Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for Delhi, Dexter-Huron, Hudson Mills, and Stony Creek Metroparks

Prepared by: Michael A Kost, Ecologist Erica G Choberka, Botanist

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 Lansing, MI 48909-7944

For: Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority

January 11, 2002

Report Number 2002-01 Cover photo: Big bluestem and showy goldenrod in the Dexter-Huron Oxbow Prairie (David Choberka)! Table of Contents

Introduction 1 Landscape Context  1 1800’s Vegetation  1 Present Land Cover  2 Methods 15 Natural Communities  15 Rare Plant Inventories  15 Results 17 Natural Community Inventory Results  17 Rare Plant Inventory Results  18 Delhi, Dexter-Huron, and Hudson Mills 18 Stony Creek  18 Site Summaries and Management Recommendations 20 Delhi Metropark  20 Delhi Railroad Prairie (Site Code: B)  20 Delhi Park Interior (Site Code: A)  20 Delhi Floodplain Forest (Site Code: C)  20 Dexter-Huron Metropark  20 Dexter Railroad Prairie (Site Code: D)  20 Dexter Oak Barrens (Site Code: D)  20 Dexter Floodplain Forest (Site Code: E)  21 Dexter-Huron Oxbow Prairie (Site Code: F)  21 Hudson Mills Metropark  21 Hudson Mills Tamarack Swamp (Site Code: I)  21 Hudson Mills Dry-Mesic Forest (Site Code: M)  21 Hudson Mills Wet-Mesic Prairie (Site Code: J)  22 Hudson Mills Group Camp Wet Meadow (Site Code: K)  22 Hudson Mills Group Camp Forest (Site Code: L)  22 Hudson Mills Golf Course Forest (Site Code: H)  23 Stony Creek Metropark  23 Stony Creek Cedar Swamp (Site Code: O)  23 Sheldon Wet-Mesic Forest (Site Code: T)  23 Sheldon Tamarack Fen (Site Code: S)  24 Sheldon Mesic Prairie (Site Code: R)  24 Sheldon Wet-Mesic Prairie (Site Code: V)  24 Stony Creek Dry-Mesic Forest (Site Code: U)  25 Gravel Mine Wet-Mesic Prairie (Site Code: P)  25 31 Mile Lake Wetland (Site Code: W)  25 Stony Creek Lake Wet Meadow (Site Code: Y)  25 Discussion 28 Rare Plants  28 Fire as an Ecological Process  29 Invasive Species  30 Deer Densities  30 Conclusion 31 Acknowledgements 31 Literature Cited 32

Page - i List of Figures

Figure 1 Ecoregions of Southern Lower Michigan  2 Figure 2 Surfacial geology of Delhi, Dexter-Huron, and Hudson Mills Metroparks  4 Figure 3 Surfacial geology of Stony Creek Metropark 5 Figure 4 Delhi, Dexter-Huron, and Hudson Mill Metroparks vegetation circa 1800  6 Figure 5 Delhi Metropark vegetation circa 1800  6 Figure 6 Dexter-Huron Metropark vegetation circa 1800  9 Figure 7 Hudson Mills Metropark vegetation circa 1800  9 Figure 8 Stony Creek Metropark vegetation circa 1800  10 Figure 9 Delhi Metropark 1999 land cover  10 Figure 10 Dexter-Huron Metropark 1999 land cover 12 Figure 11 Hudson Mills Metropark 1999 land cover  13 Figure 12 Stony Creek Metropark 1999 land cover  14

List of Tables

Table 1 Survey site names and associated site codes for accompanying maps  15 Table 2 Rare plants surveyed by associated natural communities 16 Table 3 Natural Community Occurrences  18 Table 4 Rare Plant Occurrences  18 Table 5 Management recommendations for high quality natural communities and sites with good potential for improvement through restoration and management  19

List of Appendicies

Appendix 1 Plant species observed at Delhi Metro Park  34 Appendix 2 Plant species observed at Dexter-Huron Metro Park 38 Appendix 3 Plant species observed at Hudson Mills Metro Park  44 Appendix 4 Plant species observed at Stony Creek Metropark 52 Appendix 5 Rare Plant and Natural Community Abstracts for: Ginsing  63 Goldenseal  67 Oak Barrens 71 Relict Conifer Swamp  79 Southern Wet Meadow  85 Prairie Fen  91

Page - ii Introduction During the summer of 2001 Michigan Natural Features excessively well drained and supported drought- Inventory (MNFI) conducted surveys for rare plants tolerant, fire-dependent communities such as oak and exemplary natural communities in four Huron- barrens, oak forest, and hillside prairie The outwash Clinton Metroparks including Stony Creek, Hudson soils vary from excessively well drained sands to Mills, Dexter-Huron, and Delhi In addition, poorly drained organic deposits, with the well drained unmanaged areas within each of the four parks were sands supporting oak barrens, oak forests, woodland evaluated for their potential to become high quality prairies and dry sand prairies, and the poorly drained natural communities through restoration and land deposits supporting a variety of open and forested management activities This report summarizes the wetland types findings of MNFI’s surveys and evaluations of Stony Creek, Hudson Mills, Dexter-Huron, and Delhi Delhi, Dexter-Huron, and Hudson Mills occur along Metroparks the Huron River in Washtenaw County The Huron River flows through a broad, flat, glacial outwash Landscape Context channel near the areas occupied by these metroparks All of the Huron-Clinton Metroparks occur within the and is bordered by medium-textured end moraine Washtenaw Subsection (VI1) of southern Lower (Farrand and Bell 1982) (Figure 2) Delhi and Dexter Michigan (Figure 1) (Albert 1995) The Washtenaw Huron occur entirely within this glacial outwash Subsection contains three sub-subsections that differ channel, as does all of Hudson Mills except for the from each other in their soils, glacial landforms, western portion of Hudson Mills Golf Coarse, which climate, and vegetation Stony Creek, Dexter-Huron, occurs on medium-textured end moraine and Delhi, occur entirely within the Ann Arbor Moraine Sub-subsection (VI12) (Albert 1995) Stony Creek Metropark occurs on very similar glacial Hudson Mills lies on the border between two sub- landforms Stony Creek flows through the center of the subsections, with the northern portion of the park metropark within a broad, relatively flat, glacial occurring within the Jackson Interlobate Sub-section outwash channel (Farrand and Bell 1982) (Figure 3) (VI13) and the southern portion (eg, Hudson Mills Medium-textured end moraines border the outwash Golf Course) occurring in the Ann Arbor Moraine Sub- channel Most of the park occurs within the glacial subsection (Albert 1995) outwash channel, however, several portions of the metropark occur on medium-textured end moraine The Ann Arbor Moraine Sub-subsection is including: the nature center area, the area north and characterized by narrow, parallel bands of fine- and west of Stony Creek Golf Course, and the area medium-textured end and ground moraines (Albert surrounding the park office 1995) Soils on the moraines are loam and sandy loam in texture and support a variety of forest types and 1800’s Vegetation open, oak-dominated communities including mesic By interpreting the General Land Office survey notes southern forest, dry-mesic southern forest, oak for Michigan recorded during the period of 1818-1856, openings (oak savanna), and oak barrens In many MNFI ecologists were able to piece together a locations, glacial outwash channels dissect the relatively accurate picture of the state’s vegetation in moraines The outwash channels contain areas of the early 1800’s (Comer et al 1995) A digital map of droughty sands which support oak barrens and prairie vegetation encountered by the land surveyors during as well as poorly drained, alluvial sediments and this period shows that fire-dependent, oak-dominated organic deposits (eg, muck and peat soils) that ecosystems occupied portions of Delhi, Dexter-Huron, support a variety of open and forested wetland types and Hudson Mills Metroparks (Figures 4 - 7) These The Ann Arbor Moraine is bordered by the Maumee oak-dominated communities included black oak Lake Plain (VI11) to the east, a flat, sand and clay barrens, mixed oak forest and oak-hickory forest Other glacial lake plain, and the Jackson Interlobate (VI13) fire-dependent community types including wet prairie, to the west wet-mesic prairie, prairie fen, and wet meadow were also common along the Huron River and occupied The Jackson Interlobate Sub-section contains broad portions of what is now the Hudson Mills Golf Course expanses of glacial outwash sands that surround sandy Because the original land surveyors did not and gravelly end and ground moraines (Albert 1995) differentiate between different types of open, grass- and The soils on the moraines are typically well drained or sedge-dominated communities, the areas marked as Page-1 wet prairie on circa 1800’s vegetation maps likely occupied by a small, unnamed lake west of Sheldon supported occurrences of wet-mesic prairie, prairie fen, Road and wet meadow as well as wet prairies Mixed hardwood swamp occupied a thin band along the east Present Land Cover side of the Huron River in Hudson Mills and Dexter- Present land cover was interpreted using 1999, black Huron, while mixed oak forest and oak-hickory forest and white aerial photography at a scale of 1:15,840 occupied the opposite (west) side of the river Comparisons between circa 1800’s vegetation and present land use reveal drastic changes across the Stony Creek Metropark supported similar natural landscape At Delhi, Dexter-Huron, and Hudson Mills, communities in the early to mid 1800’s (Figure 8) the Huron River corridor has been transformed to an Fire-dependent black oak barrens occurred throughout urbanized landscape, with the metroparks providing the northern portions of the metropark Mixed oak some of the only open natural habitats in the area forest occupied the upland portions of the southern half (Figures 9 - 12) Similar patterns emerge at Stony of the metropark Mixed conifer swamp occurred in Creek but the comparison reveals several large forested what is now occupied by Stony Creek Lake Mixed areas that have remained unchanged, namely the conifer swamp also occurred in the area north of hardwood-conifer swamp north of Inwood Road, the Inwood Road that is presently occupied by hardwood- hardwood swamp north of the golf course, and the dry- conifer swamp Wet prairie occurred along Stony Creek mesic southern forest west of the golf course (Figure north of Inwood Road and south of the mixed conifer 12) Another striking feature of the present day land swamp Several small areas of mixed hardwood use at Stony Creek is the vast amount of acreage swamp occurred in the southwestern portion of the occupied by old field park along stream channels and in the area now

Page-2

¡ ¦ ¡

¡ ¦ ¡ ¨

¡ ¡ ¨



 

¡ ¦ ¡ ¥



¡ ¨ ¡

b c b c c

^ _ _ a b c d c a

¡ ¡ ¥

_ ^ b c c

¡ ¨ ¡ ¨

¡ ¥ ¡ ¨ ¡ ¥ ¡ ¥

¡ £

¡ ¨ ¡ ¥

¡

¡ ¦ ¡ ¡ ¥

!





¡ £ ¡ ¨

¡ ¡ ¨





 

¡ £ ¡ ¥







 

 







 

¡ ¥ ¡



¡ ¥ ¡ ¥

 

¡ ¨ ¡ ¥

" # $ # & ' ( * + - .

0 - 2 4 ' 6 # 8 8 # 6 : < + # > - - + ' < @ < $ - B < ' E F 4 + H 4 2 # 6 J

4 < + ' 6 < 4 6 . K ' * M 4 6 2 F # > F 4 6 6 - < ' $ # J # 6 :

# 6 : O 8 # < < 4 E 4 + # $ 4 ' 6 R S T T V R " R K R K 8 W - * $ R F 4 + H 4 2 # 6

¡ ¥ ¡ ¨

Y # $ ( * # 8 [ - # $ ( * - < \ 6 ] - 6 $ ' * @ R

e f g g e h g i e e i f g j l m n o

Figure 1 Ecoregions of Southern Lower Michigan (Albert 1995)

Page-3 “ – • – “ • ” “ ’ ‘   Ž ‡ Ž  Œ ‹ Š ‰ ˆ ‡ † š ™ ˜ — u h f r h ] a a c a c f d c a ¢ p i l g t O N a M a _ o L f l i n s J c l o 7 a a l a s  f G s q c i a I  \ ¤ r h D & i A \ ƒ c  o C  x q \ §

s  [ s s q p a

i W a 1 ? l f h ¡ w i $ i o Z /  Y $ a G n x . u D W

a ¨ c a c s h o f f C ¢ i f i

/ V w n d U o ¡ o . a  c s c ¨ S n s a ž c

 € n f f R c 

p G u d ¨ | ; l Q o F + c | | D o ¢ a ^ * s m g g ¡ i s C Ÿ  * p q l  s  ž l l ( h q c  o i — ( s s ¨ t q

œ s

x j q ' n n i ¨ q s f f $ s › s r / h h i C c c i f $ i — w q q g  $ n x ¥ &   g g a u $ w s  c i  $  n h f g u u f  w i  # g d    s o q g

o o  / c n a  s h  n n m f   v ` } ¤ y y ~ 8  

7   6 ¨ 

5 ¨  4

 § £ ˜ ˜ š ¢ ¡ £

Figure 2 Surfacial geology of Delhi, Dexter-Huron, and Hudson Mills Metroparks (Farrand and Bell 1982) and Hudson Mills Metroparks 2 Surfacial geology of Delhi, Dexter-Huron, Figure

Page-4

 €

£ • ” ‡ ” › ¤ Š ‡ ‹ ˆ – ˆ ‹ ‡ ‹   ‚ Š  ¥ † ‹ § ’ ‚ † † ‹ †

 ‚ „ † ‡ ˆ ‰ Š ‹ † ‚ Š  ‚ Š   ˆ ‚ ‘ ‹ ’

™ ‹  ‰ ˜ › ‡ ‹  ‡ ˆ ‹   ’ ‚ „ ‰ ‚ ’ ‡ ‰ ’ ’

ž Š  ˜ ” ˆ ‚ ‰ Š ‹ † ” ¡ ˜ ‹  ‰ ˜ › ‡ ‹  ‡ ˆ ‹  ‡ ‰ ’ ’

“

’ ‚ „ ‰ ‚ ’ ” ‡ ‚ † • † ‚ Š  ‚ Š   ˆ ‚ ‘ ‹ ’

‚ Š  – ” † ‡  ’ ‚ „ ‰ ‚ ’ ‚ ’ ’ ‘ ‰ ˜

< = ? = A C D E F G H I

J = L M N H G R T = H H G H V G E G Y Z C ? C [ \ L ? G E Y E G ? G M ] E C _ ` b b b

= G E \ = T Y Z C ? C c E = Y Z d e d g \ j G k C H ? l g m o p q F C T C c \ H ? s

t

D = ? G E L = E d u G C T C c d v ` I x y y l y y y z ] E C _ o = E E = L M = L M

| G T T l ` b } ~ s

¡ £ ¤ ¥ § ©

           

  " $ & ( * ,  , / 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 6 8 4 Figure 3 Surfacial geology of Stony Creek Metropark (Farrand and Bell 1982)

Page-5 ¬ ³ ­ ® † v ‹ { Œ ~ y v { < ‚  ~ y 7  ‹ Q U w   & ¡ v y Ž w Q 

~ f Q 2 { ™  ¨ e R ˆ d ¡ y c : { D ™ {  ~ Œ 1800 w 2 * a

‚ ¡ ƒ ) : ‹  ™ ~ Q w  ` J Y ‚ 2 D G ~ 9  v & 7 { X 7    P € ˆ W * p ) ) Ž * D

{ œ circa 4 9 p ~ & ™ ) s 7 ¨ 2 œ * w  7 S ^ p  ! & › ) Y o ‚ ! )  « S ’ ‹ - Ž l 6 ~ & Š ! & & P X T

: ª Ÿ v y n ¡  )  ! w m  { ¦ F ± } 9 2 ™ 6   y z 6 l ) 7 w { ¡ 0 & 0 ¨ ‹ 4    \ ‰  x & Y } ™ * O &  & y k ! ˆ j 0 §  ~ s X ) 9 ‚  ! ~ }   r ¦ ¨ i  ˜ ¡ ² v  ‹ 7

¦ {  0 ! <  ! !  h Œ ~ ± ~ & ¥  ‘ 0

Œ ‹ 0  & — ® g Z : E ‹  ‡ Y r ‰ < - 4 4 4 4 ° U ” ž G E

} T  )  ¤ X ) ) ) ) ‹ ¦ ”

D ¯ w ƒ & ~

 ® { 3 3 3 3 ) ‚ 

0 0 0 0 ” ’ ~  <  N ¦  v  € S “ “ Œ v :  2 2 2 2 ¨  7 !  9 †  † ¦ y X ~ ’ † ¡

¢ ‰ } v ‚ £ ™ { ˆ { ~ y z ¡ ~ v ‹  ¢ w y { ‚

v ™ „ ~ ‘ w x y ~ u w ƒ v  w ‘ ‚ y ƒ ~ v ~ v ‰ ‚ ‰ v w  ˆ u š q © ­ ­ ¬ « ª © ¨ Figure 4 Delhi, Dexter-Huron, and Hudson Mill Metroparks vegetation Metroparks Mill Hudson and 4 Delhi, Dexter-Huron, Figure

Page-6 , + * ( U & ? ] G % ^ ! I E ?

G M c I E c ] A ` c ? E a A S I G n ` Z y E G n G I ^ A w M N ] n I $ A c ! M I c

? G c K Z a < G s I n < s A J < r M : e ] a \ I 9 v E ? 8 A G  7 H n E F A G 5 ] J [ C H n E Z 4 ~ I 3 M I H } # l 1 ? ! ] G ^ I / I | d

^ ] k . ] W [ h u H J { ] h A N I G M J h e I J ? K f f ^ ? J U L U E I e U S z [ H ? M n G Z G I E F I ? ] J z A E G M ? n O I d A C

E I > A N ? t A d M E N I ? I ? [ M [ ? A L Z > o 1800 ¯  ¯ ¯ circa „ ± ¤ ’ œ  ‘ ¯ ­ ¨ £ £ ¬ ™ ˜ ‡ Ÿ ˜ – „ ” –  ” ² – ” § ¬ Ž  ‘ ƒ ¦ Ž  ˜  › Ÿ  – Š – ‹ “ – – « ” › ˜ Š ‘ „ ‘ “  ‘ € ˆ ƒ ” › ²

Š ’ – ‡

›

– ˆ “ ¥ ¤ š Ÿ

 ¥ † ˜ ’ ‡ ˜ ƒ ¨   “ “ † ‘ † ž  ˜

› ƒ  ª  ‘ ‘   „ œ   ¤ ƒ  ”     ‚    ¡ € 

© § ¥ £ ¡

Figure 5 Delhi Metropark vegetation Metropark Delhi 5 Figure

Page-7 ® ± ° ²

±

° ¨ ¯ ® < ¦ ­ ¬ ! G « * ª ¥ I ¡ - © ' !

¢ © * 3 N - ¨ ' N G § K # N ¦ ! ' L # ¥ : ¤ - * Z K £ C g ¢ ' * Z * ¡ - I # e 3 4 G Z - ¤ # N ¡ 3 - N

! * N 0 C L  * _ - Z  _ # /  ^ 3  Q G L - F  d ! '  # * m  + Z ) ' # *  G / D % + Z ' C  l -  3 + - k £ X  ! ¡ G * I -  - j P

I G W  G @ D T a + i / G T # 4 - * 3 / T Q - / ! 0 R R I ! / < 2 < ' - Q < : h D + ! 3 Z * C * - ' ) - ! G / h # ' * 3 ! Z 6 P - # %

' -

# 4 ! ` # P 3 ' 4 - ! - ! D 3 D ! # 2 C

[ 1800 circa  o   r Ÿ ’ € Š o   › – ‘ ‘ š ‡ † u  † „ r ‚ „ ~ ‚

„ ‚ • š | o  q ” | } † o ‰  { „ x „ y  „ „ ™ ‚ ‰ † x  r   o  n v q

‚ ‰ Ž x € „ u s ‰ s „ v  “ ’ ˆ  Ž “ t † € u † q –   t  t Œ † s ‰ q ˜ ~   r Š } ~ ’ q ‚ o p o n Figure 6 Dexter-Huron Metropark vegetation Metropark Dexter-Huron 6 Figure

Page-8

· · ¸ ¸

T g * & * ^ H + & ! / j / ! & ! k 5 ' + k c m ! 8 n ' m m ! m

! # ! & ' & ) * + , ) / , ' 0 2 3 3

4 5 7 8 : ; 7 : 4 7 @ @ B C

5 7 : B F @ H B @

J H L B M 8 ; C H P B @ R 7 J T

J H L B M U 7 @ M ; ; M R 7 J T

J H L B M ; 7 : P ; @ B R \

; 7 : ^ U H 8 : ; @ a P ; @ B R \

R U @ c 4 R 7 J T F B J B @ e B C \ J 7 @ R U

B \ T @ 7 H @ H B

† ‡ ˆ ‡ ‰ Š ‹ Œ  Ž  

‘ ‡ ’ “ ”  Ž – — ‡   Ž  ˜ Ž Œ Ž ™ š Š ˆ Š › œ ’ ˆ Ž Œ ™ Œ Ž ˆ Ž “  Œ Š ž Ÿ ¡ ¡ ¡ ‡ Ž Œ œ ‡ —

™ š Š ˆ Š ¢ Œ ‡ ™ š £ ¤ £ ¥ œ ¦ Ž § Š  ˆ ¨

© Ž ¢ Ž ˆ ‡ ˆ œ Š ’ Š  ¥ œ  š œ ¢ ‡ ’  œ Œ  ‡ Ÿ ª « «  ‡ ’ œ ’ ˆ Ž Œ ™ Œ Ž ˆ ‡ ˆ œ Š ’ Š 

ˆ š Ž ¬ Ž ’ Ž Œ ‡ — ‘ ‡ ’ “ ­   œ  Ž ‰ ‹ Œ ® Ž £  ¨ Ÿ ¡ ¡ ª ¨ ¯ ¨ ° ¨ – Š ž Ž Œ

‡ ’ “ † ¨ ± ¨ ± — ¤ Ž Œ ˆ ² ¥ ³ ´ µ ¨

o o p q r o p r o p s r t v w x y

{ | } ~  €  ‚ ƒ „

¶

¡ £ ¥ § ©  ¡              Figure 7 Hudson Mills Metropark vegetation circa 1800

Page-9

º º » »

* Q ¦ =  ¦ ¡  R  ¡ ¦ ¡ T + ¨  T # W ¡  X ¨ W W ¡ W

¡ £ ¡ ¦ ¨ ¦     ¨    

     ! # $ % ' ( % * +  - / '  ! 3

 + %  6 / % 6  % ' '  9

+ % 6  ; ' =  '

( = @  A  / 9 = -  ' ! % ( *

( = @  A  % ' A / / A ! % ( *

( = @  A / % 6 - / '  ! 3

/ % 6  =  6 / ' H - / '  ! 3

!  ' #  ! % ( * ;  (  ' $  9 3 ( % ' ! 

 3 * ' % = ' = 

ˆ ‰ Š ‰ ‹ Œ  Ž   ‘ ’

“ ‰ ” • – ‘  ˜ ™ ‰ ‘ ‘  ‘ š  Ž  œ  Œ Š Œ ž Ÿ ” Š  Ž œ Ž  Š  • Ž Œ ¡ ¢ £ £ £ ‰  Ž Ÿ ‰ ™

œ  Œ Š Œ ¤ Ž ‰ œ  ¥ ¦ ¥ § Ÿ ¨  © Œ ‘ Š ª § « ¬ ­ ®  Œ ™ Œ ¤ Ÿ ‘ Š °

±  ¤  Š ‰ Š Ÿ Œ ” Œ § Ÿ   Ÿ ¤ ‰ ”  Ÿ Ž  ‰ ¢ ² ³ ³ ’ ‰ ” Ÿ ” Š  Ž œ Ž  Š ‰ Š Ÿ Œ ” Œ

Š   ´  ”  Ž ‰ ™ “ ‰ ” • µ Ÿ   ‹  Ž ¶  ¥ ‘ ° ¢ £ £ ² ° · ° ¸ ° ˜ Œ ¡  Ž

‰ ” • ˆ ° ¹ ° ¹ ™ ¦  Ž Š ª § « ¬ ­ °

Z Z [ \ ] ^ ` a b c

e f g h i j k m n o p p p

q r s u v w y { | r | } ~  €  ‚ ƒ „ ƒ „  Figure 8 Stony Creek Metropark vegetation circa 1800

Page-10 [ G a N P y G f W f U f G d r i c g q K R K N [ b t K N W T W P H F i P ^ N  n r ] ¤ w i N H w P a § H d [ a U H a  I  ` X K t H § q I K H R ^ © % X   K ]  

c n P § N K P P  N ¤ © m  b  a \   G §   ¤ R H k  G § P  §  R i W ¤ R ! S j    G U 

R [ i K P a Z ^ O

H N G ] P H L G R N N K K g X I ] K R W G H H U U K G G G ^ N T F H ] ª ; 3

2 1 © 0 8 . ¨ ; + Ÿ ž - ( 5 ' §

¡ ¦ { { < ~ ‰ 

; : ‡  ¥ ƒ E

8 +  ~ } ( E { ~ ¤ ' E „

‡ C { ;  Š A “ ” ; † @ ~ £ > ‚ ¢ “  ˆ † < ƒ ‘ ‡ ‡ ;  † ; : { ‡ ¡ ‘   8

 ™ + ~ – 6  ‚ ƒ * (  †

 5 {  ; ' ˜ Ž  Ÿ ¢ ž { ~ ‡ ~ 5 — Œ •  › š '  ‡ ƒ

 ƒ { ¤ ~ ƒ  § ~ { } {  ˆ „ ‘   {   ” ƒ ˆ ƒ ¸ † “ † » {  ‚ º   » ‚ ‡  ¸  † ƒ º ~ ©  ‡ ‚  ¹  Š ¸  ‰ € ~ † ~ ·  ¶

‚

~ } ‡ Ž µ † { „ ‚ ‰ { { { ´

³ ¬ Œ z z © ³ ² § ± ¤ ° ¤ ¯ £ ® ­ ¬ « Figure 9 Delhi Metropark 1999 land cover land 1999 Metropark Delhi 9 Figure

Page-11 ª ­ ¬ ® ­ ¬ « \ ª H b © ¨ O Q § z ¦ H ¥ g ž X ¥ g V g ¤ H e £ s ¢ j d ¡ h r L

S L O \ Ÿ c u L ž O X U  X Q I G j Q _ O  o s ^ ¥ x j O I x Q b ¨ I e \ b V I  b  J a Y L u I ¨ r J L I S _

& Y   L ^    d o Q ¨ O L Q Q  O ¥

n  c  b ]   ¨ H   ¥ S I l  H ¨ Q  ¨  S j X ¥ S " T k    H  V

S \ j L Q b [ _ ! ! P I O H ^ Q I M H S O O L L h Y J ¢ ^ L S X H I I V V L H H H £ _ O U G I ^ ¢ À 4 < 3 2 1 ¿ / 9 ¾ , . < ) ³ ² ( 6 ½ ¶ | ¼ | = ‡  Š € < € ¡ ; F ˆ ,  „ » ) F ƒ † 9  † ~ ( F D  º ‚

† B | < € A ” ? • ˆ < ‡  = ƒ † 6 ” ‡ € ‡ ¸ ’ <  € ˆ ; ˆ ‡ < 9 | ‚ ‚ ˆ ’

· , € 7 — ‚ ¶ › + | )  ™ 6 ƒ „ ´ ( ‚ ‡ † † ‚ | € – < ‚ ‚ ³  ˆ ²  œ š 6 ˜ ± ° ( ¯ € ˆ „ † † ‚ „ ‘ | ¥  „ ‚ | ‚ ¨  | ~ | ˆ —  ‰

‹ ’ ‚ €  | ‚ „ € • „ € ‰ ‰ „ „ ‡ ” ‡ ‚ | ‘ ‘ ƒ  € Š ˆ ƒ ‚ ‚ ‚ ‡ „ 

€ ˆ ƒ ‚ € ‹  Š   ‡    † – ƒ   ~ ˆ   ‡ |  ƒ Š | | | |

  { {

¨ ¥ ¥ ¤ Figure 10 Dexter-Huron Metropark 1999 land cover land 1999 Metropark Dexter-Huron 10 Figure

