coldwater Lake Fen, and the effects of management on the Mitchell’s Satyr at Mill Creek Fen. Report for the US Fish & Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2007-02. 13pp

Legge, John T. and Mary L. Rabe. 1996. Habitat Changes and Trends Affecting Selected Populations of Sistrurus catenatus catenatus (eastern Massasauga) in Michigan. A draft manuscript submitted to the Proceedings of the 15th North American Prairie Conference. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-09. 20pp.

Wilsmann, Leni A. and John J. Paskus. 1997. Saginaw Bay: A Coastal Wetland Restoration Feasibility Study. Report to Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Office of the Great Lakes, Coastal Zone Mgmt. Program and Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1997-01. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1997-20. 15pp. + appendices.

Olson, Jennifer A. and Judith D. Soule. 1998. Cumulative Impacts of Great Lakes Shoreline Development on Natural Features. Report to Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Land and

70 Water Mgmt. Division, Michigan Coastal Management Program. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1998-06. 47pp. + appendices.

Lee, Y. 2004. Monitoring of Eastern Fox Snakes (Elaphe vulpine gloydi) in Response to Habitat Restoration at Sterling State Park in Michigan. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Bureau. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2004-20. 83pp

Lee, Y. 2006. Monitoring of Eastern Fox Snakes (Pantherophis gloydi) in Response to Habitat Restoration at Sterling State Park in Southeast Michigan. Report for the MI Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks & Recreation Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2006-17. 57pp.

Lee, Y. 2005. Assessment of Turtle Use and Mortality Along the US-31 Highway Crossing in the Muskegon River. Report to the Michigan Dept. of Transportation. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2005-24. 25pp.

Lee, Y. 2006. Assessment of Turtle Use and Mortality Along the US-31 Highway Crossing of the Muskegon River: Year Two Final Report. Report for the MI Dept. of Natural Resources, Transportation Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2006-25. 35pp.

Lee, Y. 2007. Assessment of Turtle Use and Mortality Along the US-31 Highway Crossing of the Muskegon River: 2007 Year Three Final Report. Report for the Michigan Department of Transportation. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2007-20. 50pp.

Lee, Y. and M.J. Monfils. 2008. Assessment of Turtle Use and Mortality and Evaluation of the Turtle Fence Along the US-31 Highway Crossing of the Muskegon River: 2008 Final Report. Report for the Michigan Department of Transportation. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2008-18. 81pp.

Monfils, M.J. and P.W. Brown. 2008. Effects of the Hydrologic Isolation Via Dike Construction on Avian Communities Using Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands. Report for Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2008-15. 68 pp.

Rare Animal Monitoring and Species Ecological Studies

Existing Information, Gaps and Priorities

As stated earlier, there are significant information and research gaps for rare terrestrial animal species in the SLP and very few well monitored species. High priority, poorly known species include: Kirtland’s snake, Eastern fox snake, and Indiana bat. In particular, there is a tremendous lack of distribution information for most of the rare invertebrate species. There are a few high priority species such as, Mitchell’s satyr, Poweshiek skipper, Karner blue butterfly and the eastern

71 massasauga, that do have fairly good distribution and life history information. Three of the four species mentioned are federally tracked species, and the fourth is highly associated with Mitchell’s satyr habitat.

Resources

Barton, B. J. 2005. Dispersal and Home Range Estimates for the Mitchell’s Satyr at Jackson County Central Fen, Michigan. Report for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3, Twin Cities MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2005-22. 23pp.

Cooper, Jeffrey L. 1998. Prairie Vole (Microtus ochrogaster) Monitoring (1995-1998) and Management Recommendations at Fort Custer Training Center. Report to the Michigan Dept. of Military Affairs, Lansing, MI. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1998-01. 23pp.

Cooper, Jeff. 1997. Monitoring for the Prairie Vole, Microtus ochrogaster, at Fort Custer Training Center: 1997 Progress Report. Report to Michigan Dept. of Military Affairs. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1997-03. 15pp.

Kost, M.A., Y.Lee, J.G. Lee and J.G.Cohen. 2006. Habitat Characterization and Evaluation of Community Types Utilized by Copperbelly Water Snake (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta) in Michigan and Northern Ohio. Report for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2006-02. 128pp.

Legge, J.T. 1995. Monitoring for the Prairie Vole, Microtus ochrogaster, at Fort Custer Training Center: 1995 Progress Report. Report to the Michigan Department of Military Affairs. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1995-12. 15pp.

Legge, John T., 1996. Monitoring for the Prairie Vole, Microtus ochrogaster, at Fort Custer Training Center: 1996 Progress Report. Report to the Michigan Department of Military Affairs, Lansing, MI. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-07. 23pp.

Lee, Y. and P.B. Pearman. 2004. Eastern Fox Snake Monitoring at Sterling State Park: 2003 Progress Report. Report for the Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Bureau. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2004-01. 18pp.

Lee, Y., O. Attum, H.D. Enander, & B.A. Kingsbury. 2007. Population Monitoring and Habitat Characterization for the Conservation and Recovery of the Northern Population of the Copperbelly Water Snake (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta). Report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 Endangered Species Office, Twin Cities MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2007-04. 71pp.

Hyde, D.A and J. Paskus. 2004. Conservation of Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha m. mitchellii) and Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake (Sisturus c. catenatus) in Southwest Michigan: Final Report - 2004. Report for MDNR Wildlife Division Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2004-15. 20pp.

Hyde, D. A. 2003. Conservation of Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha m. mitchellii) and the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake (Sistrutus c. catenatus) in Southwest Michigan: Year Two

72 Progress Report – 2001-2002. Report to the MDNR Wildlife Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2003-08. 10pp.

Hyde, D. A and J. J. Paskus. 2002. Conservation of Mitchell’s Satyr Butterfly (Neonympha m. mitchellii) and Eastern massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus c. catenatus) in Southwest Michigan: Year One Progress Report – 2000-2001. Report to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3 Endangered Species Office, Twin Cities, MN. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 2002-05. 17pp.

Legge, John T. and Mary L. Rabe. 1996. Observations of Oviposition and Larval Ecology in Caged Mitchell’s Satyr Butterflies (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Report to the USFWS, Region 3 Endangered Species Office. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-10. 17pp

MacKinnon, W. A. and D. A. Albert. 1996. Mitchell’s Satyr Historical Habitat Analysis. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Michigan Natural Features Inventory report number 1996-11. 21pp.

Overall Priorities for Rare Terrestrial Animals in the SLP 1. Creating inferred extent layers for all known animal occurrences 2. Ranking or re-evaluating EO ranks on all known animal occurrences 3. Developing predictive distribution models for highest priority species (i.e., high G and S ranks) 4. Identifying focal species for targeted surveys and monitoring 5. Conducting range-wide, species specific surveys for rarest species with least amount of information (copperbelly watersnake, eastern fox snake, Poweshiek skipper, swamp metalmark, cerulean warbler, etc.). 6. Conducting geographically based comprehensive surveys targeted at listed species. 7. Addressing critical research gaps such as identifying key migration corridors for birds and bats, fragmentation issues and road mortality for herp species, and the effects of prescribed fire management on high ranking invertebrate and vertebrate species.

73 Aquatic Priorities, Information, and Information Gaps for the SLP

Introduction

In the United States, freshwater species are at greater risk of imperilment than terrestrial species (Wilcove and Master 2005). Seven to nine percent of mammals, birds, reptiles, and turtles are imperiled, where as, 20% of freshwater fish, 48% of freshwater mussels, 61% of freshwater snails, 33% of crayfish, 21% of stoneflies, 22% of mayflies, and 8% of dragonflies and damselflies are imperiled. Very little is known about the vast majority of aquatic species. For many aquatic species we do not have a detailed understanding of their habitat requirements. Additionally, for some species we do not even have specific location information. As an example, both of the crayfish species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) and twenty-eight of the thirty- eight aquatic insect SGCN do not have any abundance or specific location information. As a compounding factor, aquatic ecosystems can be much more difficult to conserve and protect due to their interconnected nature. Freshwater ecosystems are often linear and rely on ecological processes occurring upstream and at a much larger scale, i.e. the watershed. In addition, human alterations that occur downstream such as dams or channelization can impact a site upstream. Therefore protecting an individual stretch of river or stream is ineffective. To further the conservation of aquatic biodiversity, it is necessary to look at a variety of scales.

Aquatic researchers in Michigan have traditionally focused on fish and mussel species. These taxa groups need continued research and monitoring. Much of the known fish data for rare species is currently greater than ten years old, and we have virtually no data to determine viability of most of the rare fish populations in Michigan. Significant information gaps exist for mussels as well. Aquatic conservation differs from terrestrial in that very little is known about the vast majority of aquatic species. As shown in Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (WAP), little is known about Michigan’s snails, crayfish, and aquatic insects. For most species we only know that they exist in Michigan, we do not know their status and range, habitat use, or population viability. In addition, there are several higher taxa (phyla and classes) of aquatic animals occurring in Michigan for which MNFI has no species specific information (e.g. status, distribution, ecological significance). All of this information is critical to ensuring persistence.

Unlike terrestrial communities, aquatic communities have not been included in the dialog of Michigan’s biodiversity due to the lack of an aquatic natural community classification. We have recently begun an effort to classify aquatic communities to provide information on the distribution, status, and ecology of aquatic ecosystems. Describing aquatic natural communities in terms of natural processes and species assemblages allows for a common language and currency. This work will allow for the identification of representative ecosystems as well as better defining species and habitat associations. Michigan’s WAP recognized that the ability to identify representative habitats and define quality of those habitats is crucial for prioritizing conservation efforts. This effort will take time and collaboration among other researchers and land managers to ensure the usefulness of the classification. It will enable better management of rare species as well as the conservation of natural processes and ecosystem services.

One of the great challenges to conserving aquatic biodiversity in Michigan is the lack of awareness of its richness, its irreplaceable value, and the rate at which this biodiversity is declining. For example, few people realize that southeast Michigan is one of the most biologically diverse areas in Michigan for aquatic species. Due to the high amount of land converted to agricultural and urban uses, the accompanying infrastructure that goes along with development such as roads, sewers, and dams, as well as the associated point and non-point pollution, it is not

74 surprising that the SLP contains the least functional watersheds in the state (Paskus et al 2008). Despite this fact, the majority of listed aquatic animal species and their occurrences are located in the SLP. This apparent paradox is directly related to the fact that aquatic diversity decreases as you move northward on the North American continent. In fact, most of the aquatic species diversity in the Great lakes are represented by rare mussel species that occur in certain drainages of lakes St. Clair and Erie. These occurrences represent outliers of the world's richest freshwater mussel fauna, which entered the basin when the ancient Great Lakes drained southwest to the Mississippi River (Rankin and Crispin 1994). Because many of those species are now imperiled throughout their entire ranges, the relict populations of the Great Lakes drainages have become important to their global survival. For instance, the last known population of the white catspaw pearly mussel (Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua) is in Fish Creek, an upper tributary of the Maumee River located just south of Michigan’s southern border (Rankin and Crispin 1994).

Rare Fish, Mussel, and Gastropod (aquatic and land snails and limpet) Species

Summary of Existing Information, Gaps and Priorities

The MNFI Biotics database includes element occurrences (EOs) for rare fish, mussels, and gastropod (snail and limpet) species. Aquatic natural communities, aquatic plants, and other aquatic animal taxa are not currently being tracked due to limited funding. Large data gaps also still exist for gastropods and to a lesser degree, mussels and fish. A classification system for river valley segments has been developed by the Institute of Fisheries Research (IFR), and is continuing to be refined. This could be used as a foundation for a classification of natural river communities tracked by MNFI. In addition, IFR is working on a lake classification and expects to have a preliminary classification completed in 2011. In addition, faculty at the MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife are working on a lake classification focused on fish productivity.

MNFI’s biotics database is the primary source of occurrence information on rare/listed aquatic species for the DEQ and DNR environmental review process, and for management and conservation planning efforts. Increasing the completeness and accuracy of this database is a critical step in the management of Michigan’s rare/listed species. Michigan’s list of threatened and endangered species was updated April 9, 2009. In addition to threatened and endangered species, new species of special concern were identified. A total of 28 species of gastropods (aquatic and land snails) and 16 species of bivalves (mussels) were added to the list. It had been at least ten years since a review of the status of Michigan’s mussels and gastropods was completed. During this time, impacts to rivers, lakes, and their watersheds had taken their toll. While some improvements have been made in the management of our land and water, factors such as zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) had dramatic negative impacts on native mussels and other aquatic species. For these reasons the conservation status of a relatively large number of aquatic species was changed from non-listed to species of special concern, threatened, or endangered. Occurrence data on an additional ten mussel species, twelve aquatic gastropod species, and two fish species now needs to be added to the Biotics database and tracked into the future. Some of this occurrence data has already been acquired and needs to be entered, and other data needs to be gathered from external sources.

The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology (UMMZ) has one of the largest collections of mollusks in the world, including aquatic and terrestrial gastropods (snails and limpets) and freshwater mussels. While MNFI has entered a portion of listed occurrence data for mussels, there is a wealth of occurrence data that has not been gathered for gastropods and newly listed

75 mussels. Ohio State University houses an even larger mollusk collection, none of which has yet been entered into the Biotics database. Fisheries Division has a large amount of fish occurrence information that could be incorporated into the Biotics database. This would require time and expertise to develop a data exchange agreement between the two groups, address technical challenges associated with the transfer of data from one type of database to another, and enter occurrence data into Biotics.

There are several researchers which are currently doing mussel, gastropod, and fish surveys in Michigan. Collaboration between them and MNFI could make additional data available for use in the DEQ and DNR environmental review process, and other management and conservation planning efforts by national, state, and local conservation/resource management organizations.

Mussels, gastropods, and fish represent a tiny fraction of the number of aquatic animal species occurring in Michigan. Other taxa such as aquatic insects, crustaceans, Nematoda, and Annalida comprise the vast majority of aquatic animal diversity. These invertebrates do not have the aesthetic and sporting value of fish but do play an integral ecological role in the aquatic systems of Michigan. If we are interested maintaining or improving the ecological function of our rivers and lakes it may be beneficial to address these taxa on some level. Many invasive species belong to these understudied taxa, e.g. the crustacean spiny waterflea (Bythotrephes longiramus) and Neoergasilus japonicus a parasitic copepod newly introduced to the Great Lakes. Knowledge of these taxa could help to better understand and classify the natural communities they are a part of, and to identify rare and invasive species.

Of the 127 rare aquatic animal species (including landsnails) that are tracked by MNFI for the state of Michigan, a fair percentage (55 or 43%) are found in the SLP. However, excluding gastropods (snails), 45 of the 68 rare fish and bivalve species in Michigan (66%) occur in the SLP. Over half of the rare aquatic animal taxa in the SLP (28 or 51%) are fishes, followed by bivalves (17 or 31%) and snails (10 or 18%) (Figure 15). Of the 55 rare aquatic animal species documented in the SLP, the vast majority (37 or 67%) are considered to be globally secure by NatureServe (G4 or G5). Similar to terrestrial animals, A relatively significant percentage of rare aquatic animal species in the SLP (16 or 29%) are considered to be globally critically imperiled to globally rare (G1 to G3) (Figure 16). Not surprisingly, the majority of G1, G2, and G3 aquatic animal species in the SLP (8 or 50%) are bivalves (mussels). On the other hand, 66% of the rare aquatic animal species found in the SLP are considered to be state critically imperiled to imperiled (S1 to S2) (Figure 17). The majority of S1 and S2 species are fishes followed closely by bivalves. All gastropods except one species in the SLP have a state ranking of SU or unranked. This is due to a lack of information to support a numeric ranking.

The MNFI Biotics database should be updated and reviewed to assign EO ranks and inferred extents to increase their use as a framework for conservation planning projects. Ideally, all aquatic animal EOs should be assigned a rank of A, B, C, D, H or X. Currently, of the 1,834 rare aquatic animal Occurrences statewide, 48% have an E (or extant rank), 24% are considered historical, and 6% contain a NR rank (or no rank). Only 4% of the statewide aquatic animal element Occurrences with an A-C rank.

In the SLP, of the 1,204 rare aquatic animal Occurrences, 44% contain an E rank, and 9% have no rank. The E rank and no rank have little value when prioritizing sites for conservation action, determining impact to a species during the environmental review process, or for modeling purposes. In addition, another 37% of the aquatic element occurrences in the SLP region are considered historical records. Currently, only 4% of the aquatic element occurrences in the SLP region have a ranking that is considered viable (C rank or higher) (Figure 18).

Gastropods 18% Bivalves 31%

Fish 51%

Figure 15. Percentage of rare aquatic animal species in the SLP by groupings.

GNR G1

2% 4% G2 GH 7% 2%

G3 18% G5

47%

G4 20%

Figure 16. Percentage of rare aquatic animal species in the SLP by Global rank.

77 SU SH 16% 5% S1 39% S4 2% S3 11% S2 27%

Figure 17. Percentage of rare aquatic animal species in the SLP by State rank.

Priorities

For rare aquatic animal species, almost all species are understudied. Of the 55 known aquatic animal species to occur in the SLP, 49 are considered high priority based on their global rank and state ranks alone (Table 6). Surveys for aquatic animals is very sporadic and has only touched a fraction of potential habitat. 44 new snail and bivalve species were added to the list in 2009 and most do not have an occurrence entered into the database.

Enter existing occurrence data (backlog) into the Biotics database. Mine data from Museums and other outside sources. 27 new species of snails and 17 new species of bivalves were added to the list. Need to find records and populate database Assign EO Ranks (A,B,C,D) to the existing occurrence records in the database. Produce an inferred extent layer to be used for conservation planning purposes including looking at ways to help minimize species extinctions due to global climate change.

78 600 537

500 450

400

300

200 115 100 32 45 4 17 11 1 0 ABCDEFHXNR

Figure 18. Rare aquatic animal species in the SLP by Element Occurrence rankings.

Table 6. High priority aquatic animal species for addressing information gaps.

