www.michigan.gov/dnr

Eastern Upper Peninsula Ecoregion Management Plan

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

IC 4223 (DRAFT Rev. 07/27/2006)

D R A F T

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... 2 List of Figures ...... 6 List of Tables...... 8 List of Appendices...... 8 Executive Summary...... 9 1 - Understanding the Ecoregion Plan...... 10 1.1 - Purpose & Use of the Plan...... 10 1.2 - Plan Organization and Relationship to Other Plans ...... 13 1.3 - Use of Criteria & Indicators...... 13 1.4 - Plan Communications, Implementation & Review Requirements...... 15 1.5 - Location of the Ecoregion and boundaries of Division management units...... 16 1.5.1 Office of Land and Facilities (OLAF)/Facilities Operations and Support (FOS)...... 45 1.5.2 Law Enforcement Division, (LED)...... 45 1.5.3 Fisheries Division...... 45 1.5.4 Parks and Recreation Division...... 45 1.5.5 Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division (FMFMD)...... 45 1.5.6 Wildlife Division (WD)...... 45 1.5.7 Federal Land Management Units ...... 18 1.5.8 Governmental Units ...... 19 1.5.7 Conservancy Lands ...... 21 1.5.8. Private and Investment Lands...... 23 2 – History of the Eastern Upper Peninsula...... 26 2.1 - Pre-settlement History...... 26 2.2 - Post-settlement History...... 29 2.3 - Contemporary History...... 32 3 - Current Forest Conditions and Trends...... 33 3.1 - General Land Cover and Forest Resource Base...... 33 3.1.1 - Ecoregion-wide Forest Conditions and Trends...... 34 3.1.2 - DNR-owned Forest Land Conditions and Trends...... 45 3.2 - Forest Health Conditions and Trends ...... 45 3.3 Rare and Exemplary Natural Communities...... 45 3.4 - Wildlife Conditions and Trends ...... 45 3.3.1- Forested Habitats...... 45 3.3.2 Upland Open-land and Shrub-land Habitats...... 45 Wetland Habitats ...... 45 3.5 - Water and Fisheries Conditions and Trends ...... 45 3.6 - Socioeconomic Context - Human Uses and Trends ...... 45 4 - Ecoregional Management Direction ...... 45 4.1 - Definition of Terms...... 45 4.1.1 - Desired Future Conditions...... 45 4.1.2 - Goals...... 45 4.1.3 - Objectives ...... 45 4.1.4 - Standards...... 45

2 of 244 D R A F T 4.1.5 - Guidelines ...... 45 4.1.6 – Guidelines ...... 45 4.2 - Desired Future Conditions, Goals & Objectives...... 45 4.2.1 - Recreation Management ...... 45 4.2.1.1 – Boating and Fishing Access Sites and Marinas/Harbors ...... 45 4.2.1.2 - Recreational Trails ...... 45 4.2.1.3 - Campgrounds...... 45 4.2.1.4 - Visual Management ...... 45 4.2.2 – Resource and Vegetation Management...... 45 4.2.2.1 - Biodiversity...... 45 4.2.2.2 – Forest Resources ...... 45 4.2.2.3 – Wildlife ...... 45 4.2.2.4 – Fisheries...... 45 4.2.2.5 – Rare and Exemplary Communities...... 45 4.2.3 – Watershed Management ...... 45 4.2.3.1 – Soil Resources ...... 45 4.2.3.2 - Riparian Areas & Wetlands...... 45 4.2.4 - Species of Greatest Concern...... 45 4.2.4.1 - Federal Threatened & Endangered Species...... 45 4.2.4.2- Species of Special Concern...... 45 4.2.5 - Land Use Management...... 45 4.2.5.1 - Easements...... 45 4.2.5.2 - Special Use Permits and Leases...... 45 4.2.6 - Minerals & Geology...... 45 4.2.6.1 – Nonmetallic Mineral Development ...... 45 4.2.6.2– Unique Geologic Feature...... 45 4.2.7 - Forest Pest Management...... 45 4.2.7.1 – Insects& Diseases...... 45 4.2.7.2 - Invasive Species...... 45 4.2.8 - Fire Management...... 45 4.2.8.1 - Fuel Management...... 45 4.2.8.2 - Prescribed Fire...... 45 4.2.8.3 - Fire Prevention...... 45 4.2.8.4 - Fire Suppression...... 45 4.2.9 - Land Ownership...... 45 4.2.9.1 - Acquisition ...... 45 4.2.9.2 - Boundary Designation...... 45 4.2.10 - Transportation System...... 45 4.2.10.1 - Road Maintenance, Road Closure, and New Roads...... 45 4.2.11 - Law Enforcement...... 45 4.2.11.1 - Law Enforcement ...... 45 4.2.11.2 - Contract Enforcement...... 45 4.2.11.3 - Trespass ...... 45 4.2.12 – Governmental and Stakeholder Relations ...... 45 4.2.12.1 – Tribal Government...... 45 4.2.12.2– Federal and Local Government...... 45

