Summary of Natural Community Surveys for the Parks and Recreation Division

Prepared by: Joshua G. Cohen Michigan Natural Features Inventory P.O. Box 13036 Lansing, MI 48901-3036

For: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Parks and Recreation Division

February 28, 2014

Report Number 2014-04 Suggested Citation: Cohen, J.G. 2014. Summary of Natural Community Surveys for Parks and Recreation Division. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2014-04, Lansing, MI. 101 pp.

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

Cover photos: top left, Craig Lake Bogs from Craig Lake State Park; top right, Menominee River Floodplain from Menominiee River State Recreation Area; lower left, Carp River Swamp South hardwood-conifer swamp from Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park; and lower right, Lime Island limestone cobble shore from Lime Island State Recreation Area. Photos by Joshua G. Cohen. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... 1 INTRODUCTION...... 2 METHODS...... 3 Field Surveys...... 3 RESULTS...... 4 Site Summaries...... 7 BOG...... 7 Craig Lake Bogs...... 8 Keweenaw Point...... 9 Little Carp River Bog...... 10 BOREAL FOREST...... 11 Fish Cove...... 12 Lime Island...... 13 DRY-MESIC NORTHERN FOREST...... 14 Piers Gorge Forest...... 15 EMERGENT MARSH...... 16 Keweenaw Point...... 17 Middle Lake Marsh...... 18 FLOODPLAIN FOREST...... 19 Menominee River Floodplain...... 20 GRANITE BEDROCK GLADE...... 21 Craig Lake Glades...... 22 GRANITE CLIFF...... 23 Craig Lake Cliffs...... 24 GREAT LAKES MARSH...... 25 Lime Island...... 26 HARDWOOD-CONIFER SWAMP...... 27 Carp River Swamp South...... 28 Craig Lake Swamp...... 29 Little Carp River Swamp...... 30 Mirror Lake Swamp...... 31 Union Creek Swamp...... 32 HILLSIDE PRAIRIE...... 33 Menominee River Prairie...... 34 INTERDUNAL WETLAND...... 35 Besser Natural Area...... 36 Rockport South...... 37

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS

RESULTS(continued) Site Summaries (continued) LIMESTONE COBBLE SHORE...... 38 Besser Natural Area...... 39 Lime Island...... 40 Rockport South...... 41 MUSKEG...... 42 Craig Lake Muskegs...... 43 NORTHERN FEN...... 44 Ferrion Point Fen...... 45 Keweenaw Point...... 46 Middle Lake Fen...... 47 NORTHERN HARDWOOD SWAMP...... 48 Government Peak Swamp...... 49 Lake of the Clouds Swamp...... 50 Rockport Swamp...... 51 NORTHERN SHRUB THICKET...... 52 Pesheke River Thicket...... 53 NORTHERN WET MEADOW...... 54 Little Carp River Meadow...... 55 Pesheke River Meadow...... 56 OAK-PINE BARRENS...... 57 Menominee River Barrens...... 58 OPEN DUNES...... 59 Besser Natural Area...... 60 POOR CONIFER SWAMP...... 61 Craig Lake Spruce Swamp...... 62 POOR FEN...... 63 Craig Lake Fens...... 64 RICH CONIFER SWAMP...... 65 Hoar Creek Swamp...... 66 Menominee River Swamp...... 67 Pesheke River Swamp...... 68 SUBMERGENT MARSH...... 69 Keweenaw Point...... 70 Mirror Lake Trail...... 71

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS RESULTS(continued) Site Summaries (continued) VOLCANIC BEDROCK GLADE...... 72 Brandts Creek Glade...... 73 East Vista Glade...... 74 Menominee River Glade...... 75 VOLCANIC CLIFF...... 76 Porcupine South...... 77 Union Creek Cliff...... 78 VOLCANIC COBBLE SHORE...... 79 Keweenaw Point...... 80 VOLCANIC LAKESHORE CLIFF...... 81 Fish Cove...... 82 WET-MESIC FLATWOODS...... 83 Belle Isle Flatwoods...... 84 DISCUSSION...... 86 REFERENCES...... 87 APPENDIX 1...... 89 APPENDIX 2...... 99 APPENDIX 3...... 101

TABLE Table 1. Summary of 2012 surveys...... 5

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Parks and Recreation Division (PRD) for funding this effort to survey for high-quality natural communities in Michigan’s State Parks and Recreation Areas. Special thanks are due to PRD’s Ray Fahlsing and Glenn Palmgren for overseeing this project. Glenn was instrumental in the development of the workplan and the Threat Assessment Form. This report relies on data collected by many present and former Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) field scientists, especially: Joshua Cohen, Bradford Slaughter, Mike Penskar, and Suzan Campbell. Editorial support and insightful comments were provided by Martha Gove. Finally, we thank the following MNFI colleagues: Kraig Korroch and Rebecca Rogers assisted with database management; Helen Enander offered technological support; and Sue Ridge, Nancy Toben, Yu Man Lee, and Brian Klatt provided administrative support.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 1 INTRODUCTION

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Parks and Recreation Division (PRD) is responsible for managing Michigan’s State Parks, Recreation Areas, Boating Access Sites, Harbors, Scenic Sites, State Forest Campgrounds, and Pathways. Part of PRD’s stated mission is to “acquire, protect, and preserve the natural, historic, and cultural features of Michigan’s unique resources.” Within the division, the Stewardship Unit is charged with preserving, protecting, and restoring the natural and cultural features. Preservation and restoration of the natural communities within State Parks and Recreation Areas, along with their constituent plants and animals, are core parts of the mission. The PRD is in the process of writing and updating management plans for State Parks and Recreation Areas. In these plans, the land is zoned for various levels of protection and use based on the location and type of its natural and cultural features.

A baseline inventory of rare natural communities was conducted by Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) in State Parks and Recreation Areas in the late 1990s to early 2000s. However, this initial inventory effort did not include comprehensive boundary mapping, detailed condition assessments, threat assessments, or surveys of common natural communities. To inform the PRD management planning process and the overall protection, preservation, and restoration of natural communities throughout Michigan’s State Parks and Recreation Areas, up-to-date information is needed on the boundaries, condition, landscape context, and current threats to the ecological integrity of natural communities. From 2009 to 2012, Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) conducted a multi-year survey and assessment on state park and recreation area lands of known natural community element occurrences. During the course of these surveys, ecologists identified additional potential high-quality natural communities in many of the larger parks (i.e., Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park and Craig Lake State Parks). In addition, the PRD has recently acquired numerous lands that have yet to be evaluated or fully evaluated for high-quality natural communities (i.e., Lime Island State Recreation Area, Menominee River State Recreation Area and Rockport State Park). Through work on this project, MNFI conducted surveys for high-quality natural communities in the following PRD lands: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Craig Lake State Park, Lime Island State Recreation Area, Menominee River State Recreation Area, and Rockport State Park. Current state forest land along the Keweenaw Point in the Baraga State Forest Management Unit that will likely be transferred to PRD ownership was also surveyed. In addition, portions of Belle Isle Park surveyed in the fall of 2012 were also surveyed in the growing season of 2013 for this project.

A natural community is defined as an assemblage of interacting plants, animals, and other organisms that repeatedly occurs under similar environmental conditions across the landscape and is predominantly structured by natural processes rather than modern anthropogenic disturbances. Protecting and managing representative natural communities is critical to biodiversity conservation, since native organisms are best adapted to environmental and biotic forces with which they have survived and evolved over the millennia (Kost et al. 2007).

During the summer of 2013, MNFI scientists documented 44 new high-quality natural communities on State Park and Recreation Area lands and also updated six known high-quality community element occurrences. According to MNFI’s natural community classification, there are 77 natural community types in Michigan (Kost et al. 2007). Twenty-eight different natural community types are represented in the 50 element occurrences surveyed (Table 1). Surveys assessed the current ranking, classification, and delineation of these occurrences and detailed the vegetative structure and composition, ecological boundaries, landscape and abiotic context, threats, management needs, and restoration opportunities. The primary goal of this survey effort is to provide resource managers and planners with standardized, baseline information on each natural community element occurrence. This baseline information is critical for facilitating site-level decisions about biodiversity stewardship, prioritizing protection, management and restoration, monitoring the success of management and restoration, and informing landscape-level biodiversity planning efforts. This report summarizes the findings of MNFI’s ecological surveys.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 2 METHODS Field Surveys The 50 high-quality natural communities were documented in six different State Parks, State Recreation Areas, or State Forests (Table 1) including the following: Baraga State Forest Management Unit (9 sites, Keweenaw Point), Belle Isle Park (1 site), Craig Lake State Park (10 sites), Lime Island State Recreation Area (3 sites), Menominee River State Recreation Area (7 sites), Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park (11 sites), and Rockport State Park (9 sites). These sites were made a priority for survey for one or more of the following reasons: Phase 1 of the Living Legacies initiative or Biodiversity Planning Process identified these areas as potential Biodiversity Stewardship Areas; surveys had not been conducted within these areas; PRD was in the process of writing management plans for these areas; and/or limited information had been recorded about the sites or the natural community types within the sites. In addition, natural communities that were undersurveyed and/or underrepresented across the state and regionally were prioritized.

Each natural community was evaluated employing Natural Heritage and MNFI methodology, which considers three factors to assess a natural community’s ecological integrity or quality: size, landscape context, and condition (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2008). If a site meets defined requirements for these three criteria (MNFI 1988) it is categorized as a high-quality example of that specific natural community type, entered into MNFI’s database as an element occurrence, and given a rank based on the consideration of its size, landscape context, and condition. Ecological field surveys were conducted during the growing season to evaluate the condition and classification of the sites. To assess natural community size and landscape context, a combination of field surveys, aerial photographic interpretation, and Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis was employed. Typically, a minimum of a half day was dedicated to each site, depending on the size and complexity of the site. For sites that occur on multiple ownerships, surveys were restricted to PRD portions of the occurrences unless permission was granted to access other ownerships.

For each site visited, an Ecological Community Field Survey Form (Appendix 1) and a Threat Assessment Form (Appendix 2) were completed. The Threat Assessment Form allows for the scoring of each observed threat in terms of severity, scope, and reversibility. For the purposes of this form, severity was defined as the level of damage to the site caused by the threat, scope was defined as the geographic extent of impact of the threat, and reversibility was defined as the probability of controlling the threat and reversing the damage.

The ecological field surveys typically involved:

a) compiling comprehensive plant species lists and noting dominant and representative species b) describing site-specific structural attributes and ecological processes c) measuring tree diameter at breast height (DBH) of representative canopy trees and aging canopy dominants (where appropriate) d) analyzing soils and hydrology e) noting current and historical anthropogenic disturbances f) evaluating potential threats (using the Threat Assessment Form, each observed threat was ranked in terms of its severity, scope, and reversibility, and scores for these categories were summed to generate an overall threat score) g) ground-truthing aerial photographic interpretation using GPS (Garmin and HP iPAQ units were utilized) h) taking digital photos and GPS points at significant locations i) surveying adjacent lands when possible to assess landscape context j) evaluating the natural community classification and mapped ecological boundaries k) assigning or updating element occurrence ranks l) noting management needs and restoration opportunities or evaluating past and current restoration activities and noting additional management needs and restoration opportunities

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 3 Following completion of the field surveys, the collected data were analyzed and transcribed to update or create element occurrence records in MNFI’s statewide biodiversity conservation database (MNFI 2014). Natural community boundaries were mapped or re-mapped. Information from these surveys and prior surveys, if available, was used to produce threat assessments and management recommendations for each natural community occurrence, which appear within the following Results section.