Group Scientific Name Common Name Federal State G S Status Status Rank Rank Bivalves Pyganodon subgibbosa Round lake floater T G1Q S1 Bivalves Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua White catspaw LE E G1T1 SH Bivalves Pleurobema clava Clubshell LE E G2 S1 Bivalves Toxolasma lividus Purple lilliput E G2 S1 Bivalves Villosa fabalis Rayed bean C E G2 S1 Bivalves Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Northern riffleshell LE E G2T2 S1 Bivalves Epioblasma triquetra Snuffbox E G3 S1 Bivalves Simpsonaias ambigua Salamander mussel E G3 S1 Bivalves Obovaria subrotunda Round hickorynut E G4 S1 Bivalves Alasmidonta marginata Elktoe SC G4 S2S3 Bivalves Obovaria olivaria Hickorynut E G4 S2S3 Bivalves Venustaconcha ellipsiformis Ellipse SC G4 S2S3 Bivalves Alasmidonta viridis Slippershell T G4G5 S2S3 Bivalves Pleurobema sintoxia Round pigtoe SC G4G5 S2S3 Bivalves Lampsilis fasciola Wavyrayed lampmussel T G5 S2 Bivalves Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple wartyback T G5 S2S3 Bivalves Villosa iris Rainbow SC G5Q S2S3 Fish Noturus stigmosus Northern madtom E G3 S1 Fish Ammocrypta pellucida Eastern sand darter T G3 S1S2 Fish Coregonus zenithicus Shortjaw cisco T G3 S2 Fish Coregonus kiyi Kiyi SC G3 S3 Fish Notropis anogenus Pugnose shiner E G3 S3 Fish Clinostomus elongatus Redside dace E G3G4 S1S2

79 Group Scientific Name Common Name Federal State G S Status Status Rank Rank Fish Acipenser fulvescens Lake sturgeon T G3G4 S2 Fish Moxostoma carinatum River redhorse T G4 S1 Fish Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor shiner X G4 S1 Fish Percina copelandi Channel darter E G4 S1S2 Fish Fundulus dispar Starhead topminnow SC G4 S2 Fish Notropis photogenis Silver shiner E G5 S1 Fish Notropis texanus Weed shiner X G5 S1 Fish Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose minnow E G5 S1 Fish Percina shumardi River darter E G5 S1 Fish Phoxinus erythrogaster Southern redbelly dace E G5 S1 Fish Sander canadensis Sauger T G5 S1 Fish Hiodon tergisus Mooneye T G5 S2 Fish Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar SC G5 S2S3 Fish Macrhybopsis storeriana Silver chub SC G5 S2S3 Fish Noturus miurus Brindled madtom SC G5 S2S3 Fish Erimyzon claviformis Creek chubsucker E GNR S1S2 Gastropods Acella haldemani Spindle lymnaea SC G3 S3 Gastropods Pomatiopsis cincinnatiensis Brown walker SC G4 SU Gastropods Anguispira kochi Banded globe SC G5 SU Gastropods Appalachina sayanus Spike-lip crater SC G5 SU Gastropods Discus patulus Domed disc SC G5 SU Gastropods Fontigens nickliniana Watercress snail SC G5 SU Gastropods Mesodon elevatus Proud globe T G5 SU Gastropods Mesomphix cupreus Copper button SC G5 SU Gastropods Philomycus carolinianus Carolina mantleslug SC G5 SU Gastropods Pyrgulopsis letsoni Gravel pyrg SC G5 SU

Resources

Biotics Database

Resources: Literature

The following are recent MNFI surveys for mussels and/or fish in the SLP:

Badra, P.J. 2009. The Unionid Mussel Community of the Paw Paw River Watershed in Southwest Michigan, with Water Quality and Habitat Measures. Report number MNFI 2009- 17. Report to The Nature Conservancy, Lansing, MI. 16pp.

Kost, M.A., S.A. Thomas, Y. Lee, D.L. Cuthrell, M.J. Monfils, P.J. Badra, M.R. Penskar, and H.D. Enander. 2009. Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for Crane Pond, Three Rivers, and Fabius State Game Areas. Michigan Natural Features Inventory Report Number 2009-19, Lansing, MI. 85 pp.

Badra, P. J. 2009. Status of Native Freshwater Mussels, Including the Northern Riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa) and rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), in Detroit River, Michigan. Report number MNFI 2009-5. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, MN. 15pp.

Badra, P. J. 2006. Status of native and exotic mussels, including the northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) and rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), at the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge: Sites 15-36. Report number MNFI 2006-12. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI. 15pp.

Badra, P. J. 2006. Status of native and exotic mussels, including the northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) and rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), at the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge: Sites 1-14. Report number MNFI 2006-12. Report to Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. 12pp.

Badra, P. J. 2006. Surveys for northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) in the Detroit River north of the Grosse Isle Toll Bridge. Report number MNFI 2006-10. Report to BASF Corporation, Wyandotte, MI. 2pp.

Badra, P. J. 2005. Freshwater mussel surveys of Great Lakes tributary rivers in Michigan. Report number MNFI 2005-13. Report to Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Coastal Management Program, Lansing, MI. 25pp.

Badra, P. J. and A. L. Derosier. 2005. Fish and mussel surveys in Hudson Mills Metropark, Huron River. Report number MNFI 2005-25. Report to Huron-Clinton Metroparks. 6pp.

Badra, P. J. 2004. Freshwater mussel surveys of Great Lakes tributary rivers in Michigan. Report number MNFI 2004-22. Report to Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Coastal Management Program, Lansing, MI. 34pp.

Badra, P. J. 2004. Surveys for freshwater mussels (Unionidae) in the Bean Creek watershed, Hillsdale and Lenawee Counties, Michigan. Report number MNFI 2004-19. Report to the Mackinac Chapter of the Sierra Club. 8pp.

Badra, P. J. 2004. Monitoring of clubshell (Pleurobema clava) populations and surveys for the Northern Riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) in Michigan. Report number MNFI 2004-17. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 11pp.

Badra, P. J. 2004. Aquatic animal life of the St. Joseph River (Maumee drainage, Hillsdale County, MI). Report number MNFI 2004-16. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 26pp.

Badra, P. J. and R. R. Goforth. 2003. Freshwater mussel surveys of Great Lakes tributary rivers in Michigan. Report number MNFI 2003-15. Report to Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Coastal Zone Management Unit, Lansing, MI. 40pp.

Badra, P. J. 2002. Freshwater mussel (Unionidae) survey of three sites in Duck and Kearsley Creeks, Genesee and Oakland Counties, Michigan. Report number MNFI 2002-22. Report to Tilton and Associates, Inc. 3pp.

Badra, P. J. and R. R. Goforth. 2002. Surveys of native freshwater mussels in the lower reaches of Great Lakes tributary rivers in Michigan. Report number MNFI 2002-03. Report to Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Coastal Zone Management Unit, Lansing, MI. 39pp.

81 Badra, P. J. and R. R. Goforth. 2001. Current status of freshwater mussels and associated communities in the Grand and St. Joseph Rivers, Michigan. Report number MNFI 2001-20. Report to Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Office of the Great Lakes, Lansing, MI. 22pp. Badra, P. J. and R. R. Goforth. 2001. Surveys for the clubshell (Pleurobema clava) and other rare clams in Michigan: Final Report – 2000. Report number MNFI 2001-07. Report to USFWS – Region 3 Endangered Species Office, Twin Cities, MN. 59pp.

Goforth, R. R., P. J. Badra and R. S. Mulcrone 2000. Evaluation of the current status of freshwater mussels at selected sites in the Grand River, Michigan. Report Number MNFI 2000-12. Report to Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, Office of the Great Lakes, Lansing, MI. 106pp.

Badra, P. J. and A. L. Derosier. 2005. Fish and mussel surveys in Hudson Mills Metropark, Huron River. Report number MNFI 2005-25. Report to Huron-Clinton Metroparks. 6pp.

Goforth, R. R., D. Stagliano, J. Cohen, M. Penskar, Y. M. Lee, J. Cooper. 2001. Biodiversity Analysis of Selected Riparian Ecosystems within a Fragmented Landscape. Report number 2001-06. Report to Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund and MDEQ, Office of the Great Lakes.

What we know of the status of non-game fishes in the SLP is largely based on work by W. Carl Latta. The following are some important references for his work:

Latta, W. C. 2007. Changes in fish assemblages in Michigan lakes since the 1950's. Michigan Academician 37: 3- 18.

Latta, W. C. 2005. Status of Michigan's endangered, threatened, special-concern and other fishes, 1993-2001. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Fisheries Division Research Report 2079, Ann Arbor. (636 collection sites)

Bailey, R.M., W. C. Latta, and G. R. Smith, 2004. An atlas of Michigan fishes with keys and illustrations for their identification. Miscellaneous Publications Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Number 192.

Latta, W.C. 2002. Changes in fish assemblages in Michigan's streams since 1922. Michigan Academician 33: 297- 319.

Latta, W. C. 1998. Status of the endangered and threatened fishes of Michigan. Michigan Academician 30: 1- 16

Recent MNFI report related to Great Lakes habitat in the SLP:

Goforth, R. R. and S. M. Carman. 2003. Research, Assessment, and Data Needs to Promote Protection of Great Lakes Nearshore Fisheries Habitat. Report number 2003-11. Report to Great Lakes Fishery Trust. 42pp.

82 Rivers and Streams

Summary of Existing Information

The Institute for Fisheries Research, MDNR Fisheries Division, developed a river segment classification system in 2007. The river segment classification is based on four primary variables: 1) gradient, 2) size, 3) landform, and 4) temperature. River segments are best assessed at the basin and watershed scale. Watersheds should be defined at the HUC 250 scale (8 digits).

There are approximately 26,866 miles of rivers and streams in the three ecological drainage units (EDUs) of the SLP (Paskus, et al 2008). This represents 59% of all river miles in the state. The three EDUs located in the SLP are: 1) Southeast Michigan interlobate and lake plain (4,648 miles), 2) southeast Lake Michigan (9,127 miles), and 3) Saginaw Bay (13,091 miles). Types of rivers selected as potentially unique in Michigan using a 5% rule were: 1) very large rivers, 2) large rivers, 3) high gradient, medium rivers, and 4) cold, low gradient, medium rivers. The southeast Michigan Interlobate and Lake Plain EDU had the fewest river valley segments selected as unique statewide with only 26. Using a 1% uniqueness rule, the Southeast Lake Michigan EDU had the fewest river valley segments designated as potentially unique statewide with only 2.

Information Gaps and Priorities

Although a River Valley Segment Classification was recently developed by the Institute for Fisheries Research, it has yet to be applied for directing conservation action or management. The River Valley Segment system also hasn’t been ground-truthed to assess its accuracy. Additionally, it would be useful to fully describe each riverine natural community type similar to the terrestrial natural communities tracked by the NatureServe heritage network. This would include associated plant and animal species, water chemistry, substrate, specifications to assess quality (element occurrence rankings), and specifications for global and state rankings.

Resources

Beam, J.D., and J.J. Braunscheidel. 1998. Rouge River Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report 22.

Brenden, T.O., L. Wang, P.W. Seelbach, R.D. Clark, Jr., M.J. Wiley, B.L. Sparks-Jackson. 2008. A spatially constrained clustering program for river valley segment delineation from GIS digital river networks. Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol. 23:5.

Brenden, T.O., L. Wang, P.W. Seelbach. 2008. A River Valley Segment Classification of Michigan Streams based on Fish and Physical attributes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Vol. 137 No. 6, pp. 1621-1636.

Dodge, K.E. 1998. River Raisin Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report 23. Ann Arbor, MI. Francis, J.T., and R.C. Haas. 2006. Clinton River Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report 39. Ann Arbor, MI.

Hay-Chmielewski, E.M., P.W. Seelbach, G.E. Whelan, and D.B. Jester Jr. 1995. Huron River Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report 16, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Leonardi, J.M., and W.L. Gruhn. 2001. Flint River Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report 27. Ann Arbor, MI.

O’Neal, R.P. 1997. Muskegon River Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report 19. Ann Arbor, MI.

Schrouder, K.S., R.N. Lockwood, and J.P. Baker. 2009. Tittabawassee River Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report 52. Ann Arbor, MI.

Seelbach et al. 2006. Initial classification of river valley segments across Michigan's lowers peninsula. In: Hughes, R.M., Wang, L., Seelbach, P.W. (Eds.), Landscape Influences on Stream Habitats and Biological Assemblages, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. pp. 25-48.

Seelbach, P. W., M. J. Wiley, J. C. Kotanchik, and M. E. Baker. 1997. A landscape-based ecological classification system for river valley segments in lower Michigan. Fisheries Research Report No. 2036. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Ann Arbor, MI. 51pp.

Towns, G. L. 1984. A Fisheries Survey of the Kalamazoo River July and August 1982. Fisheries Division Technical Report # 84-7. Report for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division. Lansing, MI.

Wesley, J.K. 2005. Kalamazoo River Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report 35. Ann Arbor, MI.

Wesley, J.K., and J.E. Duffy. 1999. St. Joseph River Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report 24. Ann Arbor, MI.

Lakes

Summary of Existing Information

There are approximately 10,772 lakes larger than 2 acres in size in Michigan that were analyzed in a recent study (Paskus, et al 2008). The same study documented a total of 5,116 lakes in the three EDUs located in the SLP. This represents 48% of all lakes in Michigan. Lakes within each EDU are as follows: 1) Southeast Michigan interlobate and lake plain (1,123 lakes), 2) southeast Lake Michigan (2,547 lakes), and Saginaw Bay (1,446 lakes).

Using both the 1% and 5% rule for uniqueness statewide, the Saginaw Bay EDU had the second most lakes indentified as potentially unique with 21 and 140 respectively. Using the 1% and 5% rule for uniqueness by EDU, the Southeast Lake Michigan EDU had the highest number of lakes indentified as potentially unique with 41 and 131 respectively. Visually, it is very apparent from viewing the maps that there is a very high density of potentially unique lakes both statewide and by EDU in a region where the three EDU’s located in the southern Lower Peninsula intersect. This area of high lake density roughly corresponds to Denny Albert’s (1995) Ann Arbor Moraine subsection and Jackson Interlobate subsection in Livingston, Washtenaw, Oakland, Jackson, and Lapeer Counties.

Information Gaps and Priorities

A classification for lakes currently does not exist for Michigan. The Institute for Fisheries Research (IFR) is currently working on a lake classification and expects to have a preliminary classification completed in 2011. In addition, faculty at the MSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife are working on a lake classification focused on fish productivity. Lakes are best assessed at the Basin and watershed scale. Watersheds should be defined at the HUC 250 scale (8 digits).

Resources

Breck, J.E. 2004. Compilation of Databases on Lakes in Michigan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Technical Report 2004-2, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Higgins, J., M. Lammert, M. Bryer, M. Dephillips, and D. Grossman. 1998. Freshwater Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin: Development and Application of an Aquatic Community Classification Framework. Report for the George Gund Foundation and the US Environmental Protection Agency Great Lakes National Program Office.

Higgins, J.V., M.T. Bryer, M.L. Khoury, and T.W. Fitzhugh. 2005. A freshwater classification approach for biodiversity conservation planning. Conservation Biology 19(2): 432-445.

Koonce, J. F., C. K. Minns, and H. A. Morrison. 1999. Aquatic biodiversity investment areas in the Great Lakes Basin: Identification and Validation, version 3. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference 1998, Biodiversity Investment Areas: Aquatic Ecosystems.

Rankin, D., and S. Crispin. 1994. Conservation of biological diversity in the Great Lakes ecosystem: issues and opportunities. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/ecopage/glbd/issues/

85 Summary of Information Gap Priorities

Unlike some portions of Michigan, like the western Upper Peninsula, Southern Michigan is not a pristine environment. Similar to the major ecosystem restoration projects summarized by Vigmostad et al (2005), the SLP has undergone a tremendous amount of human modification. Decades of logging, industrial agriculture, industrial development, transportation networks and urban sprawl have transformed the landscape into a patchwork of roads, row crops, and sprawling cities surrounding small patches of natural vegetation. If the Native Americans and early European settlers that inhabited southern Michigan in the early 1800’s were plopped down in the middle of the SLP today, they wouldn’t be able to recognize their surroundings.

As a result, the goals of any southern Michigan ecosystem management effort will need to first protect the most intact and viable natural vegetation remnants, and second focus on strategic restoration, rehabilitation, and regeneration. However, due to the large size of the SLP region, restoration efforts will need to be as strategic as possible by targeting areas that provide the most benefit. To do that, we need to have a better understanding of the historical natural features and processes, where these features were located, how much has been lost, and the total costs and benefits of various restoration activities.

One of the most fundamental information gaps facing the state of Michigan is lack of a viable accounting system for aquatic natural communities. The MDNR Institute for Fisheries Research recently developed a model for breaking down river systems into discrete units, however this system has yet to be fully tested in the field or adopted for conservation purposes. Likewise, the state of Michigan lacks an inland lake and Great Lakes nearshore classification system. These three aquatic classification systems will be critical components for advancing aquatic conservation throughout Michigan. Another basic information gap is the distribution and viability of native plant and animal species and terrestrial natural communities. All science disciplines described in the previous section identified systematic field surveys (especially on private lands), data backlog, and transcribing museum records as major data gaps. In addition, several of the science disciplines expressed the need for more robust predictive distribution models, and zoology stated the need for the development of an inferred extent data layer. Inferred extent is a technique used to identify potential habitat of known animal observations based on nesting, territory, foraging, and other life history needs coupled with GIS spatial resources.

Addressing these fundamental information gaps allows for the application of GIS spatial analysis to help focus conservation activity. A preliminary list of important GIS based analyses that could be conducted based on available data is provided in Table 7. A more thorough and robust list of priority analyses/assessments could be developed by holding several subject matter expert workshops. For example, botanical, zoological, and aquatic priority analyses and information gaps could be more thoroughly vetted through the use of existing statewide technical committees that determine the legal status of plant and animal species in Michigan.

One of the most useful applications of existing information coupled with several additional assessments or analyses is an ecological/biological summary by geographical units. These units could be subsections for terrestrial conservation targets and watersheds for aquatic conservation targets. This type of synthesis could pull together pertinent ecological/biological information such as land cover change, impacts of human activities, threats, information gaps, protection status, and best viewing areas for a given area. Additionally, these summaries could be vetted by a series of field-expert workshops to improve their accuracy.

Ultimately, the biological/ecological information discussed in this and the previous section can be utilized to develop an interconnected network of conservation areas (terrestrial and aquatic) for southern Michigan. Some conservation efforts have also referred to this type of network as a regional ecological framework. A key obstacle to developing such a framework however is lack 86 of ownership. The strategy of field-expert workshops mentioned above could be utilized to assess the accuracy of the information, encourage input, and allow for broader support and ownership of the final product(s). Realizing the immediate use and significance of such a collaborative product, the regional ecological framework should probably be considered an iterative process that starts with the best available existing information, models, and expert knowledge and continues to be refined as new information and tools become available. This type of geospatially referenced information could then be used for a variety of applications such as decision support tools for local and regional decision makers.