Page-12

Â Ã Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È Å Ê Ë Ì Ä Ã

l Ð Ñ r Ò Ó Ô r Õ Ö r r × o Ø q r s Ù Ó Ú l Ð Ñ r o Û r Ü

Í Î Ï Ï

¾

¶ ² º ® ° ¿ ¬ · Á º ² °

¹ ¶ · ¸ · ¶ · º °

» · µ º ¸ · ´ º

» ­ º ² ½ · ´ º

¤

£

± ² ® ´ ° µ ­ ² ¶ ® ¶ · ­ ´

¬ ® · ¸ ² ­ ® ¯ °

¬ ­ ® ¯ °

{ | | | } ~  €  ƒ „ † ~ ƒ ƒ „ ƒ

¦

 ‡ ˆ ~ 

‰ Š Œ Œ ‘

€   ‡ Ž „  ‡ „ ~  

‡  ’ † ~  €

‰ ‘

† € “ „ † €

Š

 ’ † ~  € • – ‡ ˆ

‘ Œ

‡ ˜ ™ š „ ƒ  “  ‡ „ ƒ

—

‘ Š Œ Œ

š „ ƒ  •  – „ ‡  “  ‡ „ ƒ

¥

¡

~ ‡ € Ÿ   € • Ÿ ~ ’

ž

~ ~ ‡ ~  £ • Ÿ ~ ’

¡

‘ ¥ Œ Œ ‘

  „ ‡ ¦ † ~  ~  

} ~ £ „ ¨ ¦   €

Œ Š

„ † ~  € • – ‡ ˆ ~ ‡ ‡

Œ Œ

„ ‡ « „  „ † ~  €

ª

Œ

„ š „ ~ €  Ÿ

¢

Œ ‘ ‘ ‘

„ ™ š „ ƒ  ¦ ‡ ~ ‡ „

$ % ' % ( ) * + , - / 0

2 % 4 5 6 / - 9 : % / / - / < - + - ? @ ) ' ) A B 4 ' - + ? + - ' - 5 C + ) D E G G G % - + B % :

? @ ) ' ) H + % ? @ J K J L B O - P ) / ' S L T V W X , ) : ) H B / ' Y 6 ' B : B ' J S

@ J 5 + ) : ) H J S % 4 5 ' + % 4 / ? ) + ' % ' B ) 4 5 % ' % C + ) D 6 ( [ ( E ] ] P $ 2 [ / Y

` ` a b c ` a c ` a d c e g i j k

l m o q r s u v w x z z z

§ ¨      ¨      ! " Figure 11 Hudson Mills Metropark 1999 land cover

Page-13

¨

Ï Ð Ð Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ò Ö × Ø Ñ Ð

Ù Ú Û ] Ý Þ c ß à á c â ã c c ä ` å b c d æ à ç ] Ý Þ c è ` é c ê

° ± ² ³ ± ´ µ ¶ · ± ¹ º » ¼ ¹ º ¾ ´ ¿ À Á Ã ´ Ä

Ì ¿ Ä ± » Æ Í Ã Î Ä Æ

È Å È

¿ Ã ³ Ã ¿ Ã Ä Æ

Ê

Ã É Ä ³ à ´ Ä

Ë

¡

º Ä Á Ã ´ Ä

Ë È

± ´ Æ É º ¿ ± ¿ Ã º ´

Ç È È

± Ã ³ º ± µ Æ

Å È

º ± µ Æ

Å

| } } } ~ €  ‚ ƒ † ‡ ‰ € †

§

ƒ ‹  € 

Ž

‹ €  † ‰  ‘  †

’ “ ” ”

‚ • • ‹ – † ˜ ‹ † € ‘ • 

‡ ‹ • ™ ‰ €  ‚

’

‰ ‚ š ‘ † ‰ ‚

“

ƒ ™ ‰ €  ‚  ž ‹ 

”

‹ ¡ ¢  † ‘ ˜ š • ‹ †

“ ” ”

 † ‘ ˜  • ž † ‹  š • ‹ †

¦ € ‹ ‚ § • • ‚  § € ¨ ™

‡ † ‚ € ‹  § € ¨ ™

© € ¨ € ‹ € ˜ ª  § € ¨ ™

” ”

‡ •  ‘ « † ‹ ¬ ‰ €  € ‘ • 

¦ € ‹ ‚ § • • ‚ ¢ ‡ •  ‘ « † ‹  § € ¨ ™

~ € ª † ­ ¬ •  ‚

” “

† ‰ €  ‚  ž ‹  ‡ € ‹ ‹

” ”

® ¨ † ‹ ¯ †  † ‰ €  ‚

”

†  † € ‚ • §

”

† ¢  † ‘ ˜ ¬ ‹ € ‘ ‹ ‘ †

        

! # $   ' (     *    - .    0 1 !    -     # 4   5 6 8 8 8   1 (

- .    9  - . ; = ; > 1 A  B    E > F H I J   (  9 1   K $  1 ( 1  ; E

. ; #   (  9 ; E ! #   !  -     1  ! #  4   5 $  N  6 Q Q B N  K

T T U V W X Y Z [ \

©

] ^ ` b c d f g h i j j j

¢

¤

¥

£

¦

k l m n o p q r s l s t u v w x y z x { z { x Figure 12 Stony Creek Metropark 1999 land cover

Page-14 Methods Natural Communities management Species lists for this report were Natural community surveys were conducted in tabulated with the Florist Quality Assessment Program conjunction with rare plant surveys Prior to the and species nomenclature follows Herman et al (2001) surveys aerial photos were reviewed to determine the types of natural communities present at the site Rare Plant Inventories Surveys concentrated on identifying high quality Rare plant species were targeted for survey based on natural areas and recording management concerns such the natural communities determined to be present in as evidence of fire suppression, deer herbivory, the park through aerial photo review and known rare hydrologic manipulation, farming, logging, and plant distribution (historical as well as current) patterns invasive species Species lists were compiled for high within the region Table 2 lists the rare species by quality sites and those deemed to have potential to associated natural community that were focused on significantly improve with restoration Site names and during surveys Surveys were performed through site codes used in the accompanying metropark maps meander surveys in appropriate habitat during periods (Figures 9 – 12) are listed in Table 1 Partial species when the plants are most recognizable (usually lists were recorded for most of the areas visited and are flowering or fruiting periods) When a rare plant was included as appendices for each metropark encountered, a MNFI special plant form was filled out, (Appendices 1 – 4) Site summaries were written for selected photos were taken, and when necessary a most of the sites visited and for all high quality natural voucher specimen was collected under State of communities and sites having good potential for Michigan and Parks Division permits and pressed for significant improvement with restoration and later determination

      M       !"#  $
     
     
    

!% &' #  $
     

     

      
         
       

' ##  $  ! "      !#$ % & $   !' !%   (   ! $' ! )   ! $  *   !
!%  !  + #      + 

Page-15 Table 1 continued   $#  $ &     & $   ,! ' !%     &     -  & !%     & #$ %  &  & ' !%  #  &    
!%  .  & ' !%   /  01!* '   '  &    * '   2  &    * ' ! 3  +     4 

(            )*+, -
," - , 

        

#  "  
 $ % %            % #      5  #      / 6     #        % #
     ,6 #        $ #    6  6 #     6  #    %  " % #     6"  "% #      / 6  #      " & !         &    %$ 6"$   &

 "  
     
    "$  #       $ # !    / 6       #     $  #
 " 6 #     $ # #       # $      6" %  #
    %  #      % %  #     (%5 #       % #
      "6 # %     6  # &    $   # Page-16 Table 2 continued

        # $      %  &   6  , & '      &    ) % %""  &

 "  )     $        $%    (      6  #    66  #
     $5 % &

'./0   &   )    6 $6  #    * 65 %6  #       $ , % # )     # * +      6    # ,       % # $        " , # %    %  6   6  #      $  # #0       6        %$ #           & 0  
     R # $  , 8   ,  #

! &#  "   -    &$ 5 &      6 $  &      6% &

Results The surveys identified 7 new element occurrences Natural Community Inventory Results (EO’s) and reconfirmed 8 previously identified The natural community surveys resulted in the elements (an element refers to a high quality natural identification of three new natural communities community or state-listed species) Natural community including a wet-mesic prairie and relict conifer swamp surveys resulted in the identification of 3 new high at Hudson Mills (Figure 11) and a hardwood-conifer quality community occurrences and 4 previously swamp at Stony Creek (Figure 12) Prior to our 2001 identified exemplary natural communities were surveys, the BCD contained records for both a southern revisited (Table 3) Rare plant surveys resulted in 4 mesic forest and southern swamp (eg, hardwood new element occurrences and 4 existing plant records swamp) at Stony Creek and an oak barrens and were reconfirmed (Table 4) It is possible that woodland prairie at Dexter-Huron In addition to these additional rare species may be found in the future, exemplary natural communities, each of the parks also especially with active restoration and management All contain areas that have great potential of becoming new, natural community and rare plant occurrences high quality natural communities with the have been entered into the statewide Biological implementation of restoration The high quality natural Conservation Database (BCD) managed by MNFI and communities and sites with good potential for all previously existing records have been updated restoration and are listed below along with their associated stewardship needs (Table 5) Page-17
1     2  3   3 4    9"   : 2  2  #  $    
      1;<0 =>>1
       
      1;>1
    % % "  $  !#$ % & $ =>>1 =>>1  !  $%    !' !%   =>>1 =>>1  !   % "  $ &     & $ =>>1 =>>1 &       $ &    ' !%  1;<@ =>>1 &    $%  "  &    ' !%  1;<@ =>>1 &   

5( 02  3   3 4   9"   :   2  2  #  $
 
       1;>? 1;<1
       '    
      & =>>1 =>>1
        
       # 1;>1
          
      # =>>1 =>>1
    * 65 %6  '     $  & 1;;= =>>1  !     $  & 1;;= =>>1  ! ) % %""       ! "   # =>>1 =>>1  ! 6      &    ' !%  # 1;;1 =>>1 &    6     &    ' !%  # =>>1 =>>1 &    6  6

Rare Plant Inventory Results mesic forest zone of the floodplain at Hudson Mills The rare plant surveys resulted in 4 new rare plant Golf Course (Figure 11, H) Wahoo and Kentucky occurrences including ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) coffee tree were found in a dry-mesic to mesic forest at Stony Creek, golden seal (Hydrastis canadensis) at zone of a floodplain at the Hudson Mills Group Camp both Stony Creek and Hudson Mills, and Leiberg’s Forest (Figure 11, L) Wahoo (E) and water-willow (G) panic grass (Panicum leibergii) and wahoo (Euonymus were located along the Huron River at Dexter-Huron atropurpurea) at Dexter-Huron (Table 4) In addition, (Figure 10) Leiberg’s panic grass was located in the four previously known rare plant records were Dexter Railroad Prairie, a small remnant of woodland reconfirmed including goldenseal at Stony Creek, prairie (dry-mesic prairie) along a railroad (Figure 10, wahoo and Kentucky coffee tree (Gymnocladus D) dioicus) at Hudson Mills, and water-willow (Justicia americana) at Dexter-Huron (Table 4) A previously Stony Creek known occurrence of red turtlehead (Chelone glabra) At Stony Creek, populations of ginseng and goldenseal was searched for at Dexter-Huron but could not be were located in the Sheldon Wet-Mesic Forest (Figure relocated Abstracts for ginseng and goldenseal are 12, T) This is a mesic southern forest natural included as appendices (Appendix 5) community that grades into a southern swamp Because extensive habitat of this type is available Delhi, Dexter-Huron, and Hudson Mills within the Sheldon Wet-Mesic Forest, there is potential Rare plants were found in both floodplain forest and for additional sub-populations of these species to be prairie habitats at Dexter-Huron and Hudson Mills located Goldenseal, wahoo, Kentucky coffee tree, and water- willow were all located along the Huron River in A beard-tongue species (Penstemon sp) found within southern floodplain forest Goldenseal occurred in a the Gravel Mine Wet-Mesic Prairie (Figure 12, P) was Page-18
6#  ""7    )"   "  "       
 #  $ #(
       
  ,,  %% A  % " 
       
     ,,  %% A     % " 
         
     ,,%% A% , %  6A % " 
        
     ,,  %% A     % " 
     " " 
     ,,%%     ! % % "  $  ! $% A$    6" #$ % & $ 6%   !'   $%    !  ,,  %% A !%    % "  &       % "  $ &     ,,%% A % A & $ % ,     6 & ' !% $%  "    &     ,,%% A %       $ & ' !%  $%   &     ,,  %% A     % "  & #$ % % % "  $B  " &     ,,  %%   &    *      $ 96 &     ,,  %% A ' ! $ :  % "  01!*  % % "  $B  " &     ,,  %%  '   not identified to species during the survey and has the potential to be one of the rare members of the genus (P gracilis or P calycosus) It is recommended that this species be looked for in the future during the month of June

Page-19 Site Summaries and Management Recommendations

Delhi Metropark Delhi Railroad Prairie (Site Code: B) cover The railroad tracks along the south side of the The Delhi Railroad Prairie is a small dry-mesic or prairie provide an ideal firebreak woodland prairie that occurs between a row of residential houses and a railroad tracks at the southwest Delhi Park Interior (Site Code: A) edge of the metropark (Figure 9) It contains large The wooded edges of the park contain numerous patches of prairie grasses such as big bluestem invasive species such as garlic mustard (Alliaria (Andropogon gerardii), little bluestem (A scoparius), petiolata), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans) and switch grass morrow honeysuckle, white mulberry (Morus alba), (Panicum virgatum) and several prairie forbs such as and common buckthorn (Appendix 1) Removing these stiff goldenrod (Solidago rigida), flowering spurge species from the park will help prevent their spread to (Euphorbia corollata), and prickly pear (Opuntia other less disturbed portions of the surrounding humifusa) (Appendix 1) Numerous large boulders landscape occur throughout the prairie and large holes occur where boulders have been removed Stewardship issues Delhi Floodplain Forest (Site Code: C) at the site include controlling several invasive forbs Floodplain forest occurs in several locations along the such as spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Huron River within Delhi (Figure 9) While no rare white and yellow sweet clover (Melilotus alba and M species were found within these areas, the small band officinalis) and invasive shrubs such as morrow of floodplain forest south of the railroad tracks at the honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii) and common southwest portion of Delhi contained a diverse group buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) Reducing tree and of species including butternut (Juglans cinerea) shrub encroachment at the site will increase the amount (Figure8) (Appendix 1) Garlic mustard also occurs in of prairie habitat If possible, the prairie should be this area and if allowed to spread will likely contribute managed with prescribed fire to help bolster the native to a significant decline in species diversity for the site prairie grasses and forbs and reduce tree and shrub

Dexter-Huron Metropark Dexter Railroad Prairie (Site Code: D) along the southern edge of the site provide an excellent The Dexter Railroad Prairie was identified as an firebreak Selective cutting of tree and shrub species in exemplary occurrence of woodland prairie (dry-mesic both areas is also an important management tool that prairie) in 1984 The site consists of a thin band of dry- should be considered for these sites mesic prairie located north of the railroad tracks and south of the Huron River, just east of the town of Dexter Oak Barrens (Site Code: D) Dexter (Figure 10) Native prairie grasses such as big In 1984, MNFI located an exemplary occurrence of oak bluestem, little bluestem and Indian grass dominate the barrens adjacent to the Dexter Railroad Prairie (Figure site Other prairies species found at the site include 10) This occurrence is one of only 10 known New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus), bastard toad occurrences of oak barrens within the state Oak flax (Comandra umbellata), pale coneflower barrens is a fire-dependent natural community and (Echinacea pallida), rough blazing star (Liatris rapidly succeeds to dry-mesic or dry southern forest in aspera), and stiff goldenrod (Appendix 2) A state- absence of fire or thinning (see Appendix 5 for oak threatened species, Leiberg’s panic grass, also occurs at barrens natural community abstract) Since being the site Spotted knapweed, an aggressive invasive surveyed in 1984 the oak barrens has become species is present and should be controlled The site overgrown with woody species and many shade- borders a remnant oak barrens to the south (see Dexter intolerant prairie forbs now occur only along its Oak Barrens below) Because of their close proximity southern edge where it borders open prairie If and similar species composition, a single species list possible, the site should be managed with prescribed was compiled for both sites (Appendix 2) If possible, fire to stimulate the growth of prairie grasses and forbs the prairie and oak barrens should be managed with and reduce woody species cover The site boarders the prescribed fire to reduce woody plant encroachment Dexter Railroad Prairie to the south and if possible, the and stimulate native prairie species The railroad tracks hard edge between the two communities should be

Page-20 softened through the use of regular prescribed burning Dexter-Huron Oxbow Prairie (Site Code: F) and selective cutting Selective cutting will be an A large woodland prairie occurs within an oxbow of important management tool for thinning the tree the Huron River and north of the railroad tracks at canopy and understory If selective cutting is used, it Dexter-Huron (Figure 10) The prairie contains several should be especially focused on removing the maples different types of habitat including a large area of dry- (Acer spp), ashes (Fraxinus spp), and cherries mesic prairie (woodland prairie), a small patch of wet- (Prunus spp) because of their ability to cast dense mesic prairie in the northern portion of the site and a shade and rapidly colonize a site small area of oak savanna (oak opening) in the southeastern corner near the railroad tracks Prairie Dexter Floodplain Forest (Site Code: E) grasses such as big bluestem, little bluestem and Indian Floodplain forest borders the Huron River in several grass dominate much of the site and prairie forbs locations within Dexter-Huron Metropark (Figure 10) include: smooth aster (Aster laevis), bastard toadflax, The floodplain forest that borders the oak barrens pale spiked lobelia (Lobelia spicata), prairie dock mentioned above was especially diverse with 87 (Silphium terebinthinaceum), slender ladies’ tresses species recorded including wahoo, a rare shrub species (Spiranthes cernua), showy goldenrod (Solidago (Appendix 2) Unfortunately, garlic mustard occurs speciosa), and stiff goldenrod (Appendix 2) If within the floodplain and is a threat to species diversity possible, prescribed fire should be used to manage the at the site If possible, garlic mustard should be site to help reduce woody species encroachment and removed from the site to prevent it from spreading and stimulate the prairie grasses and forbs Because the site negatively impacting species diversity A small borders the Huron River and a railroad tracks, southern wet meadow borders the eastern edge of the implementing a prescribed fire may be less floodplain, and if possible, should be managed with complicated than many other sites A drainage ditch prescribed fire to help maintain the community’s open bisects the site and provides an opportunity to create condition and species diversity (see Appendix 5 for two separate management units If possible, the southern wet meadow natural community abstract) management units should be burned in alternate years to allow fire-sensitive species, particularly non-mobile invertebrates, to recolonize the most recently burned management unit

Hudson Mills Metropark Hudson Mills Tamarack Swamp (Site Code: I) prairie fens mentioned above, and undergo a drastic A large, species-rich, relict conifer swamp occurs reduction in shrub-layer cover that can negatively within Hudson Mills (Figure 11) (see Appendix 5 for impact bird and small mammal species that rely on the relict conifer swamp natural community abstract) This fruits of shrubs (Kost 2001) The long-term viability of site, which is dominated by tamarack (Larix laricina), the site will depend on preventing red maple invasion black ash (Fraxinus nigra), and poison sumac Presently, red maple appears to be restricted to edges of (Toxicodendron vernix), qualifies as an exemplary the tamarack swamp Red maple can be controlled natural community of statewide significance because of through cutting or girdling, accompanied by herbicide its large size, high species diversity, and lack of application to the cut stump or surrounding bark to invasive species During a survey in early September, prevent root sprouting Because soils of relict conifer 73 species were recorded from the site including many swamps are high in alkalinity they are especially species commonly found in prairie fens including tall susceptible to invasion by glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus flat top white aster (Aster umbellatus), grass of frangula), which can completely alter community parnassus (Parnassia glauca), cowbane (Oxypolis structure and negatively impact species diversity The rigidior), swamp betony (Pedicularis lanceolata), site should be monitored annually for glossy buckthorn shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla fruticosa), hoary willow and the species should be eradicated if found An oak- (Salix candida), Ohio goldenrod (Solidago ohioensis), hickory forest surrounds the tamarack swamp (see and Riddell’s goldenrod (S( riddellii) (Appendix 3) Hudson Mills Dry-Mesic Forest (M) below) Because tamarack is shade-intolerant the community is rapidly degraded when hardwoods such as red maple Hudson Mills Dry-Mesic Forest (Site Code: M) invade Following conversion to hardwood dominance, The dry-mesic southern forest that surrounds the relict conifer swamps typically loose many of the tamarack swamp is a fire-dependent natural shade-intolerant species, such as those common to community (Figure 11, Appendix 3) In the absence of

Page-21 fire, the Hudson Mills Dry-Mesic Forest has been an important component of any long-term management invaded by red maple and lacks oak regeneration solution for the site Because of its proximity to a high quality, relict conifer swamp (Hudson Mills Tamarack Swamp (I) above), it Hudson Mills Group Camp Wet Meadow (Site is especially important that red maple be removed from Code: K) this site If possible, prescribed fire should be used to A small southern wet meadow occurs within the group manage this site so that red maple, which is fire camp at Hudson Mills (Figure 11) Southern wet sensitive, can be controlled and prevented from meadow is a sedge-dominated, fire-dependent wetland spreading to the tamarack swamp Prescribed fire will community type (see Appendix 5 natural community also help create canopy light gaps, which enable oak abstract for southern wet meadow) The open areas of regeneration this site are dominated by sedges such as Carex stricta and C lacustris, and forbs such as eastern lined aster Hudson Mills Wet-Mesic Prairie (Site Code: J) (Aster puniceus), tall swamp marigold (Bidens A small, species-diverse, wet-mesic prairie occurs coronatus), Joe pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum), along the east bank of the Huron River in the southern boneset (E perfoliatum), water smartweed (Polygonum portion of Hudson Mills (Figure 11) This site has been amphibium), and marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris) entered into the BCD as an exemplary natural (Appendix 3) Shrub encroachment threatens the long- community because of its high diversity The wet-mesic term viability of the site If possible, the site should be prairie is one of only 9 known occurrences for this managed with prescribed fire to reduce shrub community type in Michigan Wet-mesic prairie is a encroachment and facilitate seed bank expression and groundwater-influenced, fire-dependent community rejuvenation In the absence of fire, native wetland type that is dominated by prairie and wetland species, shrub species, especially gray dogwood (Cornus many of which also occur in prairie fens In all, 79 foemina) will continue to colonize the open areas of species were recorded during an October survey meadow including big bluestem, Indian grass, prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), slender wheat grass (Agropyron Hudson Mills Group Camp Forest (Site Code: L) trachycaulum), New England aster (Aster novae- A broad floodplain forest occurs along the Huron River angliae), small fringed gentian (Gentianopsis procera), within the Hudson Mills Group Camp (Figure 11) The bog lobelia (Lobelia kalmii), whorled loosestrife area contains two rare plant species, Kentucky coffee (Lysimachia quadriflora), shrubby cinquefoil, and tree and wahoo The floodplain contains a thin, first prairie dock (Appendix 3) Shrub and tree bottom that occurs directly along the river and supports encroachment is severe in the southern portions of the a variety of wetland plants including native, wetland community where the wet-mesic prairie grades into a species such as cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis), small pocket of prairie fen If possible, the site should silver maple (Acer saccharinum), and black willow be managed with prescribed fire to stimulate the native (Salix nigra), as well as several invasive species such grasses and forbs and reduce woody species as moneywort (Lysimachia nummularia) and reed encroachment Several invasive species occur within canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) (Appendix 3) the site and are presently at minimal levels and The first bottom rises abruptly to meet an oak- therefore may be relatively easy to control if acted upon dominated, second bottom that may be characterized as in the near future If left unchecked, these invasive dry-mesic to mesic forest Characteristic species in the species will likely dominate the site in the future and second bottom include black oak (Quercus velutina), the unique diversity of the site will be lost The white oak (Quercus alba), black walnut (Juglans invasive species include purple loosestrife, glossy nigra), Kentucky coffee tree, black cherry (Prunus buckthorn, and common buckthorn, which are all serotina), witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), found growing in a sedge-dominated patch between hazelnut (Corylus americana), jumpseed (Polygonum two larger areas of wet-mesic prairie, as well as reed virginianum), and sedge (Carex pensylvanica) The canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and morrow area also contains several exotic, landscape cultivars honeysuckle Management should initially concentrate such as Golden Bells (Forsythia x intermedia) and lily on removing purple loosestrife and buckthorn as these of the valley (Convallaria majalis), indicating that a species pose the most immediate threat to the long- homestead may have once occurred at the site Invasive term viability of the site While cutting accompanied by species in this area include autumn olive and multiflora herbicide application may be the most effective method rose (Rosa multiflora) Garlic mustard was not to control these species (Reinartz 1997, Jack encountered during our survey but should be removed McGowan-Stinski pers comm 1999), prescribed fire is if observed in the future Several pole-size sugar

Page-22 maples occur within the site, indicating that in the witch hazel A mesic southern forest borders the absence fire the site may become dominated by shade southern portion of the floodplain Numerous large red tolerant, mesic forest species No oak regeneration was oaks (Quercus rubra) dominate the canopy and a observed at the site variety of fern species occur in the ground layer including maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), lady Hudson Mills Golf Course Forest (Site Code: H) fern (Athyrium filix-femina), rattlesnake fern The Hudson Mills Golf Course forest is composed of (Botrychium virginianum), and spinulose woodfern several different types of forested communities (Figure (Dryopteris carthusiana) Goldenseal , a rare mesic 11) Much of the area is floodplain forest and is forest species, also occurs in this area The mesic forest dominated by silver maple, red maple, and green ash also contains a hillside, groundwater seep Garlic (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) (Appendix 3) Common mustard infestation is severe along the western side of ground layer species within the floodplain include wild the floodplain forest and mesic forest where these areas ginger (Asarum canadense), wood nettle (Laportea border golf course fairways Management to control canadensis), and jumpseed Small, sandy rises or garlic mustard should focus on preventing it from islands within the floodplain forest contain remnant spreading throughout the forested areas Common oak barrens and dry-mesic southern forest These areas buckthorn and autumn olive also occur in this area and are characterized by a sedge-dominated (Carex like garlic mustard, should be removed to prevent their pensylvanica) ground layer and an overstory and shrub spread to uninfested portions of the forest layer of white oak, shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), hazelnut, and

Stony Creek Metropark Stony Creek Cedar Swamp (Site Code: O) abundant as a result of dense shading from hardwoods The Stony Creek Cedar Swamp is located north of All white cedar seedlings observed were heavily Inwood Road and has been entered into the BCD as an browsed, apparently by white-tailed deer Deer browse exemplary occurrence of hardwood-conifer swamp sign was also abundant on many herbaceous species (Figure 12) Unlike most conifer-dominated swamps, including Jack in the pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum) The which occur on deep organic soils (eg, peat and swamp also contains sand and gravel islands that are muck), this site occurs on mineral soil (gleyed coarse dominated by mesic forest species including red oak, sand) The site is botanically diverse with over 100 sugar maple, American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and species recorded during a spring survey including: tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) Garlic mustard was naked miterwort (Mitella nuda), bishop’s cap (M observed along the southeast border of the swamp and diphylla), starflower (Trientalis borealis), richweed should be removed to prevent it from spreading (Collinsonia canadensis), bulblet fern (Cystopteris throughout the site If left unmanaged, garlic mustard bulbifera), fragile fern (C fragilis), and New York fern will likely eventually dominate the forest floor of both (Thelypteris noveboracensis) (Appendix 4) Common the hardwood-conifer swamp and mesic forest islands shrub species include smooth highbush blueberry In addition to preventing the spread of garlic mustard, (Vaccinium corymbosum), prickly ash (Zanthoxylum management for the hardwood-conifer swamp should americanum), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), and include reducing deer densities to help facilitate conifer bladdernut (Staphylea trifolia) The canopy is made up regeneration and prevent the loss of preferentially of both conifers such as white cedar (Thuja grazed herbaceous species (Waller and Alverson 1997) occidentalis), white pine (Pinus strobus), and tamarack Another management option to consider for (Larix laricina) and hardwoods such as black ash, encouraging conifer regeneration is thinning or girdling yellow birch (Betula allegheniensis), paper birch hardwoods such as red maple in concert with reducing (Betula papyrifera), and swamp white oak (Quercus deer densities bicolor) Cut stumps of white cedar are common in several parts of the swamp Several canopy-sized white Sheldon Wet-Mesic Forest (Site Code: T) cedars were aged with a tree corer to approximately The Sheldon Wet-Mesic Forest site consists of a 114 years old While conifers are common within the hardwood swamp and mesic southern forest that canopy, the understory is completely dominated by intermix north and west of the West Branch Picnic area hardwoods such as red maple and no evidence of (Figure 12) Each of these communities has previously successful conifer regeneration was observed Dead, been entered into the BCD as an exemplary natural standing conifers, especially tamarack, were also community occurrence Because the communities are