RESULTS The 50 occurrences of high-quality natural communities were surveyed during the 2013 field season. As noted above, the 50 sites surveyed were within six different State Parks, State Recreation Areas, or State Forests (see above and Table 1). A total of thirty-nine different natural communities were visited including: bog (3 element occurrences or EOs), boreal forest (2 EOs), dry-mesic northern forest (1 EO), emergent marsh (2 EOs), floodplain forest (1 EO), granite bedrock glade (1 EO), granite cliff (1 EO), Great Lakes marsh (1 EO), hardwood-conifer swamp (5 EOs), hillside prairie (1 EO), interdunal wetland (2 EOs), limestone cobble shore (3 EOs), muskeg (1 EO), northern fen (3 EOs), northern hardwood swamp (3 EOs), northern shrub thicket (1 EO), northern wet meadow (2 EOs), oak-pine barrens (1 EO), open dunes (1 EO), poor conifer swamp (1 EO), poor fen (1 EO), rich conifer swamp (3 EOs), submergent marsh (2 EOs), volcanic bedrock glade (3 EOs), volcanic cliff (2 EOs), volcanic cobble shore (1 EO), volcanic lakeshore cliff (1 EO), and wet-mesic flatwoods (1 EO). Table 1 lists the visited sites, their element occurrence ranks, and their previous element occurrence ranks if applicable.

The following site summaries contain a detailed discussion for each of these 50 natural communities organized alphabetically by community type and then by element occurrence. The beginning of each grouping of communities contains an overview of the natural community type, which was adapted from MNFI’s natural community classification (Kost et al. 2007). In addition, an ecoregional distribution map is provided for each natural community type (Albert et al. 2008). For each site summary, the following information is provided:

a) site name b) natural community type c) global and state rank (see Appendix 3 for ranking criteria) d) current element occurrence rank e) size f) locational information g) digital photograph(s) h) threat assessment i) management recommendations

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 4 Surveyor Baraga State Forest Management Unit (Keweenaw Point)Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State ParkBaraga State Forest Management Unit (Keweenaw Point) BBaraga State Forest Management Unit (Keweenaw Point) J. Cohen AB CD J. Cohen BPorcupine Mountains Wilderness State J. Cohen ParkPorcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park J. Cohen Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State ParkPorcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park AB ABBaraga State Forest Management Unit J. Cohen (Keweenaw Point) B J. Cohen B J. Cohen J. Cohen AB J. Cohen Survey Site Management Area EO RANK BogBogBogBoreal ForestBoreal ForestDry-Mesic Northern ForestEmergent Marsh 19749 Keweenaw 19741 DickinsonEmergent Marsh 19758 Baraga Keweenaw Point 19752 Piers Gorge Forest KeweenawFloodplain Forest 19731 19766 Chippewa Fish Cove Ontonagon Craig Lake BogsGranite Bedrock Glade Little Carp River Bog Lime IslandGranite Cliff 19754Great Lakes Marsh Keweenaw Menominee River State Recreation Area 19743Hardwood-Conifer Swamp C Alpena Keweenaw Point 19760 Baraga Craig Lake State Park 19738 MenomineeHardwood-Conifer Swamp Middle Lake Marsh 19761 Menominee River Floodplain Baraga Craig Lake Glades Menominee River State Recreation Area J. Cohen Hardwood-Conifer Swamp 19732 Lime Island State Recreation Area C Chippewa 19767 Ontonagon 19757 Craig Lake Swamp Baraga Lime Island Mirror Lake Swamp Hardwood-Conifer Swamp 19768 Rockport State Park BC Ontonagon J. Cohen & M. Penskar Craig Lake Cliffs Craig Lake State Park Carp River Swamp South Hardwood-Conifer Swamp AB 19769 Ontonagon Craig Lake State Park J. Cohen & M. Penskar Little Carp River Swamp Hillside Prairie 19770 OntonagonInterdunal Wetland* J. Cohen Union Creek Swamp Interdunal Wetland Lime Island State Recreation Area Craig Lake State ParkLimestone Cobble Shore BLimestone Cobble Shore* BLimestone Cobble Shore B 18757Muskeg Presque Isle B 19748 19737 Chippewa Besser Natural Area Menominee 18759 19744 Presque Isle J. Cohen & M. Penskar Alpena Menominee River Prairie Besser Natural AreaNorthern Fen* Lime Island J. Cohen 19745 J. Cohen & M. Penskar Alpena B J. Cohen Rockport South Menominee River State Recreation Area C Rockport State Park Rockport South Rockport State Park J. Cohen J. Cohen & M. Penskar Lime Island State Recreation Area 17279 19756 Keweenaw Baraga Rockport State Park Keweenaw Point Rockport State Park B Craig Lake Muskegs BC B (AB) J. Cohen & M. Penskar J. Cohen & M. Penskar J. Cohen & M. Penskar Craig Lake State Park BC BC J. Cohen & M. Penskar J. Cohen & M. Penskar AB J. Cohen Community Type EO ID County Summary of Natural Community Surveys (* indicates element occurrences that were updated. Where applicable, old 1. Summary of Natural Community Surveys (* indicates element occurrences that were updated. Table element occurrence rankings provided in parantheses).

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 5 BBC J. Cohen & M. Penskar J. Cohen & M. Penskar ABAB J. Cohen AB J. Cohen B J. Cohen AB J. Cohen J. Cohen BB J. Cohen BC J. Cohen J. Cohen AB J. Cohen C J. Cohen AB J. Cohen D J. Cohen, B. Slaughter, & S. Campbell EO RANK Surveyor k k k k k k k k k k k k Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Par Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Par Baraga State Forest Management Unit (Keweenaw Point)Baraga State Forest Management Unit (Keweenaw Point)Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Par AB J. Cohen Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State ABPar Baraga State Forest Management Unit (Keweenaw Point) J. Cohen Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Par Baraga State Forest Management Unit (Keweenaw Point)Baraga State Forest Management Unit (Keweenaw Point) B J. Cohen A AB J. Cohen J. Cohen Rockport State Park Rockport State Park Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Par Management Area 19742 Alpena19746 Presque Isle Ferrion Point Fen Middle Lake Fen Summary of Natural Community Surveys (* indicates element occurrence that were updated. Where applicable, old Summary of Natural Community Surveys (* indicates element occurrence that were updated. Northern Hardwood SwampNorthern Hardwood SwampNorthern Shrub Thicket 19772 OntonagonNorthern Wet Meadow 19747 Presque Isle Lake of the Clouds Swamp Rockport SwampNorthern Wet Meadow 19764 Baraga 19765Oak-Pine Barrens BaragaOpen Dunes* Pesheke River Thicket 19774Poor Conifer Swamp Rockport State Park Ontonagon Pesheke River MeadowPoor Fen Little Carp River Meadow Craig Lake State Par Rich Conifer Swamp Craig Lake State Par 19740Rich Conifer Swamp Menominee 19762 Menominee River Barrens BaragaRich Conifer Swamp 18758 Presque Isle Menominee River State Recreation Area Besser Natural Area Craig Lake Spruce Swamp CD BC 19751 KeweenawSubmergent Marsh 19763 Baraga Hoar Creek Swamp Craig Lake State Par 19759 BaragaSubmergent Marsh J. Cohen & M. Penskar J. Cohen 19735 Menominee Rockport State Park Pesheke River Swamp Menominee River SwampVolcanic Bedrock Glade Craig Lake Fens 19753 Keweenaw Menominee River State Recreation AreaVolcanic Bedrock Glade C Craig Lake State Par Keweenaw Point 19775 19736 Ontonagon MenomineeVolcanic Bedrock Glade Menominee River Glade Mirror Lake Trail Craig Lake State Par 19739 MenomineeVolcanic Cliff J. Cohen & M. Penskar BC Brandts Creek Glade Menominee River State Recreation Area 19776 BC OntonagonVolcanic Cliff East Vista Glade J. Cohen & M. Penskar Volcanic Cobble Shore* Menominee River State Recreation Area J. Cohen & M. Penskar CDVolcanic Lakeshore Cliff 19755Wet-Mesic Flatwood Keweenaw 17280 Keweenaw J. Cohen Union Creek Cliff 19773 Keweenaw Point Ontonagon 19750 Keweenaw Porcupine South Fish Cove 19059 Wayne Belle Isle Flatwoods Belle Isle Par Community Type EO ID County Survey Site Northern Fen Northern Fen Northern Hardwood Swamp 19771 Ontonagon Government Peak Swamp Table 1 (continued). Table element occurrence rankings provided in parantheses).

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 6 SITE SUMMARIES

BOG Bog is a nutrient-poor peatland characterized by acidic, saturated peat and the prevalence of sphagnum mosses and ericaceous shrubs. Located in depressions in glacial outwash and sandy glacial lakeplains and in kettles on pitted outwash and moraines, bogs frequently occur as a floating mat on the margins of lakes and ponds. Fire occurs naturally during drought periods and can alter the hydrology, mat surface, and flora. Beaver-induced flooding also influences bogs (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 1. Distribution of bogs in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 7 1. Craig Lake Bogs Natural Community Type: Bog Rank: G3G5 S4, vulnerable to secure globally and secure within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 66 acres Location: Craig Lake State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19758

Threats: Species composition and structure driven by natural processes. Fire suppression throughout the general landscape may have altered the fire regime of the bog.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered and to retain an intact buffer of natural communities surrounding the wetland to minimize the threat of hydrological alteration. In the event of a wildfire, establishment of new fire lines should be avoided and existing fire breaks (i.e., trails, roads, and wetlands) should be used.

Photo 1. Craig Lake Bogs. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 8 2. Keweenaw Point Natural Community Type: Bog Rank: G3G5 S4, vulnerable to secure globally and secure within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 4 acres Location: Baraga State Forest Management Unit Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19749

Threats: The bog is characterized by low species diversity but the species composition and structure are driven by natural processes. No anthropogenic disturbances or non-native species were noted during the course of the survey. Logging in the surrounding forest could alter the hydrology of the bog.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered and to retain an intact buffer of natural communities surrounding the bog to minimize the threat of hydrological alteration. In the event of a wildfire, establishment of new fire lines should be avoided and existing fire breaks (i.e., trails and wetlands) should be used.

Photo 2. Keweenaw Point. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 9 3. Little Carp River Bog Natural Community Type: Bog Rank: G3G5 S4, vulnerable to secure globally and secure within the state Element Occurrence Rank: C Size: 0.6 acres Location: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19766

Threats: No anthropogenic disturbances or non-native species were noted during the course of the survey. Species composition and structure driven by natural processes.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered and to retain an intact buffer of natural communities surrounding the bog to minimize the threat of hydrological alteration. In the event of a wildfire, establishment of new fire lines should be avoided and existing fire breaks (i.e., trails and wetlands) should be used.