87 Table 7. Potential GIS based Assessments for the SLP

Potential Assessments Work Involved Benefit Estimated Cost review, transcribe and enter new element Large number of EO's that should be Update element occurrence models (EO occurrences , and existing backlog from outside incorporated so the bio-rarity score is more $30,000 frequency, EO likelihood, and bio-rarity score) entities into BIOTICS accurate and current Natural communities are often ranked based on previous knowledge of that community. New transcribe and enter new natural community Update 3 best natural community occurrences surveys bring new occurrences as well as new element occurrences into BIOTICS; re-evaluate $15,000 by section, subsection, and sub-subsection information about that community type. In each occurrence for overall viability ranking addition, the natural community classification was modified since the last analysis was done. Conduct bio-rarity score analysis using existing Direct conservation to those areas with high Identify high biodiversity areas within information. Quality control results. Use a variety biological value that have the best chance of $5,000 landscapes of high integrity of tools to identify and prioritize large functional persisting in the future natural landscapes in the SLP Update natural community element occurrence Direct conservation to those areas with high Identify high quality natural communities located data (see # 3). Quality control results. Use a quality natural communities that have the best $20,000 within landscapes of high integrity variety of tools to identify and prioritize large chance of persisting in the future functional natural landscapes in the SLP review, transcribe and enter new element occurrences , and existing backlog from outside Depends on number of entities into BIOTICS. Use a variety of tools to Highlight private lands that fall within Direct conservation to unprotected private lands EO's to enter into biotics. identify and prioritize large functional landscapes of high biodiversity value with the highest biological value Probably between landscapes. Run query to intersect all $30,000 and $40,000 unprotected private lands with high biodiversity value areas. Most animal occurences are based on simple observations. In order to make the information Develop an inferred extent data layer for all Use State of Virginia's documented methods. more useful for conservation, an inferred extent $55,000 animal occurrences and update EO ranks of the population's habitat is developed to serve as a surrogate for long-term field data collection Identify breeding areas for high priority bird Develop a map of bird species observations species, as well as areas with high species N/A based on the updated breeding bird atlas richness Identify and obtain best biological, ecological, Build robust predictive distribution models for Direct future survey efforts; use for preliminary $6,000 to build GIS hydrological, and geomorphological datasets. highest priority plant and animal species and environmental review; use as a surrogate until library, plus $5,000 per Build expert models. Apply cutting edge software natural communities field surveys can be completed species and community applications. Review results. Table 7. Potential GIS based Assessments for the SLP

Potential Assessments Work Involved Benefit Estimated Cost Most lands in SLP have been modified by Develop and apply GIS model using best humans and many habitats are too small to Evaluate lands and waterbodies for restoration available software tools to all land and manage for biodiversity values. Restoration will N/A potential waterbodies in SLP be key to longterm viability of biodiversity in SLP. Ecosystem services in a useful concept in Develop and apply GIS model using best Evaluate lands and waterbodies for provision of understanding and incorporating multiple values available software tools to all land and N/A ecosystem services as well as tradeoffs regarding land and water waterbodies in SLP and wildlife. Evaluate land use planning efforts for each Identify areas that are well positioned for natural MCD in the SLP (last update, parks and Develop and conduct mail surveys and resource conservation and obtaining outside recreation plan, green infrastructure plan, telephone interviews. Review existing plans and funding; identify municipalities and regions with 1.65 FTEs integration of natural resources into different ordinances for several hundred jurisdictions. high natural resource value but little support for sections of the master plan, nature friendly Compile and analyze results in a report. land conservation activities. ordinances) Identify, map, and describe each existing and recent conservation planning effort in the SLP. Summarize and track existing conservaiton More efficient conservation action. Evaluate .3 - .4 FTE plus Utilize latest software application for tracking efforts in the SLP progress towards conservation goals. continuous maintenance projects. Contact and interview all known conservation organizations in SLP. Compile and summarize existing data, Summarize existing ecological and biological .75 FTE plus travel to knowledge, and information for each subsection Provide succinct easily accessible information information, ownership, protection status, workshops for terrestrial and watershed in the SLP. Present information on the SLP's natural resources for land landcover change, data gaps, threats, analysis at workshops and gather feedback from local managers, local decision makers, and interested consevation priorities and research priorities by .75 FTE plus travel for experts. Refine results and make available via citizens. subsection and watershed; aquatic analysis interactive website. The small scale watersheds used in previous analyses do not necessarily function as true Apply same methodology used in the Conduct functional subwatershed analysis at subwatersheds, and they are also mostly too biodiversity assessment of MI technical report $7,000 the larger 8 digit HUC scale small to manage. The larger scale would provide for subwatersheds. a more accurate picture of the functionality of whole river systems. Literature Citations

Agee J. and D. Johnson. 1988. Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Brick P. 1998. Of Imposters, Optimists, and Kings: Finding a political niche for collaborative conservation. The Chronicle of Community. Vol. 2 No. 2.

Christensen, N.L., A. M. Bartuska, J.H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D’Antonio, R. Francis, J. F. Franklin, J. A. MacMahon, R. F. Noss, D J.Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M. G. Turner, and R G. Woodmansee. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications. Vol. 6, No. 3. pp. 665-691.

Coughlin C. W., M. L. Hoben, D. W. Manskopf, and S. W. Quesada. 1999. A systematic assessment of collaborative resource management partnerships. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Dewitt J. 1994. Civic Environmentalism. Issues in Science and Technology. Vol. 10 No. 4.

Erickson, L. 1998. Director, Corporation for the Northern Rockies. Personal communication.

Gerlak A. K. and T. Heikkila. 2006. Comparing collaborative mechanisms in large scale ecosystem governance. Natural Resources Journal.

Grumbine R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology. 8:27-37.

Heikkila T. and A. K. Gerlak. 2005. The Formation of Large-scale collaborative resource management institutions: clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science, and institutions. The Policy Studies Journal. Vol. 33, No. 4. pp. 583-612.

Jones L. 1996. Howdy Neighbor! - As a last resort, Westerners starting talking to each other. High Country News. Vol. 28 No. 9.

McClellan M. 1996. A Sampling of the WLA’s Collaboration Efforts. High Country News. Vol. 28 No. 9.

Paskus J. J., A. Derosier, E. S. Schools, B. Slaughter, M. Kost, H. Enander. 2008. Biodiversity Assessment of Michigan Technical Report. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Report number 2008-17.

Public Sector Consultants, Inc. 2001. Michigan Land Resource Project. Report prepared for the Michigan Economic and Environmental Roundtable. Lansing, MI. 135 pp.

Selin S. and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and Management. Environmental Management. 2: 189-195.

Vigmostad K. E., N. Mays, A Hance, and A Cangelosi. 2005. Large-Scale Ecosystem Restoration: Lessons for existing and emerging initiatives. www.neww.org.

Weeter, B. 1999. Rancher owner, Double H Ranch. Ten Sleep, Wyoming. Personal communication. ([email protected]).

Wood .C. A. 1994. Ecosystem management: achieving the new land ethic. Renewable Natural Resources Journal. 12:6-12.

Yaffee S. L. and J. Wondolleck. 1995. Building Knowledge Pools and Relationsheds. Journal of Forestry. 93(5): 60.

Yaffee S. L., A. F. Phillips, I. C. Frentz, P. W. Hardy, S. M. Maleki, and B. E. Thorpe. 1996. Ecosystem management in the United States: an assessment of current experience. Island Press, Washington D. C.

Yaffee S. L., J. Wondolleck and S. Lippman. 1997. Factors that Promote and Constrain Bridging: A Summary and Analysis of the Literature. A research report submitted to the USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Yaffee S. L. 1998. Cooperation: a strategy for achieving stewardship across boundaries. Pages 299- 324 in R. L. Knight and P. Landes, editors. Stewardship across boundaries. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Yaffee, S. L. and J. Wondolleck. 2003. Collaborative Ecosystem Planning Processes in the United States: Evolution and Challenges. Environments. 31(2):59-71.

Appendix A: Initiative Charter

Appendix A – 1

Southern Michigan Natural Resource Initiative (SMNRI) Initiative Charter Accepted by Statewide Council September 2009

Table of Contents: Proposed Initiative Page 1 Challenges Page 1 In Scope Page 2 Out-of-Scope Page 3 Departmental Expectations Page 4 Assumptions Regarding Partners Page 7 Recognized Implementation Risks Page 7 Benefits of Adopting this Initiative Page 7

Proposed Initiative: The Southern Michigan Natural Resource Initiative represents a philosophical shift in the department’s approach to sustainable natural resource management. The Initiative will provide strategic guidance across all ownerships for the conservation and management of southern Michigan's natural resources. Conservation threats will be identified and strategic actions to alleviate these threats will be developed. This Initiative will be a collaborative effort of diverse user and interest groups and will integrate social, economic and ecological factors to ensure long-term natural resource health and sustainability in the Southern Lower Peninsula.

Challenges: Michigan’s natural resources have experienced intense challenges over the last several hundred years that threaten their long-term sustainability. Some of those challenges are: 1. Michigan’s Southern Lower Peninsula natural resources have been greatly altered and continue to be threatened. a. The ecoregion is the most roaded, populated, and modified (converted to agricultural and urban land-uses) in the state. b. Only 27% of the landscape remains in a natural condition, and the vast majority of what remains in natural conditions is considered highly degraded. This effects both terrestrial and aquatic systems. c. 99% of some natural communities (e.g. prairies, savannas, and barrens) have been lost and most communities have been fragmented due to past development and anthropogenic causes; forecasts predict increasing development trends in the coming decades. d. Most natural processes (e.g. fire, successional pathways, hydrologic regimes) have been dramatically altered. e. The majority of lakes, rivers and streams are considered moderately to highly degraded. f. The landscape ownership is highly fragmented, making landscape- level efforts challenging.

Appendix A – 2

g. Colonization and establishment of invasive species is greatest in this ecoregion. 2. There is a lack of measurable, ecologically-based, long-term, multi-scaled, planning for southern Michigan’s natural resources, coordinated at the ecoregional scale. 3. Natural resource managers have experienced challenges in consistently balancing a broad range of public values regarding the SLP’s natural resources. 4. A significant part of the human population does not have a working knowledge of sustainable natural resource management. 5. Limited funds are available for the conservation of the ecoregion’s natural resources. The limited available resources have not been effectively shared, leading to inefficiency, duplication, and unnecessary conflicts. 6. Natural resources in southern Michigan are typically managed by individual agencies, departments, conservation organizations, and minor civil divisions in a very independent, compartmentalized manner. a. Local land, water, and species management decisions are typically made without a broader ecological and socio-economic context or framework. b. Land-use decisions in southern Michigan are typically made by the smallest units of government. Such decisions are typically constrained by limited, local-scale perspectives and are not made in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. Few land-use decisions are made in a coordinated manner amongst the hundreds of local units of government in southern Michigan.

In Scope: The following items will be considered in-scope for the Southern Michigan Natural Resource Initiative: 1. Spatial Extent and Scales: a. SLP section (as defined by Albert, 1994) (Figure 1). b. Multi-scale approach for both terrestrial and aquatic systems. c. Great Lakes Basins that intersect with the SLP section. d. Watersheds or subsections that span across the SLP ecoregional boundary (e.g. those that span into the NLP, Indiana, and Ohio) will be addressed in assessments, but not provided a desired future condition. 2. Temporal Scale: a. Assessment will span across time including the period prior to significant European anthropogenic change (e.g. 200 years ago) b. Desired Future Condition (DFC) will be established for several future periods (e.g. 10, 50, 100 years) c. Initiative will be ongoing and take an adaptive approach to future plan revisions based on results of monitoring and evaluation efforts 3. Initiative will Provide Context, and Multi-scale Prioritization for:

Appendix A – 3

a. MDNR land management operational decisions (e.g. State Game Area Master Plans, Regional State Forest Plans, Parks Planning, Watershed plans) b. Departmental land acquisition, disposal and boundary delineation decisions c. Resource protection and law enforcement d. Federal, state, local, and partner NGO conservation programs on private lands e. Management decisions on partners lands 4. Develop and Implement a Collaborative Approach to Engage Public a. Seek to balance a broad range of public values and concerns related to natural resource management (consumptive and non- consumptive). b. Involve a breadth of sectors including: outdoor recreation, agriculture, economic development, transportation, education, land-use planning, and non-traditional audiences. c. Establish a council of partners to develop a true collaborative approach to implement Initiative and develop a SLP ecoregional plan 5. Develop Ecosystem Based Plan for terrestrial, wetland, aquatic, and subsurface/geologic systems the SLP a. Assessment i. Coarse, Meso, and Fine Filter Ecological Assessments: Use existing ecological assessments (MNFI, BCPP, TNC, WAP) and expand as necessary to address SLP issues ii. Identify socioeconomic assessments to address issues that impact the long-term sustainability of the SLP ecoregion’s natural resources b. Develop Desired Future Conditions c. Develop Goals and Objectives d. Develop Monitoring Protocol e. Implement Plan f. Evaluate Plan g. Secure sufficient external & internal resources to implement Initiative

Out-of-Scope: Items listed below can also be moved to “in scope” by Coordinating Council (as defined in Initiative Implementation Strategy.doc) if partners have necessary expertise, authority and/or resources to address the item. 1. Spatial Scale: a. Fine scale terrestrial and aquatic systems (e.g. LTA, ELTP, Habitat Type). b. Other ecoregions within Michigan c. Adjacent States or Ontario aside from those watersheds or subsections mentioned in the In-Scope section d. Sovereign Tribal Lands (unless they choose to engage as partners)

Appendix A – 4

2. Temporal Scale: a. Information and data from any period more than 200 years into the past b. Projections beyond 100 years into the future 3. Existing Plans a. Many Departmental/ Divisional strategic plans are absent or outdated. Details for how existing strategic higher level plans relate to one another will come from another process. And are thus out the scope of this Initiative. 4. Ecological Integrity and Biodiversity: a. Genetic scale b. Game species population regulations c. Species specific management plans d. Species viability assessment e. Identifying potential restoration sites at a fine scale f. Delineating LTAs, ELTPs, or Habitat Types for the SLP 5. Social and Economic issues not directly related to the long-term sustainability of the SLP ecoregion’s natural resources 6. Miscellaneous Items a. Long-term economic development plan b. Long-term agricultural viability plan c. Long-term transportation plan d. Renewable energy strategy e. Energy conservation strategy f. Recycling strategy g. Hazardous waste management h. Point-source pollution control i. Environmental justice j. Causes of Climate Change k. Ambient air quality

Departmental Expectations: 1. The DNR is committed to the long-term sustainability of the SLP’s natural resources. 2. Successful implementation of this Initiative will require transforming the way the department has traditionally functioned. The DNR must be fully committed to the Initiative, at all levels, and must embrace this transformation in order to turn the plan into action. Examples of this transformation may include the following: a. The current reactive Departmental Philosophy will be adjusted to effectively implement Ecosystem Management i. All Divisions will: 1. Adopt a more integrated, extensive approach to long-term, landscape-level natural resource management goal setting

Appendix A – 5

2. Change the way we engage the public in natural resource management decisions a. Recognize that the risks of lost credibility and poorer long-term management decisions are greater than the costs associated with taking a comprehensive, collaborative approach. b. A concerted effort will be made to work with relevant resource-based sectors of society. c. Attempts will be made to engage a broad range of representative natural resource stakeholders as possible. d. A clearly defined collaborative process (including decision authority) for the Initiative will be established by partners in the Initiative Council. The Department and Natural Resource Commission are required to meet their legal and statutory obligations, but commit to incorporating partner recommendations and advice to the extent practicable. e. The Department will look to partners for advice, innovation, and assistance in formulating solutions to issues identified in plan. f. The Department will incorporate partner advice and recommendations into internal decision making process, to the extent practicable. 3. Resource management divisions will move toward: a. ecosystem-based approaches to management b. managing plant and animal species in need of conservation, not just primarily game or T&E species. c. consider economic and social issues related to natural resource management decisions. b. Resources: i. Sufficient resources will be expended throughout the entire life (development, implementation, maintenance, evaluation, and monitoring) of this Initiative. ii. The Initiative will be kept informed as to the availability of resources for its work. iii. State land recommendations within the ecoregion regarding acquisitions and disposal will be based upon criteria identified in plan. Additional Departmental processes and

Appendix A – 6

policies will be identified and described which can further the aims of this Initiative. iv. Attempts will be made to leverage additional funds in order to successfully implement the Initiative. c. Staff: i. DNR staff identified to participate in project development (workgroups or council) will be directed to consider their involvement as part of their “core responsibilities” by their supervisors. 1. Sufficient time to participate in workgroups or council will be provided by supervisors and incorporated into annual workplans 2. Achievement of relevant goals will be incorporated into individual’s performance evaluations and position descriptions ii. Upon completion of plan, DNR staff will base local SLP state land operational and tactical decisions on priorities identified by the Initiative 1. Field staff responsible for developing local, short- term plans (e.g. annual work plans, State Game Area Master Plans, Regional State Forest Plans, Parks Planning, Watershed plans) and implementing management decisions will: a. use the context and prioritizations provided to make more informed decisions. b. be partially evaluated in performance evaluations based on following the plan. iii. If current staffing levels cannot accomplish activities laid out in Initiative, Management will re-prioritize existing staff responsibilities or attempt to hire additional staff (e.g. given the preponderance of privately owned land in the ecoregion, the department will likely need to increase the level of technical assistance provided to private landowners). 3. Administrative level draft plan reviews and decisions related to Initiative will be made in a timely manner. 4. This Charter serves as a temporary document: a. This document is intended to clarify Initiative objectives, what is in and out-of-scope from a departmental perspective, and to identify potential departmental transformations necessary to successfully implement the Initiative. b. More specific resource (financial and staff) requests will be made to the Ecoteam and SWC as the Initiative council and workgroup workplans are established. c. A final charter, based loosely on this charter template, will be developed using a collaborative process once the council has been

Appendix A – 7

Assumptions Regarding Partners: 1. Products developed as a result of this effort will serve as guidelines to partner agencies, organizations (i.e. NGOs), and the private sector and there will be a collective buy-in to the product(s). 2. Council members will significantly contribute to the Initiative (e.g. knowledge, money, equipment, political influence; facilitation, analytical, implementation skills, or other resources). 3. Human populations and environmental conditions will change over time necessitating ongoing updates and revisions to Initiative product(s).

Recognized Risks, The Initiative recognizes and will attempt to mitigate the following risks 1. The DNR may not have sufficient resources (e.g. funding and/or staffing) to meet the mission, goals, and objectives of the project in terms of the defined scope. 2. Many Departmental/ Divisional strategic plans are absent or outdated. Without clear direction regarding how existing higher level (e.g. strategic) plans relate to one another, this initiative will be less effective and integrated into other departmental and divisional processes. 3. The Initiative could get mired down in the process and/or sidetracked onto other issues important to key partners such as economic development, renewable energy development, inner city revitalization, etc. 4. The complexity of the effort may lead to frustration, a perception that nothing is getting done, a perception that nothing can possibly be done to alleviate the situation, and a loss of momentum. 5. If the DNR takes the lead in a landscape that is 96% in private ownership, it may create a perception that the state is trying to take over or control local planning, private land management, private property rights, economic development, etc…. 6. The Initiative may not be able to engage key stakeholders and decision- makers, and thus may experience challenges being truly representative and during the implementation phase.

Benefits of Adopting this Initiative: Mitigation of the problems identified in the challenges section, above, will provide the following benefits. 1. Management of the SLP ecoregion’s natural resources will move towards sustainability and benefit from a process to minimize and resolve conflict. 2. The Department and other interested organizations and individuals will have a document that contains a set of clear measurable goals, objectives, and strategies for enhancing and conserving the SLP’s natural resources.

Appendix A – 8

3. A better understand among stakeholders in the SLP of one another’s goals and values. 4. Limited resources allocated towards natural resource conservation in the SLP will be more optimally leveraged in order to make a bigger impact directed toward an agreed upon vision. 5. Local land managers and land use planners will have access to products and tools to assist with and provide broader context for decision-making. 6. Major decisions regarding the environment, economic development, land use planning, and transportation will be made using a more integrated approach with buy-in across stakeholders. 7. The Department will have a clear strategic planning process and framework at the ecoregional scale that can be applied to other areas of the state. 8. The Department will be viewed as a leader in ecosystem based planning.

The Initiative will benefit the department by establishing a collaborative approach to setting long-term, landscape-level goals to address threats to the SLP ecoregion’s natural resources. The Initiative will assist the SLP ecoteam fulfill its mission to “plan and coordinate management of Michigan’s natural resources, utilizing ecosystem management principles”.

Appendix A – 9

Figure 1. Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, with the Southern Lower Section and Private and NGO lands delineated.