3 of 244 D R A F T 4.2.12.3 – Non-Governmental Organizations ...... 45 5 - Special Resource Area Management Direction...... 45 5.1 - Special Conservation Areas ...... 45 5.1.1 – Proposed/Nominated Natural Areas ...... 45 5.1.1.1 - Standards...... 45 5.1.1.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.2 – National Natural Landmarks...... 45 5.1.2.1 - Standards...... 45 5.1.2.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.3 - Old Growth & Biodiversity Stewardship Areas...... 45 5.1.3.1 - Standards...... 45 5.1.3.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.4 – Trout Streams and Trout Lakes...... 45 5.1.4.1 - Standards...... 45 5.1.4.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.5 – Springs, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas ...... 45 5.1.5.1 - Standards...... 45 5.1.5.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.6 - Large Landscape Level Forests ...... 45 5.1.6.1 - Standards...... 45 5.1.6.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.7 - Habitat Areas and Corridors...... 45 5.1.7.1 - Standards...... 45 5.1.7.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.8 - Restricted Access Areas...... 45 5.1.8.1 - Standards...... 45 5.1.8.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.9 - Archaeological Sites...... 45 5.1.9.1 - Standards...... 45 5.1.9.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.10 - Cultural and Customary Use Areas ...... 45 5.1.10.1 - Standards ...... 45 5.1.10.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.11 - Visual Management Areas...... 45 5.1.11.1 - Standards ...... 45 5.1.11.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.12 – Concentrated Recreation Areas...... 45 5.1.12.1 - Standards ...... 45 5.1.12.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.13 - Mineral Resource Areas...... 45 5.1.13.1 - Standards ...... 45 5.1.13.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.14 – Great Lakes Islands ...... 45 5.1.14.1 - Standards ...... 45 5.1.14.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.15 – Contiguous Resource Areas...... 45

4 of 244 D R A F T 5.1.15.1 - Standards ...... 45 5.1.15.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.1.16 - Other Areas ...... 45 5.1.16.1 - Standards ...... 45 5.1.16.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.2 - High Conservation Value Areas (HCVA)...... 45 5.2.1 – Legally Dedicated Natural Areas...... 45 5.2.1.1 - Standards...... 45 5.2.1.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.2.2 - Wilderness or Wild Areas ...... 45 5.2.2.1 - Standards...... 45 5.2.2.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.2.3 - Natural Rivers...... 45 5.2.3.1 - Standards...... 45 5.2.3.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.2.4 - Critical Dunes ...... 45 5.2.4.1 - Standards...... 45 5.2.4.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.2.5 - Dedicated Species Recovery Areas ...... 45 5.2.5.1 - Standards...... 45 5.2.5.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.2.6 - Dedicated Management Areas ...... 45 5.2.6.1 - Standards...... 45 5.2.6.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.2.7 – Environmental Areas ...... 45 5.2.7.1 - Standards...... 45 5.2.7.2 - Guidelines...... 45 5.3 - Ecological Reference Areas (ERA)...... 45 5.3.1 - Standards...... 45 5.3.2 - Guidelines ...... 45 6 - Monitoring, Review & Revision...... 45 6.1 - Management Review System ...... 45 6.2 - Plan Monitoring...... 45 6.3 - Plan Revision...... 45 7 - Appendices...... 45 8 - Glossary...... 45 9 - References ...... 45