Photo 3. Little Carp River Bog. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 10 BOREAL FOREST Overview: Boreal forest is a conifer or conifer-hardwood forest type occurring on moist to dry sites characterized by species dominant in the Canadian boreal forest. It typically occupies upland sites along shores of the Great Lakes, on islands in the Great Lakes, and locally inland. The community occurs north of the climatic tension zone primarily on sand dunes, glacial lakeplains, and thin soil over bedrock or cobble. Soils of sand and sandy loam are typically moderately acid to neutral, but heavier soils and more acid conditions are common. Proximity to the Great Lakes results in high levels of windthrow and climatic conditions characterized by low summer temperatures and high levels of humidity, snowfall, and summer fog and mist. Additional important forms of natural disturbance include fire and insect epidemics (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 2. Distribution of boreal forest in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 11 4. Fish Cove Natural Community Type: Boreal Forest Rank: GU S3, globally unrankable and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 55 acres Location: Baraga State Forest Management Unit Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19752

Threats: No threats were observed during the course of the survey. Potential threats include invasive species and off-road vehicle use. No invasive species were noted within the boreal forest. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) is locally prevalent to the west of the boreal forest in degraded volcanic bedrock glade near the mouth of the Montreal River. Several infrequently used food trails occur in the boreal forest near the shoreline. In addition, the frequency of off-road vehicle use has been increasing in the general area and off-road vehicle users are illegally creating new roads nearby.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes (i.e., windthrow and fire) to operate unhindered and to monitor for invasive species and illegal off-road vehicle use.

Photo 4. Fish Cove Boreal Forest. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 12 5. Lime Island Natural Community Type: Boreal Forest Rank: GU S3, globally unrankable and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: BC Size: 574 acres Location: Lime Island State Recreation Area Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19731

Threats: The species composition and structure of this boreal forest is influenced by natural processes but also by deer herbivory. Deer browse could limit the regeneration capacity of the overstory conifers. No invasive species were noted within the boreal forest. However, numerous invasives are known from the shoreline including St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), and wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa). The linear anthropogenic disturbances (i.e., trails) within the forest could provide conduits for weeds and deer. Several dirt roads and trails occur throughout the boreal forest and scattered cut stumps occur in portions of the boreal forest.

Management Recommendations: The primary management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered and to monitor for invasive species and deer herbivory.

Photo 5. Lime Island Boreal Forest. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 13 DRY-MESIC NORTHERN FOREST

Overview: Dry-mesic northern forest is a pine or pine-hardwood forest type of generally dry-mesic sites located mostly north of the transition zone. Dry-mesic northern forest is characterized by acidic, coarse- to medium- textured sand or loamy sand and occurs principally on sandy glacial outwash, sandy glacial lakeplains, and less often on inland dune ridges, coarse-textured moraines, and thin glacial drift over bedrock. The community historically originated in the wake of catastrophic fire and was maintained by frequent, low-intensity ground fires (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 3. Distribution of dry-mesic northern forest in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 14 6. Piers Gorge Forest Natural Community Type: Dry-mesic Northern Forest Rank: G4 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: C Size: 101 acres Location: Menominee River State Recreation Area Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19741

Threats: Deer herbivory has negatively impacted understory and ground cover species composition and structure. Hiking trails occur in portions of the forest and have locally caused soil erosion.

Management Recommendations: The primary management recommendation is to allow natural processes to operate unhindered (i.e., permit wildfires to burn through this site and the surrounding volcanic bedrock glade) and to reduce local deer densities. In the event of a wildfire or if prescribed fire is implemented, establishment of new fire lines should be avoided and existing fire breaks (i.e., roads and river) should be used. Control of local deer populations will reduce deer browse pressure.

Photo 6. Piers Gorge Forest. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 15 EMERGENT MARSH

Overview: Emergent marsh is a shallow-water wetland along the shores of lakes and streams characterized by emergent narrow- and broad-leaved herbs and grass-like plants as well as floating-leaved herbs. Common plants include water plantains (Alisma spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), spike-rushes (Eleocharis spp.), pond-lilies (Nuphar spp.), pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata), arrowheads (Sagittaria spp.), bulrushes (Schoenoplectus spp.), and cat-tails (Typha spp.). The community occurs on both mineral and organic soils (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 4. Distribution of emergent marsh in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 16 7. Keweenaw Point Natural Community Type: Emergent Marsh Rank: GU S4, globally unrankable and secure within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 6 acres Location: Baraga State Forest Management Unit Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19754

Threats: The species composition and structure of this emergent marsh is influenced by natural processes. No anthropogenic disturbances or non-native species were noted during the course of the survey. Logging in the surrounding swamp and boreal forest could alter the local hydrology of the wetland.

Photo 7. Keweenaw Point emergent marsh. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 17 8. Middle Lake Marsh Natural Community Type: Emergent Marsh Rank: GU S4, globally unrankable and secure within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 263 acres Location: Rockport State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19743

Threats: The species composition and structure of this emergent marsh is influenced by natural processes. No anthropogenic disturbances or non-native species were noted during the course of the survey. However, off-road vehicle damage, deer browse, and scattered non-native species were noted in the adjacent northern fen.

Photo 8. Middle Lake Marsh. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 18 FLOODPLAIN FOREST

Overview: Floodplain forest is a bottomland, deciduous or deciduous-conifer forest community occupying low- lying areas adjacent to streams and rivers of third order or greater, and subject to periodic over-the-bank flooding and cycles of erosion and deposition. Species composition and community structure vary regionally and are influenced by flooding frequency and duration. Silver maple (Acer saccharinum) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) are typically major overstory dominants, although green ash is declining in importance with the spread of emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). Floodplain forests occur along major rivers throughout the state, but are most extensive in the Lower Peninsula. Species richness is greatest in the southern Lower Peninsula, where many floodplain species reach the northern extent of their range (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 5. Distribution of floodplain forest in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 19 9. Menominee River Floodplain Natural Community Type: Floodplain Forest Rank: G3? S3, vulnerable throughout range Element Occurrence Rank: C Size: 27 acres Location: Menominee River State Recreation Area Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19738

Threats: Species composition and natural community composition are patterned by the fluvial processes of erosion and deposition. In addition to over-the-bank flooding, windthrow, logging, and deer herbivory have influenced the floodplain forest. Scattered stumps from logging occur along the river. Deer trails, beds, and browse were noted throughout the floodplain forest. Deer browse is prevalent on understory woody species. Portions of the floodplain forest have been degraded by off-road vehicle trails including some significant rutting of organic soils. Invasives noted locally in portions of the floodplain forest include reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and forget-me- not (Myosotis scorpioides).

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to maintain the mature floodplain forest and the hydrology of the river, allow the adjacent uplands to mature to provide a buffer for the floodplain from invasive species, reduce local deer populations, eliminate off-road vehicle activity, control invasive species, and monitor for deer browse, invasive species, and off-road vehicle activity.

Photo 9. Menominee River Floodplain. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 20 GRANITE BEDROCK GLADE Overview: Granite bedrock glade consists of an open forested or savanna community found where knobs of granitic bedrock types are exposed at the surface. The sparse vegetation consists of scattered open-grown trees, scattered shrubs or shrub thickets, and a partial turf of herbs, grasses, sedges, mosses, and lichens. Granite bedrock glades typically occupy areas of steep to stair-stepped slopes, with short cliffs, and exposed knobs of bedrock. The community occurs in the western Upper Peninsula with primary concentrations in Marquette, Baraga, and Dickinson Counties (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 6. Distribution of granite bedrock glade in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 21 10. Craig Lake Glades Natural Community Type: Granite Bedrock Glade Rank: GU S4, globally unrankable and secure within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 4.7 acres Location: Craig Lake State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19760

Threats: Species composition, vegetative structure, and successional trajectory are influenced by natural processes. However, there are moderate to low levels of non-native species located within the glade including hawkweeds (Hieracium spp.) and sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella).

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered (i.e., let wildfires burn) and to maintain a natural buffer surrounding the glades to prevent the increase of a weedy seed source. Monitoring should be implemented for non-native plant populations.

Photo 10. Craig Lake Glades. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 22 GRANITE CLIFF Overview: Granite cliff consists of vertical or near-vertical exposures of bedrock with sparse coverage of vascular plants, lichens, mosses, and liverworts. The community occurs in several counties of the western Upper Penin- sula, including Dickinson, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Marquette, and Menominee (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 7. Distribution of granite cliff in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 23 11. Craig Lake Cliffs Natural Community Type: Granite Cliff Rank: G4G5 S2, apparently secure globally and imperiled within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 9 acres Location: Craig Lake State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19757

Threats: Species composition, vegetative structure, and successional trajectory are influenced by natural processes. However, there are moderate to low levels of non-native species located within the adjacent granite bedrock glade including hawkweeds (Hieracium spp.) and sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella).

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to maintain a natural community buffer adjacent to the cliffs to minimize the threat of invasion by non-native species, and allow natural processes (i.e., fire and windthrow) to operate unhindered.

Photo 11. Craig Lake Cliffs. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 24 GREAT LAKES MARSH Overview: Great Lakes marsh is an herbaceous wetland community occurring statewide along the shoreline of the Great Lakes and their major connecting rivers. Vegetational patterns are strongly influenced by water level fluctuations and type of coastal feature, but generally include the following: a deep marsh with submerged plants; an emergent marsh of mostly narrow-leaved species; and a sedge-dominated wet meadow that is inundated by storms. Great Lakes marsh provides important habitat for migrating and breeding waterfowl, shore-birds, spawning fish, and medium-sized mammals (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 8. Distribution of Great Lakes marsh in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 25 12. Lime Island Natural Community Type: Great Lakes Marsh Rank: G2 S3, globally imperiled and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 65 acres Location: Lime Island State Recreation Area Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19732 Threats: Lime Island was formerly used as a fueling station for oil tankers travelling through the Saint Marys River. Many of these tankers dumped coal along the shore, especially south of the dock. Non-natives are locally common along the shoreline, especially south of the dock on the west side of island and include reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), white sweet-clover (Melilotus alba), ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). These non-native species are primarily concentrated along the limestone cobble shore but purple loosestrife was noted as locally common in the Great Lakes marsh. In addition, deer browse is prevalent along the shore and off-road vehicle damage was noted along the western side of the island in Great Lakes marsh Management Recommendations: The primary management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered, eliminate off-road vehicle activity along the shoreline, control non-native plants along the shoreline (e.g., purple loosestrife), and to maintain a natural community buffer surrounding the shoreline to prevent the increase of the weedy seed source. Monitoring should be implemented for non-native plant populations and deer herbivory. In addition, anthropogenic debris along the shoreline could be cleaned up.