Appendix A – 10

Appendix B: Implementation Strategy

Appendix B - 1 Southern Michigan Natural Resource Initiative (SMNRI) Initiative Implementation Strategy Accepted by Statewide Council September 2009

In September of 2007 the Michigan Department of Natural Resource’s Statewide Council directed the Southern Lower Peninsula (SLP) Ecoteam to develop a cross-ownership ecoregional planning process (based on the principles of ecosystem management) using a collaborative method. The SLP Ecoteam has responded to this direction by forming a scoping group charged with the responsibility of developing such a process.

The scoping group has developed a preliminary initiative charter, implementation strategy, and communication and collaboration workgroup work plan for SLP ecoteam and SWC approval. Once these are approved, the scoping group and communication and collaborative workgroup will develop and implement a process for establishing the Initiative Partnership. According to the implementation strategy, the department will act as a partner, catalyst, facilitator, and information and technology broker in this collaborative effort that will hereafter be referred to as an Initiative.

Once the Initiative is established, a partnership, composed of a broad range of stakeholders (Figure 2) will further develop and implement the plan. The partnership may be led by a Coordinating Council (Figure 2) that identifies, defines, and prioritizes strategic issues for the ecoregion, and then sets related goals and objectives for each issue. The Coordinating Council will direct individual workgroups, consisting of DNR staff and external professionals, that will carry out specific phases of the Initiative as detailed below (Figure 1). Being a truly collaborative entity, the partnership will either accept or modify the outlined process, according to partner desires.

Appendix B - 2 Conduct Systems Assessment 7 2

ID & Evaluate Prioritize 6 and Monitor 3 Strategic Progress Issues Establish Partnership and CC 1

Develop Implement Strategic Action Plans 4 Action Plans 5 Figure 1. Proposed Initiative Process Diagram, numbers represent various phases of Initiative.

Phase 1. Establish Initiative Partnership and Coordinating Council (Figure 2):

Objectives: 1. Engage a broad range of organizations and individuals in the creation of a loosely organized Network that: a. Promotes communication and collaboration. b. Catalyzes the initiative described in the charter, and implementation strategy or as modified by partnership. c. Develops working agreements: i. Membership criteria ii. Democratic decision making process iii. Clearly defined purposes and goals d. Establishes a Coordinating Council 2. Refine and Implement Communication and Collaboration strategy a. Develop a consistent communication strategy for overall Initiative, Partnership, and Workgroups b. Further understanding of collaborative processes for internal and external audiences

Appendix B - 3 c. Organize and facilitate initial public meetings to establish Initiative Partnership 3. Cleary define Initiative Partnership and Coordinating Council decision space a. Review Policies, Procedures, Legislation that may limit Initiative decision space b. Define How Council Interacts with Department 4. Secure Sufficient Short and Long-term Funding a. Secure adequate internal and external funding throughout the life of Initiative b. Identify new sources of funds for various phases of Initiative (development, implementation, maintenance, evaluation, and monitoring) c. Identify opportunities to leverage funding d. Encourage federal, state, and private conservation programs to tie/relate funding priorities with plan objectives

Workgroup 1 Name: Communication and Collaboration Workgroup

Workgroup Composition: DNR and Partners.

Duration: Collaborative part will end when a CC is fully implemented, the communication portion will last the life of initiative.

Workgroup 2 Name: Initiative Partnership (Figure 2)

Workgroup Membership Criteria: Any individual or organization with an interest in sustainable natural resource in the SLP is welcome to become a partner.

Workgroup Membership Expectations: Partners must recognize that if this organizational structure is to be successful it will continue to respect the autonomy and unique objectives of partner organizations. All partners will hold one another accountable to achieving mutually agreed upon goals. A successful endeavor will require a significant commitment and solidarity among partners.

Leadership type: shared and facilitated by an independent party

Duration: Long-term, life of initiative.

Appendix B - 4 Sovereign Nations and U.S. Federal Local Agencies Govt. NGOs Initiative State Partnership Agencies Businesses, Industries Initiative Coordinating Council Private Citizens

University/ Extension

Figure 2. Initiative Partnership Composition and Relationship to Coordinating Council

Workgroup 3 Name: Initiative Coordinating Council (CC), will be created if Partnership is too large (Figure 2).

Workgroup responsibilities: 1. Facilitate/ enable the participation of all partners in IP 2. Oversee the operation and development of the Initiative 3. Act as representative decision making body for the Initiative Partnership 4. Identify, define and prioritize strategic issues for the SLP ecoregion. 5. Secure short and long-term funding 6. Direct workgroups in the development of resource assessments and strategies (including goals and objectives) for each issue.

Workgroup Membership Criteria: Any organization with an interest in sustainable natural resources in the SLP and with something to offer (knowledge, fiscal resources, equipment, political influence, human resources; facilitation, analytical, or

Appendix B - 5 implementation skills) is welcome to become a partner. The Coordinating Council will be made up of one representative from each major (define) agency/division, industry, university/extension, or NGO.

Workgroup Membership Expectations: NGO, local government, and industry representatives must have a formal internal process to receive input and disseminate information to members of the group they represent in addition to a method for engaging member participation in the Initiative. Partners will hold one another accountable toward developing and achieving Initiative goals.

Leadership type: Democratic, but yet to be defined. The Coordinating Council will ultimately set up its own decision making process.

Method of Public Engagement: Consultative to Initiative partnership/ public.

Duration: Life of initiative.

Phase 2. Conduct Key Natural and Human System Assessments:

Objectives: 1. Identify existing relevant ecological, social, and required economic assessments for SLP ecoregion 2. Review existing assessments in order to identify gaps and opportunities 3. Complete foundational ecological, social, and economic assessments required to inform the Coordinating Council and complete phases 4 and 5

Workgroup Name: Assessment Workgroup

Workgroup Composition: DNR and Partners

Duration: Will begin after the CC is fully functional and last approximately 18 months

Phase 3. Identify and Prioritize Strategic Issues:

Objectives: 1. Identify potential strategic issues to address 2. Prioritize strategic issues based on a variety of factors

Workgroup Names: Initiative Partnership or Coordinating Council with assistance from Assessment workgroup

Workgroup Composition: DNR and Partners

Duration: Will begin after assessments are complete and last 3 months

Appendix B - 6

Phase 4. Develop and Integrate Strategic Issue Action Plans:

Objectives: 1. Finalize strategic issue action plan template as part of overall planning document 2. Engage relevant program leaders to assist in identification and development of strategies (including goals and objectives) for implementation within their respective program or ownership 3. Establish benchmarks (social, economic, or ecological) to evaluate efficacy of action plans for each strategic issue (step 6). 4. Complete strategic action plans for prioritized strategic issues 5. Integrate individual Strategic Issue Action Plans into one single document and consistent overall strategy. Ensure consistency, avoid redundancy, and identify high priority strategies that cut across strategic issue action plans 6. Periodically update implementation strategies based on new knowledge and results of Evaluation & Monitoring Workgroups

Workgroup Name: Strategic Issues Management Workgroup will assist several subgroups that will address and develop an action plan for each individual Strategic Issue

Workgroup Composition: DNR and Partners.

Duration: Will begin after strategic issues are chosen and last 18 months

Phase 5. Implement Strategic Issue Action Plans:

Objectives: 1. Identify, coordinate, and connect initiative with other planning and programmatic processes within the state and ecoregion for each strategic issue. Avoid redundancy 2. Engage relevant program leaders to assist in the implementation of actions, identified in phase 5, related to their particular program, duties and responsibilities 3. Ensure developed products are useful to end users

Workgroup name: Initiative Partnership

Workgroup Composition: Relevant Initiative Partnership members

Duration: will begin once actions plans are completed and last the life of initiative

Phase 6. Evaluate and Monitor Progress:

Objectives: 1. Assist in developing Goals, Objectives, and Indicators that are scientifically sound, practical to measure, and useful.

Appendix B - 7 2. Monitor progress toward achieving goals and objectives identified in each Strategic Issue Action Plan. 3. Evaluate effectiveness of: a. collaboration and communication strategy b. indicators c. strategies, actions, and tasks d. tools

Workgroup Name: Evaluation and Monitoring Workgroup

Workgroup Composition: DNR and Partners (or perhaps folks from outside the partnership).

Duration: will begin once first strategic action plan is completed and last life of initiative

Phase 7. Return to Phase 4. Address next highest priority strategic issue(s) (as necessary) or modify previously developed Strategic Issue Action Plans as per information found in Phase 7.

Appendix B - 8

Appendix C: Detailed recommendations for Collaboration (from Coughlin et al 1999)

Appendix C - 1 Recommendations for Collaborative Resource Management Projects Excerpted from (Coughlin et al 1999)

Ensure Representation 1. Maintain an open process 2. Keep partnerships open to all interested parties is imperative to the integrity of the collaborative process. 3. Realize that perfect representation is ideal but not always possible 4. Groups should aim to maximize sufficient representation but also realize that cultural and resource restriction can limit representation goals. 5. Involve capable and committed individuals 6. Involving those individuals with the necessary skills and capability to participate in collaborative processes is imperative to the functionality of a group. 7. Realize that representation is a dynamic and evolutionary process 8. Understand that the issue of representation in collaborative groups is not static, but rather will change in accordance with evolving group objectives and stakeholder concerns.

Accommodate Diverse Interests 1. Establish the working relationship Go slow at the beginning Build up trust before (and during) the formal formation of the group Take time to get to know other participants Start off in the context of learning Identify workload up front Realize people’s limitations Look to people for ideas

2. Enhance these relationships Go out in the field as much as possible Voice all opinions Use various communication techniques. Understand and respect each others perspectives Be open and flexible

3. Develop effective leadership Engage people and structure things to tap into people’s strengths Have a paid facilitator who can handle tasks and ask hard questions Have good leaders who are patient and can keep the process going Seek a well rounded leader who looks beyond participants to the community at large Ensure participants representing an organization are the most appropriate people to speak for that organization Identify leaders and spokespeople in the community and figure out who will need a greater amount of persuasion to come to meetings

Appendix C - 2 4. Create a group process Incorporate “check back in” goals Keep meetings open Permit everyone at the table an equal say Simplify Ensure diversity at the table Get rid of hidden agendas Be prepared for the future-cover all bases Don’t push issues Keep on looking for people who should be at the table Learn to pick your important battles Recognize that the group can’t do everything

5. Other New folks need to understand the norms of the group Accept that it is a long process Be dedicated Incorporate consensus training

Accomodate Diverse Capabilities 1. Improve communication Practice constructive behavior Provide training Think about individuals as well as interests Utilize leadership Build trust Other insights

Deal with Scientific Dimensions 1. Tap into resources Establish network of technical experts Include experts in the group Access resources in the community Maximize information sharing Choose a coordinator versed in science

2. Be inclusive Include all stakeholders in discussion of scientific issues including question development, data collection, and inference Ensure understanding of research / monitoring Keep the language at a simple level Use broad variety of expertise, not just one field Use diverse sources

4. Separate Tasks Start with small projects

Appendix C - 3 Develop subcommittees Focus on adaptive management

5. Other Insights Focus scientific questions Find experts with holistic perspectives Consider alternatives and act, despite lack of complete information Have reliable data to support your assumptions

Appendix C - 4

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 2, 2009

TO: Michael Donovan, Wildlife Division

FROM: Joshua Cohen, Michigan Natural Features Inventory

SUBJECT: Annual Report for “Systematic Evaluation of and Assistance in Developing the MDNR’s Biodiversity Planning Process and Proposed Network of Biodiversity Stewardship Areas” (61-8244)

cc: WLD: Patrick Lederle, Gary Roloff, Judy Gibson FMFM: Kim Herman, David Price, Amy Clark Eagle, Jason Stephens PRD: Ray Fahlsing, Glenn Palmgren MNFI: Brian Klatt, Nancy Toben, Michael Kost

Mike,

During the 2009 fiscal year, MNFI began a multi-year project to work cooperatively with DNR staff to evaluate and assist with the ongoing Biodiversity Planning Process. The aim of this project was to contribute MNFI’s ecological expertise to the Biodiversity Planning Process and the DNR’s Assist Team by 1) assessing the methodology, 2) assisting with the selection of Landscape Units and Biodiversity Stewardship Areas (BSAs), and 3) evaluating portions of the proposed network of Landscape Units and BSAs to assess their functionality and condition.

Evaluation of the methodology developed by the Assist Team involved assessing the Michigan Natural process to identify potential Landscape Units and BSAs, assessing the prioritization Features Inventory assumptions used as part of the Biodiversity Planning Process, and assessing the content of the draft natural community and landscape group summaries. Review of the landscape P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI group and natural community summaries focused on evaluation of target representation 48909-7944 goals, range categorization, ecoregional distribution, patch type definitions, conservation (517) 373-1552 strategies, variability, minimum criteria (size, condition, and landscape context), FAX: (517) 373-9566 representative plants and animals, and references. All documents produced by the Assist Team were reviewed and suggested edits, clarifying questions, and comments were provided.

The second component of this project was the assistance with the selection of potential

Michigan State University landscape units and BSAs for the northern Lower Peninsula (Subsections VI.6, VII.1, VII.2, Extension programs and materials VII.3, VII.4, VII.5, and VII.6) and the Upper Peninsula (VIII.1, VIII.2, VIII.3, IX.1, IX.2, are open to all without regard to IX.3, IX.5, IX.6, IX.7, and IX.8). For each of these subsections, current and historical race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political natural community distribution was evaluated to determine natural community occurrence beliefs, sexual orientation, marital or potential occurrence. Within each subsection, potential Landscape Units identified by status, or family status. DNR staff were evaluated to determine their potential to meet target representation goals for MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity institution.

each natural community. Boundaries of existing potential Landscape Units were modified and additional potential Landscape Units were delineated as needed to capture additional natural communities to meet target representation goals for each subsection. Following an iterative process and guided by the prioritizing assumptions, for each subsection a proposed network was developed of potential Landscape Units to capture target representation for each natural community. For each subsection, a shapefile was created within IFMAP/GDSE displaying the proposed network of potential Landscape Units. In addition, natural community representation tables were created by subsection that summarize target representation needs by natural community and display captured natural communities and potential natural communities by potential Landscape Unit.

The final component of this project was the assessment of the functionality and condition of potential Landscape Units and BSAs. GIS analysis, database research, and aerial photographic interpretation were utilized to remotely evaluate the functionality and condition of each potential Landscape Unit. Within each subsection, each potential landscape unit was given a scoring based on its size, connectivity, the number of high- quality natural communities or potential high-quality natural communities, its importance for capturing natural communities to meet target representation needs, and past survey effort. These scores were summed to generate a survey prioritization ranking, which was used to help prioritize this past field season’s survey effort conducted to further evaluate the functionality and condition of the potential Landscape Units. A summary of natural community surveys within potential Landscape Units was generated (Cohen 2009).

During the second year of this project, MNFI will provide assistance with the selection of potential Landscape Units and BSAs for the southern Lower Peninsula and will continue to assess the functionality and condition of potential Landscape Units and BSAs with survey work concentrated in the Upper Peninsula and the northern Lower Peninsula. Data collected from this past year’s survey effort will be analyzed and incorporated into MNFI’s database and the ongoing Biodiversity Planning Process.

We look forward to continuing to assist the DNR’s Assist Team and the Core Design Teams as the biodiversity planning process proceeds. Thanks again for generously providing the funding for this project.

Josh

Joshua Cohen Ecologist Michigan Natural Features Inventory 517-373-4911 [email protected]

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units

Prepared by: Joshua G. Cohen

Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944

For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division

September 30, 2009

Report Number 2009-14 Suggested Citation: Cohen, J.G.. 2009. Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2009-14, Lansing, MI. 14 pp.

Copyright 2009 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, or family status.

Cover photo: High-quality mesic northern forest within the McCormick - Rocking Chair NMF Potential Landscape Unit (all photographs by Joshua G. Cohen). IX.1 Rock Lake NMF Conducted surveys with assistance from Otto Jacob during one of the days. Surveys focused on dry-mesic northern forest and granitic features within the forested matrix. Documented high-quality dry-mesic northern forest, granite bedrock glade, granite cliff, poor fen, northern wet meadow, and submergent marsh. The juxtaposition of high-quality bedrock features adjacent to high-quality wetlands was notable. In addition, the following natural communities were identified as inclusions or zones within these communities or were noted in passing during the course of surveys: rich conifer swamp, muskeg, and northern shrub thicket.

Photo by Joshua G. Cohen

Submergent marsh, Rock Lake NMF

Granite cliff, Rock Lake NMF Groveland Minds Conducted surveys with Otto Jacob. Surveys focused on dry-mesic northern forest and granitic features within the forested matrix. Documented high-quality dry-mesic northern forest, granite cliff, and northern wet meadow. The juxtaposition of high-quality bedrock features adjacent to high-quality wetlands was notable. In addition, pockets of granite bedrock glade and northern hardwood swamp were identified as inclusions within the dry-mesic northern forest matrix communities.

Dry-mesic northern forest, Groveland Minds Granite cliff, Groveland Minds Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 1 Pemene Falls Conducted surveys with Bob Doepker, Craig Albright, Bill Rollo, Eric MacDonald, and Joseph Durbin. Surveys focused on areas of open aspen forest over shallow bedrock just north of Pemene Falls Potential Landscape Unit. Documented high-quality granite bedrock glade to north of current Pemene Falls Potential Landscape Unit.

Granite bedrock glade, north of Pemene Falls Menominee Bedrock Surveys focused on areas to west of initial Landscape Unit polygon recommended for inclusion by West U.P. Core Design team. Documented high-quality volcanic cliff (the bedrock in this area is metadiorite, which is intermediate between volcanics and granitics but more closely related to volcanics). In addition, patches of restorable oak-pine barrens occur above the cliffs and volcanic bedrock glade. Noted high-quality dry-mesic northern forest in passing associated with the previously documented high-quality volcanic bedrock glade. Confirmed that the volcanic bedrock glade is accurately classified as volcanic bedrock glade. Portions of the volcanic bedrock glade include areas of horizontal bedrock exposure along the shore of the Menominee River. This could potentially be classified as a new natural community type, volcanic bedrock rivershore.

Volcanic bedrock rivershore, Menominee Bedrock Volcanic cliff, Menominee Bedrock

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 2 IX.2 McCormick – Rocking Chair MNF Surveys focused on state lands within the Rocking Chair Lakes area. Documented high-quality dry-mesic northern forest and extensive areas of high-quality old-growth mesic northern forest with hemlock-dominated areas as well as sugar maple–dominated forest. The newly documented mesic northern forest can be added to the existing mesic northern forest element occurrence. The larger matrix of old-growth mesic northern forest contains high-quality inclusions of rich conifer swamp with old-growth cedar (including areas with 2-3 ft dbh trees) and hardwood- conifer swamp. High-quality northern shrub thicket was also documented along Mulligan Creek at the base of the granite cliff element occurrence.

Mesic northern forest, Rocking Chair Lakes Pesheke Highlands Surveys focused on dry-mesic northern forest and granitic features within the forested matrix. Documented high- quality dry-mesic northern forest, granite bedrock glade, granite cliff, and northern wet meadow. The juxtaposition of high-quality bedrock features adjacent to high-quality wetlands was notable. In addition, the following natural communities were identified as inclusions or zones within these communities or were noted in passing during the course of surveys: poor conifer swamp, dry northern forest, and northern shrub thicket.