5 of 244 D R A F T List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Land ownership in the EUP Ecoregion ...... 16 Figure 1.2 EUP Ecological Land Units ...... 17 Figure 1.3 EUP Federal Land Management Units ...... 18 Figure 1.4 EUP Ecoregion Ownership ...... 25 Figure 2.1 Soo Locks1860s ...... 30 Figure 3.1 EUP Ecoregion Subsections, Cleland ...... 35 Figure 3.2 EUP Ecoregion Circa 1800, GLO ...... 37 Figure 3.3 Current Landcover: IFMAP 2003 ...... 38 Figure 3.4 Land Cover Change: Circa 1800 to 2000 ...... 41 Figure 3.5 EUP Forest Mineral and Fire management Division Management Units...... 45 Figure 3.6 EUP Ecoregion Landscape Ecosystems...... 45 Figure 3.7 Ra Cover Type Change: 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.8 Ra Jack Pine Age Class 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.9 Ra Hardwood Basal Area 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.10 Ra Red Pine Age Class 1988 to 2001 ...... 45 Figure 3.11 Ra White Pine Age Class 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.12 Ra Harvest trends 1986 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.13 Rb Cover Type Changes: 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.14 Rb Low. Conifer Age Class: 1988 to 2006...... 45 Figure 3.15 Rb Jack Pine Age Class: 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.16 Rb Aspen Age Class: 1988 to 2006...... 45 Figure 3.17 Rb Hardwood Basal Area 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.18 Rb Harvest Trends 1986 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.19 Rc Cover Type Change: 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.20 Rc Aspen Age Class 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.21 Rc Lowland Conifer Age Class 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.22 Rc Cedar Age Class 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.23 Rc Hardwood Basal Area 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.24 Rc Red Pine Age Class 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.25 Rc Harvest Trends 1986 to 2006...... 45 Figure 3.26 Re Cover Type Change: 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.27 Re Aspen age Class 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.28 Re Hardwood Basal Area 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.29 Re Cedar Age Class Distribution 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.30 Re Low. Conifer Age Class 1988 to 2006...... 45 Figure 3.31 Re Harvest Trends 1986 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.32. Rd Cover Type Change: 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.33 Rd Low. Conifer Age Class 1988 to 2006...... 45 Figure 3.34 Rd Aspen Age Class 1988 to 2006...... 45 Figure 3.35 Rd Cedar age Class 1988 to 2006...... 45 Figure 3.36 Rd Swamp Hardwood Age Class 1988 to 200 ...... 45 Figure 3.37 Rd Harvest trends 1986 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.38 Rd Harvest Trends 1986 to 2006 ...... 45 Figure 3.39 Emerald Ash Borer Regulated/Quarantined Counties & Quarantined Outliers .... 45 Figure 3.40 EUP Beech Bark Disease – 2005 ...... 45 Figure 3.41 Jack Pine Budworm – 2005 ...... 45 Figure 3.42. Spurce Budworm – 2005...... 45 Figure 3.43 Major EUP Habitat Categories ...... 45