Photo 12. Lime Island Great Lakes marsh. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 26 HARDWOOD-CONIFER SWAMP Overview: Hardwood-conifer swamp is a minerotrophic forested wetland dominated by a mixture of lowland hardwoods and conifers, occurring on organic (i.e., peat) and poorly drained mineral soils throughout Michigan. The community occurs on a variety of landforms, often associated with headwater streams and areas of groundwater discharge. Species composition and dominance patterns can vary regionally. Windthrow and fluctuating water levels are the primary natural disturbances that structure hardwood-conifer swamp (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 9. Distribution of hardwood-conifer swamp in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 27 13. Carp River Swamp South Natural Community Type: Hardwood-Conifer Swamp Rank: G4 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 101 acres Location: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19768

Threats: Species composition and vegetative structure patterned by natural processes. Beaver flooding has impacted the northern portion of the southern polygon of hardwood-conifer swamp. In addition, deer herbivory was also noted within the swamp but it does not appear to be limiting overstory regeneration or impacting species composition and diversity.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered (i.e., permit wildfires to burn through this site and the surrounding uplands), retain an intact buffer of natural communities surrounding the hardwood-conifer swamp to help protect the hydrologic regime, and monitor for deer browse.

Photo 13. Carp River Swamp South. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 28 14. Craig Lake Swamp Natural Community Type: Hardwood-Conifer Swamp Rank: G4 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 128 acres Location: Craig Lake State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19761

Threats: Species composition and structure driven by natural processes and past anthropogenic disturbance. Cut stumps occur scattered throughout the swamp and hiking trails occur adjacent to several of the hardwood-conifer swamp polygons.

Photo 14. Craig Lake Swamp. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 29 15. Little Carp River Swamp Natural Community Type: Hardwood-Conifer Swamp Rank: G4 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 14 acres Location: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19769

Threats: Species composition and vegetative structure patterned by natural processes. Deer herbivory was noted within the swamp but it does not appear to be limiting tree regeneration or impacting species composition and diversity.

Photo 15. Little Carp River Swamp. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 30 16. Mirror Lake Swamp Natural Community Type: Hardwood-Conifer Swamp Rank: G4 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 46 acres Location: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19767

Threats: Species composition and vegetative structure patterned by natural processes. No threats noted during survey

Photo 16. Mirror Lake Swamp. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 31 17. Union Creek Swamp Natural Community Type: Hardwood-Conifer Swamp Rank: G4 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 42 acres Location: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19770

Photo 17. Union Creek Swamp. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 32 HILLSIDE PRAIRIE Overview: Hillside prairie is a grassland or savanna community that occurs on moderate to steep exposed slopes and crests of hills associated with river valleys, streams, or kettle lakes, surrounded by oak forest or oak savanna. This natural community is almost always found on south- to west-facing slopes, where exposure to sunlight is highest. Soils are typically strongly acid to neutral loamy sand or sandy loam, and often mixed with gravel. Hillside prairie is notable for supporting several state-listed plant species largely restricted to this community type (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 10. Distribution of hillside prairie in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 33 18. Menominee River Prairie Natural Community Type: Hillside Prairie Rank: G3 S1, globally vulnerable and critically imperiled within the state Element Occurrence Rank: C Size: 1.4 acres Location: Menominee River State Recreation Area Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19737

Threats: Numerous non-native species were noted within the hillside prairie including timothy (Phleum pratense), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Fire suppression has led to the encroachment of woody species including basswood (Tilia americana) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Large numbers of deer utilize this river corridor and deer browse of understory and ground cover species is likely prevalent in the hillside prairie.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered (i.e., let wildfires burn), control non-native species and monitor control efforts, reduce deer densities and deer browse pressure, maintain a natural community buffer surrounding the hillside prairie to prevent the increase of a weedy seed source, and periodically employ prescribed fire to maintain the open physiognomy, reintroduce this important natural disturbance factor, and control non-native species. The sand and loamy sand substrate on the steep slopes is prone to erosion, so care must be taken to prevent excessive foot traffic and soil disturbance.

Photo 18. Menominee River Prairie. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 34 INTERDUNAL WETLAND Overview: Interdunal wetland is a rush-, sedge-, and shrub-dominated wetland situated in depressions within open dunes or between beach ridges along the Great Lakes, experiencing a fluctuating water table seasonally and yearly in synchrony with lake level changes (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 11. Distribution of interdunal wetland in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 35 19. Besser Natural Area Natural Community Type: Interdunal Wetland Rank: G2? S2, imperiled throughout range Element Occurrence Rank: BC Size: 7 acres Location: Rockport State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 18757

Threats: Threats include illegal off-road vehicle activity and invasive plants. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) was documented in the adjacent open dunes and off-road vehicle tracks were noted within portions of the interdunal wetland.

Management Recommendations: The primary management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered, eliminate illegal off-road vehicle activity, and control and monitor non-native plants along the shoreline (i.e., spotted knapweed).

Photo 19. Besser Natural Area interdunal wetland. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 36 20. Rockport South Natural Community Type: Interdunal Wetland Rank: G2? S2, imperiled throughout range Element Occurrence Rank: BC Size: 1.1 acres Location: Rockport State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19744

Threats: Species composition and structure of the interdunal wetland are driven by natural processes. Threats include illegal off-road vehicle activity and invasive plants. Non-natives occur scattered along the adjacent limestone cobble shore and include reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), white sweet-clover (Melilotus alba), ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), and reed (Phragmites australis). Purple loosestrife was documented locally in interdunal wetland and off-road vehicle tracks were noted along the nearby storm beach.

Photo 20. Rockport South interdunal wetland. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 37 LIMESTONE COBBLE SHORE Overview: Limestone cobble shore occurs along gently sloping shorelines of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. The community is studded with cobbles and boulders and is frequently inundated by storms and periods of high water. Limestone cobble shore is typically sparsely vegetated, because cobbles cover most of the surface and storm waves prevent the development of a diverse, persistent plant community. Soils are neutral to slightly alkaline mucks and sands that accumulate between cobbles and boulders (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 12. Distribution of limestone cobble shore in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 38 21. Besser Natural Area Natural Community Type: Limestone Cobble Shore Rank: G2G3 S3, imperiled to vulnerable globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 54 acres Location: Rockport State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 18759

Threats: The species composition and zonation of the limestone cobble shore are patterned by natural processes. Threats include off-road vehicle activity and invasive plants. Non-natives occur scattered along the shoreline and include spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), white sweet-clover (Melilotus alba), and reed (Phragmites australis). A large clump of non-native reed occurs just north of Ferrion Point. Off-road vehicle activity was noted along the shoreline in areas of adjacent interdunal wetland.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered, control populations of non-native species, and maintain a natural community buffer surrounding the shoreline to prevent the increase of the weedy seed source, and monitor for invasive plant populations.

Photo 21. Besser Natural Area limestone cobble shore. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 39 22. Lime Island Natural Community Type: Limestone Cobble Shore Rank: G2G3 S3, imperiled to vulnerable globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 22 acres Location: Lime Island State Recreation Area Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19748 Threats: Lime Island was formerly used as a fueling station for oil tankers travelling through the Saint Marys River. Many of these tankers dumped coal along the shore, especially south of the dock along limestone cobble shore. Non-natives are locally common along the limestone cobble shore, especially south of the dock on the west side of island and include reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), white sweet-clover (Melilotus alba), ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis). In addition, deer browse is prevalent along the shore and off-road vehicle damage was noted along the western side of the island especially in Great Lakes marsh. Anthropogenic debris (e.g., coal, dock material, metal, and trash) occurs scattered along the shore of the island. Management Recommendations: The primary management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered, eliminate off-road vehicle activity along the shoreline, control non-native plants along the shoreline, and maintain a natural community buffer surrounding the shoreline to prevent the increase of the weedy seed source. Monitoring should be implemented for non-native plant populations and deer herbivory. In addition, anthropogenic debris along the shoreline could be cleaned up.

Photo 22. Lime Island limestone cobble shore. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 40 23. Rockport South Natural Community Type: Limestone Cobble Shore Rank: G2G3 S3, imperiled to vulnerable globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: BC Size: 18 acres Location: Rockport State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19745 Threats: Species composition and structure of the interdunal wetland are driven by natural processes. Threats include illegal off-road vehicle activity and invasive plants. Non-natives occur scattered along the limestone cobble shore and include reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), white sweet-clover (Melilotus alba), ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), and reed (Phragmites australis). Off-road vehicle tracks were noted along the upper margin of the limestone cobble shore. Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered, control populations of non-native species, eliminate illegal off-road vehicle activity, maintain a natural community buffer surrounding the shoreline to prevent the increase of the weedy seed source, and monitor for invasive plant populations.

Photo 23. Rockport South limestone cobble shore. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 41 MUSKEG Overview: Muskeg is a nutrient-poor peatland characterized by acidic, saturated peat, and scattered or clumped, stunted conifer trees set in a matrix of sphagnum mosses and ericaceous shrubs. Black spruce (Picea mariana) and tamarack (Larix laricina) are typically the most prevalent tree species. The community primarily occurs in large depressions on glacial outwash and sandy glacial lakeplains. Fire occurs naturally during periods of drought and can alter the hydrology, mat surface, and floristic composition of muskegs. Windthrow, beaver flooding, and insect defoliation are also important disturbance factors that influence species composition and structure (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 13. Distribution of muskeg in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 42 24. Craig Lake Muskegs Natural Community Type: Muskeg Rank: G4G5 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 200 acres Location: Craig Lake State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19756

Threats: Species composition and structure driven by natural processes. Fire suppression throughout the general landscape may have altered the fire regime of the muskeg.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered and to retain an intact buffer of natural communities surrounding the muskeg to minimize the threat of hydrological alteration. In the event of a wildfire, establishment of new fire lines should be avoided and existing fire breaks (i.e., trails, roads, and wetlands) should be used.

Photo 24. Craig Lake Muskegs. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 43 NORTHERN FEN Overview: Northern fen is a sedge- and rush-dominated wetland occurring on neutral to moderately alkaline saturated peat and/or marl influenced by groundwater rich in calcium and magnesium carbonates. The community occurs north of the climatic tension zone and is found primarily where calcareous bedrock underlies a thin mantle of glacial drift on flat areas or shallow depressions of glacial outwash and glacial lakeplains and also in kettle depressions on pitted outwash and moraines (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 14. Distribution of northern fen in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 44 25. Ferrion Point Fen Natural Community Type: Northern Fen Rank: G3G5 S3, vulnerable to secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: BC Size: 4 acres Location: Rockport State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19746

Threats: An old corduroy road passes through northern fen. No non-native species were found during the survey. Threats to the fen include illegal off-road vehicle activity and invasive plants. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) was documented in the adjacent open dunes and off-road vehicle tracks were noted within the nearby interdunal wetland.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to maintain a natural community buffer adjacent to the fen to minimize disturbance to the wetland hydrology and the threat of invasion by non-native species.

Photo 25. Ferrion Point Fen. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 45 26. Keweenaw Point Natural Community Type: Northern Fen Rank: G3G5 S3, vulnerable to secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size:66 acres Location: Baraga State Forest Management Unit Element Occurrence Identification Number: 17279

Threats: The species composition and structure of this northern fen is influenced by natural processes. No anthropogenic disturbances or non-native species noted during course of survey. Logging in the surrounding swamp and boreal forest could alter the local hydrology of the peatland.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes (i.e., windthrow, flooding, and fire) to operate unhindered, maintain canopy closure of the surrounding swamp to minimize hydrologic disturbance to the fen and maintain groundwater seepage and monitor for invasive plant population and illegal off-road vehicle use.