Page-23 so closely associated, a single species list was recorded buckthorn, common buckthorn, and multiflora rose for both sites (Appendix 4) Two rare species, Glossy buckthorn, in particular, has completely goldenseal and ginseng, were observed here The colonized similar sites in southern Michigan overstory is diverse and includes: silver maple, Buckthorn can be controlled by winter cutting in American beech, basswood (Tilia americana), yellow conjunction with herbicide application to control stump birch, American elm (Ulmus americana), sugar maple, sprouting (Reinartz 1997) For more information about swamp white oak, red oak, shagbark hickory, and white the community see the relict conifer swamp and prairie oak Spicebush is common within the shrub layer fen natural community abstracts (Appendix 5) Common ground flora species include: skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus), Jack in the pulpit, broad- Sheldon Mesic Prairie (Site Code: R) leaved goldenrod (Solidago flexicaulis), wild ginger, An old field with many native species occurs northeast and naked miterwort In addition, numerous fern of the Sheldon Tamarack Fen (S) (Figure 12) Native species were observed including: maidenhair fern, lady species found here include shrubby St john’s wort fern, New York fern, Christmas fern (Polystichum (Hypericum prolificum), mountain mint acrostichoides), silvery spleenwort (Athyrium (Pycnanthemum virginiana), wild bergamot (Monarda thelypterioides), and broad beech fern (Thelypteris fistulosa), and butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa) hexagonoptera) According to Stony Creek Metropark (Appendix 4) Restoring this site to prairie will likely Naturalist, Roger Bajorek, the diversity of fern species improve the hydrology of the adjacent fen Restoration at the site was likely enhanced by volunteers who of the site will require controlling shrub and tree transplanted wildflowers to the site from the area now encroachment and the introduction of additional native occupied by Stony Creek Lake Vernal pools are prairie grasses and forbs Wet-mesic prairie species will abundant and provide critical breeding habitat for the grow well along the site’s lower slopes where it border numerous frogs and salamanders that inhabit the site A the tamarack-dominated fen (S), while dry-mesic small stream also flows through the north end of the prairie species will grow best on the site’s upper slopes site While we did not observe garlic mustard within and hilltop the site, the species would thrive in this habitat if introduced because of the moist conditions (Meekins Sheldon Wet-Mesic Prairie (Site Code: V) and McCarthy 2001) Therefore, it will be important to A small wet-mesic prairie occurs near the Sheldon Wet- monitor the site annually for garlic mustard and Mesic Forest, north of parking lot C in the West Branch remove it if found Another invasive species, Japanese Picnic area (Figure 12) Nearly forty species were barberry (Berberis thunbergii) was observed near the observed at this site during an early summer survey stream and should be removed to prevent its further including big bluestem, little bluestem, smooth aster, spread Heavy deer browse was evident throughout the sedge (Carex stricta), pale spiked lobelia, bottle site on both woody and herbaceous plants Deer gentian (Gentiana andrewsii), whorled loosestrife, herbivory may also be responsible for the scarcity of black eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta), Riddell’s female Jack in the pulpit plants observed at the site If goldenrod, Culver’s root (Veronicastrum virginicum), possible, deer densities should be reduced within the shrubby cinquefoil, and tamarack (Appendix 4) The metropark to prevent further ecological damage site is currently mowed and this form of management is probably responsible for the perpetuation of wet- Sheldon Tamarack Fen (Site Code: S) mesic prairie at the site However, while mowing may A small tamarack-dominated fen occurs north of the be very effective at controlling shrub and tree Sheldon Wet-Mesic Forest, above the West Branch encroachment, it also acts to reduce diversity by Picnic area (Figure 12) The site borders a small creek selecting against species that are in flower when to the south and an old field with many native species mowing occurs Mowing during the late fall (eg, mid (Sheldon Mesic Prairie, R) to the north Numerous, November), after flowering has finished, is likely to species commonly found in prairie fen occur within the cause the least impact to native prairie species If site including: shrubby cinquefoil, poison sumac, round possible, the site should be managed with prescribed leaved sundew (Drosera rotundifolia), grass of fire to enhance seed germination and establishment and parnassus, starry false solomon seal (Smilacina stimulate prairie grasses and forbs Controlling woody stellata), marsh wild timothy (Muhlenbergia species encroachment through hand cutting glomerata), and sedges (Carex stricta and C sterilis) accompanied by herbicide application to cut stumps (Appendix 4) This site was probably an open prairie may also be needed in portions of the site where tree fen in the past and has become dominated by tamarack and shrub encroachment are severe Seed from this site as a result of fire suppression The viability of the site may be useful for adding species diversity to the lower is threatened by invasive shrub species including glossy slopes of the Sheldon Mesic Prairie (R, above) Page-24 Stony Creek Dry-Mesic Forest (Site Code: U) conifer swamp, which borders the site, by abandoning A degraded, oak-dominated, dry-mesic southern forest mowing and allowing white cedar, tamarack and white occurs west of the Stony Creek Golf Course (Figure pine colonization If mowing is abandoned, manual 12) The forest encompasses several small wetlands cutting of woody invasive species, accompanied by and borders a mesic southern forest and southern herbicide application to cut stumps, will need to be swamp (Sheldon Wet Mesic Forest) The species list for implemented to prevent the site from becoming the site includes species from the wetlands and dominated by exotic woody species neighboring communities (Appendix 4) Many small, prairie openings occur along the forest’s steep slopes 31 Mile Lake Wetland (Site Code: W) and hilltops These openings contain species such as A large wetland complex occurs from 31 Mile Road Indian grass, little bluestem, butterfly weed, round south until it reaches a small, unnamed lake (Figure headed bush clover (Lespedeza capitata), flowering 12) A small, groundwater fed stream flows through the spurge (Euphorbia corollata), and red cedar (Juniperus wetland complex Tamarack is common throughout the virginiana), which indicate the area supported oak wetland and many fen species occur along the creek barrens in the past (Appendix 4) Restoring oak barrens including: shrubby cinquefoil, common mountain mint, to a portion of the area will increase the diversity of sedge (Carex lasiocarpa), and poison sumac habitats within the metropark However, the area (Appendix 4) While the area contains a good diversity contains many invasive species that will be time of wetland species, it also supports a large population consuming to eradicate including: common buckthorn, of the invasive shrub, glossy buckthorn Because of the autumn olive, oriental bittersweet (Celastrus severe invasion of glossy buckthorn at this site, orbiculata), morrow honeysuckle, and border privet controlling its further spread within the wetland may be (Ligustrum X intermedia) Invasion by oriental difficult Cutting accompanied by herbicide application bittersweet is especially severe Because of the to control root sprouting can be an effective method of droughty nature of the soils along the site’s upper control (Reinartz 1997), especially when followed the slopes, prescribed fires may be very effective in helping next growing season by spot burning to eliminate to control the invasive, woody species The area also seedlings (Jack McGowan-Stinski pers comm 1999) contains several pine plantations that should be Other invasive species that occur here include reed removed if the area is to be restored Another canary grass, morrow honeysuckle, and moneywort management consideration for the site is the lack of oak regeneration While white oak and black oak are Stony Creek Lake Wet Meadow (Site Code: Y) common canopy species, few seedlings and saplings of A small southern wet meadow (sedge meadow) occurs either species were observed In addition to helping to along the north edge of Stony Creek Lake (Figure 12) control invasive species, the use of prescribed fire may The wet meadow is dominated by sedges (Carex stricta also help increase the number of light gaps and and C lacustris) and contains many other native, facilitate oak regeneration wetland species including blue joint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), Joe pye weed, boneset, Gravel Mine Wet-Mesic Prairie (Site Code: P) sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and marsh fern The abandoned gravel mines north of Inwood Road (Thelypteris palustris) (Appendix 4) The sedge now contain several moist areas where wet-mesic meadow borders a thin band of shrub-carr to the north prairie species have become common including: big that may slowly encroach upon the wet meadow bluestem, little bluestem, tall flat top white aster, Controlling shrub encroachment with prescribed common boneset, pale spiked lobelia, Ohio goldenrod, burning or manual cutting accompanied by herbicide Riddell’s goldenrod, Loesel’s twayblade (Liparis application to control root sprouting will increase the loeselii), and oval ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes ovalis) long-term viability of the site Reed canary grass, an (Figure 12, Appendix 4) Tamarack and white cedar aggressive, invasive grass species occurs at the site but also occur in these low areas, indicating their potential is not wide spread Another wet meadow with similar to convert to conifer swamp if the practice of mowing species composition occurs southwest of a small, were to be abandoned Threats to these areas include unnamed lake near Sheldon Road, west of the Stony the presence of invasive species such as purple Creek Golf Course (Figure 12) This meadow is also loosestrife, autumn olive, morrow honeysuckle, and threatened by native shrub invasion and would benefit white sweet clover The site could be managed as a from prescribed fire management and manual cutting wet-mesic prairie by abandoning mowing in favor of of woody species accompanied by herbicide application using prescribed fire and selective woody plant to control root sprouting For more information see the removal to keep it an open condition Another southern wet meadow natural community abstract in alternative is to allow the site to succeed to hardwood- Appendix 5 Page-25 Plate 1 Shrub encroachment threatens Delhi Railroad Prairie

Plate 2 Big bluestem prairie grass is abundant at Delhi Railroad Prairie

Plate 3 Dexter Railroad Prairie borders an overgrown oak barrens and railroad track

Page-26 Plate 5 A southern wet meadow borders the southern edge of the Dexter Floodplain Forest

Plate 6 The Dexter-Huron Oxbow Prairie is a large, open grassland with many native prairie species

Plate 7 Pale spiked lobelia carpets the Gravel Mine Wet-Mesic Prairie at Stony Creek in June

Page-27 Discussion Rare Plants study, 22 occurrences of this species were known from Ginseng and goldenseal are both state-threatened Michigan (6 records in Washtenaw County) This plants Prior to this study, there were 88 known species ranges across the southern two tiers of counties occurrences of ginseng (1 in Oakland County) of the Lower Peninsula It inhabits a variety of dry to Goldenseal was known from 62 locations in Michigan wet prairie remnants and is commonly associated with (2 in Washtenaw County and 7 in Oakland and big bluestem, little bluestem, and Indian grass It is Macomb Counties combined) Both of these species easiest to recognize this species in fruit (July) have declined throughout their range due to Conservation and management suggestions include exploitation of their roots for herbal medicine and prescribed burning to maintain the species vitality and significant habitat loss and modification In Michigan, prevent woody encroachment and to control invasive both of these species’ known occurrences are species concentrated in the southern three tiers of counties in the Lower Peninsula Typical habitat for these species Wahoo is listed as a species of special concern and has includes rich hardwood forests with beech-sugar only recently begun being tracked Plants are given the maple-basswood or red oak-sugar maple canopies and status of special concern when the status of the species occasionally upland rises in floodplain forests It is is unknown A species remains on the special concern easiest to survey for both of these species while in fruit list until specialists are able to determine whether the (August and September) Conservation strategies species should be elevated to state threatened or include the conservation and restoration of ecologically endangered status or is common enough to remain viable tracts of rich woodland habitat, monitoring untracked Wahoo is known from 3 locations in known populations to determine if plants are being Michigan (2 in Washtenaw County) This study added poached, and educating the public about the an additional occurrence in the Dexter-Huron detrimental effects on a species distribution caused by floodplain forest This species is easily identified poaching and the use of “wild” herbs in the herbal throughout the growing season Conservation strategies market include protecting the hydrology and water quality of the Huron River, and maintaining/restoring high Water-willow is a state-threatened plant It is currently quality flood plain forests by minimizing fragmentation only known from a section of the Huron River between and removing invasive species It is possible that Dexter and Ann Arbor Prior to this study, there were additional sub-populations of this population may be 14 known records of water-willow (4 in Washtenaw located within the metroparks County) A total of 10 pre-1960 records exist from Livingston, Monroe, and Wayne counties, but several Kentucky coffee tree is listed as a species of special searches at these sites have failed to locate extant concern and is known from 37 locations in Michigan (4 populations Water willow has been known to inhabit in Washtenaw County) Its known occurrences are muddy riverbanks and shallow muddy margins of concentrated in the southern four tiers of counties in inland lakes and Lake Erie The plants are usually the Lower Peninsula This species is easy to recognize growing in up to a foot of water with common throughout the growing season Conservation strategies associates such as arrow arum (Peltandra virginica) include protecting the hydrology and water quality of and bur reed (Sparganium sp) This perennial forms the Huron River, and maintaining/restoring high dense clones that spread by rhizomes and leafy stolons quality flood plain forests by minimizing fragmentation It flowers in August and September Alterations of river and controlling the spread of invasive species It is hydrology and impoundments can be detrimental to possible that additional sub-populations of this this species Conservation strategies include protecting population may be located within the metroparks the hydrology and water quality of the Huron River as well as preventing the spread of invasive plant species A known record for the state endangered red turtlehead such as purple loosestrife In addition, it is was not relocated However, the species may still be recommended that the distribution pattern of water- present in the site’s thick undergrowth or seed bank willow within the metroparks be closely mapped and Including this record, there are only two known monitored to determine if the population changes over occurrences of this species in Michigan The habitat of time the known location in Dexter-Huron Metropark has become severely degraded by multiple invasive species Leiberg’s panic grass is state threatened Prior to this including purple loosestrife, glossy buckthorn,

Page-28 common buckthorn, and garlic mustard Eradicating and Cottam 1985, McClain et al 1993) This was the invasive species at the site will improve conditions evident at many of the sites we surveyed in each of the for red turtlehead if it still exists It is recommend that metroparks At Stony Creek, wet prairie, wet meadow, surveys for the species be conducted in September prairie fen, and small openings within dry-mesic when it is in flower southern forest were all actively succeeding to shrub- and tree-dominated communities As a result, both Due to these parks close proximity to organizations species diversity and habitat heterogeneity are being with an interest in rare species, such as the University reduced Similar changes are occurring at the Huron of Michigan and the Michigan Natural Areas River metroparks (Delhi, Dexter-Huron, and Hudson Association, they have long been searched by botanists Mills) where dry-mesic prairie and wet-mesic prairie with considerable expertise For this reason, and the are being invaded by woody species and oak barrens is fact that some of the natural communities in these succeeding to oak forest As light levels are reduced parks have been exposed to fragmentation and because of woody species encroachment and canopy degradation, it is unlikely that a large number of closure, light-demanding species such as prairie forbs additional rare plants will be discovered However, the and grasses are unable to remain viable and are lost documentation of additional species, especially in a Some of the biggest changes as a result of canopy large park like Stony Creek, is very possible If efforts closure may be taking place within the oak forests At to restore natural communities and ecological present, oaks dominate the canopies of dry-mesic processes (eg, prescribed fire) are undertaken, the southern forests at Stony Creek, Dexter-Huron, and prospects for finding additional rare species will Hudson Mills However, oak regeneration within these increase forests is absent and shade-tolerant species such as red maple are common within the forest understory In the Fire as an Ecological Process absence of active management such as prescribed fire The vast majority of area within the metroparks we or tree thinning, these forested communities are likely surveyed once supported fire-dependent ecosystems to convert to red maple domination as the oaks slowly such as wet prairies, wet meadows, prairie fens, oak senesce barrens, and oak forests In the past, lightening- and human-induced fires frequently spread over large areas The proliferation of red maple within the oak forests of southern Michigan and other Midwestern states also results in significant changes in adjacent wetland (Curtis 1959, Grimm 1984, Dorney 1981) Large rivers communities For example, at Hudson Mills red maple such as the Huron River sometimes acted as local fire- has become established within a dry-mesic southern breaks, accounting for differences in vegetation types forest that borders a high quality relict conifer swamp on opposite sides of a river (Gleason 1913, Curtis and has begun to invade the relict conifer swamp 1959, Dorney 1981) This can be seen at Delhi where Species loss following invasion of relict conifer swamp several large oxbows of the Huron River separate oak by red maple can be significant The shift from conifer- barrens from oak-hickory forest (Figure 4) Similarly, dominance to hardwood-dominance also results in a at Dexter-Huron and Hudson Mills the Huron River drastic reduction in shrub cover (Kost 2001) Because and its associated flood plain forest (eg, mixed many animal species rely of the fruit of these wetland hardwood swamp) separate oak barrens from oak shrubs during fall migration and winter, the reduction hickory forest and oak barrens from mixed oak forest of shrub cover that results from red maple invasion can (Figure 4) In the absence of frequent fires, open oak adversely impact a wide range of both animal and plant barrens convert to forested communities such as oak- species The hardwood-conifer swamp at Stony Creek hickory forest or mixed oak forest (see oak barrens is experiencing similar changes with many dead, abstract, Appendix 5)) The reduction of wildfires in standing, and severely shade-pruned conifers occurring Midwestern states following the loss of indigenous under the dense hardwood-canopy cultures in the early 1800’s is well documented and resulted in a loss of fire-dependent natural In the past, fires prevented thin-barked red maples communities through both active conversion for from establishing in oak forests (Abrams 1998) Today, farming and succession from open barrens and prairie active management such as prescription burning or to forest (Curtis 1959) selective harvesting will be needed to maintain and regenerate the oaks Maintaining functioning oak and The conversion of open barrens and prairie to forested prairie ecosystems will also help protect adjacent communities continues today and often results in a loss wetland conifer forests of species and habitat diversity (Curtis 1959, McCune

Page-29 Plant communities benefit from prescribed fire in buckthorn, common buckthorn, and purple loosestrife several ways Depending on the season and intensity of Information about garlic mustard biology and control is a burn, prescribed fire may be used to decrease the available at: http://tncweedsucdavisedu/esadocs/ cover of exotic, cool-season grasses and woody allipetihtml species, and increase the cover of warm-season grasses and native forbs (White 1983, Abrams and Hulbert Glossy buckthorn can severely reduce species diversity, 1987, Tester 1989, Anderson and Schwegman 1991, especially in alkaline, wetland habitats The species Collins and Gibson 1990, Glenn-Lewin et al 1990) occurs within several sites such as 31 Mile Lake Prescribed fire helps reduce litter levels, allowing Wetland and Stony Creek Wetland at Stony Creek, and sunlight to reach the soil surface and stimulate seed the high quality, Hudson Mills Wet Mesic Prairie germination and enhance seedling establishment While glossy buckthorn may be difficult to control at (Daubenmire 1968, Hulbert 1969, Knapp 1984, Tester the Stony Creek sites because of the level of infestation, 1989, Anderson and Schwegman 1991, Warners 1997) the species appears to be easily eradicated from the Important plant nutrients (eg, N, P, K, Ca, and Mg) Hudson Mills Wet-Mesic Prairie at the present time are elevated following prescribed fire (Daubenmire Because the species thrives in alkaline wetlands, the 1968, Viro 1974, Reich et al 1990, Schmalzer and high quality Hudson Mills Tamarack Swamp should be Hinkle 1992) Prescribed fire has been shown to result monitored for glossy buckthorn and if found in increased plant biomass, flowering, and seed eradicated Information about glossy buckthorn biology production (Laubhan 1995, Abrams et al 1986, and control is available at: http://tncweedsucdavisedu/ Warners 1997, Kost and De Steven 2000) Prescribed esadocs/franalnuhtml fire can also help express and rejuvenate seed banks, which may be especially important for maintaining Purple loosestrife also occurs within the high quality, species diversity (Leach and Givnish 1996, Kost and Hudson Mills Wet Mesic Prairie but is not presently De Steven 2000) widespread Like glossy buckthorn, if left unmanaged this species has the potential to spread throughout the Invasive Species site and neighboring wetlands, significantly altering Invasive species also pose a major threat to species and community structure and reducing diversity Purple habitat diversity within the metroparks While loosestrife also occurs in a wet meadow within the numerous invasive species occur within the Dexter-Huron Oxbow Prairie and the Gravel Mine metroparks, garlic mustard, glossy buckthorn, and Wet-Mesic Prairie at Stony Creek The level of purple purple loosestrife are likely to pose the greatest threat loosestrife invasion at each of these sites is minimal at because of the intact nature of the communities in the present time, affording managers the opportunity to which they occur and their ability to quickly dominate make significant progress in biodiversity protection by an area Information on methods of controlling removing purple loosestrife with minimal costs invasive species and invasive species abstracts can be Information about purple loosestrife biology and obtained at http://tncweedsucdavisedu/ control is available at: http://tncweedsucdavisedu/ esadocs/lythsalihtml Garlic mustard threatens to significantly reduce species diversity in the forested communities, especially the Deer Densities mesic and wet sites (Meekins and McCarthy 2001) Many studies have shown high deer densities to such as the Huron River floodplain communities and adversely impact local ecosystems and vegetation the three high quality communities at Stony Creek (Alverson et al 1988, Balgooyen and Waller 1995, (eg, Stony Creek Cedar Swamp and Stony Creek Wet- Waller and Alverson 1997) Heavy deer browse was Mesic Forest, which contains both a high quality evident throughout the metroparks and appears to be southern swamp and mesic southern forest) While contributing to a lack of white cedar regeneration overall species reductions are alarming, the loss of a within the Stony Creek Cedar Swamp and to be population of rare plants from a site can significantly negatively impacting seed production in Jack in the reduce the long-term viability for a species For pulpit within the Sheldon Wet-Mesic Forest The example, at Dexter-Huron, a population of red absence of common trillium (Trillium grandiflora), a turtlehead originally found in 1904 and reconfirmed in common mesic forest plant, from the Sheldon Wet- 1981 could not be relocated If this species is not Mesic Forest may also be a sign that deer densities reconfirmed at the site, only one population of red within the metropark are too high Deer herbivory may turtle will remain in the state The site where it was last also be contributing to the lack of oak regeneration seen is now infested with garlic mustard, glossy within the metroparks’ oak forests Through

Page-30 preferential grazing of native species, high deer cooperatively with the Michigan Department of Natural densities are also thought to contribute to the spread of Resources to assess deer densities and to reduce deer invasive, exotic species such as garlic mustard numbers if determined to threaten the ecological (Victoria Nuzzo pers comm 1998) It is recommended integrity of metropark natural communities that the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority work

Conclusion The Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority owns a region’s biodiversity by providing a unique set of significant portion of the Huron River floodplain forest habitat conditions that help sustain a wide variety of in Washtenaw County Multiple rare plant species are species during critical periods like fall migration and associated with floodplain forests in southern winter Finding ways to maintain the conifer Michigan Four of these rare species have been components of these ecosystems is critical Reducing documented within metroparks we surveyed Because deer densities at the metroparks may help facilitate floodplain forests provide habitat for many rare conifer regeneration, especially at Stony Creek species, controlling the spread of invasive species Reducing hardwood dominance, especially red maple, within these areas will contribute significantly to through thinning or girdling accompanied by herbicide biodiversity protection in southern Michigan application to control root sprouting may also help in maintaining the conifers at these sites In addition to the floodplain forests, the metroparks contain some of the few remaining prairie and oak The metroparks support a diverse set of rare species barrens remnants Though small in total acreage, these and high quality natural communities They also harbor areas contribute significantly to the region’s a wide variety of natural communities that will be biodiversity by harboring species found in few other significantly improved with active management In the places and by adding to the diversity of ecosystems future, the metroparks will play an increasingly greater occurring in southern Michigan With active role in providing habitat for rare species and natural management such as prescription burning, invasive communities in southern Michigan Identifying the species control, and woody species removal, these presence of rare species and high quality natural areas communities will continue to contribute significantly to within the metroparks will enable land mangers to the region’s biodiversity in the future protect these natural features and provide naturalists with critical information for educating the public about Another important group of natural communities are the importance of rare species, biodiversity, and land the conifer swamps The conifer swamps at Stony stewardship Creek and Hudson Mills contribute significantly to the

Acknowledgements Funding for the project was provided by the Huron- Michigan Herbarium, for assisting with rare species Clinton Metropolitan Authority and the Michigan identification A sincere thanks is extended to the Department of Natural Resources We are grateful to following MNFI staff: Helen Enander produced all Paul Muelle and Dave Moilanen, HCMA, for their maps contained in this report; Josh Cohen and Claire support and assistance throughout the project We Romanski assisted with field inventories, Mike Penskar thank Roger Bajorek, HCMA Naturalist, for providing and Phyllis Higman assisted with plant identification, valuable natural history information on Stony Creek Dennis Albert helped edit this report, and Michael Metropark We thank Dr Tony Reznicek, University of Fashoway formatted the report

Page-31 Literature Cited Abrams, MD 1998 The red maple paradox: What Farrand, WR, and DL Bell 1982 Quaternary explains the widespread expansion of red maple in geology of southern Michigan Dept of eastern forests? BioScience 48: 355-363 Geological Sciences, The University of Michigan, Albert, DA 1995 Regional landscape ecosystems of Ann Arbor, MI Map Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a working Gleason, HA 1913 The relation of forest distribution map and classification North Central Forest and prairie fires in the Middle West Torreya 13: Experiment Station, Forest Service – US 173-179 Department of Agriculture St Paul, MN Glenn-Lewin, D C, L A Johnson, T W Jurik, A Alverson, WS, DM Waller and SL Solheim 1988 Akey, M Leoschke, and T Rosberg 1990 Fire in Forest too deer: Edge effects in northern central North American grasslands: vegetative Wisconsin Conservation Biology 2: 348-358 reproduction, seed germination, and seedling Abrams, M D, A K Knapp and L C Hulbert 1986 establishment Pp 28-45 in S L Collins and L L A ten year record of aboveground biomass in a Wallace (eds), Fire in North American tallgrass Kansas tallgrass prairie: effects of fire and prairies, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, topographic position American Journal of Botany OK 73: 1509-1515 Grimm, E C 1984 Fire and other factors controlling Abrams, M D and L C Hulbert 1987 Effect of the big woods vegetation of Minnesota in the mid- topographic position and fire on species nineteenth century Ecological Monographs 54: composition in tallgrass prairie in northeast 291-311 Kansas The American Midland Naturalist 117: Herman, KD, LA Masters, MR Penskar, AA 442-445 Reznicek, GS Wilhelm, WW Brodowicz, and Anderson, R C and J E Schwegman 1991 Twenty KP Gardiner 2001 Floristic quality assessment years of vegetational change on a Southern Illinois with wetland categories and computer application barren Natural Areas Journal 11: 100-107 programs for the state of Michigan Michigan Balgooyen, CP and DM Waller 1995 The use of Dept of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, Clintonia borealis and other indicators to gauge Natural Heritage Program Lansing, MI impacts of white-tailed deer on plant in Hulbert, LC 1969 Fire and litter effects in communities in northern Wisconsin, USA Natural undisturbed bluestem prairie in Kansas Ecology Areas Journal 15: 308-318 50: 874-877 Collins, S L and D J Gibson 1990 Effects of fire Kost, MA and D De Steven 2000 Plant community on community structure in tallgrass and mixed responses to prescribed burning in Wisconsin sedge grass prairie Pp 81-98 in S L Collins and L L meadows Natural Areas Journal 20:36-49 Wallace (eds), Fire in North American tallgrass Kost, MA 2001 Potential indicators for assessing prairies, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, biological integrity of forested, depressional OK wetlands in southern Michigan Michigan Natural Comer, PJ, DA Albert, HA Wells, BL Hart, JB Features Inventory, Lansing, MI 69 pp Raab, DL Price, DM Kashian, RA Corner and Knapp, A K 1984 Post-burn differences in solar DW Schuen 1995 Michigan’s presettlement radiation, leaf temperature and water stress vegetation, as interpreted from the General Land influencing production in a lowland tallgrass Office Surveys 1816-1856 Michigan Natural prairie American Journal of Botany 71: 220-227 Features Inventory, Lansing, MI Digital Map Laubhan, M K 1995 Effects of prescribed fire on Curtis, JT 1959 Vegetation of Wisconsin The moist-soil vegetation and macronutrients Wetlands University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI 15:159-166 Daubenmire, R 1968 Ecology of Fire in Grasslands Leach, MK and TJ Givnish 1996 Ecological Advances in Ecological Research 5: 209-66 determinants of species loss in remnant prairies Dorney, JR 1981 The impact of Native Americans Science 273: 1555-1558 on presettlement vegetation in Southeastern McClain, W E, M A Jenkins, S E Jenkins, and J E Wisconsin Transactions of the Wisconsin Ebinger 1993 Changes in the woody vegetation Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 69: 26-36 of a bur oak savanna remnant in central Illinois Natural Areas Journal 13:108-114