Granite bedrock glade, Pesheke Highlands Northern wet meadow, Pesheke Highlands Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 3 IX.3 and IX.5 Sylvania Surveys focused on documenting high-quality wetlands within matrix of old-growth mesic northern forest. Documented extensive high-quality muskeg within unique landscape context of old-growth hemlock forest. Also documented pockets of high-quality poor conifer swamp. Documented additional acreage of high-quality mesic northern forest and dry-mesic northern forest to incorporate into existing element occurrences.

Muskeg, Sylvania Bond Falls Scenic Site Survey focused on volcanic bedrock community types. Small patches of volcanic cliff occur adjacent to the falls on either side of the river. In addition, several small patches of volcanic bedrock glade were documented along either side of the river.

Volcanic bedrock glade, Bond Falls

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 4 Agate Falls Scenic Site Survey focused on sandstone bedrock community types. Small patches of sandstone cliff occur along the river south of the falls and also adjacent to the falls.

Sandstone cliff, Agate Falls IX.6 Point Abbaye Surveys focused on bedrock features along the Lake Superior shoreline and interior boreal forest. Documented high-quality sandstone bedrock lakeshore, sandstone lakeshore cliff, and sandstone cobble shore and inclusions of sand and gravel beach. Boreal forest also documented in near shore areas.

Sandstone lakeshore cliff and sandstone bedrock lakeshore, Pointe Abbaye

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 5 IX.7 Keweenaw Point Conducted three days of surveys focused on extensive boreal forest and large peatland complexes. Documented extensive high-quality boreal forest that includes a large area that recently burned during a wildfire as well as numerous blocks of old-growth. Documented high-quality patterned fen, northern fen, poor conifer swamp, rich conifer swamp, and volcanic cobble shore. Muskeg was noted as an inclusion within the poor conifer swamp and high-quality northern shrub thicket and sand and gravel beach was noted in passing along the shoreline. A small area of volcanic bedrock glade was also documented and it may be incorporated into the existing element occurrence.

Patterned fen, Keweenaw Point Poor conifer swamp, Keweenaw Point

Boreal forest, Keweenaw Point Boreal forest, Keweenaw Point Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 6 IX.8 Sleeping Misery Forest Conducted two days of surveys focused on mesic northern forest and primary shoreline communities. Documented two polygons of high-quality mesic northern forest as well as high-quality sandstone bedrock lakeshore, sandstone cobble shore, sandstone lakeshore cliff (inclusion), and sand and gravel beach. Additional inclusions within mesic northern forest include high-quality hardwood-conifer swamp and poor conifer swamp. Noted potential high-quality northern hardwood swamp in near shore areas. This constitutes a unique variant growing on shallow clay soils over sandstone bedrock in near shore areas. Much of the near shore forest has been harvested, including areas of old- growth hemlock forest.

Sand and gravel beach, Sleeping Misery Mesic northern forest, Sleeping Misery

Sandstone bedrock lakeshore, Sleeping Misery Sandstone cobble shore, Sleeping Misery

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 7 IX.9 Black River Gorge Surveys focused on forest along Black River as well as primary communities along the Black River. Documented several large blocks of high-quality mesic northern forest on bluffs, ravines, and plateaus above the Black River. Documented high-quality sandstone cliff on either side of the Black River. Sandstone cliffs include areas with sandstone, conglomerate, and sandstone and conglomerate. Surveyed areas along the river that included horizontal bedrock exposure along the shore of the Black River. These areas could potentially be classified as a new natural community type, sandstone bedrock rivershore.

Mesic northern forest, Black River Gorge Sandstone cliff, Black River Gorge VIII.1 Moss Lake Complex Brief survey focused on large peatland. Documented high-quality patterned fen. In passing, noted high-quality northern shrub thicket, northern wet meadow, dry-mesic northern forest, and dry northern forest. Unique pine forests with significant component of black spruce along low upland sand ridges.

Patterned fen, Moss Lake Complex

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 8 Manistique River Floodplain Brief survey focused on large floodplain of Manistique River. Documented high-quality floodplain forest. Additional surveys with boat needed.

Floodplain forest, Manistique River Floodplain Poor fen, Nahma

Nahma Survey focused on open peatland and conifer swamp. Documented high-quality poor fen and rich conifer swamp with inclusions of dry-mesic northern forest. In passing, noted high-quality northern shrub thicket.

Pine River Complex Survey focused on large peatland and adjacent dune ridges. Documented high-quality muskeg (slightly minerotrophic) that extends into adjacent VIII.2. Pine ridges have been harvested. Noted high-quality northern shrub thicket in passing.

Patterned fen, Pine River Complex VIII.1 Muskeg, Pine River Complex VIII.1 and VIII.2

VIII.2 Pine River Complex Survey focused on large open peatland. Documented high-quality patterned fen, poor fen, northern shrub thicket, and muskeg (slightly minerotrophic) that extends into adjacent VIII.1.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 9 Two-Hearted Peatland Survey focused on open peatland and dune ridges. Documented extensive area of high-quality muskeg (could be incorporated into existing muskeg element occurrence to the south) and pockets of high-quality dry northern forest within the muskeg.

Muskeg, Two-Hearted Peatland Muskeg, Tahquamenon Falls State Park Tahquamenon Falls State Park Brief survey to evaluate open peatland. Documented high-quality muskeg which could be incorporated into existing muskeg element occurrence to the west.

Bill’s Creek Forested Wetland – USFS Old Growth Conducted two days of surveys focused on expanding existing muskeg and dry northern forest element occurrences and documenting additional forested communities. Documented additional acreage of both muskeg and dry northern forest and documented high-quality dry-mesic northern forest, rich conifer swamp, and bog.

Dry-mesic northern forest, Bill’s Creek Forested Bog, Bill’s Creek Forested Wetland

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 10 VII.2 Hartwick Pines Surveys were conducted to re-evaluate the dry-mesic northern forest and dry northern forest as part of a contract with PRD. During the course of these surveys, high-quality northern shrub thicket and an additional high-quality dry-mesic northern forest were documented and high-quality poor conifer swamp was noted in passing.

Photo by Joshua G. Cohen Dry-mesic northern forest, Hartwick Pines Northern shrub thicket, Hartwick Pines

Frost Pockets Restoration Complex Survey to evaluate potential pine barrens and restoration efforts. Documented high-quality pine barrens.

Pine barrens, Frost Pockets Restoration Complex Northern fen, Benzie Shoreline Complex VII.4 Benzie Shoreline Complex Focused surveys on wetlands within state forest land east of Little Platte Lake. Documented high-quality northern fen and rich conifer swamp (heavily influenced by beaver flooding).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 11 Sleeping Bear Complex Focused surveys on mesic northern forest on interior dunes. Documented high-quality mesic northern forest, additional open dunes that can be added to existing element occurrence, and noted high-quality sand and gravel beach in passing.

Mesic northern forest, Sleeping Bear Dunes Northern fen, Skegemog NFW

VII.5 Skegemog NFW Brief survey to evaluate conifer swamp and adjacent open wetlands along Skegemog Lake margin. Documented high-quality rich conifer swamp and small pockets of lake-margin northern fen.

Cedar NFW Focused survey to evaluate conifer swamp and adjacent open peatland. Documented high-quality rich conifer swamp and high-quality northern fen.

Rich conifer swamp, Cedar NFW Northern fen, Cedar NFW

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 12 VII.6 Wilderness SP Complex Conducted surveys to evaluate classification of Great Lakes marsh element occurrence along Waugoshance Point and survey for interior open wetlands. Documented high-quality northern fen and northern shrub thicket. Also documented high-quality coastal fen, limestone cobble shore, and Great Lakes marsh within existing Great Lakes marsh element occurrence.

Coastal fen, Wilderness SP Complex

Maple River Survey to evaluate wetlands associated with Bullhead Bay. Documented high-quality northern wet meadow with inclusions of high-quality northern shrub thicket.

Northern wet meadow, Maple River

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 13 Thompson’s Harbor Complex Surveys were conducted to re-evaluate the coastal fen, limestone bedrock glades (two separate element occurrences), limestone cobble shore, and rich conifer swamp as part of a contract with PRD. Documented high- quality northern fen and northern shrub thicket. Determined that portions of coastal fen should be re-classified as northern fen and emergent marsh. Great lakes marsh inclusion documented within coastal fen occurrence. Determined that portions of rich conifer swamp should be re-classified as northern shrub thicket. Documented limestone bedrock lakeshore inclusions within limestone cobble shore element occurrence.

Coastal fen, Thompson’s Harbor Complex Northern fen, Thompson’s Harbor Complex

VI.6 Tobico Marsh Surveys were conducted to re-evaluate the lakeplain oak openings, lakeplain wet prairie, and southern hardwood swamp element occurrences as part of a contract with PRD. During the course of these surveys, high-quality southern wet meadow and lakeplain wet-mesic prairie inclusions were noted. The Great Lakes marsh within the site is degraded.

Lakeplain oak openings, Tobico Marsh Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie, Tobico Marsh

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 14

MEMORANDUM

DATE: September 30, 2010

TO: Michael Donovan, Wildlife Division

FROM: Joshua Cohen, Michigan Natural Features Inventory

SUBJECT: Annual Report for “Systematic Evaluation of and Assistance in Developing the MDNRE’s Biodiversity Planning Process and Proposed Network of Biodiversity Stewardship Areas” (61-8223)

cc: WLD: Patrick Lederle MNFI: Brian Klatt, Nancy Toben, Yu Man Lee

Mike,

During the 2010 fiscal year, MNFI continued a multi-year project to work cooperatively with DNRE staff to evaluate and assist with the ongoing Biodiversity Planning Process. The aim of this project was to contribute MNFI’s ecological expertise to the Biodiversity Planning Process and the DNRE’s Assist Team by 1) assisting with the selection of Landscape Units and Biodiversity Stewardship Areas (BSAs), and 2) evaluating portions of the proposed network of Landscape Units and BSAs to assess their functionality and condition.

The first component of this project was the assistance with the selection of potential landscape units and BSAs for the southern Lower Peninsula (Subsections VI.1, VI.2, VI.3, VI.4, VI.5, and VI.6). For each of these subsections, current and historical natural Michigan Natural community distribution was evaluated to determine natural community occurrence or Features Inventory potential occurrence. Within each subsection, potential Landscape Units were identified by MNFI staff and were evaluated to determine their potential to meet target representation P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI goals for each natural community. Following an iterative process and guided by the 48909-7944 prioritizing assumptions, for each subsection a proposed network was developed of potential (517) 373-1552 Landscape Units to capture target representation for each natural community. For each FAX: (517) 373-9566 subsection, a shapefile was created within IFMAP/GDSE displaying the proposed network of potential Landscape Units. In addition, natural community representation tables were created by subsection that summarize target representation needs by natural community and display captured natural communities and potential natural communities by potential Landscape Unit.

Michigan State University Extension programs and materials The second component of this project was the assessment of the functionality and condition are open to all without regard to of potential Landscape Units and BSAs. GIS analysis, database research, and aerial race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political photographic interpretation were utilized to remotely evaluate the functionality and beliefs, sexual orientation, marital condition of each potential Landscape Unit. Within each subsection, each potential status, or family status. landscape unit was given a scoring based on its size, connectivity, the number of high- MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity institution.

quality natural communities or potential high-quality natural communities, its importance for capturing natural communities to meet target representation needs, and past survey effort. These scores were summed to generate a survey prioritization ranking, which was used to help prioritize this past field season’s survey effort conducted to further evaluate the functionality and condition of the potential Landscape Units. A summary of natural community surveys within potential Landscape Units was generated (Cohen 2010). During the course of these surveys we visited 34 different Potential Landscape Units and documented over 100 new natural community element occurrences.

During the third year of this project, MNFI will continue to provide assistance with the selection of potential Landscape Units and BSAs for the southern Lower Peninsula and will continue to assess the functionality and condition of potential Landscape Units and BSAs with survey across Michigan. Data collected from this past year’s survey effort will be analyzed and incorporated into MNFI’s database and the ongoing Biodiversity Planning Process.

We look forward to continuing to assist the DNRE’s Assist Team and the Core Design Teams as the biodiversity planning process proceeds. Thanks again for generously providing the funding for this project.

Josh

Joshua Cohen Ecologist Michigan Natural Features Inventory 517-373-4911 [email protected]

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units

Prepared by: Joshua G. Cohen

Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944

For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Wildlife Division Forest Management Division

September 30, 2010

Report Number 2010-17 Suggested Citation: Cohen, J.G.. 2010. Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2010-17, Lansing, MI. 20 pp.

Copyright 2010 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, or family status.

Cover photo: Northern bald overlooking wetland complex along the Carp River within the Porcupine Mountians Potential Landscape Unit (Photo by Joshua Cohen). IX.1 Lost Lake Bedrock Surveys focused on dry-mesic northern forest and granitic features within the forested matrix. Documented high- quality dry-mesic northern forest, granite cliff, northern hardwood swamp, and additional granite bedrock glade to the south of the existing element occurrence.

Photo by Joshua G. Cohen Dry-mesic northern forest (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Northern hardwood swamp (Photo by Joshua Cohen).

IX.2

Bass Lake MNF Surveys focused on granitic features and surrounding wetlands on state forest lands in southern portion of Potential Landscape Unit. Documented high-quality granite bedrock glade, granite cliff, northern wet meadow, and submergent marsh. Site is notable in that natural processes (i.e., fire, beaver flooding, and windthrow) have driven the patterning of natural communities with little anthropogenic disturbance.

Granite bedrock glade (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Submergent marsh (Photo by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 1 Craig Lake MNF Surveys focused on state lands within the southeastern portion of the Potential Landscape Unit and in the immediate vicinity. Documented high-quality mesic northern forest, northern wet meadow, rich conifer swamp, and granite cliff.

Mesic northern forest (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Granite Cliff (Photo by Joshua Cohen).

Pesheke Highlands Surveys focused on dry-mesic northern forest and granitic features within the forested matrix. Documented high- quality dry-mesic northern forest, granite bedrock glade, bog, northern shrub thicket, submergent marsh, and northern wet meadow. The juxtaposition of high-quality bedrock features adjacent to high-quality wetlands was notable.

Bog surrounded by granite bedrock glade (Photo by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 2 IX.3 and IX.5

Baraga Plains (IX.3) Survey focused on pine barrens landscape. Updated known pine barrens element occurrence.

Honker’s Plain (IX.3) Survey focused on non-forested wetlands within a large outwash plain. Documented high-quality intermittent wetland, bog, and poor fen.

Pine barrens, Baraga Plains (Photo by Brad Slaughter). Poor Fen, Honker’s Plain (Photo by Brad Slaughter).

IX.6

Pike Lake MNF Surveys focused on forested wetlands. Potential for restorable rich conifer swamp, however, no high-quality element occurrences were documented during the course of the survey.

Porcupine Mountains (IX.6) Surveys focused on volcanic features and wetlands associated with the Lake of the Clouds and the Big Carp River. Documented high-quality volcanic cliff, volcanic bedrock glade, northern wet meadow, northern shrub thicket, emergent marsh, submergent marsh, dry-mesic northern forest, and rich conifer swamp.

Northern shrub thicket, Porcupine Mountains (IX.6) Emergent marsh, Porcupine Mountains (IX.6) (Photos by Joshua Cohen). Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 3 Volcanic cliff (above and below in the background) and northern wet meadow (below), Porcupine Mountians (IX.6) ( Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 4 Sturgeon River MNF (IX.6) Surveys focused on documenting high-quality old-growth mesic northern forest. Documented several areas of high- quality mesic northern forest.

Mesic northern forest, Sturgeon River MNF (IX.6) (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

IX.7

Bete Gris Conducted brief survey in peatland associated with Point Isabelle. Documented high-quality muskeg.

Volcanic bedrock glade, east of Estivant Pines. Muskeg, Bete Gris (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Estivant Pines Conducted surveys on state forest lands just east of Estivant Pines Potential Landscape Unit. The surveys were focused on dry-mesic northern forest and volcanic features. Documented high-quality dry-mesic northern forest and volcanic bedrock glade. Surveys suggest that current Potential Landscape Unit boundaries should be expanded to encompass state lands to east.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 5 Keweenaw Point Conducted surveys in southwestern portion of Potential Landscape Unit that were focused on boreal forest, shoreline systems, and volcanic features. Documented high-quality boreal forest, northern bald, volcanic bedrock glade, volcanic cliff, and volcanic lakeshore cliff. Also documented northern bald just north of southwestern portion of existing Potential Landscape Unit boundary.

Volcanic lakeshore cliff, Keweenaw Point (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Volcanic bedrock glade, Keweenaw Point Boreal forest, Keweenaw Point (Photos by Joshua Cohen). Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 6 Northern bald (above) and volcanic cliff (below), Keweenaw Point (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 7 IX.8 Black River Gorge Survey focused on forest along Black River as well as primary communities along the Black River. Documented several large blocks of high-quality mesic northern forest on bluffs, ravines, and plateaus above the Black River. Documented high-quality volcanic cliff on either side of the Black River. Surveyed areas along the river that included horizontal bedrock exposure along the shore of the Black River. These areas could potentially be classified as a new natural community type, volcanic bedrock rivershore.

Mesic northern forest (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Volcanic cliff (Photo by Joshua Cohen) Porcupine Mountains (IX.8) Surveys focused on Lake Superior shoreline, inland volcanic features, and bedrock communities associated with the Presque Isle River and the Big Carp River. Documented high-quality volcanic cliff, volcanic bedrock glade, volcanic bedrock lakeshore, sandstone bedrock lakeshore, sandstone cobble shore, volcanic cobble shore, sand and gravel beach, and sandstone cliff. Documented high-quality sandstone cliff on either side of the Presque Isle River and Big Carp River. Sandstone cliffs include areas with sandstone, conglomerate, and sandstone and conglomerate. Surveyed areas that included horizontal bedrock exposure along the shores of the Presque Isle River and Big Carp River. These areas could potentially be classified as a new natural community type, sandstone bedrock rivershore. In addition, surveyed several miles of shoreline and areas along the rivers characterized by clay seepage bluffs, a community type recognized in Wisconsin but yet to be classified in Michigan.

Sandstone cobble shore (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Volcanic bedrock glade (Photo by Joshua Cohen)

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 8 Sandstone bedrock lakeshore (above) and volcanic bedrock lakeshore (below), Porcupine Mountains (IX.8) (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 9 Sleeping Misery Forest Conducted surveys focused on mesic northern forest on state forest land. Documented high-quality northern shrub thicket and additional high-quality mesic northern forest to be incorporated into existing mesic northern forest element occurrence.

Photo by Joshua G. Cohen Mesic northern forest (Photo by Joshua Cohen) Northern shrub thicket (Photo by Joshua Cohen) VIII.1

Bois Blanc Island Conducted surveys focused on boreal forest, shoreline systems, and nearshore wetlands. Documented high-quality boreal forest, limestone cobble shore, rich conifer swamp, and northern wet meadow.