Photo 26. Keweenaw Point northern fen. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 46 27. Middle Lake Fen Natural Community Type: Northern Fen Rank: G3G5 S3, vulnerable to secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 11 acres Location: Rockport State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19742

Threats: The species composition and structure of this northern fen is primarily influenced by natural processes but also impacted by invasive species and deer herbivory. Non-native species occur scattered in the fen, especially in drier areas, and include glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus), timothy (Phleum pratense), and narrow-leaved cat- tail (Typha angustifolia). Deer trails occur throughout the fen and deer browse is influencing species composition and vegetative structure. In addition, off-road vehicle activity was noted locally.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered, retain an intact buffer of natural communities surrounding the wetland to minimize the threat of hydrological alteration, control and monitor invasive species (especially glossy buckthorn), reduce deer densities in the surrounding landscape to dampen deer browse pressure, and eliminate illegal off-road vehicle activity.

Photo 27. Middle Lake Fen. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 47 NORTHERN HARDWOOD SWAMP

Overview: Northern hardwood swamp is a seasonally inundated, deciduous swamp forest community dominated by black ash (Fraxinus nigra) that occurs on neutral to slightly acidic, hydric mineral soils and shallow muck over mineral soils. Located north of the climatic tension zone, northern hardwood swamp is found primarily in depressions on level to hummocky glacial lakeplains, fine- and medium-textured glacial tills, and broad flat outwash plains. Fundamental disturbance factors affecting northern hardwood swamp development include seasonal flooding and windthrow (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 15. Distribution of northern hardwood swamp in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 48 28. Government Peak Swamp Natural Community Type: Northern Hardwood Swamp Rank: G4 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 14 acres Location: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19771

Threats: No anthropogenic disturbances or non-native plants were noted during the course of the survey. Species composition and vegetative structure patterned by natural processes.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered (i.e., permit wildfires to burn through this site and the surrounding uplands) and to retain an intact buffer of natural communities surrounding the northern hardwood swamp to help protect the hydrologic regime.

Photo 28. Government Peak Swamp. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 49 29. Lake of the Clouds Swamp Natural Community Type: Northern Hardwood Swamp Rank: G4 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 4 acres Location: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19772

Threats: No anthropogenic disturbances or non-native plants were noted during the course of the survey. Species composition and vegetative structure patterned by natural processes. Deer herbivory was noted within the swamp but it does not appear to be limiting tree regeneration or impacting species composition and diversity.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered (i.e., permit wildfires to burn through this site and the surrounding uplands) and to retain an intact buffer of natural communities surrounding the northern hardwood swamp to help protect the hydrologic regime. The swamp should be monitored to gauge whether deer herbivory is impacting species composition and vegetative structure.

Photo 29. Lake of the Clouds Swamp. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 50 30. Rockport Swamp Natural Community Type: Northern Hardwood Swamp Rank: G4 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: BC Size: 4 acres Location: Rockport State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19747

Threats: No anthropogenic disturbances or non-native plants were noted during the course of the survey. Species composition and vegetative structure patterned by natural processes. Deer browse is likely influencing the floristic composition and structure. Cut stumps occur in portions of the swamp.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes (i.e., windthrow, flooding, and fire) to operate unhindered, maintain canopy closure of the surrounding uplands to minimize surface water flow into the swamp and to maintain groundwater seepage, reduce deer densities in the surrounding landscape to dampen deer browse pressure, and monitor for invasive plant populations.

Photo 30. Rockport Swamp. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 51 NORTHERN SHRUB THICKET Overview: Northern shrub thicket is a shrub-dominated wetland located north of the climatic tension zone, typically occurring along streams, but also adjacent to lakes and beaver floodings. The saturated, nutrient-rich, organic soils are composed of sapric peat or less frequently mineral soil, typically with medium acid to neutral pH. Succession to closed-canopy swamp forest is slowed by fluctuating water tables, beaver flooding, and windthrow. Northern shrub thickets are overwhelmingly dominated by tag alder (Alnus incana) (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 16. Distribution of northern shrub thicket in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 52 31. Pesheke River Thicket Natural Community Type: Northern Shrub Thicket Rank: G4 S5, apparently secure globally and secure within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 86 acres Location: Craig Lake State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19764

Threats: No anthropogenic disturbances or non-native plants were noted during the course of the survey. A foot bridge crosses the northern shrub thicket in one location.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes (i.e., beaver flooding and wildfire) to operate unhindered and to retain an intact buffer of natural communities surrounding the wetland to protect the hydrologic regime. In the event of a wildfire, establishment of new fire lines should be avoided and existing fire breaks (i.e., trails, roads, and wetlands) should be used.

Photo 31. Pesheke River Thicket. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 53 NORTHERN WET MEADOW Overview: Northern wet meadow is an open, groundwater-influenced, sedge- and grass-dominated wetland that occurs in the northern Lower and Upper Peninsulas and typically borders streams but is also found on pond and lake margins and above beaver dams. Soils are nearly always sapric peat and range from strongly acid to neutral in pH. Open conditions are maintained by seasonal flooding, beaver-induced flooding, and fire (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 17. Distribution of northern wet meadow in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 54 32. Little Carp River Meadow Natural Community Type: Northern Wet Meadow Rank: G4G5 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 48 acres Location: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19774

Threats: No anthropogenic disturbances or non-native plants were noted during the course of the survey. The species composition and structure of the northern wet meadow is driven by natural processes.

Photo 32. Little Carp River Meadow. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 55 33. Pesheke River Meadow Natural Community Type: Northern Shrub Thicket Rank: G4 S5, apparently secure globally and secure within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 30 acres Location: Craig Lake State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19765

Photo 33. Pesheke River Meadow. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 56 OAK-PINE BARRENS

Overview: Oak-pine barrens is a fire-dependent, savanna community dominated by oaks and pines, having between 5 and 60% canopy cover, with or without a shrub layer. The predominantly graminoid ground layer contains plant species associated with both prairie and forest. The community occurs on a variety of landforms on droughty, infertile sand or loamy sands occasionally within southern Lower Michigan but mostly north of the climatic tension zone in the northern Lower and Upper Peninsulas (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 18. Distribution of oak-pine barrens in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 57 34. Menominee River Barrens Natural Community Type: Oak-Pine Barrens Rank: G3 S2, globally vulnerable and imperiled within the state Element Occurrence Rank: CD Size: 15 acres Location: Menominee River State Recreation Area Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19740 Threats: Overall this oak-pine barrens is very weedy and has been negatively impacted by fire suppression. Numerous non-native species were noted within the barrens including spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum), and common mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Large numbers of deer utilize the Menominee River corridor during winter months and deer browse of understory and ground cover species is likely prevalent in the barrens. Fire suppression has led to the encroachment into the overstory and understory of the oak-pine barrens of mesophytic species, (e.g., cherry species). Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered (i.e., let wildfires burn), control non-native species and monitor control efforts, reduce deer densities and deer browse pressure, maintain a natural community buffer surrounding the barrens to prevent the increase of a weedy seed source, and periodically employ prescribed fire to maintain the open physiognomy, reintroduce this important natural disturbance factor, and help control non-native species.

Photo 34. Menominee River Barrens. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 58 OPEN DUNES Overview: Open dunes is a grass- and shrub-dominated multi-seral community located on wind-deposited sand formations near the shorelines of the Great Lakes. Dune formation and the patterning of vegetation are strongly affected by lake-driven winds. The greatest concentration of open dunes occurs along the eastern and northern shorelines of Lake Michigan, with the largest dunes occurring along the eastern shoreline due to the prevailing southwest winds (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 19. Distribution of open dunes in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 59 35. Besser Natural Area Natural Community Type: Open Dunes Rank: G3 S3, vulnerable throughout range Element Occurrence Rank: BC Size: 10 acres Location: Rockport State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 18758

Threats: Threats include illegal off-road vehicle activity, erosion from foot traffic, and invasive plants. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) was documented within the open dunes and off-road vehicle activity was noted along nearshore areas and in the adjacent interdunal wetlands.

Management Recommendations: The primary management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered, control clusters of non-native plants (i.e., spotted knapweed), eliminate off-road vehicle activity, and increase educational efforts to encourage visitors to stay on trails. Monitoring for invasive species should be implemented following control efforts.

Photo 35. Besser Natural Area open dunes. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 60 POOR CONIFER SWAMP Overview: Poor conifer swamp is a nutrient-poor, forested peatland characterized by acidic, saturated peat, and the prevalence of conifer trees, Sphagnum mosses, and ericaceous shrubs. The community is located in depressions in glacial outwash and sandy glacial lakeplains and in kettles on pitted outwash and depressions on moraines. Poor conifer swamp occasionally occurs on floating mats on the margins of lakes and ponds. Fire occurs naturally during drought periods and creates even-aged, often monospecific, stands of Picea mariana (black spruce). Windthrow, beaver flooding, and insect defoliation are also important disturbance factors influencing species composition and structure (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 20. Distribution of poor conifer swamp in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 61 36. Craig Lake Spruce Swamp Natural Community Type: Poor Conifer Swamp Rank: G4 S4, apparently secure globally and within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 118 acres Location: Craig Lake State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19762

Threats: The species composition and vegetative structure of the poor conifer swamp are influenced by natural processes. Fire suppression throughout the general landscape may have altered the fire regime of the poor conifer swamp.

Photo 36. Craig Lake Spruce Swamp. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 62 POOR FEN Overview: Poor fen is a sedge-dominated wetland found on very strongly to strongly acid, saturated peat that is moderately influenced by groundwater. The community occurs primarily north of the climatic tension zone in kettle depressions and in flat areas or mild depressions on glacial outwash and glacial lakeplain (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 21. Distribution of poor fen in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 63 37. Craig Lake Fens Natural Community Type: Poor Fen Rank: G3G5 S3, vulnerable to secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 55 acres Location: Craig Lake State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19759

Threats: The species composition and vegetative structure of the poor fen are influenced by natural processes. Fire suppression throughout the general landscape may have altered the fire regime of the poor fen.

Photo 37. Craig Lake Fens. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 64 RICH CONIFER SWAMP Overview: Rich conifer swamp is a groundwater-influenced, minerotrophic, forested wetland dominated by northern white-cedar (Thuja occidentalis) that occurs on organic soils (i.e., peat) primarily north of the climatic tension zone in the northern Lower and Upper Peninsulas. Rich conifer swamp occurs in outwash channels, outwash plains, glacial lakeplains, and in depressions on coarse- to medium-textured ground moraines. It is common in outwash channels of drumlin fields and where groundwater seeps occur at the bases of moraines. Rich conifer swamp typically occurs in association with lakes and cold, groundwater-fed streams. It also occurs along the Great Lakes shoreline in old abandoned embayments and in swales between former beach ridges where it may be part of a wooded dune and swale complex. Windthrow is common, especially on broad, poorly drained sites. Fire was historically infrequent. Rich conifer swamp is characterized by diverse microtopography and ground cover. The community is also referred to as cedar swamp (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 22. Distribution of rich conifer swamp in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 65 38. Hoar Creek Swamp Natural Community Type: Rich Conifer Swamp Rank: G4 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 147 acres Location: Baraga State Forest Management Unit Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19751

Threats: No anthropogenic disturbances or non-native plants were noted during the course of the survey. The species compositon and structure of this rich conifer swamp is influenced by natural processes.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes (i.e., beaver flooding, wildfire, and windthrow) to operate unhindered, retain an intact buffer of natural communities surrounding the wetland to protect the hydrologic regime, and monitor for invasive species and illegal off-road vehicle use.