6 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.44 Major EUP Forested Habitats ...... 45 Figure 3.45 Major EUP Open-Land Habitats ...... 45 Figure 3.46 EUP Wetland and Upland Habitat Categories ...... 45 Figure 3.47 Major EUP Wetland Habitat Categories ...... 45 Figure 3.48 Annual Ruffed Grouse Drums Heard per Sample Point...... 45 Figure 3.49 Lek Survey Results ...... 45 Figure 3.50 Woodcock Heard per Route ...... 45 Figure 3.51 EUP Estimated Deer Population Level ...... 45 Figure 3.52 Year 2000 population in EUP Ecoregion by county. Percent of region’s population provided in parentheses...... 45 Figure 3.53 Year 2000 population density in EUP Ecoregion by county...... 45 Figure 3.54 Estimated population trends in EUP Ecoregion by county. Percent change in population, 2000 to 2004, listed in parentheses...... 45 Figure 3.55 Seasonal homes as a percent of all housing units in each county. Total numbers of second/seasonal homes are listed in parentheses...... 45 Figure 3.56 Selected age group proportions by county in the EUP Ecoregion. Median ages are listed in parentheses...... 45 Figure 3.57 Household and per capita income by county...... 45 Figure 3.58 Proportion of individuals and families living below the poverty level by county in the EUP Ecoregion...... 45 Figure 3.59 Percent of eastern U.P. households that participated in gathering and harvesting activities in the past year...... 45 Figure 3.60 Percent of oral history interviews in which eastern U.P. respondents mentioned participating in a particular gathering or harvesting activity during their lives...... 45 Figure 3.61. Percent of respondents who feel each characteristic of the eastern U.P. has changed over the past five years (n=840)...... 45 Figure 3.62 Percent of respondents who support given strategies for the future of the eastern U.P...... 45 Figure 3.63 Differences in support for development strategies between permanent and (non- resident) seasonals...... 45 Figure 7.1 EUP Law Enforcement Division Management Units ...... 45 Figure 7.2 EUP Fisheries Division Management Units ...... 45 Figure 7.3 EUP Parks & Recreation Division Management Units ...... 45 Figure 7.4 EUP Forest, Mineral & Fire Management Division Management Units ...... 45 Figure 7.5 EUP Wildlife Division Management Units ...... 45

7 of 244 D R A F T List of Tables

Table 3.1 National Hierachy of Ecological Units ...... 33 Table 3.2 Pre-Settlement 1800 Cover Types ...... 38 Table 3.3 Cover Types: IFMAP 2003 ...... 39 Table 3.4 Land Use 2003 ...... 39 Table 3.5 – Top Ten Forest Cover Types Circa 1800 to 2003 ...... 40 Table 3.6 EUP Forest Industry ...... 43 Table 3.7 Area Class by FMU’s ...... 45 Table 3.8 Ra 1988 to 2006 Cover Types ...... 45 Table 3.9 Rb 1988 to 2006 Cover Types ...... 45 Table 3.10 Rc Cover Types 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Table 3.11 Re Cover Types 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Table 3.12 Rd Cover Types 1988 to 2006 ...... 45 Table 3.13 EUP Ecoregion Natural Communities ...... 45 Table 3.14 Households and housing units per square mile for counties in the EUP Ecoregion...... 45 Table 3.15 Age group proportions by county in the EUP Ecoregion...... 45 Table 3.16 Racial distributions by county in the EUP Ecoregion...... 45 Table 3.17 Proportion of individuals 16 years or older in selected occupations by county...... 45 Table 3.18 The EUP Ecoregion industry: Population over 16 years old employed in selected occupations...... 45 Table 3.19 Proportion of government employees by county in the EUP Ecoregion...... 45 Table 3.20 EUP Ecoregion Principal Employers:...... 45 Table 3.21 – Reasons for owning forested land, ordered according to average importance. .... 45 Table 3.22. The proportion of respondents who ranked as number one the method by which they would like to receive forestry information in the future...... 45