Boreal forest (Photo by Joshua Cohen) Rich conifer swamp (Photo by Joshua Cohen)

Cedar River DMNF Conducted surveys focused on dry-mesic northern forest and surrounding wetlands. Potential for restoration of dry- mesic northern forest, however, no high-quality dry-mesic northern forests were documented. Documented high- quality northern shrub thicket with glossy buckthorn encroaching along the wetland margin.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 10 Northern shrub thicket, Cedar River DMNF Limestone cobble shore, Fourth Lake Complex (Photo by Joshua Cohen). (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Fourth lake Complex Conducted surveys focused on boreal forest, shoreline systems, and nearshore wetlands. Documented high-quality boreal forest, limestone cobble shore, and northern shrub thicket.

Maxton Complex Conducted surveys focused on boreal forest, shoreline systems, and nearshore wetlands. Documented high-quality boreal forest, limestone cobble shore, limestone bedrock lakeshore, limestone bedrock glade, northern wet meadow, northern shrub thicket, and poor fen.

Poor fen, Maxton Complex (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 11 Limestone bedrock glade, Maxton Complex Northern fen, Saint Ignace Complex (Photo by Joshua Cohen). (Photo by Brad Slaughter). Saint Ignace Complex Conducted surveys focused on interior wetlands. Documented high-quality northern fen.

VIII.2

Tahquamenon Falls State Park Conducted surveys to evaluate peatlands and surrounding forested systems. Documented high-quality poor fen, patterned fen, northern shrub thicket, northern wet meadow, poor conifer swamp, muskeg, dry northern forest, and dry-mesic northern forest.

Dry-mesic northern forest (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Northern shrub thicket (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Lake Superior Highlands Conducted surveys to evaluate communities associated with Tahquamenon River. Documented high-quality sandstone cliff, hardwood-conifer swamp, and northern shrub thicket. Also documented sandstone bedrock rivershore along the Tahquamenon River. These areas could potentially be classified as a new natural community type, sandstone bedrock rivershore. In addition, surveyed high-quality northern fen just south of the existing Potential Landscape Unit. Additional high-quality northern fen and rich conifer swamp likely appear in the vicinity of the documented fen. Surveys suggest that current Potential Landscape Unit boundaries should be expanded to encompass high-quality wetlands to the south of the existing polygon.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 12 Poor fen (above) and northern wet meadow (below), Tahquamenon Falls State Park (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 13 Sandstone cliff (above) (Lake Superior Highlands) and northern fen (below), (just south of Lake Superior Highlands) (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 14 Little Two-Hearted Lakes Survey focused on peatlands and surrounding forest along dune ridges. Documented high-quality bog, muskeg, poor conifer swamp, and dry-mesic northern forest.

Floating bog mat surrounded by muskeg (Photo by Joshua Cohen).

Dry-mesic northern forest (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Poor conifer swamp (Photo by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 15 Swamp Lakes Survey focused on peatlands and surrounding forest along dune ridges. Documented high-quality muskeg.

Muskeg, Swamp Lakes (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Poor fen, Creighton River Wetland Complex (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Creighton River Wetland Complex Survey focused on peatlands and surrounding forest along dune ridges on state forest lands east of Creighton River Wetland Complex. Documented high-quality poor fen, northern wet meadow, and northern shrub thicket. Surveys suggest that current Potential Landscape Unit boundaries should be expanded to encompass high-quality wetlands to the east of the existing polygon.

Northwest Hiawatha Hardwoods Surveys focused on mesic forest and interdigitating swamp forest on state forest lands. Documented complex of high-quality mesic northern forest and hardwood-conifer swamp.

Mesic northern forest, (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Hardwood-conifer swamp, (Photo by Joshua Cohen).

Pictured Rocks Mesic Forest Surveys focused on bedrock shoreline systems. Documented high-quality sandstone lakeshore cliff, sandstone bedrock lakeshore, sand and gravel beach, mesic northern forest, and sandstone cliff.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 16 Sandstone lakeshore cliff (above) and sandstone bedrock lakeshore (below), Pictured Rocks Mesic Forest (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 17 VIII.3

Chandler Brook Complex Conducted surveys to evaluate peatlands and surrounding forested systems. Documented high-quality poor conifer swamp, muskeg, and dry-mesic northern forest.

Dry-mesicPhoto by Joshua northern G. Cohen forest (Photo by Brad Slaughter). Poor conifer swamp(Photo by Brad Slaughter).

Hanson Lake Conducted surveys to evaluate peatlands. Documented high-quality muskeg, bog, and poor fen.

Poor fen (Photo by Brad Slaughter). Muskeg (Photo by Brad Slaughter).

North Lake Complex Conducted surveys to evaluate peatlands. Documented high-quality muskeg and northern fen.

Sawmill Creek Complex Conducted surveys to evaluate minerotrophic peatlands. Documented high-quality poor fen and northern fen. In addition, portions of the peatland contain patterned fen.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 18 Muskeg, North Lake Complex Northern fen, Sawmill Creek Complex (Photo by Brad Slaughter). (Photo by Brad Slaughter).

VII.2 Wolf Creek Complex Conducted surveys to evaluate non-forested wetlands just south of Wolf Creek Complex. Documented high-quality bog and intermittent wetland. Surveys suggest that current Potential Landscape Unit boundaries could be expanded to encompass high-quality wetlands to the south of the existing polygon.

Intermittent wetland, south of Wolf Creek Complex Limestone bedrock lakeshore, Fisherman’s Island (Photo by Brad Slaughter). (Photo by Joshua Cohen). VII.6 Fisherman’s Island Conducted survey to evaluate bedrock lakeshore systems. Documented high-quality limestone bedrock lakeshore.

Wilderness SP Complex Conducted surveys to evaluate interior wetlands and shoreline areas. Documented high-quality boreal forest, northern fen, poor fen, rich conifer swamp, muskeg, limestone cobble shore, emergent marsh, and Great Lakes barrens.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 19 Boreal forest (above) and northern fen (below) from Wilderness SP Complex (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Landscape Units, Page 20 Annual Report to Wildlife Division

Project Name: Systematic Evaluation of and Assistance in Developing the MDNR’s Biodiversity Planning Process and Proposed Network of Biodiversity Stewardship Areas RC100029 and RC100035 PI: Joshua Cohen Organization: Michigan Natural Features Inventory Short Description of purpose of project The aim of this project was to contribute MNFI’s ecological expertise to the Biodiversity Planning Process and the DNR’s Assist and Core Design Teams by assisting with the selection of Landscape Units and BSAs, evaluating portions of the proposed network of Landscape Units and BSAs to assess their functionality and condition, and incorporating data collected during 2010 into MNFI’s conservation database and into ecoregional representation analysis.

Objectives of project Consultation to Assist Team and Core Design Teams 1. Provide consultation to the Core Design Team for Southern Lower Michigan during their evaluation of the Phase 1 Analysis.

Assessment of Functionality and Condition of Landscape Units and BSAs throughout Southern Lower Michigan, Northern Lower Michigan, Eastern Upper Peninsula, and Western Upper Peninsula (Sections VI, VII, VIII, and IX) 2. GIS analysis, database research, and aerial photographic interpretation will be employed to remotely evaluate the functionality and condition of preliminary Landscape Units and BSAs. 3. Conduct field surveys to assess functionality and condition of Landscape Units and BSAs and determine if they meet target representation goals. 4. Conduct inventory work on state lands identified by field staff as potential Landscape Units or BSAs. 5. Conduct inventory within Landscape Units and BSAs to determine presence and condition of unrepresented natural communities. 6. Conduct inventory on state lands and non-state lands in each subsection to locate and assess condition of natural communities missing from initial network of Landscape Units and BSAs.

Incorporation of Data Collected in 2010 into MNFI’s Conservation Database and into Ecoregional Representation Analysis (Sections VI, VII, VIII, and IX) 7. Data collected during the field season of 2010 will be incorporated into MNFI’s conservation database. 8. New occurrences of high-quality natural communities will be incorporated into existing ecoregional natural community representation tables 9. Representation analysis will be updated and overall recommendations for recommended landscape units will be modified as needed

Results or accomplishments from this years work must be related to objectives The first component of this project was the assistance with the selection of potential landscape units and BSAs. Data collected in the summer of 2010 was analyzed and incorporated into MNFI’s conservation database and new occurrences of high-quality natural communities were incorporated into existing ecoregional natural community representation tables (over 100 new element occurrences in 34 different potential BSAs). Information from these surveys was used to suggest potential changes to existing potential landscape units and BSAs. In addition, consultation was provided to the Core Design Team for Southern Lower Michigan during their evaluation of the Phase 1 Analysis. An MNFI ecologist developed and delivered a presentation about the Phase 1 process to the Southern Lower Core Design Team. In addition a presentation about the Biodiversity Planning Process was delivered at the 2010 Natural Areas Conference in Osage Beach, Missouri.

The second component of this project was the assessment of the functionality and condition of potential Landscape Units and BSAs. GIS analysis, database research, and aerial photographic interpretation were utilized to remotely evaluate the functionality and condition of each potential Landscape Unit. Within each subsection, each potential landscape unit was given a scoring based on its size, connectivity, the number of high-quality natural communities or potential high-quality natural communities, its importance for capturing natural communities to meet target representation needs, and past survey effort. These scores were summed to generate a survey prioritization ranking, which was used to help prioritize this past field season’s survey effort conducted to further evaluate the functionality and condition of the potential Landscape Units and potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas. Over 100 new natural communities were documented within close to fifty different potential BSAs. A summary of natural community surveys within potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas was generated (Cohen 2011).

Discussion Through work on this multi-year project MNFI will contribute to the Living Legacies initiative and will ultimately help the DNR develop their network of Biodiversity Stewardship Areas. Completion of this project addresses important elements of the Michigan Wildlife Action Plan and helps the DNR meet criteria of the dual forest certification standards. Specifically, this work addresses the following Wildlife Action Plan priorities: inventory community composition across landscape features to develop baseline data, improve Michigan’s natural community classification, identify areas of high biodiversity, monitor high-quality representatives of landscape features to assess whether ecological integrity is being maintained, and provide more information on what constitutes high-quality representative occurrences of landscape features. Work on this project will lead to the identification and conservation of representative areas, high- quality areas, other areas of high ecological significance, and conservation of areas with urgent conservation needs.

The Biodiversity Planning Process continues to serve as an excellent mechanism for focusing ecological field surveys through aerial photo interpretation, regional gap analysis, GIS modeling, and expert input from a variety of sources.

Pending funding, during the next year of this project, MNFI will continue to provide assistance with the selection of potential Landscape Units and BSAs for the southern Lower Peninsula and will continue to assess the functionality and condition of potential Landscape Units and BSAs with survey across Michigan. Data collected from this past year’s survey effort will be analyzed and incorporated into MNFI’s database and the ongoing Biodiversity Planning Process.

Recommendations (if any)

Project Year: 2011

Location: Lansing and throughout Michigan

Partners:

Funding sources: Wildlife Division and Forest Management Division

Citation of any publications or links to websites developed: Cohen, J.G. 2011. Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2011-08, Lansing, MI. 21 pp.

Add picture here:

Pine barrens, Sinkholes_Tomahawk_Barrens Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Area (photo by Joshua Cohen). This section is filled out by WLD Federal ID: T-9-T-2 Federal Title: Michigan’s Comprehensive State Wildlife Grants

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas

Prepared by: Joshua G. Cohen

Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944

For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Forest Management Division

September 30, 2011

Report Number 2011-08 Suggested Citation: Cohen, J.G.. 2011. Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2011-08, Lansing, MI. 21 pp.

Copyright 2011 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, or family status.

Cover photo: Dry-mesic northern forest, Hudson Creek Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Area (Photo by Joshua Cohen). VI.1 Bald Mountain SRA Surveys were conducted to evaluate wetlands in Chamberlain Lakes unit and Trout Lake unit. Documented two high-quality inundated shrub swamps.

InundatedPhoto by Joshuashrub swamp,G. Cohen Bald Mountain SRA (Photo by Rich conifer swamp, Flint River (Photo by Bradford Bradford Slaughter). Slaughter). Flint River Surveys were conducted to evaluate wetlands associated with drainage of Horseshoe Lake. Documented high- quality rich conifer swamp.

Wet-mesic prairie, Holly SRA (Photo by Michael Kost). Rich tamarack swamp, Island Lake SRA (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Holly SRA Surveys were conducted to re-evaluate high-quality wetlands as part of a contract with PRD. During course of surveys, documented high-quality wet-mesic prairie.

Island Lake SRA Surveys were conducted to re-evaluate the rich tamarack swamp as part of a contract with PRD. Documented additional acreage of high-quality rich tamarack swamp to incorporate into existing element occurrence. Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 1 Dry sand prairie, Pinckney Waterloo (Photo by Joshua Poor fen, Pinckney Waterloo (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Cohen). Pinckney Waterloo Surveys focused on wetlands and uplands in Waterloo and Pinckney Recreation Area. Documented two high- quality bogs, dry sand prairie, poor fen, prairie fen, and rich tamarack swamp.

Proud Lake SRA Surveys were conducted to re-evaluate the southern wet meadow and wetlands associated with Proud Lake as part of a contract with PRD. Documented high-quality prairie fen within wetland complex.

Prairie fen, Proud Lake SRA (Photo by Joshua Bog, Pinckney Waterloo (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Cohen). VI.3 Lake Mich - Poly 19 Surveys focused on Lake Michigan shoreline. Documented high-quality clay seepage bluffs, a community type recognized in Wisconsin but yet to be classified in Michigan.

Wau-Ke-Na Surveys focused on Lake Michigan shoreline. Documented high-quality clay seepage bluffs, a community type recognized in Wisconsin but yet to be classified in Michigan.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 2 Clay seepage bluffs from Lake Mich - Poly 19 (above) and Wau-Ke-Na (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 3 VII.1 Cedar Lake NFW Surveys focused on wetlands associated with Coppler Creek on State Forest land. Documented high-quality northern wet meadow and northern shrub thicket. In passing, noted high-quality poor conifer swamp.

Northern wet meadow, Cedar Lake NFW (Photo by Rich conifer swamp, Ogemaw Swamp (Photo by JoshuaPhoto Cohen).by Joshua G. Cohen Joshua G. Cohen). Ogemaw Swamp Surveys focused on wetlands associated with North Eddy Creek on State Forest land. Documented high-quality rich conifer swamp.

Rich conifer swamp, Deadstream Swamp (Photo by Degraded rich conifer swamp, Grayling Compartment Joshua Cohen). 66 (Photo by Bradford Slaughter).

VII.2 Deadstream Swamp Surveys focused on extensive swamp complex on State Forest land. Documented high-quality rich conifer swamp.

Grayling Compartment 66 Surveys focused on wetlands on State Forest land. Survey found degraded rich conifer swamp, heavily browsed by deer.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 4 Northern fen, Grayling Compartment 207 (Photo by Dry-mesic northern forest, Grayling Compartment 207 Joshua Cohen). (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Grayling Compartment 207 Surveys focused on dry-mesic uplands and associated wetlands on State Forest land. Documented high-quality rich conifer swamp, northern fen, dry-mesic northern forest, muskeg, and restorable dry-mesic northern forest. Recommend modifying the boundaries of this potential Biodiversity Stewardship Area to capture nearby wetland complex with high-quality rich conifer swamp and northern fen and high-quality dry-mesic northern forest along the Au Sable River. Grayling Compartment 227 Conducted two days of surveys on State Forest land. First day of survey focused on wetlands associated with Beaver Creek and Mud Lake. Documented high-quality rich conifer swamp, poor conifer swamp, muskeg (possible inclusion), northern shrub thicket, and northern wet meadow. Second day of survey focused on open uplands. Documented high-quality pine barrens.

Northern wet meadow, Grayling Compartment 227 Pine barrens, Grayling Compartment 227 (Photo by (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Joshua Cohen). Hartwick Pines Surveys focused on wetland complex on State Park land. Documented high-quality rich conifer swamp, poor conifer swamp, poor fen, and northern shrub thicket. Recommend modifying the boundaries of this potential Biodiversity Stewardship Area to capture nearby wetland complex and high-quality natural communities.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 5 Poor fen (above) and northern wet meadow (below), Hudson Creek (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 6 Poor fen, Hartwick Pines (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Northern fen, Jordan River Valley and Chestonia Highlands (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Hudson Creek Conducted two days of surveys on State Forest land. First day of survey focused on wetland and upland systems associated with Hudson Creek. Documented high-quality rich conifer swamp, poor conifer swamp, muskeg, dry- mesic northern forest, northern shrub thicket, and northern wet meadow. Second day of survey focused on extensive peatland complex. Documented high-quality muskeg, poor fen, poor conifer swamp, dry-mesic northern forest island, and restorable mesic northern forest island. Jordan River Valley and Chestonia Highlands Conducted two days of surveys on State Forest land. Surveys focused on minerotrophic wetlands along Jordan River valley. Documented two high-quality rich conifer swamps, two northern fens, and a northern shrub thicket.

Northern wet meadow, Roscommon Compartment 98 Hardwood-conifer swamp, Grass Lake (Photo by (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Joshua Cohen). Roscommon Compartment 98 Surveys focused on wetlands on State Forest land. Documented high-quality northern wet meadow. VII.3 Grass Lake Surveys focused on wetland complex associated with Grass Lake on State Forest land. Documented high-quality hardwood-conifer swamp. Also documented extensive but degraded rich conifer swamp infested with glossy buckthorn.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 7 VII.6 Black Forest NNFW Surveys focused on peatland complex on State Forest land. Documented high-quality muskeg. Black River NFW Surveys focused on wetlands associated with Black River floodplain on State Forest land. Documented high-quality floodplain forest.

Muskeg, Black Forest NNFW (Photo by Joshua Floodplain forest, Black River NFW (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Cohen). Chub Lake Swamp Surveys focused on wetlands associated with Turtle Creek on State Forest land. Documented high-quality poor fen and bog. In passing, noted high-quality poor conifer swamp. Devil’s Lake Conducted two days of surveys on State Forest lands. First day of surveys focused on wetlands and uplands associated with Mud Lake and second day of surveys focused on shoreline and near shore areas. Documented high-quality Great Lakes marsh, interdunal wetland, northern fen (two separate occurrences), intermittent wetland, and dry-mesic northern forest.

Poor fen, Chub Lake Swamp (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Northern fen, Devil’s Lake (Photo by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 8 Great Lakes marsh, Devil’s Lake (above) and limestone cobble shore, Rockport (North Pointe_Rockport) (below) (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 9 Misery Bay (North Pointe_Rockport) Surveys focused on wetlands on State Forest land. Documented high-quality northern wet meadow and emergent marsh.

Emergent marsh, Misery Bay (North Pointe_Rockport) Submergent marsh, Pigeon River (Photo by Joshua (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Cohen). Photo by Joshua G. Cohen Pigeon River Surveys focused on wetlands associated with Dog Lake on State Forest land. Documented high-quality bog, muskeg, poor fen, northern shrub thicket, and submergent marsh.

Muskeg, Pigeon River (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Open dunes, Rockport (North Pointe_Rockport) (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Rockport Surveys focused on shoreline and near shore areas on State Forest land. Documented high-quality open dunes, interdunal wetland, and limestone cobble shore.

Smokey Hollow NFW Surveys focused on wetlands associated with West Branch River and Hubbard Lake on State Forest land. Documented high-quality northern fen and rich conifer swamp.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 10 Rich conifer swamp, Smokey Hollow NFW (Photo by Sinkhole, The Sinkholes (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Joshua Cohen). The Sinkholes (Sinkholes_Tomahawk_Barrens) Two days of surveys conducted on State Forest land. First day of surveys focused on peatland complex associated with Loon Lake. Documented high-quality bog, muskeg, and poor conifer swamp. Second day of survey conducted on karst features. Documented high-quality sinkholes and pine barrens associated with several of the sinkholes.