Photo 38. Hoar Creek Swamp. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 66 39. Menominee River Swamp Natural Community Type: Rich Conifer Swamp Rank: G4 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: C Size: 18 acres Location: Menominee River State Recreation Area Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19735

Threats: Deer browse pressure is high and has impacted the species composition and vegetative structure of the rich conifer swamp. In addition, cut stumps were noted throughout the swamp.

Photo 39. Menominee River Swamp. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 67 40. Pesheke River Swamp Natural Community Type: Rich Conifer Swamp Rank: G4 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: BC Size: 25 acres Location: Craig Lake State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19763

Threats: The species composition and structure of the rich conifer swamp are driven by natural processes and past anthropogenic disturbance. Cut stumps were noted throughout the swamp.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered and to retain an intact buffer of natural communities surrounding the swamp to minimize the threat of hydrological alteration. In the event of a wildfire, establishment of new fire lines should be avoided and existing fire breaks (i.e., trails, roads, and wetlands) should be used.

Photo 40. Pesheke River Swamp. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 68 SUBMERGENT MARSH Overview: Submergent marsh is an herbaceous plant community that occurs in deep to sometimes shallow water in lakes and streams throughout Michigan. Soils are characterized by loosely consolidated organics of variable depth that range from acid to alkaline and accumulate over all types of mineral soil, even bedrock. Submergent vegetation is composed of both rooted and non-rooted submergent plants, rooted floating-leaved plants, and non- rooted floating plants. Common submergent plants include common waterweed (Elodea canadensis), water star- grass (Heteranthera dubia), milfoils (Myriophyllum spp.), naiads (Najas spp.), pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.), stoneworts (Chara spp. and Nitella spp.), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), bladderworts (Utricularia spp.), and water-celery (Vallisneria americana) (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 23. Distribution of submergent marsh in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 69 41. Keweenaw Point Natural Community Type: Submergent Marsh Rank: GU S4, globally unrankable and secure within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 13 acres Location: Baraga State Forest Management Unit Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19753

Threats: The species composition and structure of this submergent marsh are influenced by natural processes. No anthropogenic disturbances or non-native species were noted during the course of survey. Logging in the surrounding swamp and boreal forest could alter the local hydrology of the wetland.

Photo 41. Keweenaw Point submergent marsh. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 70 42. Mirror Lake Trail Natural Community Type: Submergent Marsh Rank: GU S4, globally unrankable and secure within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 11 acres Location: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19775

Photo 42. Mirror Lake Trail submergent marsh. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 71 VOLCANIC BEDROCK GLADE Overview: Volcanic bedrock glade consists of an open forested or savanna community found where basaltic bedrock and conglomerates are exposed. The sparse vegetation consists of scattered open-grown trees, scattered shrubs or shrub thickets, and a partial turf of herbs, grasses, sedges, mosses, and lichens. The community occurs in the western Upper Peninsula on Isle Royale and the Keweenaw Peninsula, extending southwest into Houghton, Ontonagon, and Gogebic Counties (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 24. Distribution of volcanic bedrock glade in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 72 43. Brandts Creek Glade Natural Community Type: Volcanic Bedrock Glade Rank: GU S3, globally unrankable and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: CD Size: 5 acres Location: Menominee River State Recreation Area Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19739

Threats: Numerous non-native species were noted within the glade including St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and smooth brome (Bromus inermis). Large numbers of deer utilize Menominee River corridor and deer browse of understory and ground cover species is likely prevalent in the volcanic bedrock glade. The surrounding aspen forest was clear-cut within the last ten years. This disturbance surrounding the glades has likely increased non-native species in the glade and in the surrounding area and may have also increased desiccation of vegetation and soils within the glade.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered (i.e., let wildfires burn), control non-native plants and monitor control efforts, reduce local deer densities, and maintain a buffer of natural communities surrounding the glade to prevent the increase of a weedy seed source.

Photo 43. Brandts Creek Glade. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 73 44. East Vista Glade Natural Community Type: Volcanic Bedrock Glade Rank: GU S3, globally unrankable and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: C Size: 3.3 acres Location: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19776

Threats: Invasive species are locally common to dominant in the glade and include timothy (Phleum pratense), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), and St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum). Logging of the surrounding forests could increase the seed source for weedy species, which could be windblown or bird-dispersed onto the glades. In addition, deer browsing could impact species composition and structure.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered (i.e., let wildfires burn), control non-native plants, and maintain a forested buffer surrounding the glade to prevent the increase of a weedy seed source.

Photo 44. East Vista Glade. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 74 45. Menominee River Glade Natural Community Type: Volcanic Bedrock Glade Rank: GU S3, globally unrankable and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: BC Size: 54 acres Location: Menominee River State Recreation Area Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19736 Threats: Species composition and structure of the volcanic bedrock glade are patterned by natural processes. Moderate to low levels of non-native species were documented during the survey. Non-native species are scattered throughout the glade and include include St. John’s-wort (Hypericum perforatum), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), and Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa). Large numbers of deer utilize the Menominee River corridor and deer browse of understory and ground cover species is likely prevalent in the volcanic bedrock glade. Roads and trails pass by several of the volcanic bedrock glades, which receive a fair amount of foot traffic because of their proximity to the river. Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered (i.e., let wildfires burn), control non-native species and monitor control efforts, reduce deer densities and deer browse pressure, and maintain a natural community buffer surrounding the volcanic bedrock glade to prevent the increase of a weedy seed source.

Photo 45. Menominee River Glade. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 75 VOLCANIC CLIFF Overview: Volcanic cliffs consist of vertical or near-vertical exposures of bedrock, which support less than 25% vascular plant coverage, although lichens, mosses, and liverworts are abundant on some rock surfaces. The cliffs can be as high as 80 m (260 ft) and occur on inland exposures of the resistant Middle Keweenawan volcanic rock, which runs from the north tip of the Keweenaw Peninsula south into Wisconsin and also along the entire length of Isle Royale (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 25. Distribution of volcanic cliff in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 76 46. Porcupine South Natural Community Type: Volcanic Cliff Rank: G4G5 S2, apparently secure globally and imperiled within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 44 acres Location: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19773

Threats: The species composition and structure of this volcanic cliff are influenced by natural processes. No anthropogenic disturbances or non-native species were noted during the course of the survey.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered, control non-native plants in the surrounding landscape, and maintain a forested buffer surrounding the cliffs to prevent the increase of a weedy seed source.

Photo 46. Porcupine South volcanic cliff. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 77 47. Union Creek Cliff Natural Community Type: Volcanic Cliff Rank: G4G5 S2, apparently secure globally and imperiled within the state Element Occurrence Rank: B Size: 3.0 acres Location: Baraga State Forest Management Unit Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19755

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes (i.e., erosion, fire, and windthrow) to operate unhindered, maintain a forested buffer adjacent to the escarpment to minimize the threat of invasion by non-native species, and monitor for invasive species.

Photo 47. Union Creek Cliff. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 78 VOLCANIC COBBLE SHORE Overview: Volcanic cobble shore occurs along Lake Superior, predominantly in coves and gently curving bays between rocky points. These mostly unvegetated shores are often terraced, with the highest cobble beach ridge typically supporting a shrub zone several meters above Lake Superior (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 26. Distribution of volcanic cobble shore in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 79 48. Keweenaw Point Natural Community Type: Volcanic Cobble Shore Rank: G4G5 S3, apparently secure globally and vulnerable within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 16 acres Location: Baraga State Forest Management Unit Element Occurrence Identification Number: 17280 Threats: Species composition and vegetative structure of the volcanic cobble shore are determined by natural processes. Threats to the volcanic cobble shore are limited to infrequent off-road vehicle activity, foot traffic, and spread of non-native species. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) and (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) were documented locally and off-road vehicle activity was noted locally along the upper margin of the volcanic cobble shore. Off-road vehicles can destabilize beach areas, especially those areas farther from the shore where vegetation is becoming stabilized. Logging of the surrounding forests could increase the seed source for weedy species, which could be windblown or bird-dispersed onto the lakeshore. Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered, maintain a forested buffer surrounding the lakeshore to prevent the increase of a weedy seed source, and control and monitor non-native species and off-road vehicle activity along the shore.

Photo 48. Keweenaw Point volcanic cobble shore. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 80 VOLCANIC LAKESHORE CLIFF

Overview: Volcanic lakeshore cliffs consist of vertical or near-vertical exposures of bedrock, which support less than 25% vascular plant coverage, although lichens, mosses, and liverworts are abundant on some rock surfaces. The cliffs range in height from 3 to 80 meters (10 to 260 ft) and occur on Lake Superior along the Keweenaw Bay shoreline of the Keweenaw Peninsula and along the northern shoreline of Isle Royale. Volcanic lakeshore cliffs are characterized by high site moisture due to the proximity to Lake Superior and a stressed and unstable environment because of severe waves, wind, and winter ice (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 27. Distribution of volcanic lakeshore cliff in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 81 49. Fish Cove Natural Community Type: Volcanic Lakeshore Cliff Rank: GU S1, globally unrankable and critically imperilled within the state Element Occurrence Rank: AB Size: 0.5 acres Location: Baraga State Forest Management Unit Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19750

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to allow natural processes to operate unhindered (i.e., let wildfires burn) and to maintain a forested buffer surrounding the cliff to prevent the increase of a weedy seed source.

Photo 49. Fish Cove volcanic lakeshore cliff. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 82 WET-MESIC FLATWOODS

Overview: Wet-mesic flatwoods is a wet to mesic forest on mineral soils dominated by a highly diverse mixture of upland and lowland hardwoods. The community occurs almost exclusively on poorly drained glacial lakeplain in southeastern Lower Michigan and is typically characterized by the presence of an impervious clay layer. Seasonal inundation is the primary natural disturbance factor influencing wet-mesic flatwoods. Dominant trees may include oaks, hickories, maples, ashes, and basswood (Kost et al. 2007).

Figure 28. Distribution of wet-mesic flatwoods in Michigan.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 83 50. Belle Isle Flatwoods Natural Community Type: Wet-Mesic Flatwoods Rank: G2G3 S3, vulnerable to imperiled globally and imperiled within the state Preliminary Element Occurrence Rank: D Size: 197 acres Location: Belle Isle Park Element Occurrence Identification Number: 19059 Threats: Species composition, vegetative structure, and successional trajectory are strongly influenced by seasonal inundation and gap-phase dynamics but have also been impacted by altered hydrology (from development of ditches, paved roads and pathways, and dumping of fill), altered soils (from dumping of fill), and invasive species [including die-back of canopy ash from emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), competition from invasive shrubs and graminoids, and browse pressure from introduced European fallow deer]. It is not clear if fire suppression has altered the fire regime of the flatwoods. A herd of 375 European fallow deer (Dama dama) ranged freely on the island for over 80 years. The deer were introduced in the 1920s and were captured and contained in enclosures in 2004. This non-native deer herd had a significant impact on the understory and ground cover of the flatwoods. Oak regeneration in the understory and low shrub layer is present but at low levels and has likely been impacted by deer browse pressure. Currently low levels of white-tailed deer (likely less than ten) are known to inhabit the island.