Page-32 McCune, B and G Cottam 1985 The successional status of a southern Wisconsin oak woods Ecology 66:1270-1278 McGowan-Stinski, J 1999 The Nature Conservancy, Michigan Chapter, East Lansing, MI Meekins, FJ and BC McCarthy 2001 Effect of environmental variation on the invasive success of a nonindigenous forest herb Ecological Applications 11: 1336-1348 Nuzzo, V 1998 Natural Area Consultants, Groton, NY Reich, P B and M D Abrams et al 1990 Fire affects ecophysiology and community dynamics of Central Wisconsin oak forest regeneration Ecology 71: 2179-2190 Reinartz, JA 1997 Controlling Glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula L) with winter herbicide treatments of cut stumps Natural Areas Journal 17: 38-41 Schmalzer, P A and C R Hinkle 1992 Soil dynamics following fire in Juncus and Spartina marshes Wetlands 12: 8-21 Tester, J R 1989 Effects of fire frequency on oak savanna in east-central Minnesota Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 116: 134-144 Viro, P J 1974 Effects of forest fire on soil Pp 7-45 in T T Kozlowski and C E Ahlgren (eds), Fire and Ecosystems, Academic Press, New York, NY Waller, DM and WS Alverson 1997 The white- tailed deer: a keystone herbivore Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 217-226 Warners, D P 1997 Plant diversity in sedge meadows: effects of groundwater and fire PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 231 pp White, A S 1983 The effects of thirteen years of annual prescribed burning on a Quercus ellipsoidalis community in Minnesota Ecology 64: 1081-1085

Page-33 !"    !" 0   A  GA (  &%& &&% &%& &%& &&% &&% &%& &%& &%& &&% &&% &&% &&% &%& &&% &&% &%& &%& &&% &&% &%& &&% &&% %&% %%& %&& %%& 9: 8  !"0 $     4    % , 
!  8D2D %  %%%      8DD % %    , ,GA GA 8DD ""% "  ,  " %%9 $  8=>>1:8 9%  ,   8 E% "% $ %     ,%8*"" $%  $ " F+ A  ,G %  6 % %%  $ 3++&**  # *#  6 6    6 % # .!! +.& $ $ $%  % % -.) &&%   * !.&#
& */!*%, %  2*
   %   *.&#! &/.*  & * ##**.&#! && %$, 6  $   +  !.& +! & !!+.
)   () +#.* #
! + !# +& + #   , % ' *
 +     + #  +     >   %  !!+! *)'
C > .##*3'
+   '*
! *)'
+#.!.*& !!+33&+#!.!*.+#!.! ##*&+)+ = % $%  &#+* +
&# 23
 &3  ##&& +   +   C     % > > &!#! +   &  +   & .!/+& C +    " +     " &##
)+'
&
 1 1     C > C   =   &
 C &
 +
+# &#* '#!*) > > '

&& > > + &6 *#+#*/
 *
#
  +   +   + &6 + #  ? + &6 > @ ? +   1 ? C C   

34 !"    !" 0   (  &%& &%& &%& &%& &%% &%& &%& &&% &&% &&% &&% &%% &%& &&% &&% &&% &%& &&% &&% &&& &%& &%& &%& &&% %&& %&& %&& %&& %&& %%% %&& %&& 9: 8  !"0 $     4   continued Appendix 1 Appendix  $ % 
#3* & *!#
..&#
$$8* +.&.!**# 6  8  $$% $ %   
 && 6 , 6     6  4*+.# .#.!+* /   , % -.+++5&* * .!!**.    %    %    # )# *& &!#+* & (3'
  %$ %  $ &  , 6 % *' + &.  > *+ + & (6 %   ' *
&#'3 
&(6  6  > (  , 6   ' #
&#' +   > +   +   *)&* %  
!5&)# +3*.&#*+..&
 +   C *+ !' *%$ %  &##
(+5&'#   '*!++ &&*3& ! +.!!.*  +   ? ? +  !* *#.&*   = !* *#.&  +* & + #  + #  +   + # ! 8 &.#+*.* +   .##+.# > !#'#!  "  

 !+3'#!.&* '
+##* !'+3&.)* ? *)'*+.#!3&# && 
& > &  ? = < 3**'&'#*/ !!+'# C H ' #&'#*/     + #  + #  +     + #  >   +    #!+# ' *
 !# > > .!**'# ' #!.*3 > ? C C 0 > =   +     #  > = > >  "$  3
 '
+ &  1   

35 !"    !" 0   (  &%& &%& &&% &%& &%& &&% &&% &&% &&% &%& &&% &&% &&% &%& &%& &%& &%& &%& &%& &&% &&% &%& &%& &&% &&% &&& &%& %&& %%& %%& %&& %&& 9: 8  !"0 $     4   continued  $"$ E 6  %$%  %$, 6 $  %I I"   , 6 %    %$   +.&&3*/&# & &!#&'# *3  )*3  /  + $  $ +   ' # &&6 $$$ &' # && $  $ '.! + '/  
+3 &&  "  + &   $I $ 0 - % &# + +   +  - %$ %  +   *'
C !+.&##  !3* ' # +6  '#&!#'
+   @ 8 '*!
' && + &.
  -.) + &+ 1 > ?   +   #  *
 *
 +-. *%%  +   )++%   H +   !!+.)#+ #% %   +   +   + # & %  + #  & + *) #  *)*.&#&$%    H 0 ' #) > &*+.!
.*! C &6 $ +  = 0 0 &!#&.! 1 > #  + &  *)&3 + #  &3 ' *
&  ##&'#+ #&
 .#*/
+*' + #  *)3
&.&+ >   +   + #  + &  *
+ '# &#3*&&*!+ ? > C +   +   #** *
+
+ &  > H C +   + &  = 1 1 C +   C 0 1      !!+/+ +  +   =    Appendix 1 Appendix

36 !"    !" 0   (  &%& &%& &%& &%& &%& &%& &%& &&% &&% &&% &&% &%& &%& &&% &&% &%& &%& &&% &&% %%& 9: 8  !"0 $     4   continued Appendix 1 Appendix &666 &6J %&6 $ &6 6& 6 $   &*.&&&$% " #% $% $#$ % #%    %  *# *
+
# %  #  +
. .& *
 *
 *
+
*3 *
+
# " . 
&
.$$ %  +
+ && +   &#  *
+
.*!.&.! * +   &).+)  .*!
'./&.!#&.& +  / $ 6  &+ /3  / +#2 .!+ .! +   #5&
+  /    = &&'
!!+&
'# 0 +   +  
     0
   !"#  $*== > +   !!+!.** + 0 C 
*/
## * *)&'**''# ! +*! H &  +*! H   + '/  +     + #  +++33 C   > = + #  1 > #   /+)  > C + &  1 + '/  > ? 0 ; 65 5< &6%   +
 *
+
+   1   

37    !% &'    !%      ,   8 '  0   2%) ,GA GA 8DD  &&% & &&% % &%% & &% & & &% & & &% & & &% & % &&% % &% & & &% & & &&% & &&% % &&% & &&% & && & % &&% & %& % % %% & & %% % % %% & & %% & & %& & & %& % & %& % & %% & & %& & & %& % & %& & & ! + > !%  0   (      4    % , 
    !  8D2D %  %%%      8DD % % ""% "  ,  " %%9 $  8=>>1:8  E% "% $ %     ,%8*"" $%  $ " F+ A  ,GA  GA, 9%    %  6 %   $% %%  $%$"$**  # *#$%  %    6 6    6 %  2*
 * !.&#
 $ %  % & */!* 3' 
!* $ , 6    +.#$ % % $  $"$  *.&#! * ##**.&#! &&% $%  $# .!! +.& &
+ 
 + # !*'
 $ $ # !*'
 $%    % % +
+! .+
+.#%   +   + #   , + #  !!+.
)   %  () +#.* # +   > + #   6 " +   +   C +   ' *
 +  &#.+ $ %  % !!+! *)'
= .##*3'
+   %$, 6  $ > C +   (+&3$6  %   1 0 C 1   , % &#+* +
&#     &!#&# '*/
&# +   +   H ##*&+)+ *&+##* +    %    *.( +# && 0 +   > 0 &
 0 C &  +   +   +   *. +   1 .*3*
'
&
 +  C > C +   +   = = +   + &6 C C 0 C = + #  + &6 ? H 38    !% &'    !%   '  0   2%) &%% & &&% & &&% & &&% % && & % && & % && & % &&% & &% & & &&% & &&% & &%% & &% & & &&% % %% % & %& & & %& & & %& & & %% & & %& & & %% % & %% % & %% & & %& & & %& & & %& % % %& & & %& & & %& & & %% & & %% & & %& & % ! + > !%  0   (      4   continued  6   +.# )3 + #  C  , $ %   $ % +#.!.*& %%  *.&% $%  &##
*.# %    +'(&3# & .!/+& .##+.&$ , 6   & ) )3$  $    " $$$ +
+# &#* '#!*) "$  ++#5&+ #&
   "  /  +5&' $ %  +   &#
#
*2    68 + #  + &  *#+#*/

 '

$$%  
$$6  $ +   & *)3
 '
+ &  C
$$8 > + #  3
 '

& 
 '

% ,   < 4*+.# C  +**
 +   &'3# )# ** +.&.!**# = *.&#
*/
# )# * +   @ I $ ,  + '/  .#.!+* / '#+ +   6    > C *+*' $    ? # )# *  $$% $ ' *
3! C + &  %   + &  ? C  $6 $ " +   + &  !!+&# * 6 , 6   'G.+ + .&  $ %  (3'
++.**+   6  = = + &  0   *' + &.  &&*/
 *
+
1 &  + #  ' *
&#'3 + &  ' #& +   +   > C +   > +   *)& +   > < +   +   0 ? > +   ? ? = + #  + #  C H    Appendix 2 Appendix 39    !% &'    !%   '  0   2%) &&% % &% & & &&% & &&% & &&% % &%% & &% & % &% & & && & & && & & &&% % &&% & &&% & &&% % &% & & &&% & && & % && & % &&% & &% & & %& % & %& & & %& % % %& % % %& % & %& & & %& % & %& & & %& % & %& & & %& & & %% & & ! + > !%  0   (      4   continued    , % 
& + #  = $   $ $ * .!!**.    $$% $ $%   *!
   %  ' #
&#' ++.*
&#' %    . 
&#' .+
 /3 ' *
 + .!$$, 6     !** &.*/ ' #/+& %$ %  +3*.&#& &!#+* & ' #4* + 
3* *3 %$8 '*!++ &&3 .!#.! (.&*!# ) +  
!5&)#   %$ %  $ +   !!+(+5&'#3 .!#.! .+
*
#  +   $  %  !!+(+5&'#   , 6 % > > (6 %   C &##
(+5&'#(6  6  +   ')'
+     + #  ?  * %   +   > *    +     + &  &##
#.!+#* , 6 %  *+..&
 H > 1 > ? +  *E%   < &.#+*.* +   .##+.#*   H > '
+##** + /.*  & C !#'# > *)'*+.#*     "  !& +   ? *%   ' # && C *%    .+


.&*/ .##+
 & = #.* # . *4 + &# +   > 
+**' +   + #  + #    *& )
**  C +     +   ? +   > C C +   @ > C + #  +   ? @ ? ;    Appendix 2 Appendix 40    !% &'    !%   '  0   2%) &&% & &&% & &% & % &&% & &% & & &&% & &&% & &&% & &% & & &%% & && & % &&% % && & & &&% & &&% % && & % &% & & &% & & &% & & &%% % %% & % %% & & %% & & %& & & %& & & %% & & %% & & %& & & %& & & %& & & %& & & %& & & ! + > !%  0   (      4   continued *+ !' !'+3&.)* &  > *$%% *3& ! +.!!.* *3#.!&*   !+3'#!* *#.&*!  $$%  !+#2/ **& .**&&# !  "   + 
*&&#  %  !+&
' #&'#*/ %$ 6  %I I" ! +#   , 6 %  $    /  +     % ' *
 !#     +   &+& # /+  %%  *  5&+  &&  !&& '.! > #+& & > ?  3
#+ .$  $ 
+3 &&6  $" $ > + '/ 6  $%  &3! + '/ 6 $, 6  $ +   +
*. && +     *2  !3* )+#.)3*. &&   +  C &*!+&*   $
'+3&*!+&* +   1> C #+# ** +# (.!&
+   = #+# **# +    $ & */3 +-. * >     = &'!##+'
C ##+'
  >        -.) + &+  , 6   +   . . #
 +-. * H   "  + #  +   > > +   *
 *
 +-. * +   C     + #  ' #*##. @ @ ' *
*)3 )3 +   ? 0 > + #  # + #  > 1> +   ? 1 + #  1 = +   + &  = C + &  = ?    Appendix 2 Appendix 41    !% &'    !%   '  0   2%) &% & & &%% % &% & & &% & & &%% & &%% % && & % &&% & &% & & &%% % &&% & &&% & &% & & &&% % &%% % &&% & &&% & &% & & &&% % && & % &% & & &&% & &&% % &&% & %& & & %& % & %% % & %% % & %% & & %& & & %% & % %% & & ! + > !%  0   (      4   continued   $I $ )++ +  > %  $$, 6  $- %- %% !!+!.+# +! +#- %$% % - %$  6- %  - %  - %,   +  !+.&##  .)  +-. +) ' #) &'!' #)!+.&+ .*6  !!+.)#+%  
' +-. +) C   *&&3.)#+%   
) *))&!.*# *6  %%  + #  + #  + #  # %    )*3 ' *
 &3 &!#&.!% %   !.*# *&&$%%   &  + #  ' *
&&" $ + #  !!+*)3 &#.& + & &  %  @ < > C *)&3&% %  &%    "  > .#*/
+*' *)3
&.&+ *
3& %  + #  C C &$    %$ + #  ? &$, &&&& + &  &  + # &$%  %$ * 4
5&# *&$%    !

 &).** '* &&   
) +   H &$%  " + &  C &6%   + &  > 1 + &  *
+ '# +   = H *&& )+
1 + &  '#&+  &#3*&&*!+&* ? 0 *&!3*' 1 +
 *
+
+   + #  +   +   +   0 + &6 +   C +   ; C C C H +   C +   +   C 1 1> C    Appendix 2 Appendix 42    !% &'    !%   '  0   2%) &&% & &% & & &% & & &&% % &% & & &&% % &&% % &&% % &% & & &%% & &&% % &&% & &&% & &&% % &% & & && & & &&% % &&% & &% & % %% & & %% & & %% & & %& % % %& & & %& & & %% & & %& & & ! + > !%  0   (      4   continued &666  *# *
+
+   0 &6J %&6 6&6%& 6 $   &  % &  "&   *3 *
+
&$% "  &#  *
+
#% $% $ &'3 *
+
+
+ &&#$ % #%    %  +

+ *
&5#&&&# %   *

+.# &).+) #  +
. .& .*!
'.#  $  %$ . + &&# "  &+ /3 +  .$$ %  +   #5&
+   &&'
!!+&
'#. %% +  /&.!#&.& & +# +/  % $, 6 %$ 0 +  / $ 6 +   ? C / .+.!.*.& C !!+!.** + +  / +#2 .!&& .! 
*/
## * ! +*! + &  .*/5&# H /   +   ' #&'**''# +   0 /    +##*4 $$ % $ H .+ .&+3  4E  +++33 + '/  1> ; &  C
     $ +   +   + #   )*3&
   !% &' #  $*;1     > = !!+*./ *# > C + #  +   1  /+)  C > > *
+*2+
& < + &  1 +   +   + &  + '/  ? +   1 1 0 0 H <= < ;< 5    Appendix 2 Appendix 43 (  "  
    #   '  #!  #    >   '     ,   8 # >   '  #) / & ,GA GA 8DD  # 0   '  #/ # ) ' 
 $ &%&&&&& &&&&&&% &&&&&%& &&&&&&& &&%&&&& &&&&%&& &%&&&&& &&%&&&& &&%&&&& &&&&&&% &%&&&&& &%&&&&& &%&&&&& &%%&%&& &&%&&&& &%%%&&& %&&& &&& %%& & &%% %&&&%&& %&&&%&& %&&& &&& %&&& &&& %&&&%%& %%& & && & %&&& &%& %&&& &&& '8?@4#     '  #>     4   #***##' #&# +   C  % ,  !!  8D2D %  %%%      8DD % %    9%1   $""$  *
3+ +  ?  E% "% $ %     ,%8*"" $%  $ " F+ A  ,GA  GA, ""% "  ,  " %%9 $  8=>>1:8 %   $% %%  $% %% $%$"$%    $ $6 $ 8 & */!* 3++& 
!* 3'6    %%$ &. !***  # *#$ % 8 -.) && !
+ +$%  %   
+3 &*+
'# && * !.&#
  6 6   + #    !+3 $  %  +  $ %  + #   +.# + #  +  # .!! +.& < = &/ 3 +   $ $ .+!+    *.&#! +     $%   C 1 H % %   > 1 > @     !!+.
) .+
+.#   %  +   () +#.* #    "  +   + #     , 6 ' *
 +  +   +   &'!! *)'
   % C    $  < C +   &#+* +
&# +#+ &# > +   &
*' + &# +'+ *+
&# C +   +   +   +   0 +   &'!&# H +   = ; C = 0 +   C 44 (  "  
    #   '  #!  #    >   '  # >   '  #) / & # 0   '  #/ # ) ' 
 $ &%&&&&& &%&&&&& &&&%&&& &%%&&&& &&%&&&& &%&&&&& &%&&&&& &%%&&&& &%&%&%& &%&&&&& &%&&&&& &%%&&%& &&%%&&% &&&&&%& &&&&&&& &&&%&%& &&&&%&& &%&&&&& &%&&&&& &&%&&&& &%&&&%& %&&& &&& %%& & &%& %&&& &&& %%%%&& & %&&&%%& %%& & &%% %&&& &%& %&&& &&% %&&& &&& '8?@4#     '  #>     4   continued     $ %$ %   $ %  % %$, 6  $ $% $6  %      &'!# )&
   ##*&+)+ *&+##* #**&'!! *
 I  *.( +# && %$ +     %  %   + 
! +  +   %  @    !&! *
+   +    , % C &
 + &  C     &
 &
 0   %  C +    %    < &
 &
 +   % " $ H &
 6  &
 ,  H +#.!.*& *. &
 %%  &##
)+'
 %%   &
  ##+.# )3 + &6 6  .##+.&% "  + &6 + &6 @ % $%   +.# )3   + &6    % = + #  C + &6 & ) )3 %    + &6 
.
> + #  H + &6 < C #.#*
? '#!*) C + #  + #  + &6 + &  H '#!*) '

&& + &6 = ++#5&+ #&
 @ C C ? +   +   +   +   +   + #  = C @ ? @ <  &/.*  & !!+3 &  > Appendix 3 Appendix 45 (  "  
    #   '  #!  #    >   '  # >   '  #) / & # 0   '  #/ # ) ' 
 $ &&%&&&& &&&&%&& &&%&&&& &%&&&&& &&&&%&& &%%%&&& &&&%&&% &&&&&&& &&&&%&& &&&&&%& &&&&&%& &&&&%%& &&&%&&& &%&&&&& &&&&%&& &%%%&&& &%%%&&& %&&&%%& %%%&%&% %&&& &%& %&&& &&& %&&& &&& %%%&%& & %&&& &&& %&&& &&& %&&& &&& %&&&%&% %&%& &&& '8?@4#     '  #>     4   *#+#*/

 '
*.&#
*/
# ) # * + #  C +   C &&*/
 *
+
+   0 continued    &3# 2 +#!
 *
+**& 6 , 6    $ %    6  ' *
&#'3 ' #& &  *)& > +   = + #  + #  C H   %  +/** !(* &   " * *3#/**3  '
 $$$ "  "$    $ % 
..&# >
$$6  $ & *)3
 '

$$8 *' + 
 '
+  
% , 3
 '
4*+.# -.+++5&*
  %   +*.& ** < + #  +3
 && + & * +.&.!**#% 8 .#.!+* /   & +.*&'
+$%   # )# * + &  < ' *
3! = $, 6 % > $%  $   +  + & I $",  1  6   6 >   $$% $ +
' *
3 &  C & ).&  $ " $ C /  + ' *
3  ++!+' **' +    $6 $ " '#&# * > +   +   (3'

 &3*+ !!++&# +   0 +   ? @ +   ? + &6 @ +   +   +   ? ? ?  $$ %$ &'!# &#* +   H Appendix 3 Appendix 46 (  "  
    #   '  #!  #    >   '  # >   '  #) / & # 0   '  #/ # ) ' 
 $ &%&&&%& &&%&&&& &&&&%&& &&%&&&& &%&&&&& &%%%&&& &&&&%%& &&%&&&& &%&&&&& &%&&&&& &%&&&&& &&%&&&& &&%&&&& &%&&&&& &&%&&&% %&&& &&% %%& & && & %&&& &&& %&&& &%& %&&& &%& %&&& &&& %&&&%%& %&&& &&& %&&& && %&&& &%& %&%%&&& %&&& &&& %&&&%&& %%%& && % '8?@4#     '  #>     4   continued    $ $ $% %E  $  %  $    %    $$% $ $%   . 
&#' %    ' #' *
*   $ %% &# 
&#' &!** + 
 +# +$$, 6   ' *
 + .! $ $  +   +   +   66  ' #/+& %$ %  )+#.)3# < ?   %   ' #4* '*!++ && C +     + #  &+4'
+   $  %  #**&.+*' , 6 % C .+
*
# (6  6  +   ? *
+&* ; ( % %% +   +  * %   ? + & *  %  &##
#.!+# +   ##*.& && 1 *  E +   H .&*$ $  +   C C * %  &.#+*.* +   C '
+##* *)'*+.#*%   +   +   = * $ C * % C 1> .# && #!)* % %*+ !' &!**
.)'

+**' + #  !&*4 + &# +   !'+3&.)* #*.**   **  +   ? C +   &  
+3&.)* +   +   @ +   + #  +   < > C @ 0 ? + '/  C +   C 1>    , % 
& + #  = Appendix 3 Appendix 47 (  "  
    #   '  #!  #    >   '  # >   '  #) / & # 0   '  #/ # ) ' 
 $ &&%&&&& &%%&&%& &&&&%&& &&%&&&& &%&&&&& &&%&&&& &&%&&&& &&&&&&% &&%&&&& &%%&&&& &%%&&&& &%&&&&& &%%&&&& &&%&%&& &%&&&&& &&%&%&& &%&&&&& &%%&&&& &&&&%%& &&&%&&& &%&&&&& %&%& &&& %&&& &&% %&&& &&& %&&& &&& %&&%&&& %&&&%%& %&%& &%& %&&&%&& '8?@4#     '  #>     4   +'
G+! + #  C !!+'# .+
+   = continued    *% " *3& ! +.!!.*  !+3'#*$%I " *3#.!&*  ! $$%  !+#  # +#+. *'
'*
*&&#  .**&&# !+#& #!.&* +
!3*' +  !  66$     +  !  6$%  ! +#   %  = &! +# +   1> > $ E%   !&' *
# !#3 > $ E 6  *3&# + && ? ' #!.*3$  6 , 6   +   6 &+& # /+  3&'# *3 1>  6% &!#&'# *3   +    %I I"   # %  %  > 0 3*+ +      % /  +  +   >  6$   '+ > % " +  0 ? &&+&&.&$ &'!#+3  
+3 && + '/ 6  $%  = + +) 
6 $$$ +   +  C 6 $  6 $, 6  $ +  
'+3&*!+&* < +   '#&!#'
+   C *'
> '# +   '*!
' && < (.!&
H + &  C +   +   +   H ? 0 +   +   > 1 +   C ? *%$ %  Appendix 3 Appendix 48 (  "  
    #   '  #!  #    >   '  # >   '  #) / & # 0   '  #/ # ) ' 
 $ &%&&&&& &&%&&&& &&%&&&& &&&&&%& &&%&&&& &%&&&&& &%&&&&& &&%&&&& &%%%&%& &%&&&&& &&%&&&& &&&&%&& &&&&&%& &&&&%&& &&&&&&% &&%&&&& &%%&&&& &&&&%&& &%%&&&& &&&&%%& %&%& &&& %&&&%&& %&&& &&& %%%& && & %&%&%%& %&&& &&& %&&&%%& %&&& &&& %&&&%&& %&&& &&% '8?@4#     '  #>     4   *
*/
.)#+ + &  < continued    !+.&## !+.&+ .* !!+.)#+ % %%8 *&&3.)#+   # &!.*# * ).& %  &  > %   !.*# *&$ %  3**'&& > &% &% &3& 6 
'&3 + &6 &'!&&8 & & %%   *)3
&.&+ #'#
) 1> & %6 6  +   > 3' **' +   .&&3' **' +   + &  1 +   *)&+)# ? + &  *)' **' ; *)&+)# 1 ' **' C + &  +   + &  +   ; < + #  1 = C  $  "  %  $.+**/.*  &      -.) + &+  $I $ *'+.+**%  $$, 6  $ &.3 +-. *- % *
 *
 +-. *- %% !!+!.+# +! +#- %$% %  + &  +   )++- %   + #  +   ' *
*)3 +  - %,   1> C $  " = 1 > .) + #  ' #) &'!' #) +  
) *)) = + #  > + #  < + #  + #  C + #  C H C   ##+'
+ #  1 Appendix 3 Appendix 49 (  "  
    #   '  #!  #    >   '  # >   '  #) / & # 0   '  #/ # ) ' 
 $ &&%&&&& &&&&&&& &&%%&&& &&&&&&% &&%%&&% &&%&&&& &%%&&&& &%&&&&& &&%&&&& &%&&&&& &&%&&&& &&%&&&& &%&&&&& &&&&%&& &&%&&&& &%&&&&& &%%&&&& &&%&&&& &&%&&&& &&%&&&& %&&&%&& %%%& &%& %&%& &&& %&&& &&& %%%%&%& %&&&%%% %%& &%%& %&&& &&& %&&& &&& '8?@4#     '  #>     4   &#3*&&*!+ &* +   C continued    &$8&6 $&6%  &666 &6 &6 &6  #** *
+
+
 *
+
&6 6 +  &6 6 *# *
+
& 6 $      *
+
&  %    +  &6 $$ +   &'! *
+


**5& *
+
&  " 1 &$% "  +   &#  *
+
1 +
+ && +  &3 + /.*  & .  *
+
+  #% $% $ +   
&& 0 #% $%$ < &).+)  H & +.!!&&#  6    !!+* * H *

+.# +  #    +   .*!
'.#$ %  
+#%    %  +   0 C *3!
'. +   +   + ! H !&+ +   &   &+ /3 +  + &  0 +   H C &&'
> H < ; +  + '/  + #  = = C &% %  6 &%  ,  &6 %& %  #&-.&$    %$&$%  %$&$%    .*.&   
) &* +** + &6 *
+ '# *&& )+
C +   +   +   +   + &6 C H C 0 C &" $ &&&& + #  C Appendix 3 Appendix 50 (  "  
    #   '  #!  #    >   '  # >   '  #) / & # 0   '  #/ # ) ' 
 $ &%%&&&& &%&&&%& &&%&&&& &%&&&&& &&&%&&& &&%&&&& &%&&&&& &&%&&&& &&&&&%& &&%&&&& %%%%%&% %&&&%%& %&%& &&& %&&&%&% '8?@4#     '  #>     4   continued    #%   , #3+ .&# * # ".$$ %  +'*/
## *. % 8  &+&.!  /    /  $ %/ $  $ > / $ 6 
*/
## * ! +*!/ $, 8 $ % $ + &  *

'# +   ! &&.  +'
/ *.// + &!#''
/    H 4 $$ % $ 1 +++3346 6% + #  + &  +  
     $  )*3&
   ' ##  $*6 +   ? +   H  .&+3 1 ' #!&  /+)  / *# ? + &  + &  + &  ? C + '/  0 +   0 <6 1> +   <1 <  5= 5  Appendix 3 Appendix 51 E    ,   8 E
BC/D3  GA 8DD ""% " ( 20A ' >#0 /0 #0
 # !#  1# / /#  > > 1 = C 1 @ H > 1 ? C C C C 0     #  #  #  #         #            4   /  & # . 2 3 - ' 4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  ' + & ! &' &! &# &!
! &' &'! 
!* & */!* &. !* 3 !
+ + '#*+# + * !.&#
'
+!+   # !*'
& 01!