Tomahawk NFW (Sinkholes_Tomahawk_Barrens) Surveys focused on wetlands associated with Lower Tomahawk Lake on State Forest land. Documented high- quality rich conifer swamp (possibly northern record of rich tamarack swamp), dry-mesic northern forest, northern wet meadow, muskeg, northern shrub thicket, and poor conifer swamp.

Dry-mesic northern forest, Tomahawk NFW (Photo by Northern wet meadow, Tomahawk NFW (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Joshua Cohen)

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 11 Pine barrens in a sinkhole (above) and bog (below), The Sinkholes (Sinkholes_Tomahawk_Barrens) (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 12 Wolf Creek and Grass Lake Surveys focused on wetlands along Townline Creek on State Forest land. Documented high-quality rich conifer swamp and northern wet meadow.

Rich conifer swamp, Wolf Creek and Grass Lake Northern wet meadow, Wolf Creek and Grass Lake (Photo by Joshua Cohen). (Photo by Joshua Cohen).

Open dunes blowout, Wilderness State Park_Wycamp Complex (Photo by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 13 Wilderness State Park_Wycamp Complex Surveys focused on near shore area on State Forest land. Documented high-quality mesic northern forest, interdunal wetland, and dry-mesic northern forest. Also documented high-quality open dunes that will be incorporated into existing open dunes element occurrence.

Dry-mesic northern forest, Wilderness State Open dunes blowout, Wilderness State Park_Wycamp Park_WycampPhoto by Joshua Complex G. Cohen (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Complex (Photo by Joshua Cohen). VIII.1 Cranberry Bog Complex Conducted surveys focused on peatlands on State Forest land. Documented high-quality muskeg, poor conifer swamp, northern shrub thicket, and rich conifer swamp.

Muskeg, Cranberry Bog Complex (Photo by Joshua Poor conifer swamp, Cranberry Bog Complex (Photo Cohen). by Joshua Cohen). Seiner’s Knob Complex Conducted surveys focused on near shore area on State Forest land. Documented high-quality wooded dune and swale complex.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 14 Wooded dune and swale complex, Seiner’s Knob Coastal fen, St. Ignace Complex (Photo by Bradford Complex (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Slaughter). St. Ignace Complex Conducted surveys focused on near shore area. Documented high-quality coastal fen and limestone bedrock glade. Quarry Site Conducted surveys focused on peatlands. Documented high-quality northern fen.

Northern fen, Quarry Site (Photo by Bradford Slaugh- Boreal forest, Wells State Park (Photo by Joshua ter). Cohen).

Wells State Park Surveys were conducted to re-evaluate the mesic northern forest in Wells State Park as part of a contract with PRD. During the course of this survey, high-quality boreal forest and rich conifer swamp were documented.

VIII.2 Lake Superior Beach #1 Surveys focused on near shore area and Lake Superior shoreline. Documented high-quality sand and gravel beach and dry northern forest.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 15 Sand and gravel beach, Lake Superior Beach #1 (Photo by Joshua Cohen).

Bog, Murphy Creek Peatland (Sleeper Wetlands) (Photo by Bradford Slaughter).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 16 Murphy Creek Peatland (Sleeper Wetlands) Conducted surveys to evaluate peatlands. Documented high-quality muskeg, bog, poor fen, and northern shrub thicket.

Bog, Newberry Compartment 35 (Photo by Joshua Restorable dry-mesic northern forest, Newberry Cohen). Compartment 35 (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Newberry Compartment 35 Conducted surveys to evaluate wetlands and uplands associated with the East Branch of the Two-Hearted River. Documented high-quality poor conifer swamp, rich conifer swamp, and bog. Also documented restorable dry-mesic northern forest along the East Branch of the Two-Hearted River.

Noble Lake Forested Wetland Complex Conducted surveys to evaluate wetlands associated with Noble Lake. Documented high-quality rich conifer swamp and mesic northern forest. Also documented additional acreage of high-quality rich conifer swamp to incorporate into existing element occurrence.

Rich conifer swamp, Noble Lake Forested Wetland Poor fen, Tahquamenon Falls State Park (Photo by Complex (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Joshua Cohen).

Tahquamenon Falls State Park Conducted surveys to evaluate peatlands on State Forest land. Documented high-quality poor fen. Recommend expanding the current Biodiversity Stewardship Area boundaries to incorporate this wetland complex.

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 17 Patterned fen, Upper East Branch Fox River (Photo by Northern shrub thicket, Duke-Rock-Fish Complex Bradford Slaughter). (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Upper East Branch Fox River Conducted surveys to evaluate peatlands. Documented high-quality muskeg (two element occurrences), bog, poor fen, patterned fen, northern fen, poor conifer swamp, and northern shrub thicket. VIII.3 Duke-Rock-Fish Complex Surveys were conducted to re-evaluate the mesic northern forest in Laughing Whitefish Falls State Park as part of a contract with PRD. During the course of this survey, high-quality sandstone cliff and northern shrub thicket were documented. In addition, the high-quality mesic northern forest contains inclusions of high-quality hardwood-conifer swamp.

Sandstone cliff, Duke-Rock-Fish Complex (Photo by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 18 Rich conifer swamp (above) and northern wet meadow (below), Bates Lake NFW (Photos by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 19 IX.1 Bates Lake NFW Surveys focused on wetlands and uplands associated with the Fence River. Documented high-quality rich conifer swamp, northern wet meadow (two occurrences), northern shrub thicket, and muskeg. Also documented restorable dry-mesic northern forest.

Northern wet meadow, Bates Lake NFW (Photo by Granite lakeshore cliff, Little Presque Isle Complex JoshuaPhoto Cohen).by Joshua G. Cohen (Photo by Joshua Cohen). IX.2 Bass Lake Little Presque Isle Complex Surveys focused on granitic features and shoreline on State Forest land. Documented high-quality granite bedrock glade, granite cliff, granite lakeshore cliff, granite bedrock lakeshore, dry-mesic northern forest, sandstone lakeshore cliff, and granite cobble shore.

Granite bedrock glade, Little Presque Isle Complex (Photo by Joshua Cohen). Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 20 Submergent marsh and bog, Notre Dame Reserve Bog, Sylvania (Photo by Joshua Cohen). (Photo by Joshua Cohen). IX.3 and IX.5 Notre Dame Reserve Noted high-quality bog and submergent marsh in passing. Sylvania Surveys focused on documenting high-quality wetlands within matrix of old-growth mesic northern forest. Documented high-quality hardwood-conifer swamp and bog. Documented additional acreage of high-quality mesic northern forest, muskeg, and poor conifer swamp to incorporate into existing element occurrences. IX.6 Porcupine Mountains (IX.6) Surveys on State Park land focused on wetlands associated with the Lake of the Clouds and the Big Carp River. Documented high-quality hardwood-conifer swamp.

Hardwood-conifer swamp, Porcupine Mountains (IX.6) (Photo by Joshua Cohen).

Natural Community Surveys of Potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas, Page 21 Private Lands Assistance: Increasing the Capacity of Local Units of Government to Support Wildlife Conservation – Year 1

Prepared by: John Paskus Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944

For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Widlife Division

October, 2011

Report Number 2011-15

Executive Summary of Past Land Use Related Work/Research Conducted by the Michigan Natural Features Inventory

Introduction

Approximately 80% of Michigan’s landscape falls under private ownership, and most of the state’s better and more productive soils are found on private lands. Private lands are also very important to Michigan’s wildlife and natural features. More than three-quarters of the over 15,000 occurrences of state and federally listed species in Michigan are located on private land, and 40% of these rare occurrences are found entirely on private land. Species such as the federally endangered Mitchell’s satyr and copperbelly water snake are just two examples identified as being highly dependent on private land stewardship. To truly conserve Michigan’s natural resources for future generations, we need to take an integrated approach that transcends ownership boundaries.

MDNR Wildlife Division Private Lands Efforts

The state has been trying to assist private landowners with wildlife management since the 1930’s. The 1990’s saw two short lived Wildlife Division private lands habitat assistance programs, Working Together for Wildlife and the Private Lands Wildlife Grant Program. In 1999, a Cooperative Resource Management Initiative (CRMI) program utilized a more holistic approach to manage natural resources on private lands by merging together several state programs that provided landowner assistance. Although the program was successful in providing technical assistance to over 8,800 landowners and writing 1,890 habitat plans, CRMI was discontinued in 2002 because of state budget reductions. In 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service created a competitive fund source for Landowner Incentive Programs (LIP) focused on habitat for species at-risk on private lands. Although funding for this program is scheduled to be depleted by 2012, LIP is still currently in operation, and consists of a program coordinator and four biologists working in different regions of the state. It is safe to say that over the past 9 years, LIP has had a very positive impact on both game and non-game species and their associated habitats across Michigan. The reality however, is that the overall impacts of LIP and the previous private lands programs have been and continue to be limited by the relatively few number of private land biologists on staff, each of which can only work with one landowner at a time.

Working with Local Units of Government

Potential Conservation Areas To help complement these individual landowner based efforts such as LIP, the MDNR Wildlife Division decided to collaborate with MNFI staff to begin working with local units of government. Michigan is considered a “home-rule” state, and as such all land use decisions are ultimately determined at the smallest unit of government, typically a township, city, or village. The idea was that by working with the over 1800 local units of government throughout the state, the MDNR Wildlife Division would be able to impact much larger areas of the landscape much more efficiently.

MNFI began working with local units of government back in 1998 when funding was received from a US EPA grant to assist five townships in Oakland County with conservation planning. During that project, MNFI staff developed a methodology to identify and prioritize important natural patches of land across a given area of interest, whether that is a township, county, or

1 watershed. These discrete aggregations of natural vegetation are called potential conservation areas or PCAs (see figure 1).

Figure 1. Oakland County Potential Conservation Area Map.

The PCA methodology is based on several ecological principles and had evolved over time. To date, the PCA assessment has been a very successful product for numerous local units of government. Since the first PCA assessment in the five township area of Oakland County, MNFI has developed PCA analyses for 15 additional counties (see figure 2). Many of these counties have successfully integrated the results into local master land use plans, ordinances, and other types of planning efforts. The WLD was instrumental in providing funds to help fill short falls for several of these projects.

Green Infrastructure Plans Recently a new type of planning method, called a Green Infrastructure Plan, has developed to better address the ecological and environmental aspects of local communities. Green Infrastructure Plans typically entail the identification of hubs (large functional landscapes), sites (ecologically important areas), and links (wildlife corridors) to conserve biological diversity and improve the quality of life for people. MNFI’s first involvement with a green infrastructure plan was with the Genessee, Lapeer, and Shiawassee (GLS) Greenlinks project. In 2005, GLS Greenlinks was in the process of developing a Green Infrastructure Plan for their three county region and employed MNFI to conduct a PCA assessment for the region to provide the foundation for their spatially based Green Infrastructure Plan (figure 3).

Figure 3. GLS Greenlinks Green Infrastructure map.

Since then, MNFI has worked with four of the fourteen regional planning commissions (Southwest Michigan Planning Commission (SWMPC), the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC), the North East Michigan Council of Governments (NEMCOG), and Central Upper Peninsula Planning and Economic Development (CUPED)) to develop Green Infrastructure Plans for select communities within each of these regions. The most recent project involved the TCRPC and the Michigan Trails and Greenways Association (MTGA). MNFI conducted a PCA assessment for Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties, helped facilitate a design charrette that was open to the general public, and developed a Green Infrastructure map or vision for the Tri-County region based on a variety of input.

Green Infrastructure Training In 2006, MNFI received funding from the Wildlife Division and the MSU Land Policy Institute to develop training materials for local units of government. The impetus behind developing the training materials was to get beyond working with one community or region at a time, reach a broader audience of land use actors with the conservation message, and have a larger long-term positive impact on natural resources across the state. To accomplish this, two training modules focused on green infrastructure (GI) planning were developed for planning commissions, local planners and government officials. The modules cover topics that included: 1) description of GI,

3 2) natural resource values, 3) how to incorporate GI planning into existing and future planning efforts, 4) the science behind GI, 5) how to develop a GI plan, and 6) case studies and other resources. Staff from MNFI and the MSUE Citizen Planner program presented the training modules at several locations in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula in 2008. The two training modules have since been modified into an online course that is currently sponsored by and available through the Michigan Citizen Planner program (figure 4).

Figure 4. Michigan Citizen Planner program website.

Land Use Related Research Minimizing the Negative Impacts of Sprawling Development Patterns: Potential Role of the MDNR and/or Wildlife Division While MNFI staff continued to work with local units of government on conducting PCA assessments, developing Green infrastructure Plans and delivering training modules, MNFI’s conservation planning section was also working on land use related research. In 2003, MNFI began to research the overarching issue of urban sprawl and its impacts on Michigan’s natural resources.

Figure 6. Projected urban growth from 1980 to 2040. Source: Michigan State University.

4 The purpose of the project was to identify key actions the MDNR and/or Wildlife Division could take in minimizing the negative impacts associated with sprawling (low density) land use patterns.

The research entailed: 1) literature review on land use issues, 2) identifying innovative solutions through interviews, web search, and literature, and 3) conducting national and statewide surveys. These surveys targeted three different groups: 1) natural resource departments from across the U.S., 2) Michigan organizations involved in statewide land use issues, and 3) local units of government. Based on the results, MNFI recommended nine key areas that the MDNR and/or WLD could focus on to minimize the impacts of future land alterations:

1) good natural resource information 2) applied land use research 3) ecosystem based planning and land management 4) targeted land protection 5) statewide education and outreach 6) technical assistance for local communities 7) coordinated assistance for landowners 8) improved agency coordination 9) innovative policies and laws

The report included specific action items for each of these categories, case studies from other states, and an assessment (as of 2006) of the progress the MDNR has made in each of these 9 key areas.

Assessing the Use of Natural Resource Information by Local Units of Government After the above report was completed, it solidified how significant the decisions of over 1800 local units of government make everyday are to the future of Michigan’s natural resources. However, it was also clear that no one really knew much about the use of natural resource information by local units of government in the state. The purpose of this second study was to determine the extent of local government’s use of, interest in, need for, and influences on, natural resource information in land use planning and zoning decisions across Michigan.

To assess these questions, MNFI staff mailed out a survey in 2006 to all townships, counties, and regional planning commissions in Michigan. The results of the survey shed a lot of light on the integration of natural resource information into local land use planning activities. Only 31% of the local governments responded “always” used natural resource information when creating a Master Land Use Plan or zoning ordinance, while only 25% of local governments “always” used natural resource information when conducting site development reviews. In regards to wildlife information, the survey found that invasive species, wildlife, and rare species information were the least used types of natural resource information. These categories of information were also indentified as least important and least understood. The survey also indicated that the majority of local governments didn’t know the importance of natural resource based information, how to use it, or where to access it. Many also indicated that even if they knew where to go, they lacked funding for acquiring the data. Despite these obstacles, 86% of these local governments expressed a need for access to and training on interpreting natural resource information.

The study, “Local Government Perspectives on the Integration of Natural Resource Information in Land Use Planning and Zoning: A Michigan Case Study,” provided several recommendations to help increase the use of natural resource information in land use planning activities (Olson, 2008).

1) Create a natural resource information clearinghouse website 2) Increase awareness of the types of natural resource information that is available 3) Develop and deliver an education and outreach program focused on integrating natural resource information into local planning activities 4) Ensure information is available in user-friendly formats 5) Target the 14 regional planning commissions for efficiency 6) State government agencies and conservation scientists need to become more involved in the land use planning process

Next Steps

Based on MNFI’s success in working with townships, counties and regional planning agencies conducting Potential Conservation Area assessments, developing Green Infrastructure plans, and delivering Green Infrastructure modules, as well as the results of the recent land use related research conducted by MNFI staff, a few things are apparent.

First, MNFI (or another qualified entity) should continue working with counties and regional planning commissions. Great strides have been made in integrating natural resource information into local planning efforts since MNFI began working with Oakland County back in 1998. Assisting communities across Michigan and improving the understanding of their area’s natural resources are critical strategies for the conservation of Michigan’s natural resources. Second, assisting one community at a time is not sufficient in addressing the severity and scope of habitat destruction and fragmentation that occurs throughout Michigan on a daily basis. Third, the majority of local units of government lack the staff, resources and finances to adequately address the problem on their own.

Recommendations from the land use research conducted by MNFI as well as agency plans such as the State Wildlife Action Plan point to the importance of providing good information, user friendly tools and technical assistance to local communities. To address these recommendations as well as the challenges mentioned above, MNFI is proposing to assist local communities across the state by developing a fully functional, statewide online resource focused on delivering critical wildlife conservation information to the local land use planning community. A total of five key components have been identified in the development of the finalized website for local land use planners: 1) data layer development and preparation, 2) interactive map viewing tool, 3) knowledge base, 4) website design and layout, and 5) outreach and sustainability plans. Proposed content areas for the knowledge base include:

1. Description of Key Natural Resource Focus Areas 2. Description of Natural Resource Values 3. Natural Resource Planning Techniques 4. Implementation Tools 5. Financing Options 6. Case Studies 7. Public Participation

6 Conclusions

Michigan has a wealth of natural resources that are important to the state economically, culturally, and ecologically. These resources are found on public and private lands alike and require a more holistic approach to their long-term conservation than they have received in the past. The Wildlife Division has been a leader in realizing the significant role private lands play in conservation and have implemented a variety of programs since the 1930’s to address this need. With the realization that land use planning has had and will continue to have a tremendous impact on Michigan’s natural heritage, comes the responsibility to take the next step and start influencing the land use planning process. Several states such as Maine (Beginning with Habitat) have already taken these steps by developing an online resource focused on land use planning and natural resource conservation, and building a program to keep the website current, deliver the information and conduct outreach to local communities. Now is the time for Michigan, the crown jewel of the Great Lakes, to reach out to the planning community and provide the information, tools, and technical assistance necessary for long-term conservation success in the 21st century.

7 Summary of Other Websites and Decision Support Tools

Introduction

One of the most important decisions regarding the new web based resource for planners revolves around its design, layout and architecture. The tool needs to be user-friendly, engaging, and fully meet the existing needs of the end users. Rather than starting from scratch, we determined it would be more efficient to conduct a review of web sites and tools that have similar goals, objectives, and target audiences. We also included brief descriptions of decision support tools that might inform future tools associated with the web based resource, as well as descriptions of decision support tools focused on Michigan’s natural resources. This section includes descriptions of: 1) similar web-based resources from other states, 2) stand alone decision support tools, 3) other related tools, and 4) Michigan websites and tools.

Similar Web-based Resources

Maine - Beginning with Habitat http://www.beginningwithhabitat.org/ Beginning with Habitat is not just a website but a program delivered by the Maine Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife. It is a collaboration of federal, state, and local agencies.

Purpose: designed to help local decision-makers create a vision for their community, design a landscape, and develop a plan that provides habitat for all species and balances future development with conservation. The tool also helps to maintain quality of place, allow future generations to fish, hunt, photograph, or watch wildlife, and attract new economic opportunity.