Photo 50. Belle Isle Flatwoods. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 84 The hydrologic regime of the flatwoods has been altered by the development of paved paths and roads, the creation of ditches, and the dumping of fill. In addition, the canals and lakes on Belle Isle were likely historically low wet swales that were dredged and exaggerated by anthropogenic activity. Paved bike paths, paved roads, and ditches occur throughout the flatwoods and likely provide conduits for invasive species spread. Runoff from road salts has likely resulted in localized eutrophication and spread of invasives that favor these conditions (i.e., reed canary grass). Understory competition from invasive shrubs occurs locally and is most prevalent along the trail and road margins, along the outer edges of the flatwoods, in areas of the flatwoods that are narrow, and where fill has been dumped and local soil and hydrologic properties have been altered. Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) is locally dominant and additional Eurasian honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.), glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), common buckthorn (R. cathartica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and common privet (Ligustrum vulgare) are locally common. Numerous escaped cultivars occur within the flatwoods. Less common understory invasives include spindle tree (Euonymus europaea), European highbush cranberry (Viburnum opulus), and Norway maple (Acer platanoides). Snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus var. laevigatus), an escaped cultivar occurs locally. Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) occurs locally south of the Nashua Canal. A road heading east from the zoo was buried with fill. The area between this slight rise and the paved bike path to the south is dominated by an invasive shrub understory with Amur honeysuckle most prevalent. Reed (Phragmites australis) and reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) occur locally. A large patch of reed occurs just south of the Nature Center and in the northeast portion of the flatwoods; this invasive is encroaching along the margins of the woods and along the paved roads. Reed canary grass is locally dominant and may be associated with the dumping of fill and the runoff of road salts. In addition, bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), periwinkle (Vinca minor), wintercreeper (Euonymus fortunei), and Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) were noted locally.

The majority of canopy ash, both pumpkin ash (Fraxinus profunda) and green ash (F. pennsylvanica), have been killed by emerald ash borer. Some scattered canopy ash trees remain alive. Following the die-back of canopy ash, there has been a pulse of ash sprouting and both pumpkin ash and green ash saplings are locally dominant in the understory. The canopy die-back and the opening of the canopy have likely also favored invasive species in the understory and ground cover. Reed canary grass appears to be prevalent in some areas where canopy ash mortality was high.

Non-native earthworms were documented in 2012 and non-native slugs have also been observed by Suzan Campbell. These non-native invertebrates are likely impacting the soil properties and soil development processes.

Management Recommendations: Invasive species monitoring and removal efforts should continue to be implemented, especially in the highest quality stretches of wet-mesic flatwoods. The Belle Isle Conservancy has been cutting and herbiciding invasive shrubs. In addition, the patch of Phragmites australis near the Nature Center has been treated, thirty pumpkin ash trees were treated to try to prevent mortality from emerald ash borer, and three different species of emerald ash borer parasitoids were released into the flatwoods. These stewardship efforts should be evaluated. Impacts of decades of deer herbivory should be evaluated. Monitoring for oak regeneration is recommended to ascertain if suitable recruitment is present. Efforts to restore the site’s hydrology should be implemented (e.g., removal of paved pathways and roads, removal of dredged fill). Prescribed fire should be evaluated as a stewardship tool to promote oak regeneration and reduce invasive shrub cover.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 85 DISCUSSION This report provides site-based assessments of 50 natural community element occurrences on PRD lands or potential PRD lands. Threats, management needs, and restoration opportunities specific to each individual site have been discussed. The baseline information presented in the current report provides resource managers with an ecological foundation for prescribing site-level biodiversity stewardship, monitoring these management activities, and implementing landscape-level biodiversity planning to prioritize management efforts. In addition to this survey effort, a much needed future step is the development of a framework for prioritizing stewardship efforts across all high-quality natural community element occurrences on PRD lands. This process should involve assessing the conservation significance of each site from both an ecoregional and statewide perspective and evaluating the severity of threats across sites. This analysis should be conducted using an ecological hierarchical framework, such as Albert’s (1995) Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Understanding how each site relates to other examples of the same natural community and how rare that community is within an ecological region will help facilitate difficult decisions regarding the distribution of finite stewardship resources.

Photo 51. Granite bedrock glade adjacent to bog, Craig Lake State Park. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 86 REFERENCES Albert, D.A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: A working map and classification. USDA, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN. Albert, D.A., J.G. Cohen, M.A. Kost, B.S. Slaughter, and H.D. Enander. 2008. Distribution Maps of Michigan’s Natural Communities. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report No. 2008-01, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Comer, P.J., D.A. Albert, H.A. Wells, B.L. Hart, J.B. Raab, D.L. Price, D.M. Kashian, R.A. Corner, and D.W. Schuen. 1995. Michigan’s presettlement vegetation, as interpreted from the General Land Office Surveys 1816-1856. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. Digital map. Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Rocchio, P. Comer, G. Kudray, L. Vance, E. Byers, M. Schafale, C. Nordman, E. Muldavin, G. Kittel, L. Sneddon, M. Pyne, and S. Menard. 2008. Overview of Natural Heritage Methodology for Ecological Element Occurrence Ranking based on Ecological Integrity Assessment Methods [Draft for Network Review]. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classification and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp. Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI). 1988. Draft criteria for determining natural quality and condition grades, element occurrence size-classes and significance levels for palustrine and terrestrial natural communities in Michigan. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 39 pp. Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI). 2014. Biotics database. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.

Photo 52. Hoar Creek Swamp, rich conifer swamp, Baraga Forest Management Unit . Photo by Joshua G. Cohen. Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 87 Photos 53 and 54. Menominee River Glade, volcanic bedrock glade, Menominee River State Recreation Area. Photos by Joshua G. Cohen.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 88 Appendix 1. Ecology Community Field Survey Form Ecological Community Field Survey Form

SURVEY INFORMATION Survey date: Time: from AM PMto AM PM Sourcecode:

Surveyors (principal surveyor first, include first & last name):

Weather conditions:

Revisit needed? Yes No Why? Complete community survey Rare species survey Invasive plant survey Monitoring

FILING Survey site: Site name:

IDENTIFICATION (Identify community if known positively, or provide closest alliance/association if not known) Community Name: Overall Rank: EOID: EO #:

If classification problems, explain:

Photo/slide taken? Yes No Where has photo been deposited?

If associated plot, list project name, and reference #:

LOCATIONAL INFORMATION Township/Range/Section: County:

DIRECTIONS: Provide detailed directions to the observation (rather than the survey site). Include landmarks, roads, towns, distances, compass directions.

Landowner type: Public Private Other:

Landowner Contact Information:

Notes:

Was a GPS used? Yes No Type of unit: Unit number:

Waypoint name/#: File name:

Latitude: Longitude:

Feature Information (mandatory): Source feature: Single Source EO Multiple Source EO

SIZE - Measure of the area of the Element at the observed location. Observed area (unit):Acres Hectares Type of measurement: Precise Estimate

Basis for estimate:

SIZE RANK (comments):

CONFIDENCE EXTENT Indicate whether there is confidence that the observed area represents the full extent of the community element at that location. (Y = confidence that the full extent is known; N = confidence that the full extent is not known; ? = uncertainty whether full extent is known)

Yes No ?

Page 1 of 10

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 89 Appendix 1, continued. Ecology Community Field Survey Form.

LANDSCAPE CONTEXT - An integrated measure of the quality of biotic and abiotic factors, structures and processes surrounding the observed area, and the degree to which they may affect the continued existence of the Element at that location. Component of landscape context for communities are: 1) landscape structure and extent, 2) condition of the surrounding landscape (i.e., community development/maturity, species composition and biological structure, ecological processes, and abiotic physical/ chemical factors.) Factors to consider include integrity/fragmentation, stability/old growth, richness/distribution of species, presence of invasive species, presence of invasive species, degree of disturbance, changes to ecological processes, stability of substrate, and water quality. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND LAND COVER:

Percent natural cover: >90% >75% >50% >25% <25% Road density: HIgh Medium Low

Check all that apply Dominant land use: Dominant land cover: Natural cover Upland forest Managed timber/forest Savanna/grassland Agriculture Forested wetland Mining Non-forested wetland Urban/suburban Agriculture Other: Urban Other:

1. Comment on the relative integrity/fragmentation of the surrounding landscape

2. List native plant communities in surrounding landscape

3. Comment on invasive plants present in surrounding area and describe resulting impacts

List disturbances (either natural or caused by humans) and ecological processes (e.g., hydrologic and fire regimes) in surrounding area

Logging Plant disease: Wild fire Grazing/browsing Insect damage: Prescribed fire Agriculture Windthrow Exotic animal activity: Soil erosion Ice storm Herbivore impact (e.g., deer): Mining Ice scour Invasive plants: Dumping Desiccation Trails/roads Flooding ORV/vehicular disturbance Beaver flooding Hydrologic alteration Beaver chewed trees (drainage, ditches, blocked culverts, etc.) Other: Fire supression Other:

LANDSCAPE RANK (comments):

Page 2 of 10

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 90 Appendix 1, continued. Ecology Community Field Survey Form. CONDITION: ABIOTIC DATA Geology Igneous Rocks Metamorphic Rocks Sedimentary Rocks Granitic (Granite, Schyolite, Syenite, Trachyte) Felsic Gneiss and Schist (Granitic) Volcanic Conglomerates

Dioritic (Diorite, Dacite, Andesite) Mafic Gneiss and Schist Breccias

Gabbroic (Gabbro, Basalt, Pyroxenite, Peridotite, Diabase, Traprock) Slate Sandstone

Rhyolite Quartzite Siltstone (calcareous or noncalcareous) Other: Other: Limestone and Dolomite Gypsum Shale Other:

Landform Glacial River/Lakeshore Aeolian Lake plain Shoreline Dunes End or lateral moraine Sand dune Aeolian sand flats Ground moraine (till plain) Barrier dune Other: Spit Ice Contact Feature Offshore bar Other Drumlin Riverine estuary Cliff Esker Delta Ledge Kame Stream bed Lakeshore bedrock outcrop Kettle Stream terrace Ridgetop bedrock outcrop Lake bed Alluvial fan Inland level-to-sloping bedrock outcrop Outwash channel Alluvial flat Ravine Alluvial terrace Seep Outwash Dike Slide Outwash channel Other: Talus Outwash plain Other: Pitted outwash Other:

Organic Soil Deposits:

Core One: GPS Point Core Two: GPS Point Core Three: GPS Point

Depth pH Depth pH Depth pH Fibirc Peat: Fibirc Peat: Fibirc Peat: Hemic Peat: Hemic Peat: Hemic Peat: Sapric Peat (muck): Sapric Peat (muck): Sapric Peat (muck): Marl (depth): Marl (depth): Marl (depth): Other (describe): Other (describe): Other (describe):

Comments: Comments: Comments:

Page 3 of 10

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 91 Appendix 1, continued. Ecology Community Field Survey Form.