       %  $  I   * ##**.&#! && $ !%   $ "   I 
**5&3&     *.&#!   $ 6  % , &    !  8D2D %  %%%      8DD % %  6 6      %    +.# $  I    %      2*
 6 6 %  6         & $   
     * '    +    %            % "% $ %     ,%8*"" $%  $ " F+ A  ,GA  GA, ,GA 9%5   ,  " %%9 $  8=>>1:8&  $A  ,  A  %   8  &  9  +      ,! ' !%   & ' !%   & !%   & #$ %  & ' !%  &  &  &  $ %    (.+3 %    % %%   % %%  %$" %   $  3++&$ **  # *# -.) &&$        $   $ ,   01!* '   &  %   52 E 
BC/D3 ( 20A ' >#0 /0 #0
 # !#  1# / /#  > > 0 0 0 C C < C C H 1 C = 0 C C ? H > @ = < C C 0 H @ ? 1 0 ? =    6 6 6                                     #  #  &               & & & 4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    + '+ *+
&# .+
+.# +
+! *& + 
 + & )+
() +#.* # ' *
 +  &'!! *)'
!!+! *)'
+ *
3 & */3&*+'#    *&+##* ##*&+)+ *)!.&#
  ++&3*/+  ##&& &
 &
   $ $   $  $   , %             6 6   continued    !&***'    %       %  "       3**'    6    %  %   *.( +# &&  $   !&! *
%   ' *
*.! + %$  6  % &'!&#     %      .##*3'
6 $%   $ % 6    %$,      $""$ $      $ % % %     I    !.& +! &$ &!#!        %  %$  $   $%   % % ' *
&& ** %    %   ,     $   &#+* +
&#   .&#.+    (+&3 &!#&#    #***##' #&# $ %  &  && +  +    C$  $   $       & + &&   &
     ,     Appendix 4 Appendix 53 E
BC/D3 (  20A ' >#0 /0 #0
 # !#  1# / /#  > > > H C C C ? @ ? = ? H ? < C C H < C ? < = 0 = 1 ? 1 1> 1>             6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6     & & & & & & & & & & & & #  #  #                      + #  + &6 4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 3  &
 &
 & ) )  +#* ##&'#&##
)+'
23
 &3 '/    '#!*) '

&&   &#.# &#* &'!# &#* & + .#3
 '
&
      

$  &
  continued  %    6 6 , %   &!**++#5&    &
    &
    &
         &
     %   % " $, *.  ##+.# )3  ,  " *
#
       %   &
 +#.!.*& 3&+#!.! *.+#!.! % "  '#!*)   *&#.& .*# % $%     %  %  %    $%  $$ %  $ , 6    %   ++#5&+ #&
    "  '
/  +5&' *#+#*/
 + '/  ?  %                          %  , &# #*
'
  &
 .*3*
'
&
 &
 &
 Appendix 4 Appendix 54 E
BC/D3 (   20A ' >#0 /0 #0
 # !#  1# / /#  > > > = < 1       C = C ? C C H > ? H C H C > ?     ? ? 0 H = C H     = C ? @       &  #  &  &                                 #    #  #  #      4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  +   & *)3
 '
3
 '
4*+.# .**#+ 
 &&#'*/
##'#   # )# *   & +.*&'
+ / +'
+ .#.!+* /'#&# * (3'
!!++&# &  &&*/
 *
+
! + ' *
&#'3 ' #& *)& 
& . 
&#'    $  $         , %     * $ $    continued 6  "   8 &# *    8 '#+ # 

   6   $ " 6     6   "   "  "  6 6  %   %       $ &#
& *
+      $ %   %   +'#  ,     ++.**+   $$%    $  %   *' + &.       6 6      $",   $        6   I I   $$  
    # &** + ** +    "  "$       *' + 
 '

#3* & *!#
  %  
$$  
+#.&! 
% ,
    "

#
 +) .#*/
##'#

* +.&.!**# ' *
3! .+
*/
&.+
'       $      $ %        $ $% %E  ' #' *
*      Appendix 4 Appendix 55 E    
BC/D3    ( 20A ' >#0 /0 #0
 # !#  1# / /#   > C > C ? ? 1 @ ? C < H > C = C C 0 1 0 ? C @ C ; ? ? >        =
                 &      &  &      #      #    #  &    #      +   4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  ) .+
& + + 
&#'  +#
&#' ' *
 + .! '*!++ && ' #4* &.#+*.* *)'*+.# &#&#!!
.& 

 #!  $  "  #.* # $    $ continued 6    .+


.& +        &##
#.!+#  8 ')'
   6     

 % #*.**  %  *& )
**  6    % 6  , E%   %%  %$ %  &*
#  .+
*
#    %  %   '
+##* %         *&*5&#'3*
      6    %   %$ "%$ *
+&* &.3(+5&'# +   * .&#.!#.& * .! 
 /#*   E &  & .&   $% %     $$%  ( %"" $ "        $%   $ ,  $$, ##* +# +  & &!#+* & ' #/+&  %$
!5&)# .*/+& +   C $ ( ( %   ( %    (  * *  % *
.
*35&.&* #.& *      * * +  *+ !' *%$ %  1 !'+3&.)*  &  !!+'#   , %  , !  +**3 Appendix 4 Appendix 56 E   
BC/D3 (  20A ' >#0 /0 #0
 # !#  1# / /#  > > > > = > ? C 0 < < = =     ? C C C < C       C > C @ > ? C H 0 > > 1> 1>         '/                 #      '/            &    #  #  4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +   + ) #+. *'
)
! #'# + + .**&&# +
!3*' ' #&'#*/   !+&
   &5& + !&' *
# !#3  3&'# *3  ++!++ +'
G+! /  +  + 
 +       " I      $  "   I  continued 6     3*  " +&+   6   % &&+&&.& I  6  6 6       *2  $$%   $ *'
I   "   $   
 ,  6  % %    *  ! $$%   !* *#.&  +* &!  3**'&'#*/   !3&# && 
& %   #!+# &+& # /+     *3& ! +.!!.*  !+3'#*$%I " !* *#.&* '*
*&&# !  ,    +  !  !   1>!  " !   ' *
! +# $ E% $ % $$  ' *
 !# $        % %  %     $       % &'!#+3    3
#+ . 
+3 &&          +  #+& & < )+#.)3*. && ' # +   *3#.!&*  *.!#+&, %  # !#3 '
*+
*2   Appendix 4 Appendix 57 E
BC/D3 ( 20A ' >#0 /0 #0
 # !#  1# / /#  > > > 0 ? H ? H H > = 1 1 = C = = > C C <      C H > < H C 1 ? = 1 H 1>                #  #  #  &      #  &     #  #  #  #  &  &  &  &    &      +   4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +   ) ) #+
'3 !3* &*!+&* '#&!#'
(.!&
*&!* )3 )++ !!+!.+# +! +# *) *
*/
.)#+ !!+.)#+ *&&3.)#+&'! &3 !.*# *& #  &  + &  .##.  $  $  $ $ $     6 $             *
 *
 +-. * 6 continued   $     I  ' *

&3   6 6 6 $ % 
'&3     &'!&    $"   $$  $,   $ %   %$%  %  &#!&+ *. $"   $ ##+'
-.) + &+ 6 6 6      %  $$,     !+.&+ .*      $      .*.&*     "  % ' #*          ,   $ &.3 +-. *  - % #  - %% ' #*##. - %   ' *
*)3 - %,    % ,$  " !+.&##  ' #) &'!' #) &!***'
 
 &!.*# * "    %  % %   .#*/
+*' *)3
&.& Appendix 4 Appendix 58 E  
BC/D3 (  20A ' >#0 /0 #0
 # !#  1# / /#  0        C 1 1 ; 1 1 < = C C C C 1 H 0 0 = < H H ? ? C ? ; ; H       C > > >   6 6       &  &  &  &  &    #  & &                         #    &    &    +   4  + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + '  &* &&*&+
' **   *)&+)# &&&& '#&+   ##&'#+ #&
#** *
+
  ! +!.+# +& !!+.
*

+.# !!+
+
* +      $    %   $   continued       *
+
  *# *
+
 %  !!+&).** 6 6 "  &).+)     '* && 6  6     &'! *
+
   % *3 *
+
 6 J   6 6  $ "%   $   
*/
 *
+
  *
 *
 *
+
  *
+


**5& *
+
%   ' **'  " 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 %  $    ,  % .*.&  6       " !!+'
     ,$ /**
&5#&&& !
'&'# 6     &% &%   & &% &% & & & % &"  5&' **' &% 3' **' .&&3' **' & % &$, &$%   & *
+ '# & &#3*&&*!+ & & & & & & $ % & 6 $   & & & &  & +
+ &&#2.!  +* +   H &*+.!
.*! & &  .!2#&**  & Appendix 4 Appendix 59 E 
BC/D3 (  20A = 5; 1; 1= F F1 5= 1 F= 5 1= ; ' >#0 /0 #0
 # !#  1# / /#  > > 0 H     < C = ? C =      H C > 1 1     1 C H H ? > 0 0 H 1>            #  #  '/  &      #          &  '/  &    + &  + &  4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  $*<5     $# 

'3)+ '*/
## *   ##* ++33 .*!
'. *3!
'. + + ! +*! +  /* + +  )*3& '
*.3 $   
+ $             $    6  % 6  continued     !&+ 6   "  **'# $$ %  6     /+)      , %     %%  ' #
    J  " 
*/
## *  #  #% $  /&.!#&.&/  % $, 6 %$/ $% "$ !!+!.** + .*/5&# !**/
'   +  
   <      #% $% # # # # #$ % #%    % #   # * .!
. .!  &+ /3 #3+ .&# *  &&'
.$$ % * ##**/. %% &#*' . % /%% $% $$   /   &!# .& *

'# / $  / .+.!.*.&/   4  4E  .+ .& &  *
+*2+
&
   #%   ,   &+&.! .,  Appendix 4 Appendix 60 Appendix 5 Rare Plant and Natural Community Abstracts for: · Ginsing · Goldenseal · Oak Barrens · Relict Conifer Swamp · Southern Wet Meadow · Prairie Fen

For additional rare species and natural community abstracts go to: http://wwwdnrstatemius/wildlife/heritage/mnfi/abstractshtm

61 62 Panax quinquefolius L ginseng

State Distribution

Photo by Michael R Penskar

Best Survey Period

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Status: state threatened, federal species of concern (Laycock 1978)! Currently, American ginseng export is regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Global and state rank: G4/S2S3 Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) agreement! It can only be exported if it is shown to be Other common names: “seng” legally obtained and determined not detrimental to the Family: Araliaceae survival of the species! States are given control over the management and certification for export of ginseng within Taxonomy: There are eight species of ginseng in the their boundaries and are required to develop and world, seven in the genus Panax and one in the genus implement a ginseng management program! They are Eleutherococcus, the latter an Asian group of shrubs! Only required to submit specific export findings on a three year three species, however, are widely used in herbal schedule! medicine, for which ginseng is widely known! These include American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius), native to State distribution: Michigan occurrences of ginseng are North America, Oriental ginseng (P ginseng) native to concentrated in the southern three tiers of counties in the Manchuria and Korea, and Siberian ginseng Lower Peninsula, primarily in woodlots and wooded (Eleutherococcus [Acanthopanax] senticosus), native to coastal dunes, where populations typically are small, Siberia (Castleman 1990)! Populations of the latter two sometimes consisting of only a few individuals! The small species, once abundant throughout Siberia, Korea, and population size is likely due to extensive woodlot grazing Central China, have seriously declined due to intensive and to the considerable exploitation of this species for the collection over centuries! This decline, in part initiated the ginseng trade over the years! There are scattered advent of the trade in North American ginseng! occurrences of ginseng in the northern Lower Peninsula counties, including the northwestern region where it is Total range: Panax quinquefolius ranges from the quite rare, and the thumb region where it is infrequent! province of Quebec west to Minnesota and south to Documented occurrences in the thumb region often Georgia and Oklahoma! It has declined considerably include a wider age-range of plants than in the south, throughout much of its range due to exploitation of the usually including the presence of some large, old root for export to the Far East! Although it is listed as individuals! In the Upper Peninsula, ginseng has been threatened in the State of Michigan, there has been found only in Gogebic County! sufficient concern over its status in the United States such that the U!S! Endangered Species Scientific Authority Recognition: Panax quinquefolius grows from a fleshy banned its export during the 1977-78 season from all states and often forked taproot for which it is widely known! except Michigan! Michigan was exempted because of its At maturity it has a single whorl (growing from the same permit system governing the collection of ginseng point along the stem) of 3-5 palmately compound leaves

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

63 ginseng, Page 2

each with 3-5 stalked and toothed leaflets! The leaflets americana), and bellwort (Uvularia grandiflora)!” are widest just before they reach the abruptly pointed tip; Honsowetz adds red maple (Acer rubrum) and white ash typically there are 3 large and 2 small leaflets! A central (Fraxinus americana) to the list of associates! He further cluster (umbel) of small greenish-white flowers rises states that ginseng grows best in heavy soils (clay mixed above the leaves and produces bright crimson, berry-like with gravel) covered with leaf mold or rotted wood! It also fruits at maturity, each bearing from 1-3 seeds! Ginseng is grows in clay, sandy-loam or sometimes silt; however, the perhaps most frequently confused with Virginia creeper roots of plants growing in these soils may be considered (Parthenocissus spp!), one of its most frequent associates, lower in quality by ginseng collectors! due to its similar palmately compound leaves with five leaflets! As can be seen in the upper right-hand corner of Biology: Ginseng is a long-lived perennial herb, the photo, the leaflets of Virginia creeper are more germinating from seed in early spring 18-22 months after coarsely toothed than those of ginseng and are of equal the seeds drop to the ground! The embryo is inactive size! Ginseng is also easily confused with such look-alike during the first winter, matures during the next growing plants as black snakeroot species (Sanicula spp!) and season, and then endures a second winter before it is able honewort (Cryptotaenia canadensis), especially when to germinate (Hu et al! 1980)! A special underground stem plants are in juvenile stages characterized by a single leaf known as a verticle rhizome sits on top of the main root with three leaflets! Ginseng can be distinguished from and sends up the above-ground stem each year! During the these look-alikes by the small unbranched hairs along the first year, it grows to approximately 2-5 inches and major veins of its leaves; these are usually lacking in the produces one leaf (commonly termed a “prong”) composed other species! Another look-alike plant is wild sarsaparilla of 2-3 leaflets! Additional leaves and leaflets are produced (Aralia nudicaulis) which is of superficially similar size during successive years as the plant ages, depending upon and form! The leaves of wild sarsaparilla, however, are environmental conditions! Typical mature plants develop alternate (arising from different points along the stem) three leaves, each with five leaflets! Older plants may instead of whorled and the leaflets are arranged in either produce four or even five leaves! Flowering may occur side of a central axis (pinnately compound) instead of during the fourth year; however, often it is not until the radiating from a central point! Finally, ginseng is also fifth year or later that mature fruit is produced! Flowering easily confused with young hickory seedlings which have occurs during June and July, with the flowers developing similar palmately-compound leaves and can at first glance small green fruits in late July and early August! In late appear herbaceous! August and September the fruits ripen, becoming bright crimson in color, with each berry-like fruit containing one Best survey time/phenology: Although Panax to two or rarely three seeds! quinquefolius can, upon close inspection, be recognized during the entire growing season, it is much more difficult When the above-ground stem dies with the onset of frost, a to find amongst its associates when not in flower or fruit! scar remains on the rhizome where the stem was attached! It is most reliably sought during the flowering and fruiting Each successive above-ground stem leaves a scar above stages which typically occur from June to October! This the last year’s scar and by counting these scars the species, however, is notably difficult to find even during approximate age of the plant can be determined! The mass these stages according to the numerous accounts of of the root increases with each successive year such that collectors! the size of the above-ground plant serves to predict the size of the root (Anderson et al! no date)! Habitat: This species is predominantly found in rich hardwoods, often on slopes or ravines, ranging even into Known pollinators of ginseng include halicted sweat bees swampy portions! It also occurs in wooded dune hollows (Dialictus spp!) and syrphid hover-flies (Toxomerus and leeward slopes along the Lake Michigan shoreline! geminatus) (Duke 1980)! Ginseng has also been shown to According to Duane Honsowetz, a long time ginseng be capable of self-pollination! Data as to the relative hunter in Michigan, Floyd Swink provides the best proportion of each breeding system for sample populations description of its habitat in Plants of the Chicago Region have been mixed! It is likely correlated to local (1974): “in rich woods, with greater occurrence on north- environmental conditions and availablility of pollinators! facing slopes! Associates include sugar maple (Acer Seed survival has been shown to be low and the number of saccharum), white baneberry (Actaea pachypoda), offspring produced (fecundity) has been shown to be maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum), rattlesnake fern correlated with age and size, and regulated by the (Botrychium virginianum) (known in the south for its availability of resources (Lewis et al 1982; Schlessman ability to indicate “seng” habitat), bitternut hickory (Carya 1985)! cordiformis), blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides), Conservation/management: The primary cause of toothwort (Dentaria spp!), Dutchman’s breeches (Dicentra decline for this species is that of exploitation by collectors cucullaria), running strawberry bush (Euonymous in response to consumer demand, particularly in the Orient obovata), sharp-lobed hepatica (Hepatica acutiloba), red where ginseng is esteemed and highly prized as an herbal oak (Quercus rubra), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), elixir or tonic with numerous uses! Its use as a medicinal false Solomon’s seal (Smilacina spp!), basswood (Tilia herb in the Far East dates back thousands of years! The

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

64 ginseng, Page 3 occasional resemblance of the roots to the human form led Ohio DNR - Div! of Natural Areas and Preserves, to the belief that ginseng had curative properties for the Ginseng Mgmt! Program, Columbus, OH! entire body! Ginseng root is consumed in teas, powders, pills, soft drinks, and many other products, comprising a Duke, J!A! 1980! Pollinators of Panax? Castanea 45:141! highly valued trade product! As the Far Eastern species Fountain, M!S! 1982! Site factors associated with natural began seriously declining, the American ginseng trade populations of ginseng in Arkansas! Castanea 47:261- became lucrative! The demand for wild ginseng remains 265! high, and not unexpectedly, American populations have shown significant declines as well! Although cultivation of Honsowetz, D!C! 1978! Confessions of a ginseng hunter! ginseng does occur, the demand for the cultivated root Michigan Out-of-Doors! pp! 32-35, 86-87! remains well below that which is of wild origin, and thus is not likely to significantly deter the harvesting of natural Hu, S!Y!, L! Rudenberg, and P!D! Tredici! 1980! Studies populations! In Michigan, owing to a lack of knowledge of of American ginseng! Rhodora 82:627-636! the current status of this species’ recorded occurrences, it is unlikely that harvesting will be legally permitted until Laycock, G! 1978! Earthlog! Audubon Mag! July! p! 6! the statewide status is reliably assessed! Lewis, W!H! 1984! Population structure and In addition to widespread exploitation, ginseng has also environmental corollaries of Panax quinquefolium declined due to significant habitat loss and modification! (Araliaceae) in Delaware county, New York! Rhodora This has resulted from extensive timber cutting and 86:431-438! disturbance through habitat fragmentation, especially in Lewis, W!H! and V!E! Zenger! 1982! Population dynamics southern Michigan! Although little specific research and of the American ginseng (Panax quinquefolium) monitoring has been conducted to establish that ginseng (Araliaceae)! Am! J! of Bot! 69:1483-1490! populations suffer in response to disturbance, the majority of documented populations in Michigan are found in Lewis, W!H! and V!E! Zenger! 1983! Breeding systems relatively undisturbed habitat and appear vulnerable to and fecundity in the American ginseng, Panax overstory removal! According to one Michigan collector quinquefolium (Araliaceae)! Am! J! Bot! 70(3):466- (Honsowetz), ginseng has never been found in grazed 468! woodlots! The conservation of relatively large, ecologically viable tracts of rich woodland habitat is Schlessman, M!A! 1985! Floral biology of American critical to the maintenance of this species in Michigan! ginseng (Panax quinquefolium)! Bull! Torrey Bot! Club! Vol 112:129-133! Comments: The Michigan Ginseng Act, Public Act 184 of 1994, was passed at the encouragement of the Michigan Singer S!R! 1990! Current status of the U!S! ginseng Department of Agriculture to assist in the certification and export program! End! Sp! Tech! Bull! 15(1):9! legal export of cultivated ginseng! Swenk F! and G! Wilhelm! 1974! Plants of the Chicago Research needs: Perhaps the primary research need at the Region! The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, Il 922 pp! present is a comprehensive state inventory to determine the status and extent of the state’s ginseng population, such that harvesting of wild stock may be considered or Abstract citation continue to be prohibited! Michigan Natural Features Inventory! 1996! Special plant Related abstracts: mesic northern forest, assiniboia abstract for Panax quinquefolius (ginseng)! Lansing, sedge, fairy bells, goblin fern, green spleenwort, Hart’s- MI! 3 pp! tongue fern, large toothwort, showy orchis walking fern, red-shouldered hawk Selected references Anderson, R!C!, H!S! Fralish, H! Armstrong, P! Benjamin! No date! Biology of Ginseng (Panax quinquefolium) in Illinois! In cooperation with the Illinois Dept! of Conservation - Div! of Forest Res! and Natural Heritage, Springfield, IL 62706! Castleman, M! 1990! Ginseng revered and reviled! The Funding for abstract provided by Michigan Department of Natural Resources - Herb Quarterly, Winter 1990! pp! 17-24! Wildlife Division, Nongame Program Denny, G!C! and J! Glover! 1988! American ginseng; green gold of Ohio’s woodlands! 14 page pamphlet for 9-99/mrp

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

65 66 Hydrastis canadensis L goldenseal

State Distribution

Photo by Daniel Nepstad

Best Survey Period

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Legal status: State threatened Recognition: Goldenseal has an unbranched, hairy stem reaching 20-50 cm in height% Each stem produces Global and state rank: G4/S2 one or two leaves near the top% These leaves are palmately divided (maple-like) into five to nine Family: Ranunculaceae (buttercup family) sharply-pointed lobes with toothed margins% Young leaves are small (3-10 cm wide), shiny, and wrinkled% Total range: Goldenseal occurs throughout the eastern When fully flushed, the leaves become dull green, the half of North America, occurring from Vermont to veins appear deeply impressed on the upper leaf surface, Minnesota and ranging south to Nebraska, Kansas, and they expand up to about 25 cm wide% A solitary Arkansas, Georgia, and Alabama% It is considered rare flower about 15 mm in width terminates the stem% over several portions of its range, including Connecticut, Below the flower is a very reduced bract-like leaf similar Delaware, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, in shape to the other leaves% The flower of goldenseal Mississippi, Vermont, North Carolina, New York, has no petals, although there are three pale, greenish- Virginia, Alabama, Indiana, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and white sepals at the base% These sepals are very Ontario% ephemeral and drop as soon as the flower opens, revealing a dense spray of conspicuous showy State distribution: Goldenseal is currently known from stamens with white, expanded filaments$ The berry- 53 sites in 21 counties, where it is concentrated in the like fruit (8-18 mm) is green when immature, ripening southern three tiers% Nine counties are represented by to a bright red color and somewhat resembling a large only a single locality% The species has been discovered raspberry in appearance% Goldenseal has a thick, knotty or confirmed extant since 1980 at twenty-five localities; rhizome (4-7 cm long, 0%5-2cm wide) that is brown on eight sites are based on records from 1930 or earlier, the surface, with a bright yellow pigment inside, from many in areas now with widespread development, and which the common name is presumably derived% where the status of these historical records is largely unknown% Nine occurrences are reported to support Best survey time/phenology: Goldenseal is most more than 100 shoots and only two of those occurrences easily identified when in flower or in fruit, but sterile comprise populations with more than 1000 shoots% plants can also be reliably determined by those experienced with this clone-forming, rich woodland

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

67 goldenseal, Page 2

species% The distinctive flowers are visible from necessary first step to insure this species’ survival% approximately late April through early May% The fruits, Habitat protection is also essential% At least three first appearing green and then ripening to form a bright Michigan populations are in nature preserves under red aggregate of achenes, are visible from mid to late- protective ownership of The Nature Conservancy, season, about June to early August and perhaps later in Michigan Nature Association, and Michigan Audubon some localities% Society% Two others are within University designated natural areas, one in a county park natural area, three in city parks, two in metropolitan parks, one in a state Habitat: Goldenseal typically inhabits shady, rich, park, and one within a university woodlot% Other mesic southern forests, usually under a canopy of populations are on various tracts of private land% In beech-sugar maple or red oak-sugar maple% It frequently addition to exploitation, this plant is vulnerable to occurs in moist microhabitats near vernal pools, along removal of the forest canopy and probably to drainage or forested streams, and also in southern floodplain forests, extended flooding of its habitat% The species is often in moist sandy loam, clay loam, or even organic reportedly difficult to cultivate (Mitchell and Dean (muck) soils% Overstory species include Acer 1982)% saccharum (sugar maple), Fagus grandifolia (American beech), Quercus rubra (red oak), Betula alleghaniensis Comments: Although goldenseal populations have (yellow birch ), Acer saccharinum (silver maple), Tilia been severely diminished and fragmented through over- americana (American basswood), Juglans nigra (black harvesting and habitat destruction, it is also a species walnut), Juglans cinerea (butternut), Celtis occidentalis that can be easily overlooked when obscured by the (hackberry), and Fraxinus pennsylvanica and F nigra typical lush vegetation of its forest habitat% Since more (red and black ash)% Common mesic woodland herbs than one-half of the populations known to be extant have that are associated with goldenseal include Arisaema been discovered in the last several years, it is likely that triphyllum (jack-in-the-pulpit), Asarum canadense (wild others have yet to be discovered% Observations of a ginger), Carex hirtifolia (sedge), Carex plantaginea large population within a Nature Conservancy preserve (plantain-leaved sedge), Claytonia virginica (spring (Albert and Penskar 1984) indicate that the fruit is beauty), Erythronium americanum (trout-lily), highly palatable to animals, who appear to readily seek Caulophyllum thalictroides (blue cohosh), Geranium out this species as soon as the fleshy achenes are maculatum (wild geranium), Uvularia perfoliata (wild- ripened% oats), Trillium grandiflorum (common trillium), and Hepatica acutiloba (hepatica), among many other forbs Research needs: Investigation of the biology and typical of the ground layer in mesic forests% ecology of goldenseal would assist in the management and protection of this species% Status inventories are Biology: Goldenseal is a perennial which, in Michigan, also needed to provide better data on known flowers in early May and produces fruits through populations, as well as to determine the condition of any September (Albert and Penskar 1984)% Colonies of up existing historically documented localities% to several hundred shoots can occur, with the smallest or late-flowering ones on the edges and the taller plants Related abstracts: Ginseng, large toothwort, showy more central, suggesting that colonies expand by orchis, cerulean warbler, northern goshawk, red- vegetative propagation% Colonies may be long-lived, shouldered hawk slowly increasing in size through the years (Charette 1964)% Selected references:

Conservation/management: The knotty root (actually Albert, D% A% and M% R% Penskar% 1984% The ecosystems a rhizome) of this species is considered to have great and rare plant elements of Sharon Hollow forest% medicinal value, and a large part of the great reduction Unpubl% rept% to The Nature Conservancy% 57 pp% in goldenseal populations can be attributed to Argus, G% W% and D% J% White% 1983% Atlas of the rare exploitation by commercial harvesters (Swink and vascular plants of Ontario% National Museum of Wilhelm 1994)% Protection from over-harvesting is a

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

68 goldenseal, Page 3

Natural Sciences, Nat% Mus% of Canada% Charette, L% A% 1964% Hydrastis canadensis L% in New England% Rhodora 66: 94-96% Eichenberger, M% D% and G% R% Parker% 1976% Gold- enseal (Hydrastis canadensis L%) distribution, phenology, and biomass in an oak-hickory forest% Ohio J% Sci% 76(5): 204-210% Mitchell, R% S% & J% K% Dean% 1982% Ranunculaceae (Crow- foot Family) of New York State% Contrib% Flora of N%Y% State IV, Bull% No% 446% N%Y% State Museum, Albany% 100 pp% Swink, F% & G% Wilhelm% 1994% Plants of the Chicago Region, 4th ed% Indiana Acad% Sci%, Indianapolis% 921

Abstract citation:

M%R% Penskar, E%G% Choberka, and P%J% Higman 2001% Special Plant Abstract for Hydrastis canadensis (goldenseal)% Michigan Natural Features Inventory% Lansing, MI% 3 pp%

Funding for abstract provided by Michigan Department of Natural Resources-Forest Management Division and Wildlife Division

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

69 70 Oak Barrens CommunityOak Abstract Barrens, Page 1

Photo by: Susan R Crispin

Overview: Oak barrens is a fire-dependent, savanna type

dominated by oaks, having between 5 and 60 percent ¡

canopy, with or without a shrub layer The predominantly graminoid ground layer is composed of species associated with both prairie and forest communities Oak barrens are found on droughty soils and occur typically on nearly level to slightly undulating sandy glacial outwash, and less often on sandy moraines or ice contact features

Global and State Rank: G2?/S2

Range: Barrens and prairie communities reached their maximum coverage in Michigan approximately 4,000- 6,000 years before present, when postglacial climatic conditions were comparatively warm and dry During this time, xerothermic conditions allowed for the invasion of fire-dependent, xeric vegetation types into a large portion of the Lower Peninsula and into sections of the Upper Peninsula With the subsequent shift of more mesic climatic conditions southward, there has been a recolonization of mesic vegetation throughout Michigan The distribution zone through Wisconsin and southeastern Minnesota, and of fire-dominated communities, such as oak barrens, has in the glaciated portions of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, been reduced typically to isolated patches concentrated Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska (Chapman et al 1995, along the climatic tension zone In the 1800s, oak barrens NatureServe 2001) were located in the interior of the southeastern Lower Peninsula on sandy glacial outwash and coarse-textured, Rank Justification: At the time of European settlement, moraines (Comer et al 1995) Presently the distribution oak savanna communities covered some 11-13 million of this community has been reduced to degraded remnants hectares of the Midwest Presently oak savanna remnants throughout its original range In addition to southern occur on just 002% of their presettlement extent (Nuzzo Michigan, oak barrens remnants occur south of the tension 1986) The notes of the original land surveyors of Michigan

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

71 Oak Barrens, Page 2

reveal that in the 1800s, oak barrens covered approximately facing slopes, and flat sand plains This xeric, fire-prone 719,042 acres or 19% of the state, distributed patchily community is characterized by soils that are infertile, coarse- across the four lower tiers of counties In Allegan and textured, well-drained sand or loamy sand with medium to Ottawa Counties, savanna communities where typically slightly acid pH and low water retaining capacity Soils oak-pine barrens, while lakeplain oak openings were contain low organic matter and lack the fine-textured illuvial prevalent in the thumb region (Huron, Bay, and Tuscola horizon associated with soils of the oak openings and are Counties) Oak openings shared the same range as oak thus droughtier Oak barrens and oak-pine barrens typically barrens but occurred on dry-mesic to mesic soils as opposed occur in bands surrounding prairie (Michigan Natural to droughty sites Surveyors’ notes indicate that high Features Inventory 1990, Chapman et al 1995) concentrations of oak barrens occurred in the following counties: Oakland County (28% or 200,557 acres), Jackson Oak barrens are distributed in Michigan’s Region I, Southern County (12% or 84,204 acres), Livingston County (11% Lower Michigan (Albert et al 1986) This region has a warm, or 81,176), and Washtenaw County (9% or 62,966 acres) temperate, rainy to cool, snow-forest climate with hot Today merely a few hundred acres of oak barrens remain summers and no dry season The daily maximum in Michigan with small, restorable remnants occurring in temperature in July ranges from 29° to 32° C (85° to 90° F) Cass, Branch, Livingston, Jackson, Washtenaw, and Van and the daily minimum temperature in January ranges from Buren Counties This rare community constitutes less than -9° to -4° C (15° to 25° F) The number of freeze-free days 00005% of the present vegetation of Michigan is between 120 and 220, and the average number of days per year with snow cover of 25 cm or more is between 10 Oak barrens have been cleared for sand mining, agriculture, and 60 The mean annual total precipitation for Region I is and residential and urban development (Chapman et al 820 mm (Albert et al 1986, Barnes 1991) 1995) Alteration of historic fire regimes has shifted most barrens types into woodlands and forest (Curtis 1959, Natural Processes: Curtis (1959) suggested that oak barrens Faber-Langendoen 1993) Wildfire suppression policies originated when prairie fires spread into surrounding closed instituted in the 1920s in concert with road construction, oak forest with enough intensity to create open barrens expansion of towns, and increased agriculture caused a Repeated low intensity fires working in concert with drought dramatic decrease in fire frequency and intensity (Abrams then maintain these barrens (Curtis 1959, Faber-Langendoen 1992) The reduction of fire in the landscape resulted in and Tester 1993) Oak barrens persist when fire disturbance the succession of open oak barrens to closed-canopy forests and/or drought prevents canopy closure and the dominance dominated by black and white oaks with little advanced of woody vegetation Presently, the prevalent catalyst of fires regeneration of oaks and a vanishing graminoid component is lighting strike but historically, Native Americans played (Chapman et al 1995) In addition, timber exploitation of an integral role in the fire regime, accidentally and/or oaks in the 1920s destroyed or degraded oak barrens across intentionally setting fire to prairie ecosystems (Day 1953, Michigan (Michigan Natural Features Inventory 1995) Chapman 1984) Where large-scale herbivores are abundant, Many oak barrens fragments are currently completely grazing may help inhibit the succession of grass-dominated dominated by black oak as the result of selective harvest oak barrens to woodland (Ritchie et al 1998) of canopy white oak (Minc and Albert 1990) In addition to simplified overstory structure, these communities are The character of oak barrens can differ dramatically, often depauperate in floristic diversity as the result of fire primarily as the result of varying fire intensity and frequency, suppression and subsequent woody encroachment, which are influenced by climatic conditions, soil texture, livestock grazing, off-road vehicle activity, and the invasion topography, and landscape context (ie, proximity to water of exotic species (Michigan Natural Features Inventory bodies and fire-resistant and fire-conducing plant 1995) communities) (Bowles et al 1994, Chapman et al 1995) Infrequent, high-intensity fires kill mature oaks and produce Landscape and Abiotic Context: Oak barrens occur on barrens covered by abundant scrubby oak sprouts Park- well-drained, nearly level to slightly undulating sandy glacial like barrens with widely spaced trees and an open grass outwash, and less often on sandy moraines or ice contact understory are maintained by frequent low-intensity fires, features Oak barrens typically occur in the driest landscape which occur often enough to restrict maturation of oak positions, such as ridge tops, steep slopes, south and west seedlings (Chapman et al 1995, Faber-Langendoen and

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

72 Oak Barrens, Page 3

Davis 1995, Peterson and Reich 2001) Canopy oaks within by Quercus velutina (black oak) and Quercus alba (white these barrens rarely burn because of low fuel loads beneath oak) These species of oak are also prevalent in the sub- their crowns, which shade out light-demanding vegetation canopy in shrubby clumps, especially where fire intensity is (Anderson and Brown 1983) Frequent low-intensity fires high In addition, Acer rubra (red maple), Prunus serotina also maintain high levels of grass and forb diversity by (black cherry), Populus grandidentata (bigtooth aspen), deterring the encroachment of woody vegetation and limiting Populus tremuloides (trembling aspen), and Quercus single species dominance Absence of fire in oak barrens ellipsoidalis (pin oak) are often found in the overstory and causes increased litter layer and fuel loads, decreased herb sub-canopy of this community Pin oak is especially common layer diversity, increased canopy and subcanopy cover, on excessively well-drained sites Prevalent species of the invasion of fire-intolerant species, and ultimately the subcanopy layer include: Carya spp (hickory species), formation of a closed-canopy oak community, often within Cornus spp (dogwood species), Corylus americana 20-40 years (Curtis 1959, Chapman et al 1995, Faber- (American hazelnut), Prunus spp (cherry species), and Langendoen and Davis 1995) Sassafras albidum (sassafras) Vegetation Description: The oak barrens community is a heterogeneous savanna vegetation type with variable Characteristic shrubs include: Amelanchier spp physiognomy in time and space Structurally, oak barrens (serviceberry), Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (bearberry), range from dense thickets of brush and understory scrub Ceanothus americanus (New Jersey tea), Comptonia oak within a matrix of grassland to park-like open woods of peregrina (sweetfern), Corylus americana, Cornus spp, widely spaced mature oak with virtually no shrub or sub- Corylus cornuta (beaked hazelnut), Cratageus spp canopy layer above the open forb and graminoid understory (hawthorn species), Gaultheria procumbens (wintergreen), (Michigan Natural Features Inventory 1990, Bowles and Gaylussacia baccata (huckleberry), Prunus americana (wild McBride 1994, Chapman et al 1995) The physiognomic plum), Prunus virginiana (choke cherry), Prunus pumila variations, which occur along a continuum, are the function (sand cherry), Quercus prinoides (dwarf chestnut or dwarf of the complex interplay between fire frequency and intensity chinkapin oak), Rhus copalina (shining sumac), Rosa (Chapman et al 1995) Typically, oak barrens grade into carolina (pasture rose), Rubus flagellaris (northern dewberry), Salix humilis (prairie or upland willow), and Vaccinium angustifolium (low sweet blueberry)

The ground layer is dominated by graminoids and forbs Common species include: Scizhachyrium scoparium (little bluestem), Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem), and Carex pensylvanica (Pennsylvania sedge), with Pennsylvania sedge often replacing the bluestems in shaded areas and fire- suppressed communities Other prevalent herbs of the oak barrens include: Aster oolentangiensis (sky-blue aster), Aureolaria spp (false foxglove), Coreopsis lanceolata (tickseed), Cyperus filiculmis (nut grass), Danthonia spicata (poverty oats), Deschampsia flexuosa (hair grass), Photo by: Gary Reese Euphorbia corollata (flowering spurge), Helianthus Canopy closure and woody encroachment in a fire suppressed divaricatus (tall sunflower), Hypericum perforatum (St oak barrens John’s-wort), Koeleria macrantha (June grass), Krigia biflora (dwarf dandelion), Lathyrus ochroleucus (white pea), prairie on one edge and dry forest on the other As noted by Lespedeza hirta (hairy lespedeza), Liatris aspera (blazing Bray (1958) and Curtis (1959), the flora of this community star), Liatris cylindrica (dwarf blazing star), Lupinus is a mixture of prairie and forest species, with prairie forbs perennis (wild lupine), Monarda fistulosa (wild bergamot), and grasses more abundant in high light areas and forest Panicum implicatum (grass panicum), Pedicularis forbs and woody species in the areas of low light canadensis (wood betony), Stipa avenacea (needle grass), Stipa spartea (needle grass), Tephrosia virginiana (goats- The canopy layer generally varies from 5 to 60 percent cover rue), and Viola pedata (birdfoot violet) (Chapman et al 1989) and is dominated or co-dominated

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

73 Oak Barrens, Page 4

In the absence of fire and with the prevalence of special concern), Geum triflorum (prairie-smoke, state anthropogenic disturbance such as logging, off-road vehicle threatened), Linum sulcatum (furrowed flax, state special recreation, and livestock grazing, the following exotic concern), Prunus alleghaniensis var davisii (alleghany or species may be dominant components of the herbaceous sloe plum, state special concern), and Sisyrinchium strictum layer of oak barrens: Agropyron repens (quack grass), (blue-eyed grass, state special concern) Agrostis stolonifera (creeping bent), Asparagus officinalis (wild asparagus), Centaurea maculosa (spotted knapweed), Oak barrens frequently support numerous lichens and Hieracium spp (hawkweeds), Poa compressa (Canada mosses Oak trunks provide substrate for foliose lichens bluegrass), Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass), Rumex (ie, Punctelia rudecta, Physcia millegrana, and Candelaria acetosella (sheep sorrel), and Tragopogon dubius (goat’s concolor) and crutose lichens (ie, Candelariella beard) xanthostigma and Rinodina papillata) In addition to the cryptogamus communities thriving on tree boles, oak barrens Michigan indicator species: often contain patches of microbiotic soil crust composed of lichens, mosses, and cyanobacteria (Will-Wolf and Stearns Spring/Early Summer 1999) Comandra umbellata (bastard toadflax), Coreopsis lanceolata (lanceolate coreopsis), Geum triflorum (prairie The oak barrens and surrounding prairie habitat share a rich smoke, state threatened), Lithospermum canescens (hoary diversity of invertebrates including numerous butterflies, puccon), Lupinus perennis, Krigia biflora, Pedicularis skippers, grasshoppers, and locusts However, the canadensis, Potentilla simplex (common cinquefoil), fragmented and degraded status of midwestern oak barrens/ Senecio plattensis (prairie ragwort), Stipa spartea, and Viola savannas and prairies has resulted in the drastic decline of pedata numerous insect species associated with dry, open habitats or obligates of barrens and prairie host plants (Chapman et Summer al 1995) Rare butterflies, skippers, and moths include: Anenome cylindrica (thimbleweed), Asclepias tuberosa Atrytonopsis hianna (dusted skipper, state threatened), (butterfly weed), Asclepias verticillata (whorled milkweed), Catocala amestris (three-staff underwing, state endangered), Ceanothus americanus, Helianthus occidentalis (woodland Erynnis p, persius (persius duskywing, state threatened), sunflower), Helianthus divaricatus, Linum sulcatum Hesperia ottoe (ottoe skipper, state threatened), Incisalia (furrowed flax, state special concern), Monarda punctata henrici (Henry’s elfin, state special concern), Incisalia irus (horsemint), Monarda fistulosa, Opuntia humifusa (prickly (frosted elfin, state threatened), Lycaeides melissa samuelis pear), and Trichostema dichotomum (blue curls, state (Karner blue, state threatened/federal endangered), threatened) Papaipema sciata (Culver’s root borer, state special concern), Pygarctia spraguei (Sprague’s pygarctia, state Fall special concern), Pyrgus centaureae wyandot (grizzled Andropogon gerardii, Aristida purpurascens (three awn skipper, state special concern), Schinia indiana (phlox moth, grass), Aster oolentangiensis, Aster ericoides (many state endangered), Schinia lucens (leadplant flower moth, flowered aster), Aster sericeus (silky aster, state threatened), state endangered), Spartiniphaga inops (Spartina moth, state Aureolaria flava (false foxglove), Aureolaria pedicularia special concern), and Speyeria idalia (regal fritillary, state (false foxglove), Aureolaria virginica (false foxglove), endangered) Bouteloua curtipendula (side oats gramma, state threatened), Liatris aspera (rough blazing star), Liatris cylindrica (dwarf Other rare invertebrates include Lepyronia gibbosa (Great blazing star), Scizhachyrium scoparium, Silphium Plains spittlebug, state threatened), Oecanthus pini (Pinetree terebinthinaceum (prairie dock), Solidago speciosa (showy cricket, state special concern), Orphulella p, pelidna (barrens goldenrod), Solidago rigida (stiff goldenrod), and Stipa locust, state special concern), Prosapia ignipectus (red- avenacea legged spittlebug, state special concern), and Scudderia fasciata (pine katydid, state special concern) Other noteworthy species: Rare plants associated with oak barrens include: Aster sericeus (silky aster, state Numerous songbirds utilize oak barrens Rare species threatened), Bouteloua curtipendula (side-oats gramma include Ammodramus savannarum (grasshopper sparrow, grass, state threatened), Cirsium hillii (Hill’s thistle, state state special concern) and Dendroica discolor (prairie

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

74 Oak Barrens, Page 5 warbler, state endangered) Typical songbirds include: open canopy, promoting high levels of grass and forb Melospiza lincolnii (Lincoln’s sparrow), Passerina cyanea diversity, deterring the encroachment of woody vegetation (indigo bunting), Pooecetes gramineus (vesper sparrow), and invasive exotics, and limiting the success of dominants Sial sialis (eastern bluebird), Spizella passerina (chipping Numerous studies have indicated that fire intervals of 1-3 sparrow), Spizella pusilla (field sparrow), Toxostoma rufum years bolster graminoid dominance, increase overall grass (brown thrasher), Vermivora pinus (blue-winged warbler) and forb diversity, and remove woody cover of saplings and and Vermivora ruficapilla (Nashville warbler) Additional shrubs (White 1983, Tester 1989) Burning at longer time avian species that utilize this habitat include: Accipter intervals will allow for seedling establishment and the striatus (sharp-shinned hawk), Bartamia longicauda (upland persistence of woody plants Where rare invertebrates are a sandpiper), Bonasa umbellus (ruffed grouse), Buteo management concern, burning strategies should allow for jamaicensis (red-tailed hawk), Carduelis tristis (American ample refugia to facilitate effective postburn recolonization goldfinch), Charadrius vociferus (killdeer), Chondestes (Michigan Natural Features Inventory 1995, Siemann et al grammacus (lark sparrow), Falco sparverius (American 1997) kestrel), Icterus galbula (Baltimore oriole), Melanerpes Though most of the historical oak barrens have been erythrocephalus (red-headed woodpecker), Meleagris degraded by selective logging, livestock grazing, and fire gallopavo (wild turkey), Otus asio (Eastern screech-owl), suppression or destroyed by development, agricultural Tyrannus tyrannus (eastern kingbird), and Zenaida clearing, sand mining, and extensive timber harvest, there macroura (mourning dove) Savanna restoration with is much opportunity for restoration of this community type prescribed fire in Minnesota resulted in the increase in the Plant species of oak barrens can persist through cycles of abundance of open- country bird species, including many canopy closure and removal (Chapman et al 1995) The species that have been declining in central and eastern North occurrence of oak barrens indicator species in closed-canopy America (Davis et al 2000) forests reveals the presence of a native seedbank and highlights that area as a target for restorative management Cryptotis parva (least shrew, state threatened) and Microtus Also indicative of a site’s potential for restoration is the ochrogaster (prairie vole, state endangered) are rare prevalence of oak “wolf trees” “Wolf trees” are large open- mammals that may be found in oak-pine barrens Additional grown trees with wide-spreading limbs that are often mammals commonly associated with the oak barrens associated with oak barrens’ plants or seedbank (Michigan community include: Canis latrans (coyote), Microtus Natural Features Inventory 1995) pennsylvanicus (meadow vole), Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer), Scirus niger (fox squirrel), Spermophilus tridecemlineatus (thirteen-lined ground squirrel), Taxidea taxus (badger), Vulpes vulpes (red fox), and Zapus hudsonia (jumping meadow mouse)

Several rare reptiles are known from this community type They include: Elaphe o obsoleta (black rat snake, state special concern), Sistrurus c catenatus (eastern massasauga, state special concern, federal candidate species), and Terrapene c, carolina (eastern box turtle, state special concern) Some of the more common amphibians and reptiles that frequent the oak barrens include: Bufo a, americanus (eastern American toad), Bufo fowleri (Fowler’s toad), Heterodon platirhinos (eastern hog-nosed snake), and Photo by: Kim Chapman Opheodrys vernalis (smooth green snake) Prescribed fire in remnant oak barrens maintains open canopy conditions, promotes high levels of grass and forb diversity and deters the encroachment of woody vegetation Conservation/management: Fire is the single most and exotics significant factor in preserving the oak barrens landscapes Where remnants of oak barrens persist, the use of prescribed Where canopy closure has degraded the savanna character, fire is an imperative management tool for maintaining an one can restore the oak barrens community by selectively

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

75 Oak Barrens, Page 6

cutting the majority of trees (White 1986), leaving an average landscape context Understanding spatial and temporal of 4 trees/acre Degraded barrens that have been long variability of oak barrens is also crucial for determining the deprived of fire often contain a heavy overstory component direction of management of shade tolerant species, which can be removed by mechanical thinning (Peterson and Reich 2001) Management of oak barrens remnants can be determined Reconstructed sites will need to be maintained by periodic by site-specific research of site characteristics and prescribed fire and may require investment in native plant presettlement composition and structure (Minc and Albert seeding where seed and plant banks are inadequate (Packard 1990, Bowles et al 1994, Bowles and McBride 1998) 1988) Depending on the physiognomic target of the Investigation into the frequency, periodicity (seasonality), management, one can manipulate the intensity, seasonality, and intensity of fires in oak barrens is needed to guide and frequency of the prescribed burns: low-intensity and restoration and management activities In addition, because high-frequency burns for the park-like end of the barrens limitations imposed by safety concerns can hamper the continuum and low-frequency and high-intensity burns for effectiveness of prescribed fire as a management tool, shrubby oak barrens Fall burns typically are slow moving, maintaining the ecological integrity of oak barrens requires low-intensity fires due to high relative humidity and slow experimentation with different disturbance combinations wind speed, while late spring and summer burns are often (King 2000) Effects of management need to be monitored more intense due to higher wind speeds and lower relative to allow for assessment and refinement humidity (King 2000) Summer burning can be employed to simulate naturally occurring lightning season burns Early Since all of Michigan’s oak barrens are degraded, it is spring burns often carry irregularly through barrens essential to determine what role seedbanks, vegetative influenced by high spring water tables Such patchy burns reproduction, and external seed sources play in restoration can be useful tool for establishing refugia for fire-sensitive of remnant barrens Numerous rare Lepidoptera have host species and may permit oak seedling establishment plants occurring on oak barrens The effects of fire and (Chapman et al 1995) Patchy burns are often the result of alternative management techniques on rare faunal frequent low-intensity fires, which carry sporadically through populations and their host vegetation need to be studied areas with low fuel loads In contrast, infrequent fires are (Chapman et al 1995, Siemann et al 1997) In addition, often more uniform in coverage, spreading evenly through because of the daunting problem of exotic species areas of high fuel accumulation (Ladd 1991) encroachment, research needs to examine management strategies that minimize invasive species introduction and In many circumstances the effective use of prescribed fire is dominance precluded due to monetary constraints or safety concerns In areas where fire is undesirable or unfeasible, mowing or Similar communities: Bur oak plains, dry sand prairie, selective cutting can be utilized and should be carried forth dry southern forest, lakeplain oak openings, oak openings, in late fall or winter to minimize detrimental impact to oak-pine barrens, and pine barrens herbaceous species and rare invertebrates (Chapman et al 1995, Michigan Natural Features Inventory 1995, King Other Classifications: 2000) Management of oak barrens communities should be orchestrated in conjunction with the management of adjacent Michigan Natural Features Inventory Pre- communities such as dry sand prairie, dry southern forest, settlement Vegetation (MNFI): and coastal plain marsh Black Oak Barren and Mixed Oak Savanna

Research needs: As noted by Nuzzo (1986), Minc and Michigan Department of Natural Resources Albert (1990), Faber-Langendoen (1993), and Bowles and (MDNR): G-grass and O0(zero)-oak with <100 trees McBride (1994), no single definition of Midwest oak per acre savanna or oak barrens is universally accepted, and numerous distinct community types have been lumped under Michigan Resource Information Systems (MIRIS): the phrase “Midwest oak savanna” Misunderstanding and 33 (Pine or Oak Opening), 412 (Central Hardwood), misuse of the term can be alleviated by the continued 4122 (White Oak), 4123 (Black Oak), 4129 (Other refinement of regional classifications that correlate species Oak) composition, site productivity, ecological process, and