List of Appendices

Appendix A – Michigan Department of Natural Resources Administrative Boundaries ...... 45 Appendix B – Michigan Department of Natural Resources State Council Charges to Ecounit Teams, September 15, 2000 ...... 45 Appendix C - Part 525, Statewide Forest Resources Plan, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended...... 45 Appendix D - Excerpts of planning principles from the FSC Standards...... 45 Appendix E - Excerpts of planning objectives from the SFI Standards...... 45 Appendix F – Eastern Upper Peninsula Ecoregion Team ...... 45 Appendix I – Area by Cover Type and Area Class LSSF (DNR 2006 OI) ...... 45 Appendix J – Area by Influence Zone LSSF (DNR 2006 OI) ...... 45 Appendix K – Area by Forest Type and Stand Condition (DNR 2006 OI) ...... 45 Appendix L – Treatment Limiting Factors...... 45 Appendix M – Special Management Potential by Stand Cover (DNR 2006 OI) ...... 45 Appendix N – Forest Health (DNR 2006 OI) ...... 45 Appendix O – Featured Wildlife Species (DNR 2006 OI) ...... 45

8 of 244 D R A F T

Executive Summary

The Eastern Upper Peninsula (EUP) Ecoregion Management Plan is the result of lengthy legislative, formal certification, and internal and external review processes begun in the late 1990’s. The EUP Ecoregion Management Plan has its specific beginning in 1998 with a series of public participatory meetings designed to gather input of public values for the state’s forests. The results of these meetings, together with a framework for implementing sustainable forest management, were drafted and presented in, The Lake Superior State Forest Sustainable Forest Management Pilot Project. Subsequently, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) organized three Ecoregion Planning Teams (Ecoteams) in 2000 and charged them to implement ecosystem management to broaden sustainability in resource management issues beyond state forest boundaries. The EUP Ecoteam then crafted the public values gathered in 1998 into a set of criteria and indicators (and corresponding metrics used to evaluate the criteria and indicators) as they continued to follow the planning guidance provided in Lake Superior State Forest Pilot Project. In 2005, however, the Ecoteam was challenged to reorganize its planning effort in accordance with forest certification standards for ecoregional planning.

Part 525, Sustainable Forestry on State Forestlands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 241, as amended, requires the Michigan DNR to manage state forests in a sustainable way. Part 525 also requires the DNR to achieve and maintain a third-party certification of the state forest management system that is consistent with internationally recognized standards of sustainable forest management. The DNR achieved certification in December of 2005 by meeting the management standards and principles adopted by the Forest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. These standards require the DNR to develop and implement plans for providing long-term, landscape level direction to field managers to guide decision making.

It must first be recognized that the plan considers the entire landscape of the EUP and not just State Forest lands contained therein. State Forest, together with other major public landowners (e.g., Hiawatha National Forest, Seney National Wildlife Refuge, and Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore), account for approximately 56 percent of the ecoregion. Although there are more than one-million acres of State Forest lands in the EUP, 35 percent of the land is in private holdings. The plan has an operational time horizon of 10 years, and a long-term horizon of fifty years or more. The plan is a work in progress and will be updated and refined based on new information, including new scientific research, changes in public values or attitudes, new partnerships between units of government and non-governmental stakeholders, and as certification standards are updated.

The plan contains six major sections. Sections one through four will be part of the initial public review (August, 2006). Sections five and six will be ready for public review in late 2006. The first three sections provide background information including, an introduction of the plan and how it relates to other planning processes (such as the State Forest Plan), a discussion the history of the EUP Eco-Region and a description of existing resource conditions and trends.

9 of 244 D R A F T Section four is the heart of the plan. This section introduces the concept of “desired future conditions” as broad visionary statements giving long-term direction to the plan. Specific management direction is then expanded upon through specific goal and objective statements. These goals and objectives are defined and supported by standards, guidelines and monitoring criteria. Section four is comprised of 39 sub-sections, each one having a specific desired future condition. It is in this section where public resource values are translated into specific management directions.