Components: 1) Local strategies for conservation 2) Maps (PDFs and GIS data layers) a. Water resources and riparian habitats i. lakes, ponds, rivers, coastal waters, ii. wetlands (National Wetlands Inventory) iii. riparian zones 1. 250 ft. for rivers, coasts, and wetlands 2. 75 ft. buffer around streams iv. aquifers b. High value plant and animal habitats i. threatened and endangered plants ii. sensitive habitats (rare exemplary natural communities) iii. essential wildlife habitat iv. significant wildlife habitat (threatened and endangered animals, inland waterfowl and wading bird habitat, v. seabird nesting islands, vi. deer wintering areas, vii. significant vernal pools c. Undeveloped Habitat Blocks d. Public/Conservation lands (federal, state, local, private) e. Wetland Functions f. Statewide Focus Areas i. These areas support rare plants, animals, and natural communities, high quality common natural communities; significant wildlife habitats; and

8 their intersections with large blocks of undeveloped habitat. BwH Focus Area boundaries are drawn based on the species and natural communities that occur within them and the supporting landscape conditions that contribute to their long-term viability. 3) Toolbox a. Comprehensive planning b. Open space planning c. Developing a conservation commission d. Land Use Ordinances e. Wetland and shoreland zoning f. Performance standards g. Financing 4) Newsletter 5) Frequently asked questions 6) Contacts a. Program manager and staff b. Partners

Minnesota - Using Natural Resource Information in Comprehensive Planning http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/nrplanning/community/nrplanning_guide/handbook.pdf 1) Protecting the Future: A Quick Guide to Using Natural Resource Information

New Hampshire - Land and Water Conservation Program http://extension.unh.edu/CommDev/CCAP.html U. of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension UNH Cooperative Extension helps New Hampshire communities and conservation groups with land and water conservation planning projects. Land & Water Conservation Program staff provides technical assistance, facilitation and guidance to communities interested in conserving their natural resources, prioritizing areas for protection, and working with local landowners to conserve land. Extension staff provides assistance, facilitation and guidance for the following tasks: 1) Natural resource inventories 2) Identifying and prioritizing resources for protection 3) Outreach and education planning for conservation projects 4) Creating and implementing a conservation plan 5) Assessing wildlife habitat

North Carolina- One NC Naturally http://www.onencnaturally.org/pages/ConservationPlanningTool.html Office of Conservation Planning and Community Affairs Purpose: Promote and coordinate the long-term conservation of North Carolina’s threatened lands and waters. Target: Community decision-makers

Online Conservation Planning Tool - Developed and maintained by the North Carolina Heritage Program 1) Biodiversity/Wildlife Habitat Assessment a. Significant natural heritage areas b. Element Occurrences

9 c. Wetlands d. Landscape habitat indicator guilds e. Outstanding resource waters f. Fish habitat g. Element occurrences in streams h. Important bird areas

2) Open Space and Conservation Lands Map 3) Water Services Assessment a. Water quality (20) b. Water quantity (5) c. Water use/Consumption (9) 4) Farmland Assessment a. Viable agriculture lands i. Proximity to agribusiness ii. Proximity to value added and processing facilities iii. Soil productivity iv. Community compatibility v. Proximity to animal operations b. Threatened agriculture lands i. Sewer lines ii. Water lines iii. Urban areas 5) Forestry Lands Assessment a. Important forest lands i. Economic potential ii. Compatible ecosystem services iii. Absence of management constraints b. Threatened forest resources i. Forest pest and disease susceptibility (national insect and disease risk map) ii. Wildfire susceptibility iii. Development pressure

North Carolina- Green Growth Toolbox http://216.27.39.101/greengrowth/index.htm A web-based technical assistance tool to promote nature friendly planning. It is led by the Wildlife Diversity program of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1) Data downloads a. Natural heritage b. Managed lands c. Floodplain d. Streams e. Wetlands f. Important watersheds 2) Comprehensive Handbook (66 pp. + appendices) a. Planning b. inventory c. Ordinances d. Development review and site design 3) Workshops

10 4) Follow up technical assistance

Virginia – Virginia Conservation Lands Needs Assessment and Land Conservation Data Explorer http://www.vaconservedlands.org/gis.aspx Virginia Natural Heritage Program The VCLNA is a flexible, widely applicable tool for integrating and coordinating the needs and strategies of different conservation interests, using GIS (Geographic Information System) to model and map land conservation priorities and actions in Virginia. The VCLNA allows the manipulation of issue-specific data sets that can be weighted and overlaid to reflect the needs and concerns of a variety of conservation partners.

VCLNA data can be viewed interactively using the Land Conservation Data Explorer (LCDE), where it can be compared to conserved lands, aerial photography, environmental data, and reference layers. The identify tool can be used to retrieve the attributes of ecological cores and corridors, and simple queries can be performed to find ecological cores within ranges of ecological integrity and by unique identifiers.

1) VA Natural Landscape Assessment a. Ecological cores (>50 attributes – 5 levels of ecological integrity) b. Landscape corridors (all high scoring cores are connected by 300m wide corridor using least cost path analysis) c. Natural landscape blocks (supporting natural landscape around cores) 2) Vulnerability model 3) Cultural model 4) Forest economics model 5) Agricultural model 6) Recreational model 7) Watershed integrity model

Stand Alone Decision Support Tools

Minnesota - Interactive Green Infrastructure Mapper http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/maps/central_region/green_infrastructure/mapper.html Interactive web mapping application 1) Green corridors – metro conservation corridor; Green infrastructure 2) Ecological layers – sensitive land areas, sensitive aquatic areas, metro regional significant ecological areas, central regional significant ecological areas, Minnesota County Biological Survey sites.

Geospatial Data Gateway http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx NRCS The Geospatial Data Gateway or Geo-Data Gateway provides easy and consistent access to natural resource data. You can search for available data by geographic area such as county or state, use the point and click map tool to find an area of interest; using a gazetteer, or by entering latitude and longitude coordinates. You can also search for data by theme, such as digital ortho imagery, digital elevation models (DEMs), or soils. You can then view a thumbnail or sample of the data. The user can download the data directly onto your machine, pick it up via an FTP site, or order a CD.

11 Lake RIM GIS http://lakerim.indiana.edu/viewer.htm Indiana Geologic Survey Gathers all available environmentally related data of northwestern Indiana into a single repository of information. User can interactively create a customized map.

Long Term Hydrological Information Assessment (L-THIA) https://engineering.purdue.edu/~lthia/ Purdue University The Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L-THIA) model was developed as an accessible online tool to assess the water quality impacts of land use change. Based on community-specific climate data, L-THIA estimates changes in recharge, runoff, and nonpoint source pollution resulting from past or proposed development. As a quick and easy-to-use approach, L-THIA's results can be used to generate community awareness of potential long-term problems and to support planning aimed at minimizing disturbance of critical areas. L-THIA is an ideal tool to assist in the evaluation of potential effects of land use change and to identify the best location of a particular land use so as to have minimum impact on a community's natural environment.

Resource Management Mapping Service (RMMS) http://www.rmms.illinois.edu/website/rmms/viewer.htm Illinois DNR and University of Illinois Users can quickly locate, create, print, save, and email maps of large and small areas within Illinois in a few minutes. Numerous map layers from demographic data to resource data may be added to the base map to give a better idea of a specific location's resources and other important attributes. After the base map is selected, the user can choose resource layers (lakes, river, watershed), administrative layers (townships, legislative, IDNR districts), and economic layers (highways, county roads, railroads). The map engine allows users to buffer points, buffer critical areas, view aerial photographs and tabulate acreages on data features. Users can create maps within watershed, farms, and fields.

High Impact Targeting (HIT 2.0) http://35.9.116.206/hit2/home.htm Institute for Water Research (IWR) The High Impact Targeting system is an on-line tool that allows users to prioritize erosion and sedimentation reduction conservation efforts in the Great Lakes Basin. Users can compare watersheds by total erosion or sediment load, rates of erosion or sediment loading, and the cost benefit of best management practices (BMPs). Users can also view field-level maps, in 2D and 3D, showing areas at high risk for erosion and sediment loading. HIT combines an erosion model (RUSLE - Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation) and a sediment delivery model (SEDMOD - Spatially Explicit Delivery Model) to calculate annual erosion and sediment loading to streams for areas of the Great Lakes Basin. This combination yields two outputs: field-scale maps identifying areas at risk for erosion and sediment loading, and tonnage estimates for erosion and sediment loading at watershed scales. This on-line tool allows users to interact with these data spatially, and evaluate the potential impacts of best management pracitces (BMPs) on selected watersheds.

BASINS http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/models/basins/index.cfm USEPA Originally introduced in 1996 with subsequent releases in 1998, 2001, and 2004, BASINS is a multipurpose environmental analysis system designed for use by regional, state, and local agencies in performing watershed and water quality-based studies. This system makes it possible

12 to quickly assess large amounts of point source and non-point source data in a format that is easy to use and understand. Installed on a personal computer, BASINS allows the user to assess water quality at selected stream sites or throughout an entire watershed. This invaluable tool integrates environmental data, analytical tools, and modeling programs to support development of cost- effective approaches to watershed management and environmental protection, including TMDLs.

Other Related Tools

Habitat Priority Planner http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/hpp/index.html NOAA This tool aids in making decisions about habitat conservation, restoration, and land use planning. The Habitat Priority Planner provides a means of obtaining critical habitat analyses that are consistent, repeatable, and transparent. The program allows users to test various scenarios on the fly, giving it utility in a group setting.

GreenPrinting http://www.tpl.org/what-we-do/services/conservation-vision/greenprinting.html Trust for Public Land TPL's GreenPrinting service helps communities make informed decisions about land conservation, recreation priorities, and balanced growth. Using state-of-the-art computer models created with Geographic Information System (GIS) software, TPL creates interactive maps that highlight and prioritize key areas for protection. A GreenPrint engages local residents in a thoughtful, place-based planning exercise, focusing on short-term actions and long-term vision to guide future conservation purchases of land and easements.

Key components of a GreenPrint project are: 1) building a local constituency, 2) data gathering and analysis, 3) goal setting, 4) identifying and prioritizing opportunity areas, 5) identifying implementation strategies, and 6) identifying funding opportunities. Goals and/or opportunity areas typically address the following areas: 1) recreation, 2) wildlife habitat, 3) working lands, 4) trails, 5) water quality, and 6) scenic vistas.

Michigan Websites and Tools

Oakland County Environmental Stewardship Services http://www.oakgov.com/peds/program_service/es_prgm/about.html Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services (OCPEDS) Oakland County's Green Infrastructure Program focuses on identifying an interconnected network of green space that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions, guides sustainable development, and provides associated economic and quality-of-life benefits to our communities. The OCPEDS website contains information on: 1) Green Infrastructure (GI), 2) economic benefits of GI, 3) the counties approach to GI, 4) GI and green development resources/links, and 5) planning tools for natural resource protection.

Greening Mid-Michigan http://www.greenmidmichigan.org/ Tri-County Regional Planning Commission

13 Website focused on the Green Infrastructure efforts in the Tri-County region which includes Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton Counties. The site contains pdf’s of maps and reports that can be downloaded, as well as summaries of various tools (e.g., conservation easements) available to local units of government to implement green infrastructure planning efforts.

Michigan Surface Water Information Management System (Mi-SWIMS) http://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/miswims/MCGI.aspx Michigan DEQ and DNR An interactive map-based system that allows users to view information about Michigan’s surface water. The map includes a variety of water based datalayers such as: 1) Lakes, streams and rivers, 2) valley segments, 3) coldwater streams, 4) natural rivers, 5) fish stocking, 6) USGS gage stations, and 7) waste water discharges.

Mi-Hunt http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10371_14793_55471-231810--,00.html MDNR Wildlife Division The interactive layers allow the user to view: all state game and wildlife areas; huntable lands by vegetation types; the topography and vegetation cover of huntable lands; recreational facilities such as forest campgrounds, trails, wildlife areas and boat launches; and street maps and directions to huntable areas.

Water Withdrawal Assessment tool http://www.miwwat.org/start.asp MDEQ, MDNR, USGS, IWR The Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool (WWAT) is designed to estimate the likely impact of a water withdrawal on nearby streams and rivers. Use of the WWAT is required of anyone proposing to make a new or increased large quantity withdrawal (over 70 gallons per minute) from the waters of the state, including all groundwater and surface water sources, prior to beginning the withdrawal.

Understanding Your Watershed http://www.hydra.iwr.msu.edu/water/ Institute for Water Research, MSU Understanding Your Watershed is an interactive web-based mapping program utilizing the capabilities of a Geographic Information System (GIS). The program enables a user to select a Michigan watershed and display various features within that watershed such as streets, water bodies, elevation, risk areas, wetlands and other information available across the state.

Conclusion

Based on a literature and internet review, there are only a few states (Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Virginia) that are really trying to influence the conservation of natural features through the land use planning process. Each state’s website has its own weaknesses and strengths, but the most comprehensive site appears to be Maine’s Beginning with Habitat (BwH).

There are also numerous stand alone decision support tools that can be found on the World Wide Web. The vast majority of these tools are interactive mapping applications focused on a specific subject area such as water resources, water withdrawal, and prime farmland. Others are simply

14 data viewers that provide access to a variety of digital spatial information for a given locality. We can certainly learn from viewing and interacting with many of these map viewing applications, and determine what the best approach should be for Michigan.

There are also several other decision support tools or services that have been developed by other entities that can provide some insight. NOAA’s Habitat Priority Planner is an extension for ArcGIS. The Habitat Priority Planner is an interactive tool focused on wildlife habitat that allows the end user to test various scenarios and modify criteria and weights. GreenPrint is actually a service provided by the Trust for Public Land (TPL). TPL works with local communities at a regional scale to collaboratively identify and prioritize green infrastructure opportunity areas. Both of these tools provide a consistent framework, and are highly participatory. In addition, GreenPrint takes into account a more comprehensive view that incorporates other values beyond natural resources and features such as trails, parks and scenic vistas.

Common data themes found in many of these websites, tools, and services that might be potential focus areas for Michigan’s natural resource conservation planning online resource include: 1) natural lands, 2) water resources, 3) riparian habitats, 4) wildlife habitat, 5) rare species, 6) public lands, 7) wetlands, 8) agricultural lands, and 9) outdoor recreation. To further organize this type of spatial information, seven of these eight themes could be subsumed into five categories: 1) wildlife habitat, 2) natural lands, 3) water resources, 4) unique natural features, and 5) conservation and recreation lands. The eighth theme, agriculture, is the only theme that doesn’t directly reflect natural or wildlife values, and as such we determined not to include it as a primary theme.

Ultimately, it will be up to the Wildlife Division to determine what types of spatial data should be incorporated into the map viewer tool, and how that information should be organized and displayed. The following sections provide an outline for the proposed online natural resource planning resource, and a list of potential data layers that could be included under each of the five major data themes listed above.

15 Draft Outline of Natural Resource Conservation Website for Planners

Potential Names: MI WildMap MI Natural Features MI NatureMap MI GreenMap

Purpose: To provide a user friendly accessible resource that assists local communities in identifying, conserving, and restoring the benefits provided by their region’s natural lands and waters.

Targeted Audience: Local land-based decision makers: planning staff, elected officials, parks and recreation staff, planning commissions

Main Elements (8)

1. Data Themes (interactive map viewer and downloadable layers) a) wildlife habitat b) natural lands c) water resources d) unique natural features (regulated) e) conservation and recreation lands

2. Conservation Concepts a) size b) connectivity c) buffers e) diversity f) rarity g) condition (viability)

3. Natures Benefits a) natural resource based industries b) recreation c) property enhancement d) quality of life e) ecological services

4. Key Challenges a) habitat loss, degradation, fragmentation b) invasive species c) climate change d) disease e) pollution f) exploitation

5. Natural Resource Planning Techniques and tools a) Integrating info into comprehensive master plan b) Model ordinances (setbacks, trees, wetlands, shorelines, conser. sub)

16 c) Green Infrastructure Plan d) Functional Plans – parks and recreation, greenways/trailways, open space e) Implementation strategies

6. Public Participation a) web-based or mail questionnaire b) public design charette c) townhall meeting d) involving key stakeholders e) conservation needs assessment f) focus groups h) deliberative discussions i) participatory GIS

7. Financing Conservation a) local – bond, millage b) state – natural resources trust fund, coastal zone management c) federal – land and water conservation fund, north American wetlands act d) private – Corporations, foundations, The Conservation Fund

8. Case Studies (show other MCD and County scale efforts) a) Oakland County b) Tri-County Regional Planning Green Infrastructure c) Ann Arbor Green Belt d) Springfield Township Master Plan? e) GLS greenlinks

Sidebar Elements (3)

1. Conservation Partners (contact info) a) NRCS b) USFWS – private lands program c) MDNR – private lands program d) TNC e) MUCC f) land trusts g) watershed councils h) RC&D i) MSUE – Citizen Planner j) Conservation Districts k) MEC and its local/regional partners l) MDEQ m) The Stewardship Network n) nature/outdoor education centers o) Land Information Access Association p) Heart of the Lakes Policy Center and x land trusts q) Regional Planning Agencies (14) r) Duck’s Unlimited s) Trout Unlimied

17 2. Related Links (maybe better to integrate these into above elements?) a) DNR T&E review website b) Smart Growth America c) The Conservation Fund - Green Infrastructure d) EPA Green Communities e) The Low Impact Development Center f) Michigan Association of Planners g) Land Policy Institute h) Michigan Citizen Planner program i) Smart Growth Readiness Assessment Tool j) The Institute for Water Research – Michigan State University

3. Reading Material a) Growing with Green Infrastructure – Karen Williamson b) Smart Growth Tactics – Michigan Society of Planning c) Conservation Thresholds for Land Use Planning – Environmental Law Institute d) Filling the Gaps: Environmental Protection Options for Local Governments

18 Draft List of Data Themes and Layers

Significant Wildlife Habitat Deer wintering areas Prime pheasant habitat? Prime woodcock habitat? Prime grouse habitat? Prime turkey habitat? Bear dens and critical habitat? Critical elk habitat? Critical moose habitat? Important bird areas Waterfowl staging areas Sandhill crane staging areas Aggregated Wildlife Habitat

Natural Lands Upland deciduous forest Upland coniferous forest Upland mixed forest Lowland deciduous forest Lowland coniferous forest Lowland mixed forest Non-forested wetland Shrub-scrub Shrub swamp Vernal pools Natural vegetation core areas (large aggregated natural lands) Potential conservation areas (prioritized aggregated natural lands)

Water Resources Lakes/ponds Potential High quality common lakes Potential Unique lakes Rivers Potential high quality common river segments Potential unique river segments Riparian zones (natural buffers along all lakes and rivers) Fish atlas? Ground water recharge (estimated) Functional sub-watersheds Wellhead protection areas (local) Aggregated water resources layer

Unique (Regulated) Natural Features Bio-rarity map (based on rare species EOs) Critical piping plover habitat High quality/unique natural communities DNR natural areas Critical dunes

19 Environmental areas Predictive distribution models of rare species State designated natural rivers Federal designated wild and scenic rivers Aggregated special features layer

Conservation and Recreational Land/water Public lands (federal, state, county, township, city) Nature reserves Commercial forestland? Boat launches Trails Water routes (blueways) Campgrounds Aggregated conservation and recreational land/water