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

76 Oak Barrens, Page 7

The Nature Conservancy National Classification: ings of the North American Conference on Barrens and Savannas, October 15-16, 1994, Illinois State University, CODE; ALLIANCE; ASSOCIATION; COMMON NAME Normal, IL Bowles, ML, and JL McBride 1994 Presettlement barrens IIB2Na12; Quercus alba - (Quercus velutina) in the glaciated prairie region of Illinois Pp 75-85 in JS Woodland Alliance; Quercus velutina - (Quercus Fralish, RC Anderson, JE Ebinger, and R Szafoni ellipsoidalis) - Quercus alba/Deschampsia flexuosa (eds) Proceedings of the North American Conference on Barrens and Savannas, October 15-16, 1994, Illinois Woodland; Black Oak- Northern Pin Oak / Common State University, Normal, IL Hairgrass Woodland Bowles, ML, and JL McBride 1998 Vegetation composi- tion, structure, and chronological change in a decadent VA6Nc3; Quercus velutina - (Quercus midwestern North American savanna remnant Natural ellipsoidalis) Wooded Herbaceous Alliance; Areas Journal 18(1): 14-27 Quercus velutina - (Quercus alba) - Quercus Bray, JR 1958 The distribution of savanna species in ellipsoidalis/Schizachyrium scoparium - Lupinus relation to light intensity Canadian Journal of Botany 36: perennis Wooded Herbaceous Vegetation; Black 671-681 Oak/Lupine Barrens Chapman, KA 1984 An ecological investigation of native grassland in Southern Lower Michigan MA thesis, Related Abstracts: Alleghany plum, Culver’s root Western Michigan University 235 pp borer, Hill’s thistle, karner blue butterfly, oak-pine Chapman, KA, MA White, and MR Huffman 1989 barrens, pine barrens, prairie smoke, and red-legged Draft: Oak barrens stewardship abstract Midwest spittlebug Heritage Task Force, The Nature Conservancy Minne- apolis, MN Selected References: Chapman, KA, MA White, MR Huffman, and D Faber- Abrams, MD 1992 Fire and the development of oak forests Langendoen 1995 Ecology and stewardship guidelines BioScience 42(5): 346-353 for oak barrens landscapes in the upper Midwest Pp 1- 29 in F Stearns and K Holland, eds, Proceedings of the Albert, DA 1995 Regional landscape ecosystems of MI, Midwest Oak Savanna Conference, 1993 US Environ- MN and WI: A working map and classification USFS- mental Protection Agency, Internet Publications Avail- North Central Forest Experiment Station 1992 Folwell able: http://wwwepagov/glnpo/oak/oak93/chapmanhtml Ave St Paul, MN 55108 250 pp (Accessed: September 21, 2000) Albert, DA, SR Denton, and BV Barnes 1986 Regional Comer, PJ, DA Albert, HA Wells, BL Hart, JB Raab, landscape ecosystems of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI: DL Price, DM Kashian, RA Corner, and DW University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources Schuen 1995 Michigan’s presettlement vegetation, as 32pp & map interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816- Anderson, MD, and LE Brown 1983 Comparative effects 1856 Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing MI of fire on trees in a midwestern savannah and an adjacent Digital map forest Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 119(1): 19- Corner, RA 1996 Natural community abstract for pine 28 barrens Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, Barnes, BV 1991 Deciduous forests of North America Pp MI 3 pp 219-344 in E Röhrig and B Ulrich (eds) Ecosystems of Curtis, JT 1959 Vegetation of Wisconsin: An Ordination of the World 7: Temperate Deciduous Forests Elsevier, Plant Communities University of Wisconsin Press, Amsterdam Madison, WI 657 pp Botts, P, A Haney, K Holland, S Packard 1994 Midwest Davis, AM, WD Peterson, BP Reich, M Crozier, T Query, oak ecosystems recovery plan Technical report for the E Mitchell, JHuntington, and P Bazakas 2000 1993 Midwest Oak Savanna Conference, Chicago, 112 Restoring savanna using fire: impact on the breeding bird pp community Restoration Ecology 8(1): 30-40 Bowles, ML, MD Hutchinson, and JL McBride 1994 Day, GM 1953 The Indian as an ecological factor in the Landscape pattern and structure of oak savanna, wood- Northeastern forest Ecology 34(2): 329-346 land and barrens in northeastern Illinois at the time of European settlement Pp 65-74 in JS Fralish, RC Faber-Langendoen, D 1993 A proposed classification for Anderson, JE Ebinger, and R Szafoni (eds) Proceed- savannas in the Midwest Background paper for the Midwest oak savanna conference 18 pp

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

77 Oak Barrens, Page 8

Faber-Langendoen, D (editor) 1999 International classifica- savanna: fire frequency effects on stand structure and tion of ecological communities: Terrestrial vegetation of dynamics Ecological Applications 11(3): 914-927 the Midwestern United States The Nature Conservancy, Ritchie, ME, D Tilman, and JMH Knops 1998 Herbivore Midwest Conservation Science Department, Minneapolis effects on plant and nitrogen dynamics in oak savanna MN Ecology 79(1), 165-177 Faber-Langendoen, D (editor) 2001 Plant communities of Siemann, E, J Haarstad, and D Tilman 1997 Short-term the Midwest: Classification in an ecological context and long-term effects of burning on oak savanna Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA arthropods American Midland Naturalist 137(2): 349- 61 pp + appendix (705 pp) 361 Faber-Langendoen, D, and MA Davis 1995 Effects of fire Tester, JR 1989 Effects of fire frequency on oak savanna in frequency on tree canopy cover at Allison Savanna, east-central Minnesota Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical eastcentral Minnesota, USA Natural Areas Journal 15(4): Club 116(2): 134-144 319-328 White, AS 1983 The effects of thirteen years of annual Faber-Langendoen, D, and JR Tester 1993 Oak mortality prescribed burning on a Quercus ellipsoidalis community in sand savannas following drought in east-central in Minnesota Ecology 64(5): 1081-108 Minnesota Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 120 (3): White, AS 1986 Prescribed burning for oak savanna 248-256 restoration in central Minnesota Research Paper NC- Heikens, AL, and PA Robertson 1994 Barrens of the 266, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Midwest: a review of the literature Castanea 59(3): 184 North Central Forest Experiment Station, St Paul, Minn 194 12 pp King, R 2000 Effects of single burn events on degraded oak Will-Wolf, S, and F Stearns 1999 Dry soil oak savanna in savanna Ecological Restoration 18:4 Winter 228-233 the Great Lakes region Pp 135-154 in RC Anderson, Ladd, D 1991 Reexamination of the role of fire in Missouri JS Fralish, and JM Baskin (eds) Savannas, Barrens, oak woodlands Pp 67-80 In Burger GV, JE Ebinger, and Rock Outcrop Plant Communities of North America and GS Wilhelm, eds, Proceedings of the oak woods Cambridge, United Kingdom management workshop Eastern Illinois University, Abstract Citation: Charleston, IL Cohen, JG 2001 Natural community abstract for oak Michigan Natural Features Inventory 1990 Draft description barrens Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI 8 pp of Michigan natural community types (Unpublished manuscript revised April 2,1990) Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI 34 pp Available: http:// wwwdnrstatemius/WILDLIFE/Heritage/Mnfi/lists/ natural_community_typespdf Michigan Natural Features Inventory 1995 Forest steward- ship training materials for oak-pine barrens ecosystem (Unpublished manuscript) Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI Minc, LD, and DA Albert 1990 Oak-dominated commu- nities of Southern Lower Michigan: floristic and abiotic comparisons Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing MI (Unpublished manuscript) 103 pp NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web applica- tion] 2001 Version 14  Arlington (VA): Association for Biodiversity Information Available: http:// wwwnatureserveorg/ (Accessed: August 10, 2001) Nuzzo, V 1986 Extent and status of Midwest oak savanna: presettlement and 1985 Natural Areas Journal 6: 6-36 Packard, S 1988 Just a few oddball species: restoration and the rediscovery of the tallgrass savanna Restoration and Funding for abstract provided by Michigan Department of Management Notes 6(1): 13-20 Natural Resources-Forest Management Division and Peterson, DW, and PB Reich 2001 Prescribed fire in oak Wildlife Division

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

78 Relict conifer swamp CommunityRelict conifer Abstract swamp, Page 1

State Distribution

Photo by David Cuthrell

Overview: Relict conifer swamp is a groundwater- swamp) near the center of the complex In the influenced, or minerotrophic, forested wetland ombrotrophic zone, deep peat separates the vegetation community that is typically dominated by tamarack from the influence of groundwater and sphagnum (Larix laricina) and occurs on deep organic soils (eg, mosses acidify the surface water and peat peat and muck) in southern Michigan Rank Justification: Analysis of the General Land Global and State Rank: G2G3/S3 Office (GLO) survey notes reveals that tamarack- dominated wetlands were common throughout southern Range: Relict conifer swamp occurs in Minnesota, Lower Michigan during the mid 1800s (Comer et al Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan and Ontario In Michigan, 1995) In fact, tamarack swamps were the most common relict conifer swamp is thought to be restricted to the type of conifer swamp in all sub-subsections (Albert southern Lower Peninsula, although no statewide survey 1995) of southern Lower Michigan expect for those for the community has been conducted Relict conifer occupying the thumb region (eg, Huron Lapeer, Sanilac swamp represents a type of rich conifer swamp, a more and Tuscola Counties), where mixed conifer swamps widespread, minerotrophic, forested wetland that is were more abundant (Comer et al 1995) While usually dominated by northern white cedar (see MNFI information is not readily available for deciphering the 1990) Throughout northern Michigan and near the type of tamarack swamp (eg, relict conifer swamp or tension zone in Mid Michigan, northern white cedar poor conifer swamp) from the GLO data, tamarack- (Thuja occidentalis) replaces tamarack as the dominant dominated wetlands overall occupied 196,526 ha tree species in groundwater-influenced, forested (485,624 acres) of southern Lower Michigan wetlands Acidic, rainwater-influenced (ombrotrophic) Comparisons between the GLO and 1978 MIRIS land tamarack and black spruce swamps also occur in cover data reveal that less than 1% or 1,149 ha (2,839 southern Michigan and are classified as poor conifer acres) of tamarack swamp remain in southern Lower swamp (see MNFI 1990) Many large wetland Michigan (Albert 2001) Tamarack swamps were complexes contain zones of both minerotrophic frequently drained and logged and subsequently used for tamarack swamp (eg relict conifer swamp) near the agriculture, mined for peat, or abandoned and converted upland edge where groundwater seeps occur, as well as to wet meadow, shrub-carr or hardwood swamp ombrotrophic tamarack swamp (eg, poor conifer Tamarack logs were commonly utilized for fence posts,

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

79 Relict conifer swamp, Page 2

house and barn beams, and the early auto industry used shallowly rooted and are thus, especially prone to tamarack for wheel spokes windthrow The light gaps created by windthrow help to regenerate tamarack and maintain the community’s dense Landscape and Abiotic Context: Relict conifer swamp shrub layer In addition, the coarse woody debris that occurs in outwash channels, outwash plains, and kettle results from windthrow also adds to the community’s depressions throughout southern Lower Michigan The complex structure and microtopography community typically occurs in association with headwater streams and/or adjacent to inland lakes Relict conifer Periodic outbreaks of the larch sawfly (Pristophora swamps are often found where groundwater seeps occur erichsonii) and tamarack casebearer (Coleophora at the base of moraines The organic soils underlying laricella), both native insect species, may result in a relict conifer swamp are typically composed of a thin significant reduction in tamarack cover The defoliation layer of muck overlying 2 – 5 m of fibric and woody peat associated with an insect outbreak results in increased (Kost 2001) Underlying the peat there is usually a layer light reaching the understory and ground layer, and like of marl, a calcium carbonate precipitate that accumulates windthrow, may promote tamarack regeneration and as sediment on lake bottoms shrub-layer density However, in relict conifer swamps where red maple is widely distributed, these defoliation Natural Processes: Relict conifer swamp is a events may alter community structure by promoting the groundwater-dependent, tamarack-dominated, wetland growth of red maple Once red maple reaches the community Its hydrology is maintained by calcareous overstory its broad canopy effectively reduces the amount groundwater that permeates the muck and peat soils of light available to the understory and results in a Because the glacial till in southern Michigan is typically significant reduction in shrub-layer cover and species high in calcium and magnesium, the groundwater that richness as well as a loss of many shade-intolerant ground reaches the surface has high levels of alkalinity and flora species (Kost 2001) dissolved nutrients The pH values of the muck and peat soils underlying relict conifer swamp are typically near Long-term flooding resulting from beaver dams or other 80, with surface water alkalinity measuring near 300 mg forms of blocked drainage such as road construction CaCO3/L and conductivity values near 600 uS (Kost through a wetland can cause mass tamarack mortality and 2001, Merkey 2001) a conversion of relict conifer swamp or other forested wetlands to wet meadow or marsh However, beaver may Because of the strong influence of groundwater on the have also contributed to the establishment of relict conifer community, water levels in relict conifer swamps tend to swamp when sources of tamarack seeds were accessible fluctuate less than in many other wetland types (Merkey for colonization of abandoned beaver floodings 2001) However, seasonal water fluctuations are common Tamarack may have also colonized sites where beaver and may be related to the varied microtopography of flooding destroyed a hardwood-dominated swamp forest tamarack swamps The tamarack roots form large community hummocks that stand elevated above adjacent mudflats During the winter and spring water typically fills the Like long-term flooding, fire may cause extensive spaces between the tamarack root-hummocks, while in tamarack mortality (Curtis 1959) and create new summer and fall, exposed mud flats occupy these areas opportunities for seedling establishment on freshly exposed organic soils While fire is not a frequent form of Windthrow, insect outbreak, beaver flooding, and fire are disturbance directly within relict conifer swamps, its all important forms of natural disturbance for relict influence on the surrounding landscape is very important conifer swamp Because tamarack is shade-intolerant to the long-term viability of the community (Curtis 1959), disturbance events that result in increased light to the understory and ground layer are especially The role of fire in maintaining relict conifer swamp is important for maintaining the tamarack component of the especially important in the interlobate region of southern community Michigan where fire was responsible for maintaining the open condition of many of the region’s natural Trees growing in the anaerobic conditions associated with communities including oak barrens, prairies, wet a high water table and muck and peat soils tend to be meadows, and prairie fens With the widespread absence

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

80 Relict conifer swamp, Page 3 of fire in southern Michigan, tamarack, a common prairie In addition to tamarack, other common tree species fen species, has completely colonized many sites that include: black ash (Fraxinus nigra), yellow birch (Betula were previously occupied by prairie fen, thus forming alleghaniensis), American elm (Ulmus americana), red many of the relict conifer swamps we see today The maple, swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), quaking photo on the first page shows relict conifer swamp aspen (Populus tremuloides), red cedar (Juniperus encroaching on prairie fen in the foreground In addition virginiana), and in some locations white pine (Pinus to maintaining many community types in an open strobus), and northern white cedar condition, fire also severely restricted the distribution of thin-barked, fire-intolerant tree species such as red maple Aided by fire suppression, red maple has come to assume a leading role in the understory of many southern Michigan oak forests and frequently occurs in the canopy as well In the past, the lack of red maple in the surrounding uplands meant disturbance events such as windthrow and insect outbreaks, which create light gaps, helped facilitate tamarack regeneration and the long-term viability of relict conifer swamp With red maple now abundant in the surrounding uplands and widely distributed in many relict conifer swamps, these disturbance events may not be enough to maintain the tamarack component of the ecosystem and many former conifer swamps are now dominated by hardwoods As evidence of this conversion, it is common to find dead, standing and downed tamarack in hardwood swamps that occur on deep, organic soils in southern Michigan (Kost 2001) The conversion of these conifer swamps to hardwood swamps also results in a severe reduction in shrub-layer cover and the loss of many species Because many of the dominant shrub species are prolific fall, fruit producers, migrating and over-wintering songbirds as well as small mammals that rely on the fruit may be Photo by Michael Kost adversely impacted by the conversion to hardwood Poison sumac is one of several dominant shrub swamp species in relict conifer swamp that provide critical food resources to wildlife during the fall migration Vegetation Description: The structure of the community and winter is largely shaped by tamarack, the dominant tree species The roots of tamarack often form extensive mats that stand elevated above pools of water or mudflats and Common tall shrub species include: poison sumac provide a substrate for a diverse wetland ground flora In (Toxicodendron vernix), winterberry (Ilex verticillata), addition, the tamarack root mats form a varied smooth highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), microtopography, adding to the biocomplexity and high grey dogwood (Cornus foemina), silky dogwood (Cornus species richness of the community Tamarack windthrows amomum), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), hazelnut also add to the heterogeneous structure of ground layer as (Corylus americana), nannyberry (Viburnum lentago), well as the shrub layer Because of the open branching juneberry (Amelanchier arborea), black chokeberry and spire-shape of tamarack, the shrub layer of relict (Aronia prunifolia), and pussy willow (Salix discolor) conifer swamp receives a high level of light and is Other large shrubs that may occasionally occur in relict typically both very dense and diverse In fact, the shrub conifer swamp include spice bush (Lindera benzoin), layer may contain as many as 28 species, with multiple mountain holly (Nemopanthus mucronata), hornbeam species intertwined and over topping one another so that (Carpinus caroliniana), alternate-leaved dogwood total shrub-layer cover may reach 90 – 130% (Kost 2001)

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

81 Relict conifer swamp, Page 4

(Cornus alternifolia), Bebb’s willow (Salix bebbiana), Galium asprellum rough bedstraw and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) Galium labradoricum bog bedstraw Galium tinctorium stiff bedstraw Low shrub species common to relict conifer swamp Glyceria striata fowl manna grass include: swamp gooseberry (Ribes hirtellum), dwarf Impatiens capensis spotted touch-me-not raspberry (Rubus pubescens), bog birch (Betula pumila), Leersia oryzoides cut grass wild raspberry (Rubus spp), sage willow (Salix candida), Lemna minor small duckweed swamp fly honeysuckle (Lonicera oblongifolia), alder- Lycopus uniflorus northern bugle weed leaved buckthorn (Rhamnus alnifolia), common juniper Lysimachia thyrsiflora tufted loosestrife (Juniper communis), shrubby cinquefoil (Potentilla Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower fruticosa), and bog willow (Salix pedicellaris) Onoclea sensibilis sensitive fern Osmunda regalis royal fern Common woody vines include: poison ivy Pilea pumila clearweed (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper Rubus pubescens dwarf raspberry (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and riverbank grape (Vitis Sagittaria latifolia common arrowhead riparia) Scutellaria lateriflora mad-dog skullcap Senecio aureus golden ragwort Because of the high frequency of canopy disturbance and Solidago patula swamp goldenrod open structure of tamarack, the ground flora is composed Solidago rugosa rough goldenrod of a heterogeneous mixture of shade-tolerant and - Symplocarpus foetidus skunk-cabbage intolerant wetland plants In addition, the stark difference Thelypteris palustris marsh fern in moisture levels between the elevated root hummocks Trientalis borealis starflower and saturated mudflats also significantly increases the Viola spp violet diversity of wetland species found in the ground flora While mosses are prevalent throughout ground layer, the Michigan indicator species: Tamarack, poison sumac, sphagnum mosses (Sphagnum spp) are relatively smooth highbush blueberry, winterberry, black uncommon and locally distributed The following list chokeberry, alder-leaved buckthorn, black ash, yellow contains common ground flora species occurring in relict birch, and sedge (Carex leptalea) conifer swamp: Other noteworthy species: Many of the rare plants SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME associated with relict conifer swamp include species that Aster puniceus (A firmus) smooth swamp aster are more commonly found in open prairie fen These Aster lanceolatus eastern lined aster shade-intolerant species may occur on the edges of relict Bidens cernuus nodding bur-marigold conifer swamp or within light gaps that have remained in Bidens coronatus tall swamp-marigold an open condition Species that fit this group include Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle water parsnip (Berula erecta), tuberous Indian plantain Calamagrostis canadensis blue-joint grass (Cacalia plantaginea), narrow leaved reedgrass Caltha palustris marsh-marigold (Calamagrostis stricta), white lady’s lipper (Cypripedium Campanula aparinoides marsh bellflower candidum), English sundew (Drosera anglica), queen-of- Cardamine pensylvanica Pennsylvania bitter cress the-prairie (Filipendula rubra), mat muhly Carex alata winged sedge (Muhlenbergia richardsonis), sweet william phlox (Phlox Carex comosa sedge maculata), Jacob’s ladder (Polemonium reptans), prairie Carex hystericina sedge dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis), and edible valerian Carex lacustris sedge (Valeriana edulis var ciliata) Bog bluegrass (Poa Carex leptalea sedge paludigena), a rare species most commonly found in Carex stricta sedge hardwood-dominated swamps and floodplains, may also Cicuta bulbifera water hemlock occur in relict conifer swamp Dryopteris carthusiana spinulose woodfern Equisetum fluviatile water horsetail Rare animal species associated with relict conifer swamp include: tamarack tree cricket (Oecanthus laricis),

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

82 Relict conifer swamp, Page 5

Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii), eastern windthrow and insect outbreaks, result in tamarack massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus), Blanding’s turtle regeneration (Emydoidea blandingii), and spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) Invasive species that occur in relict conifer swamp include: glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), purple Conservation/management: The presence of conifer- loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), reed canary grass dominated wetlands in southern Michigan contributes (Phalaris arundinacea), reed (Phragmites australis), and significantly to the region’s overall biodiversity The relict bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara) While conifer swamps in southern Michigan represent the bittersweet nightshade is not typically a threat to a site’s southern range of the minerotrophic conifer swamps in overall species richness, each of the other invasive species the Midwest Because they are dominated by tamarack listed above can negatively influence species richness and and not by northern white cedar like their more alter community structure Glossy buckthorn, in widespread, northern counterpart, the relict conifer particular, is probably the greatest threat to species swamps in southern Michigan represent a unique type of diversity and community structure in relict conifer minerotrophic conifer swamp swamp This species has colonized similar habitats throughout the Midwest and can completely dominate the Protection of relict conifer swamp includes protecting the shrub and ground layers Treatment for removing glossy site’s hydrology This may include avoiding surface water buckthorn can be accomplished with cutting, inputs to the community from drainage ditches and accompanied by herbicide application (Reinartz 1997) agricultural fields, and protecting groundwater recharge and by using spot-burning to eliminate seedlings (Jack areas by maintaining native vegetation types in the McGowan-Stinski 1999 pers comm) uplands around relict conifer swamps Long-term flooding from road construction through the center of a Research needs: Because tamarack plays a critical role relict conifer swamp or clogged road culverts can result in in structuring relict conifer swamp, studies aimed at better mass tamarack mortality Because relict conifer swamp is understanding the factors that influence its ability to a groundwater-dependent community, protecting the regenerate will help managers maintain the long-term quantity and quality of the groundwater is critical viability of this community type The role of red maple and other hardwoods in altering community structure is Invasion by red maple can cause a relict conifer swamp to also an important research topic An historical study, shift to hardwood domination This shift begins to occur using GLO notes, of the distribution of red maple in as red maple reaches the overstory The broad canopy of relation to tamarack-dominated swamps as well as other red maple prevents direct sunlight from reaching smaller types of conifer swamp would help managers to better tamaracks and results in a rapid loss of tamarack and understand the differences between past successional other shade-intolerant species The dense shrub layer, processes and those observed today Gaining an which is characteristic of relict conifer swamp, is understanding of the effects of fire and other forms of significantly reduced under a hardwood canopy and thus, natural disturbance on relict conifer swamp will also help species that rely on fruit during the fall migration and managers better understand the ecosystem Little attention winter are adversely impacted has been given to the importance of relict conifer swamp for maintaining certain rare plant and animal species In Reducing red-maple cover in relict conifer swamps by addition, the role of relict conifer swamp in providing girdling red maple in conjunction with herbicide both thermal cover and important food reserves during application may be effective in preventing the loss of the fall migration and winter will be useful for understanding shrub layer and shade-intolerant species such as the significance of this community type in maintaining tamarack Ideally, this type of management would regional biodiversity accompany the use of prescribed fire in the upland forests adjacent to the swamp and hydrologic restoration where Similar communities: Rich conifer swamp, conifer- necessary Significantly reducing red maple cover in both hardwood swamp, southern swamp, poor conifer swamp, the upland and lowland forests will help ensure that prairie fen, and southern wet meadow characteristic natural disturbance events, such as

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

83 Relict conifer swamp, Page 6

Other Classifications: Kost, MA 2001 Potential Indicators for assessing biological integrity of forested, depressional wetlands in Michigan Natural Features Inventory Pre- southern Michigan Michigan Natural Features Inventory, settlement Vegetation (MNFI): Lansing, MI 69 pp Available: http://wwwdnrstatemius/ Lowland Conifer – Tamarack wildlife/ Heritage/Mnfi/pubs/ibi_finalpdf Merkey, DA 2001 Dominant water sources of six conifer swamps of southeastern Michigan Report submitted to Michigan Department of Natural Resources Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI 13 pp (MDNR): T-Tamarack Michigan Natural Features Inventory 1990 Draft description of Michigan natural community types Michigan Resource Information Systems Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI 34 pp (MIRIS): 4233 (Tamarack) (Unpublished manuscript revised April 2, 1990) Available: http://wwwdnrstatemius/WILDLIFE/Heritage/Mnfi/lists/ The Nature Conservancy National Classification natural_community_typespdf (Faber-Langendoen 2001, Natureserve 2001): McGowan-Stinski, J 1999 Land Steward The Nature Conservancy, Michigan Chapter, East Lansing, MI NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web CODE; ALLIANCE; ASSOCIATION; application] 2001 Version 14 Arlington (VA): COMMON NAME Association for Biodiversity Information Available: http:// wwwnatureserveorg/ (Accessed: August 30, 2001) IB2Ng3; Larix laricina Saturated Forest Reinartz, JA 1997 Controlling glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus Alliance; Larix laricina – Acer rubrum / (Rhamnus frangula L) with winter herbicide treatment of cut stumps alnifolia, Vaccinium corymbosum) Forest; Tamarack Natural Areas Journal 17:38-41 – Red Maple / (Alderleaf Buckthorn, Highbush Blueberry) Forest; Central Tamarack – Red Maple Abstract Citation: Rich Swamp Kost, MA 2001 Natural community abstract for relict conifer swamp Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Related Abstracts: prairie fen, southern wet meadow, Lansing, MI 6 pp prairie-Indian-plantain, white lady-slipper, English sundew, mat muhly, prairie dropseed, tamarack tree cricket, eastern massasauga, Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, Blanding’s turtle, spotted turtle

Selected References: Albert, DA 1995 Regional landscape ecosystems of MI, MN and WI: A working map and classification USFS – North Central Forest Experiment Station, St Paul, MN 55108 250 pp Albert, DA 2001 Regional Characterization and Quantification of Wetland Types Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI 35 pp Faber-Langendoen, D editor 2001 Plant communities of the Midwest: Classification in and ecological context Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA 61 pp + appendix (705 pp) Comer, PJ, DA Albert, HA Wells, BL Hart, JB Raab, DL Price, DM Kashian, RA Corner and DW Schuen 1995 Michigan’s presettlement vegetation, as interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816-1856 Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing MI Digital map Funding for abstract provided by Michigan Department of Curtis, JT 1959 Vegetation of Wisconsin The University of Natural Resources-Forest Management Division and Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI Wildlife Division

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

84 Southern wet meadow CommunitySouthern wet Abstract meadow, Page 1

State Distribution

Photo by Diane De Steven

Overview: Southern wet meadow is an open, Rank Justification: Because southern wet meadow often groundwater-influenced (minerotrophic), sedge- occurs as a zone within large wetland complexes, dominated wetland that occurs in mid and southern information on its presettlement extent and present Lower Michigan Sedges in the genus Carex, in acreage is not readily available However, in Wisconsin, particular Carex stricta, dominate the community where 459,000 ha (1,130,000 acres) of sedge meadow are thought to have existed prior to settlement (Curtis 1959), Global and State Rank: G4?/S3? it is estimated that less than 1 percent remain intact (Reuter 1986) It is likely southern wet meadow acreage Range: Southern wet meadow, which is commonly has declined similarly in other Midwest states, such as referred to as sedge meadow, occurs in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, where similar agricultural methods have been Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin practiced and Ontario In Michigan, southern wet meadow is thought to be restricted to the southern Lower Peninsula Southern wet meadows have been extensively utilized and to differ from sedge meadows in northern Michigan for agriculture Prior to the 1950s mowing for marsh hay (see northern wet meadow, MNFI 1990) However, no was widely practiced (Stout 1914, Curtis 1959) Wet detailed study of the differences between northern and meadows were frequently tiled, ditched, drained, and southern types has been undertaken Curtis (1959) converted to pasture, row crops or mined for peat studied sedge meadows in northern and southern (Costello 1936, Curtis 1959, Reuter 1986) In addition, Wisconsin and found them to be floristically similar but fire suppression has facilitated shrub encroachment with concluded that northern meadows had consistently lower many southern wet meadows converting to shrub-carr soil pH values and were frequently wetter and smaller (Curtis 1959, Davis 1979) This is especially evident than many southern wet meadows Another sedge- where the water table has been lowered though tiling or dominated natural community, poor fen, also occurs in ditching and the practice of mowing for marsh hay has Michigan but differs markedly from southern wet been abandoned (White 1965) meadow because of its strongly acidic, organic soils and the prevalence of Carex oligosperma and other open bog Landscape and Abiotic Context: Southern wet meadow species (MNFI 1990) occurs on glacial lakebeds, and in depressions on glacial outwash and moraines (Curtis 1959) The community

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

85 Southern wet meadow, Page 2

frequently occurs along the margins of lakes and streams swamp forests and shrub-carr and thus creating suitable where seasonal flooding or beaver-induced flooding is habitat for the growth of shade-intolerant wet meadow common species such as Carex stricta