(Sections 5 and 6 will go for review in December)

1 - Understanding the Ecoregion Plan

1.1 - Purpose & Use of the Plan

On September 15, 2000, the Michigan DNR established and appointed Ecoregion Teams to guide resource assessments, planning and management. The mission of the Ecoregion Teams is:

“To plan and coordinate management of Michigan’s natural resources, utilizing ecosystem management principles.”

The EUP Ecoregion Plan is a significant product of the Ecoregion Team. It describes the assignment of responsibility and authority for management activities, the role of the public in the planning process, the establishment of Criteria and Indictors, the collection and analyses of information to support the planning process, and the monitoring of management decisions.

It is the intent of the EUP Ecoregion Plan to guide natural resource management activities for state lands while providing long-term, landscape-level direction. The plan describes resource conditions, resource management practices, levels of resource production, ecosystem health and protection, vegetative management, wildlife and fisheries management, recreational opportunities, and soil and water protection.

As a lead conservation and resource management agency, the Michigan DNR began developing, in mid-1997, a concerted effort to adopt ecosystem management. The primary objective is to develop strategies for sustainable resource planning and management. The core of this approach is to utilize principles of ecosystem management, application of new technologies, and implementation of adaptive management techniques to sustain the diversity and productivity of Michigan’s natural resources.

The development of this document is based on a number of overarching principles and approaches to ecosystem management. These principles take a holistic view of resources, pursue multi-stakeholder engagement, plan for the long term, address local impacts, and promote sustainable consumption. To achieve this end the DNR is utilizing and endorsing eight principles of ecosystem management developed by the Ecological Society of America for planning and managing Michigan’s natural resources.

The Principles of Ecosystem Management (EM)

Goals. Successful ecosystem management-based projects establish measurable goals that specify future processes and outcomes necessary for sustainability, ecosystem health,

10 of 244 D R A F T economic benefit, and societal values such as human use. Examples of specific goals for an EM project are to maintain evolutionary and ecological processes, protect rare species and communities, maintain viable populations of native species, assess the risk of spread of non-native and invasive species, and restore altered ecosystems. EM recognizes goal- setting as a step in the project planning process that is necessary for success of the project.

Sustainability. EM does not focus primarily on short-term deliverables. Instead it places emphasis on long-term sustainability. For example, the DNR Mission statement includes this EM principle in the “conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the State’s natural resources for current and future generations”. A goal of sustainability means that projects will support appropriate natural processes upon implementation, as well as in 20, 50, or 100+ years. Additionally, projects will not place constraints on future uses of the land.

Sound ecological models and understanding. Developing and implementing an ecosystem management project takes into consideration how the biotic and abiotic components of an ecosystem are related. EM relies on research performed at all levels of ecological organization and recognizes the ecosystem as the unit of management (not species or communities). In other words, to understand one factor, one must acknowledge and attempt to understand its related ecosystem components.

Complexity and connectedness. EM recognizes that biological diversity and structural complexity strengthen ecosystems against disturbance and supply the genetic resources necessary to adapt to long-term change. Put another way, biological diversity and structural complexity are objectives of EM as a means of achieving the goal of sustainability. A good example of a project that demonstrates this principle is maintenance and restoration of grasslands that connects to or creates a contiguous, vast and diverse grassland system that is able to “survive” disturbances over time.

The dynamic character of ecosystems. Change and evolution are inherent and constant components of a healthy sustainable ecosystem. EM recognizes the role of change and incorporates it wherever possible rather than attempting to “freeze” ecosystems in a particular state or configuration. An example would be a response to fluctuating Great Lakes water levels. We have diked coastal marshes as an attempt to “freeze” water levels over time for short-term goals (e.g., current demand for hunting opportunity). While diked coastal marshes have some ecological benefits such as reliable breeding habitats for some wetland species, other benefits are lost when water levels are kept unchanged. For example, wetland productivity suffers and important hydrological processes cannot be maintained.