Mineral Soil Depth (average): Wetland Mineral Soil Indicators: Groundcover: (with >5% cover, 20 m x 20 m area) Gleyed soils (list soil texture and depth): pH: % Bedrock

Surface Soil Texture (Upper 10 cm of soil profile) % Wood (>1cm) Iron mottling (list soil texture and depth): Sand % Litter, duff Loamy sand % Large rocks (cobbles, boulders >10 cm) Sandy loam Depth to saturation: % Small rocks (gravel, 0.2 - 10 cm) Loam Depth to water table: % Bare soil Silt loam % Water Sandy Clay loam Hydrologic Regime: Clay loam Wetlands: % Other Silty clay loam Intermittently flooded 100% (Total = 100%) Sandy clay Permanently flooded Light: Clay Semipermanently flooded Open Silty clay Temporarily flooded (e.g., floodplains) Partial Other: Seasonally flooded (e.g., seasonal ponds) Filtered Saturated (e.g., bogs, perennial seeps) Soil Series: Shade Unknown

Comments: Cowardin System: Non-Wetlands: Upland Wet Mesic Riverine Mesic (moist) Lacustrine Dry-Mesic Palustrine Xeric (dry)

Slope: Aspect (down slope): Topographic position: Measured Slope: ° % Measured Aspect: ° (N = 0°) Ridge, summit, or crest

High slope (upper slope, convex slope) Flat 0° 0% Flat Midslope (middle slope) Gentle 0 - 5° 0 - 9% Variable Lowslope (lower slope, footslope) Moderate 6 - 14° 10 - 25% N 338 - 22° Toeslope (alluvial toeslope) Somewhat steep 15 - 25° 26 - 49% NE 23 - 67° Low level (terrace lakeplain, outwash plan, lake bed, etc) Steep 26 - 45° 50 - 100% E 68 - 112° Channel Very Steep ° SE 113 - 157° 45 - 69 101 - 275% Other: Abrupt 70 - 100° 276 - 300% S 158 - 202° Overhanging/sheltered > 100° > 300% SW 203 - 247° W 248 - 292° NW 293 - 337°

Soil Type - Describe soil profile, pH, and method of assessment

CONDITION: VEGETATIVE FIELD DATA FOR THE ELEMENT DBH (indicate cm or inches) of several dominant tree species, include age in years of cored trees: Density:

Species DBH(AGE) DBH(AGE) DBH(AGE) DBH(AGE) DBH(AGE) DBH(AGE) Tree Shrub Herb canopy layer layer

Closed Open Patchy Sparse Absent

Page 4 of 10

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 92 Appendix 1, continued. Ecology Community Field Survey Form.

Complete one or more of the quantitative vegetation data boxes below. If completing only box indicate whether data represents a synthesis of overall community or community is relatively homogeneous throughout. QUANTITATIVE VEGETATION DATA FOR THE ELEMENT

Method used (e.g., ocular estimation, quantitative transect, fixed plot, prism plot):

Sample Point 1: GPS Point:

Cover Class * STRATA COVER CLASS DOMINANT SPECIES in order to relative importance ( >> much greater than, > greater than, and = ) 1 trace 2 0.1 - 1% T2 - Tree Canopy 3 1 - 2% T3 - Subcanopy 4 2 - 5% 5 5 - 10% S1 - Tall Shrub 6 10 - 25% 7 25 - 50% S2 - Low Shrub 8 50 - 75% G - Ground cover 9 75 - 95% 10 > 95% N - Nonvascular V - Woody Vine

Sample Point 2: GPS Point:

Cover Class * STRATA COVER CLASS DOMINANT SPECIES in order to relative importance ( >> much greater than, > greater than, and = ) 1 trace 2 0.1 - 1% T2 - Tree Canopy 3 1 - 2% T3 - Subcanopy 4 2 - 5% 5 5 - 10% S1 - Tall Shrub 6 10 - 25% S2 - Low Shrub 7 25 - 50% 8 50 - 75% G - Ground cover 9 75 - 95% 10 > 95% N - Nonvascular V - Woody Vine

Sample Point 3: GPS Point:

Cover Class * STRATA COVER CLASS DOMINANT SPECIES in order to relative importance ( >> much greater than, > greater than, and = ) 1 trace 2 0.1 - 1% T2 - Tree Canopy 3 1 - 2% T3 - Subcanopy 4 2 - 5% 5 5 - 10% S1 - Tall Shrub 6 10 - 25% S2 - Low Shrub 7 25 - 50% 8 50 - 75% G - Ground cover 9 75 - 95% 10 > 95% N - Nonvascular V - Woody Vine

Sample Point 4: GPS Point:

Page 5 of 10

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 93 Appendix 1, continued. Ecology Community Field Survey Form.

CONDITION - An integrated measure of the quality of biotic and abiotic factors, structures and processes within the observed area, and the degree to which they may affect the continued existence of the Element a that location. Factors to consider include evidence of stability/presence of old growth, richness/distirbution of species, presence of invasive species, degree of disturbance, changes to ecological processes, stability of substrate and water quality. 1. Species composition:

2. Community structure:

3. Ecological processes:

Natural and Anthropogenic Disturbance: information on disturbances(s) (either natural or caused by humans)

Logging Plant disease: Wild fire Grazing/browsing Insect damage: Prescribed fire Agriculture Exotic animal activity: Windthrow Soil erosion Herbivore impact (e.g., deer): Ice storm Mining Invasive plants: Ice scour Dumping Desiccation Trails/roads Flooding ORV/vehicular disturbance Beaver flooding Hydrologic alteration Beaver chewed trees (drainage, ditches, blocked culverts, etc.) Other: Fire supression Other:

Comment on disturbance(s) and changes to ecological processes (e.g., hydrologic and fire regimes) within in observed area:

Comment on invasives present within the observed area and describe resulting impacts:

CONDITION RANK (comments):

Page 6 of 10

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 94 Appendix 1, continued. Ecology Community Field Survey Form.

MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS Threats (e.g., fire suppression, invasive species, ORVs, hydrologic alteration, logging, high deer densities etc.)

Management (stewardship and restoration), Monitoring and Research Needs for the Element at this location (e.g., burn periodically, open the canopy, control invasives, ban ORV's, remove drainage ditches, clear blocked culvert, break drain tile, reduce deer densities, study effects of herbivore impacts)

Protection Needs for the Element at this location (e.g., protect the entire marsh, the slope and crest of slope)

SUMMARY OF ELEMENT OCCURRENCE General Description of the Element: Provide a brief "word picture" of the community focusing on abiotic and biotic factors. Describe the landforms, geological formations, soils/substrates, topography, slope, aspect, hydrology, aquatic features, vegetative layers, significant species etc.

Description of the Vegetation: Describe variation within the observed area in terms of vegetation structure and environment. Describe dominant and characteristic species and any inclusion communities. If a mosaic, describe spatial distribution and associated community types.

OVERALL RANK (comments):

Page 7 of 10

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 95 Appendix 1, continued. Ecology Community Field Survey Form.

SPECIES LIST

Group and record species for each relevant strata (e.g., Overstory, Sub-canopy, Tall Shrub, Low Shrub, Ground Cover). For each species, include abundance rank: D = dominant A = abundant C = common O = occasional U = uncommon R = scarce L = local (modifier)

Page 8 of 10

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 96 Appendix 1, continued. Ecology Community Field Survey Form.

Sketch the most descriptive cross-section through the natural community, depicting the topography, vegetative structure and composition:

Page 9 of 10

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 97 Appendix 1, continued. Ecology Community Field Survey Form. GPS WAYPOINTS AND DESCRIPTIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Page 10 of 10

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 98 Appendix 2. Threat Assessment Form.

Threat Severity Scope Reversibility Threat ScoreComments

Invasive Species

Fire Suppression

Deer Herbivory

ORV Activity

Hydrologic Alteration Infrastructure/ Trail Development

Water Quality/ Contamination

Invasive Plant #1:

Invasive Plant #2:

Invasive Plant #3:

Invasive Plant #4:

Invasive Plant #5:

Rank each observed threat in terms of Severity, Scope, and Reversibility on a scale of 1 to 5. Severity is the level of damage to the site and a score of 1 means the site is slightly damaged and a score of 5 means the site has been extensively damaged. Scope is the geographic extent of impact and a score of 1 means the threat occupies a trace area within the site and a score of 5 means the threat is ubiquitous. Reversibility is the probability of controlling the threat and reversing the damage and a score of 1 means the threat can be easily controlled and a score of 5 means the threat is unlikely to be controlled. Threat Score is a sum of the rankings for Severity, Scope, and Reversibility.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 99 Appendix 2, continued. Threat Assessment Form.

Severity: 5: Without action, the community will likely be destroyed or eliminated (beyond restoration) within 10-15 years 4: Without action, the community will likely be seriously degraded (potentially lowered by 1 EO Rank) within 10-15 years 3: Without action, the community will likely be moderately degraded (potentially lowered by 1/2 EO Rank) within 10-15 years 2: Without action, the community will likely be slightly impaired by this threat within 10-15 years 1: Without action, the community may be slightly impaired by this threat within 15+ years 0: No threat

Scope: 5: Threat impacts the entire community EO (90%+) 4: Threat impacts large portions of the community EO (roughly 50-89%) 3: Threat impacts moderate portions of the community EO (roughly 15-49%) 2: Threat impacts localized portions of the community EO (roughly 5-14%, possibly in several scattered small patches) 1: Threat impacts only one small patch within or on the edge of the community EO, or is currently outside EO in the vicinity but likely to impact EO within the next 10 years 0: No threat

Reversibility: 5: Threat is not reversible (e.g., parking lot/paving) 4: Threat is reversible but not practically affordable without major investment of $ and time (potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars or full time staff effort) 3: Threat is reversible but moderately difficult and requires a fair investment of $ and/or time (potentially tens of thousands of dollars or 2+ weeks of staff time/year) 2: Threat is reversible at relatively low cost (potentially several days of staff time/year or up to a few thousand dollars) 1: Threat is easily reversible with only a few hours of effort (potentially annually) by a small group of people such as volunteers or state workers 0: No threat

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 100 Appendix 3. Global and State Element Ranking Criteria.

GLOBAL RANKS G1 = critically imperiled: at very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences), very steep declines, or other factors. G2 = imperiled: at high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few occurrences (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. G3 = vulnerable: at moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few occurrences (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. G4 = apparently secure: uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. G5 = secure: common; widespread. GU = currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. GX = eliminated: eliminated throughout its range, with no restoration potential due to extinction of dominant or characteristic species. G? = incomplete data.

STATE RANKS S1 = critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S2 = imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few occurrences (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S3 = vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few occurrences (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 = uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 = common and widespread in the state. SX = community is presumed to be extirpated from the state. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered. S? = incomplete data.

Summary of Natural Community Surveys, Page 101