Southern wet meadow typically occurs on organic soils Evidence from wetland peat cores and presettlement maps such as muck and peat (Curtis 1959) but saturated indicate that southern wet meadow is a fire-dependent mineral soil may also support the community (Costello natural community (Curtis 1959, Davis 1979) Analysis of 1936) Because of the calcareous nature of the glacial wetland peat cores shows that charcoal fragments are drift in the regions occupied by southern wet meadow, its consistently associated with sedge and grass pollen (Davis wet soils contain high levels of dissolved minerals such as 1979) Conversely, charcoal fragments are lacking from calcium and magnesium Southern wet meadow soil pH sections of peat cores dominated by shrub pollen values range between 70 to 78 in southeastern Michigan Additional evidence for the role of fire in maintaining and 72 to 85 in southern Wisconsin and indicate that the sedge meadows in an open condition comes from community typically occurs on neutral to strongly alkaline presettlement maps In southern Wisconsin, where soils (Costello 1939, Curtis 1959, Warners 1993) prevailing westerly winds carry fires eastward, sedge meadow frequently occurred adjacent to fire-dependent Southern wet meadow typically occurs adjacent to other natural communities such as oak savannas and prairies on wetland communities in large wetland complexes In the west side (ie, windward) of large rivers While southern Michigan’s interlobate region where ground directly east (ie, leeward) of these same rivers, similar water seeps occur at the base of moraines, southern wet topography supported fire-intolerant tamarack swamps meadow often borders prairie fen In depressions on and mesic forests (Zicker 1955 in Curtis 1959) ground moraine or lakeplain, southern wet meadow may grade into wet prairie or lakeplain wet prairie up slope By reducing leaf litter and allowing light to reach the soil and emergent marsh in lower areas On the edges of surface and stimulate seed germination, fire can play an inland lakes, southern wet meadow often borders important role in maintaining southern wet meadow seed emergent marsh It may also occur along the Great Lakes banks (Warners 1997, Kost and De Steven 2000) Fire shoreline within extensive areas of Great Lakes marsh In also plays a critical role in preventing declines in species all of these landscape settings, southern wet meadow may richness in many community types by creating micro- border shrub-carr and swamp forest niches for small species (Leach and Givnish 1996) Another critically important attribute of fire for Natural Processes: Southern wet meadow is a maintaining open sedge meadow is its ability to groundwater-dependent, Carex stricta-dominated, temporarily reduce shrub cover (Reuter 1986) wetland community Water levels in southern wet meadow fluctuate seasonally, reaching their peak in spring and In the absence of fire or flooding, all but the wettest sedge lows in late summer (Costello 1936, Warners 1993) meadows typically convert to shrub-car and eventually However, water levels typically remain at or near the swamp forest (Curtis 1959) Because many of the species soil’s surface throughout the year (Costello 1936, Curtis that inhabit southern wet meadow are shade-intolerant, 1959, Warners 1993) The community’s structure may species richness usually declines following shrub and tree depend on maintaining a consistently high water table invasion (Curtis 1959, White 1965) Costello (1936) states that the Carex stricta tussocks disappeared within 10 years from a meadow where the Vegetation Description: Southern wet meadow is water levels were reduced to 2 to 4 feet below the surface typically dominated by Carex stricta (Stout 1914, Costello as a result of tiling 1936, Curtis 1959, Warners 1997, Kost and De Steven 2000) Because the roots of Carex stricta form large In addition to seasonal flooding, beaver-induced flooding hummocks or tussocks, the species is responsible for the may also play an important role in maintaining the community’s hummock and hollow structure Individual community by occasionally raising water levels and culms of Carex stricta grow from the tussocks, which killing encroaching trees and shrubs Beaver may also may reach more than 1 m in height and 5 m in diameter help create new southern wet meadows by flooding and live for more than 50 years (Costello 1936) The

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

86 Southern wet meadow, Page 3

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Asclepias incarnata swamp milkweed Aster puniceus (A firmus) swamp aster Aster lanceolatus eastern lined aster Aster lateriflorus side flowering aster Calamagrostis canadensis blue joint grass Campanula aparinoides marsh bellflower Carex aquatilis sedge Carex hystericina sedge Carex lacustris sedge Carex lanuginosa sedge Carex lasiocarpa sedge Photo by Michael Kost Carex prairea sedge Early spring photo of Carex stricta tussocks and Carex sartwellii sedge encroaching shrubs A prescribed fire removed the Carex stipata sedge litter from tussocks in the background, while a Carex stricta sedge thick layer of litter remains on unburned tussocks Cicuta bulbifera water hemlock in the foreground Cirsium muticum swamp thistle Eleocharis erythropoda spike rush Carex stricta tussocks can occur at very high densities (1 Equisetum fluviatile water horsetail to 4 per m2) and occupy more than 40% of a meadow’s Eupatorium maculatum joe pye weed area (Costello 1936) Because the shaded areas between Eupatorium perfoliatum common boneset tussocks are often covered with standing water and leaf Galium asprellum rough bedstraw litter, many of the shorter species inhabiting sedge Glyceria striata fowl manna grass meadows grow almost exclusively from the sides or tops Impatiens capensis jewelweed of Carex stricta tussocks Iris virginica southern blue flag Lathyrus palustris marsh pea Other sedges that commonly occur in southern wet Lycopus uniflorus northern bugle weed meadow include: Carex aquatilis, C comosa, C bebbii, Lysimachia thyrsiflora tufted loosestrife C hystericina, C lacustris, C lanuginosa, C lasiocarpa, Mentha arvensis wild mint C prairea, C rostrata, C sartwellii, C stipata and C Muhlenbergia glomerata marsh wild timothy vulpinoidea Although most of the associated sedge Muhlenbergia mexicana leafy satin grass species tend to be randomly interspersed, Carex lacustris Onoclea sensibilis sensitive fern often occurs in dense patches Pilea pumila clearweed Polygonum amphibium water smartweed The most dominant grass species in southern wet meadow Pycnanthemum virginianummountain mint is blue joint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis) (Stout Rumex orbiculatus great water dock 1914, Kost and De Steven 2000) Other common grasses Sagittaria latifolia common arrowhead include: fringed brome (Bromus ciliatus), fowl mana Scutellaria galericulata common skullcap grass (Glyceria striata), marsh wild timothy Solidago canadensis canada goldenrod (Muhlenbergia glomerata), leafy satin grass Solidago gigantea late goldenrod (Muhlenbergia mexicana), and fowl meadow grass (Poa Solidago patula swamp goldenrod palustris) Thalictrum dasycarpum purple meadow rue Thelypteris palustris marsh fern A wide variety of wetland forbs occur in southern wet Triadenum fraseri marsh st john’s wort meadow The following table contains many of the more Typha latifolia broad leaved cattail commonly occurring southern wet meadow species Viola cucullata marsh violet

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

87 Southern wet meadow, Page 4

Michigan indicator species: Carex stricta, Carex Invasive species that can occur in southern wet meadow lacustris, blue joint grass, swamp aster, joe pye weed, include purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), reed canary common boneset, northern bugleweed, great water dock, grass (Phalaris arundinacea), reed (Phragmites marsh bellflower, and tufted loosestrife australis), and glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula) Each of these species is capable of significantly altering Other noteworthy species: The small white lady’s community structure and dramatically reducing species slipper (Cypripedium candidum) may occur in southern richness Management should strive to prevent the further wet meadow Rare animal species associated with spread of these invasive species and implement control southern wet meadow include: swamp metalmark measures when possible (Calephelis mutica), Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii), eastern massasauga (Sistrurus Restoration of degraded southern wet meadows depends catenatus), Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), on the occurrence of water-saturated peat and muck soils, spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), marsh wren maintaining waters levels very near the soil surface (Cistothorus palustris), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), throughout the year, providing protection from shrub short eared owl (Asio flammeus), and American bittern encroachment and invasive species, and the availability of (Botaurus lentiginosus) appropriate seed stock (Reuter 1986) Finding viable seed for Carex stricta, the species responsible for the overall Conservation/management: structure of southern wet meadow, may be a difficult task Southern wet meadows contribute significantly to the Costello (1936) reports that in more than six years of overall biodiversity of southern Michigan by providing studying Carex stricta-dominated sedge meadows he did habitat to a wide variety of plant and animal species not find a single seedling of the species Because of the including many rare species difficulty of restoring southern wet meadow in the absence of favorable hydrology and intact organic soils, Protecting the hydrology of southern wet meadow is conservation efforts should focus on protecting the imperative for the community’s continued existence This remaining community occurrences (Reuter 1986) may include avoiding surface water inputs to the meadow from drainage ditches and agricultural fields, and Research needs: Research on methods for establishing protecting groundwater recharge areas by maintaining and maintaining Carex stricta in wetland mitigation or native vegetation types in the uplands around the degraded sites will facilitate restoration efforts for community southern wet meadow Further work on community classification is needed to elucidate differences among Management for southern wet meadow should include the sedge meadow types both within and among ecoregions use of prescribed fire (Curtis 1959) Prescribed fire can Research is needed on plant and animal community help reduce litter, stimulate seed germination, promote responses to the frequency and seasonal timing of seedling establishment, and bolster grass, sedge, and prescribed burning Research on the importance of the perennial and annual forb cover (Bowles et al 1996, community for maintaining certain rare species will help Warners 1997, Kost and De Steven 2000) While stimulate southern wet meadow conservation and prescribed fire can be an important tool for rejuvenating management southern wet meadow seed banks, it can also help ensure that the community remains in an open condition by Similar communities: emergent marsh, northern wet temporarily setting back invading woody species (Reuter meadow, poor fen, prairie fen, wet prairie, lakeplain wet 1986) Using prescribed fire to control shrub invasion in prairie, Great Lakes marsh and southern shrub-carr sedge meadows has also been shown to be 85% less expensive to implement than manual cutting (Reuter Other Classifications: 1986) The use of prescribed fire should be avoided during periods of drought to avoid igniting the Michigan Natural Features Inventory Pre- community’s organic soils (Curtis 1959, Vogl 1969) settlement Vegetation (MNFI): wet meadow (6224)

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

88 Southern wet meadow, Page 5

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Michigan Natural Features Inventory 1990 Draft (MDNR): L, lowland brush; N, marsh; V, bog or description of Michigan natural community types muskeg Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI 34 pp (Unpublished manuscript revised April 2, Michigan Resource Information Systems 1990) Available: http://wwwdnrstatemius/ (MIRIS): 622 (emergent wetland) WILDLIFE/Heritage/Mnfi/lists/ natural_community_typespdf The Nature Conservancy National Classification NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web (Faber-Langendoen 2001, Natureserve 2001): application] 2001 Version 14 Arlington (VA): Association for Biodiversity Information Available: CODE; ALLIANCE; ASSOCIATION; http://wwwnatureserveorg/ (Accessed: September 4, COMMON NAME 2001) Reuter, DD 1986 Sedge meadows of the upper VA5Nk; Carex stricta Seasonally Flooded Midwest: A stewardship abstract Natural Areas Herbaceous Alliance; Carex stricta – Carex spp Journal 6: 27-34 Herbaceous Vegetation; Tussock Sedge – Sedge Stout, A B 1914 A biological and statistical analysis Species Herbaceous Vegetation; Tussock Sedge Wet of the vegetation of a typical wild hay meadow Meadow Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 17: 405-57 Related Abstracts: small white lady’s slipper, mat Vogl, R J 1969 One hundred and thirty years of plant muhly, prairie dropseed, short-eared owl, northern succession in a Southeastern Wisconsin lowland harrier, spotted turtle, Blanding’s turtle, Mitchell’s satyr Ecology 50: 248-55 butterfly, eastern massasauga, lakeplain wet prairie, Warners, D P 1993 Species diversity in southern prairie fen, Great Lakes marsh, and relict conifer Michigan sedge meadows: Unpublished report to The swamp Nature Conservancy, Michigan Chapter, East Lansing, MI 35 pp Selected References: Warners, D P 1997 Plant diversity in sedge meadows: Bowles, M, J McBride, N Stynoff, and K Johnson Effects of groundwater and fire PhD dissertation, 1996 Temporal changes in vegetation composition University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 231 pp and structure in a fire-managed prairie fen Natural White, K L 1965 Shrub-carrs of southeastern Areas Journal 16: 275-278 Wisconsin Ecology 46: 286-304 Costello, D F 1936 Tussock meadows in southeastern Zicker, WA 1955 An analysis of Jefferson County Wisconsin Botanical Gazette 97: 610-48 vegetation using surveyor’s records and present day Curtis, JT 1959 Vegetation of Wisconsin: An data MS thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, ordination of plant communities The University of WI Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI Davis, A M 1979 Wetland succession, fire and the Abstract Citation: pollen record: A Midwestern example The American Kost, MA 2001 Natural community abstract for Midland Naturalist 102: 86-94 southern wet meadow Natural Features Inventory, Faber-Langendoen, D editor 2001 Plant communities Lansing, MI 5 pp of the Midwest: Classification in and ecological context Association for Biodiversity Information, Arlington, VA 61 pp + appendix (705 pp) Leach, MK and TJ Givnish 1996 Ecological determinants of species loss in remnant prairies Science 273: 1555-1558 Kost, MA and D De Steven 2000 Plant community responses to prescribed burning in Wisconsin sedge Funding for abstract provided by Michigan Department meadows Natural Areas Journal 20: 36-49 of Natural Resources-Forest Management Division and Wildlife Division

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

89 90 Prairie fen Community Abstract

State Distribution

Photo by Dennis A Albert

Best Survey Period

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Global and state rank: G4/S4 slopes of the moraine or ridge, where coarse-textured glacial deposits provide high hydraulic conductivity, Total range: Prairie fens are geologically and biologically forcing groundwater to the surface (Moran 1981) Prairie unique wetlands found only in the glaciated Midwest fens are often associated with and drain into a small lake They are distinguished from other calcareous fens by a or pond, or, less often, a river or stream Sapric peat, one tallgrass prairie flora and fauna component They currently foot to greater than 36 feet (5 to >12 meters) deep (Moore are known in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, et al 1993), is typical prairie fen substrate, which is Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin and southern saturated with a constant supply of groundwater Ontario Similar communities are also known in Groundwater is calcareous, or rich in both calcium and unglaciated Missouri (Orzell & Kurz 1984) In Michigan, magnesium bicarbonates; resulting from flow through prairie fens occur in the southern three to four tiers of limestone bedrock and/or coarse textured calcareous counties, primarily in the glacial interlobate region glacial deposits (Curtis 1959, Moran 1981, White & Chapman 1988) The high concentrations of bicarbonates Rank justification: With the exception of Missouri, often precipitate as marl at the soil surface Soils are prairie fens are restricted to glaciated portions of the circumneutral with a typical pH range from 68 to 82 Midwest with specific geologic features, and are a (White & Chapman 1988, Aaseng et al 1993) regionally common natural community Prior to European settlement, prairie fens were undoubtedly more numerous Natural processes: Hydrological processes are very than they are today Agriculture and urban development in important in prairie fen vegetative structure Michigan have disrupted groundwater flow and destroyed wetlands, including prairie fens In addition, lack of fire Saturated peat is maintained by a constant inflow of has likely caused prairie fens to succeed into shrub carr groundwater rich in calcium and magnesium from communities (Moran 1981) Currently, about 85 prairie surrounding glacial deposits Calcium and magnesium-rich fens are identified in Michigan totalling about 2,000 acres groundwater often upwells through the peat and forms (810 hectares) broad seeps or local springs Once groundwater enters the prairie fen, drainage continues through the peat either in Landscape context: Prairie fens occur in the glacial diffuse surface flow or in stream flow (Almendinger et al interlobate region of Michigan’s southern Lower 1994) Peninsula This region contains a broad outwash plain scattered with “islands” of coarse-textured end and ground In the early 1800s, prairie fens were part of an ecosystem moraine, and ice contact ridges (Albert 1995) Prairie fens complex maintained by fire (Chapman 1988) are typically located along the junction of outwash plain and moraine or ice contact ridge They occur on lower Prior to European settlement, dry, open upland communities such as mixed oak barrens or white oak

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

91 prairie fen, Page 2

savannas were often adjacent to prairie fens (Comer et al meadow zone, which distinguishes prairie fen from other 1995) Native American or lightning strike fires burned calcareous fen communities in Michigan uplands and likely spread into adjacent prairie fens (Vogl 1969) These fires burned surface vegetation, inhibited A wooded fen zone dominated by shrubs and trees is often shrub invasion, and maintained the open prairie fen located around upland edges of prairie fen community structure (Curtis 1959) The zone usually occurs on higher and slightly sloping Vegetation description: Historically, prairie fen surfaces where upland grades to wetland vegetation was adapted to the natural processes described However, lower and wetter wooded fen zones also occur above Fire is supressed in most landscapes today, and Larix laricina (tamarack) is often a major component and therefore the vegetative structure in existing prairie fens is sometimes dominant in the wooded fen zone largely a result of the unique hydrology Vegetation of this Occasionally, these zones resemble deciduous swamp community consists of obligate wetland and calcicolous dominated by Acer rubrum (red maple) and Ulmus species mixed with tallgrass prairie and sedge meadow americana (American elm) Shrub species, such as Cornus species stolonifera (red-osier dogwood), C foemina (gray Three (or four) vegetation zones are often present in dogwood), Physocarpus opulifolius (ninebark), Salix prairie fens (Chapman 1988) Inundated flats or candida (sage willow), Spiraea alba (meadowsweet), and depressions are located around lake or stream margins Toxicodendron vernix (poison sumac) are common in both This zone can be expansive around lakes, or localized types of wooded fen along small ponds, streams, or springs It is the wettest Another vegetative zone is sometimes distinct in areas of portion of the prairie fen, with up to a foot (3 meter) of calcareous groundwater seepage These areas are either standing water in the spring and early summer Dominant broad and flat or small and broken and sparsely vegetated species include Scirpus acutus (hardstem bulrush), Scirpus with marl precipitate at the surface americanus (three-square), Cladium mariscoides (twig- rush), Juncus brachycephalus (rush), Eleocharis elliptica The high concentration of calcium and magnesium in these (golden-seeded spike-rush), and E rostellata (spike-rush) areas results in vegetation dominated by calcicolous species including Carex flava (sedge), Lobelia kalmii (bog Sedge meadow is the largest and most characteristic lobelia), Parnassia glauca (grass-of-parnassus), vegetative zone of a prairie fen This zone is saturated but Rhynchospora alba (beak-rush), and Triglochin maritimum not inundated and slightly sloping with stable peat Any (bog arrow-grass) Carnivorous Drosera rotundifolia number or combination of three general associations of (round-leaved sundew), Sarracenia purpurea (pitcher dominance can be found in the sedge meadow zone The plant), and Utricularia intermedia (flat-leaved sedge-shrub association is a combination of sedges and bladderwort) are also found in this zone low growing shrubs, often dominated by Potentilla fruiticosa (shrubby cinquefoil), Carex stricta (meadow Strata Most abundant sedge), and C aquatilis (sedge) The sedge-composite Tree canopy Larix laricina (tamarack) association is often dominated by C stricta (meadow Short shrub Potentilla fruiticosa (shrubby cinquefoil), sedge), Eupatorium maculatum (joe-pye weed), E Betula pumila (bog birch) perfoliatum (common boneset), and Aster spp (asters) Herbaceous Carex stricta, C aquatilis (sedges), The grass-sedge association is often dominated by C Eleocharis rostellata (spike-rush), stricta, C sterilis, C aquatilis (sedges), Andropogon Cladium mariscoides (twig rush), Scirpus scoparius (little bluestem), A gerardii (big bluestem), and acutus (bulrush) Sorghastrum nutans (Indian grass) Other species common in all associations of the sedge meadow zone include Bromus ciliatus (fringed brome), Calamagrostis canadensis (blue-joint grass), Lysimachia qaudriflora (whorled loosestrife), Muhlenbergia glomerata (marsh wild-timothy), Pycnanthemum virginianum (Virginia mountain mint), Rudbeckia hirta (black-eyed Susan), Solidago ohioensis (Ohio goldenrod), and Thelypteris palustris (marsh fern) Other shrubs in this zone include Betula pumila (bog birch), and Cornus spp (dogwoods) Lack of fire and disruptions in groundwater flow often result in the colonization of these and other shrub and tree species including Salix spp (willows), Populus tremuloides (quaking aspen), Rhamnus alnifolia (alder- leaved buckthorn), and Ulmus americana (American elm) Diversity and herbaceous cover are greatest in the sedge Photo by William W Brodowicz

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

92 prairie fen, Page 3

Michigan indicator species: Larix laricina (tamarack), groundwater Whereas lawns, agricultural fields, and Parnassia glauca (grass-of-parnassus), Potentilla impervious surfaces contribute warm, nutrient & sediment- fruiticosa (shrubby cinquefoil), Pycnanthemum laden surface water runoff into fens virginianum (Virginia mountain mint), Solidago ohioensis (Ohio goldenrod), S riddellii (Riddell’s goldenrod), and Nutrient addition from leaking septic tanks and drain fields Sorghastrum nutans (Indian grass) is suspected of contributing to the dominance of invasives such as Typha angustifolia (narrow-leaved cat-tail), and Other noteworthy species: Several rare animals are Phragmites australis (reed) and purple loosestrife in associated with prairie fen Oecanthus laricis (tamarack portions of several prairie fens (Panno, SV et al 1999) tree cricket) is associated with the wooded fen zone often fringing a prairie fen Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Control of invasive and woody species invasion is (Mitchell’s satyr) is also associated with more open edges necessary in these prairie fens to restore natural vegetative of wooded fen zone where tamarack trees and poison patterns of diversity Fire and manual removal have proven sumac are scattered within a meadow of tall sedges effective in controlling exotics and native woody invasives Oarisma poweshiek (poweshiek skipper) is found (Kohring 1982, Zimmeran 1983) Bowles et al (1996) associated with spike and bulrushes in the inundated flat/ determined that although fire did not significantly decrease depression zone woody species frequency it increased graminoid dominance Celephelis muticum (swamp metalmark) is found associated with its host plants Circium muticum (swamp Research needs: Quantify vegetational differences of thistle) primarily and C altissimum (tall thistle) structure and species diversity in prairie fens across the Lepyronia angulifera (angualr spittlebug) has been regional distribution Investigate historical fire frequency collected from marly flats Food plants for the adults within prairie fens Determine how varying degrees of include Sporobolus indicus (smut-grass), Cyperus hydrological disruption effect patterns of praire fen sweinitzii (umbrella sedge), and other sedges Adults of vegetative structure Investigate the association of rare this species feed on Gossypium hirsutum (cotton) as well species with prairie fens (ie Mitchell’s satyr) Further as a variety of monocots Although not restricted to fens, identify the most effective management techniques in Sistrurus catenatus catenatus (massasauga) is often found restoring native prairie fen flora and fauna in the sedge meadow zone Similar communities: wet prairie, wet-mesic prairie, Rare plants associated with prairie fen include Cacalia southern wet meadow, shrub carr, lakeplain prairie, plantaginea (tuberous Indian plantain), Carex richardsonii northern fen, poor fen, interdunal wetland, bog (Richardson’s sedge), Cypripedium candidum (white Other classifications ladies-slipper), Muhlenbergia richardsonis (mat muhly), Rudbeckia sullivantii (black-eyed Susan), Sporobolus Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) heterolepis (prairie dropseed), and Valeriana ciliata Presettlement Vegetation: not specifically noted, likely (common valerian) associated with 6227-wet prairie, 6122-marsh Invasive, non-native species such as Rhamnus frangula Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR): L- (glossy buckthorn) establish monocultures along wooded lowland brush, N-marsh, T-tamarack fen edges and often extend into the sedge meadow zone Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) can also invade the Michigan Resource Information Systems (MIRIS): 612- inundated flat/depression zone shrub/scrub, 623-non-forested flats Conservation/management: Protecting hydrology is National Wetland Inventory (NWI): not specifically most important in the maintenance of vegetative structure mentioned in prairie fens Groundwater flow into the prairie fen is altered by agricultural and residential drains and wells The Nature Conservancy National Classification: CODE: The underlying groundwater table is lowered because of (VA7Np) groundwater extraction and lack of recharge due to drained Alliance: Potentilla fruiticosa/Carex (flava, interior, surface water A lower groundwater table cannot supply sterilis, lasiocarpa) (saturated shrub herbaceous) the calcareous seepage which underlies prairie fen communities Land use planning to protect the aquifer Association: Potentilla fruiticosa/Carex sterilis-Carex recharge area to the prairie fen is necessary to retain the flava-Eleocharis rostellata-Cacalia plantaginea (shrub unique hydrology Many of the existing prairie fens herbaceous vegetation) already have disrupted aquifer recharge areas and portions of these communities are slowly changing to shrub-carr Related abstracts: Mitchell’s satyr, poweshiek skipper, white lady’s-slipper, prairie dropseed Healthy woodlands, savanna, and prairies in uplands adjacent to fens allow infiltration of precipitation into the

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

93 prairie fen, Page 4

Selected references wetland complex Wetlands 19:1 Aaseng, NE, JC Almendinger, RP Dana, BC Delaney, White, MA and KA Chapman 1988 Element HL Dunevitz, KA Rusterholz, NP Sather, and DS stewardship abstract for alkaline shrub/herb fen, lower Worcha 1993 Minnesota’s native vegetation: A Key Great Lakes type TNC - Midwest Heritage Task to natural communities Minn DNR Natural Heritage Force 14 pp Program Biological Report No 20 Zimmerman, JH 1983 The Revegetation of a small Albert, DA 1995 Regional landscape ecosystems of MI, Yahara Valley prairie fen WI Acad of Science, Arts, MN, and WI: A Working map and classification USFS and Letters 71 pp 87-102 - North Central Forest Experiment Station Almendinger, J, J Anderson, J Bell, E Berglund, R Dana, S Eggers, E Gorham, J Janssens, S Komor, G Abstract citation Larson, J Leete, N Sather, and S Verry 1994 Michigan Natural Features Inventory 1997 Natural Technical criteria for identifying and delineating community abstract for prairie fen Lansing, MI 4 pp calcareous fens in Minnesota Minn DNR Bowles, M, J McBride, N Stoynoff, and K Johnson 1996 Temporal change in vegetation structure in a fire-managed prairie fen Nat Areas J Oct v16, N4 pp 275-288 Chapman KA 1986 Natural community description: fen Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI 2 pp Comer, PJ, DA Albert, HA Wells, BL Hart, JB Raab, DL Price, DM Kashian, RA Corner, and DW Schuen 1995 Michigan’s Presettlement Vegetation, as Interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816-1856 Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI Digital map Curtis, JT 1959 Vegetation of Wisconsin: An Ordination of Plant Communities U of Wis Press, Madison, WI 657 pp Kohring, MA 1982 Effect of a fall burn on Bakertown Fen, Berrien Co, Michigan Master’s Thesis Mich State Univ, East Lansing, MI Moore (Raab), JB, MS Hugan, and LP Bruederle 1993 Comparison of three prairie fens in southern Michigan Report to MNFI U of Mich - Flint Biology Dept, Flint, Michigan 42 pp Moran, RC 1981 Prairie fens in northeastern Illinois: Floristic composition and disturbance In, Proceedings Sixth North American Prairie Conference RL Stuckey and KJ Reese (eds) Ohio State U, Columbus, OH Ohio Bio Survey Notes No 15 Orzell, SL and DR Kurz 1984 Floristic analysis of prairie fens in the southeastern Missouri Ozarks In, Proceedings of the 9th North American Prairie Conference Tri-College Univ Center for Environ Studies, Fargo, ND pp 50-58 Funding for abstract provided by Michigan Department of Natural Resources - Wildlife Division Panno, SV, VA Nuzzo, K Cartwright, BR Hensel, and IG Krapac 1999 Impact of urban development on 7-99/rac the chemical composition of groundwater in a fen-

Michigan Natural Features Inventory PO Box 30444 - Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Phone: 517-373-1552

94