Context and scale. Ecosystem processes operate over a wide-range of spatial and temporal scales, and the nature of these processes at any given location is greatly affected by the surrounding landscape. Thus, there is no single appropriate scale or timeframe for management. To implement EM, however, working ecosystem boundaries and plan scales are developed for planning purposes.

Humans as ecosystem components. EM recognizes and values the active role of humans in establishing and achieving sustainable management goals. EM recognizes the importance of integrating human and ecological dimensions in natural resource management and provides for humans, economic benefit, and societal values (e.g., use

11 of 244 D R A F T and enjoyment of natural resources by stakeholders). EM provides opportunities for local communities to share in the leadership of natural resource management.

Adaptability and accountability. EM recognizes that current knowledge and paradigms of ecosystem functions, general biology, ecology, and sociology are provisional, incomplete, and subject to change. Management approaches must be evaluated with research and monitoring programs so that approaches can be adapted over time to more effectively achieve goals. Managers should be committed to being adaptable and basing their adaptations on valid evaluations.

A primary purpose and use of the EUP Ecoregion Plan will be to meet ecosystem sustainability and provide traditional natural resource products, services, and benefits with a commitment to ecosystem management of the one million plus acres of State Forest Lands within the ecoregion.

In 2004, the State Legislature enacted Part 525, Sustainable Forestry on State Forestlands, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (Appendix A). As defined by Part 525, sustainable forestry means forestry practices that are designed to meet present and future needs by employing a land stewardship ethic that integrates the reforestation, managing, growing, nurturing, and harvesting of trees for useful products with the conservation of soil, air and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and visual qualities. To foster sustainable forestry upon land owned by the Michigan DNR, Section 52503 of Part 525 requires the DNR to adopt a forestry development, conservation, and recreation management plan for state-owned lands. The EUP Ecoregion Plan is a document that provides an initial basis of the statutory requirements of Part 525, of PA 451.

Section 52505 of Part 525 also requires the Michigan DNR to seek and maintain a third party certification of the management of the state forest that satisfies the sustainable forestry standards of at least one credible certification program. Michigan’s 3.9 million acres of state forest land received dual certification by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), the two leading forest certification groups in North America, in December 2005. Current standards for certification and maintaining certification have been developed by both SFI and FSC:

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) 2005-2009 Standard as adopted by the Sustainable Forestry Board, Inc. on January 10, 2005.

The Regional Forest Stewardship Standard for the Lake States-Central Hardwoods Region (USA), as approved by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) US Board on February 7, 2002, and accredited by FSC International on August 5, 2002.

Principle 7 of the FSC certification standard and Objective 1 of the SFI certification standard require the development and maintenance of a forest management plan. Excerpts of planning principles from both the FSC and SFI Standards are contained in (Appendix B and Appendix C). Both FSC and SFI require strategic, long-term, landscape planning requirements. The purpose and use of the EUP Ecoregion Plan is a document to meet and exceed these certification requirements.

12 of 244 D R A F T 1.2 - Plan Organization and Relationship to Other Plans

The role of the Ecoregion Team is to function as a technical working group to develop and formulate ecosystem management plans and implement management processes. A guiding vision and direction for statewide planning and for the progression towards ecosystem management is the Statewide Council. This group, with representation from the Divisions and the DNR Executive staff, constitute the decision making body for plans and issues brought forward by the Ecoteams or other interdisciplinary planning committees in the Department. Current EUP Ecoregion Team members are listed in (Appendix D).

In the fall of 2005, the Statewide Council approved developing a State Forest Management Plan. For the purpose of consistency, the structure of the plan is based upon the general outline for Ecoregion Management Plans. The plan contains management direction that provides landscape level desired future conditions, goals, objectives, standards and guidelines for the State Forest System. These are intended for reference and adaptation by Ecoregion Teams as they move through the process of drafting Ecoregion Management Plans. The desired future conditions and goals outlined in the plan are intended for reference by stakeholders, other governmental units, and partners throughout the State and for adaptation and implementation by the managers of other State-owned resources.

The structure of the plan is based on the general outline as describe in the DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction Title1.3, Ecoregional Plan Development and organized into nine major sections. The plan contains management direction that provides landscape level desired future conditions and goals for the sustainable management of resources. The desired future conditions and goals outlined in the plan are intended for reference by stakeholders, other governmental units, and partners within and outside the ecoregion and for adaptation and implementation by the managers of State owned resources within the EUP Ecoregion.

Other planning efforts within ecological systems across the EUP Ecoregion will involve broad participation from federal, state, conservation groups, private landowners, tribal interests, and citizens. Management focus and decision making of all interests within the ecoregion should seek a decision process where ecological, social, and economic interests are set forth and considered by all partners. Even though ecosystems may cross multiple ownerships and there are a variety of planning efforts by others, the EUP Ecoregion Plan will facilitate development of common goals, while establishing cooperation with the expectation that ecosystem integrity is the outcome.

1.3 - Use of Criteria & Indicators

Future sustainability of EUP Ecoregion resources cannot be obtained unless a balanced approach to decision-making considers simultaneously the three dimensions of ecosystem management: ecological, social, and economic. The EUP Ecoregion is following current international, national, and regional efforts to identify an accepted framework of identifying a set of criteria and indicators for gathering data, discussing the importance of sustainability, and achieving sustainability of natural resources. The goal is to routinely incorporate criteria and indicators into day-to-day decision making and using the information they provide to continuously improve our management approaches.

Sustainable criteria are goals or values that reflect broad public values and recognized scientific principles by which sustainability may be assessed. An indicator is a

13 of 244 D R A F T measurement of an aspect of a criterion that can be described and over time can be observed as well as demonstrate trends (Canadian Forest Service 1995, Montreal Process Working Group 1999).

Through a collaborative planning process, an extensive effort was undertaken by the EUP Ecoregion Team to develop a set of Criteria and Indicators as well as the identification of a list of metrics to measure sustainability and monitor success within the ecoregion. Between June 1998 and January 2002 nine external and internal stakeholder workshops were held throughout the ecoregion to develop Criteria, Indicators, and Metrics. One hundred and ninety nine individuals participated in this process. As a result of this process the EUP Ecoregion Team has identified 11 Criterion and 37 Indicators. The following 11 Criteria were identified in the EUP Ecoregion and were developed with the assistance of citizens, landowners, interested organizations, local governments, businesses, and other agencies. Stakeholders within the ecoregion and stakeholders statewide participated in this process. The entire set of Criteria, Indicators and Metrics can be found in (Appendix E).

Criteria 1. Conservation of Biological Diversity: Biological diversity refers to the variety found among species in number (how many species) and abundance (how many of each species) in a common environment. This variety can be measured at the genetic, species, ecosystem, and landscape levels. Conservation of biological diversity is making sure this variety and abundance of species continues on in a healthy and productive state.

Criteria 2. Ecosystem Condition and Productivity: Ecosystem condition is a measure of the health of an ecosystem – how it responds to stress and disturbance. Ecosystem productivity refers to the rate of production of organic matter within an ecosystem. This results from the interactions between the plants and animals and nonliving factors such as soil, water, and climate. Sustainable productivity is dependant on the ability of an ecosystem to adopt or respond following disturbances whether natural or human caused. A healthy and diverse ecosystem can better respond to and recover from changes to its environment.

Criteria 3. Water and Soil Conservation: Water and soil conservation is the wise use and maintenance of our soil and water resource. Soil and water are essential to sustaining life and ecosystems. Soil conservation is wisely maintaining the soils which support all plant and animal life. Water conservation is maintaining abundant and quality aquatic environments for plants and animals as well as providing quality water for people.

Criteria 4. Ecological Cycles: Ecological cycles are the various regulating processes that recycle the earth’s limited resources – water and other elements – that are essential to sustain life. Understanding how local cycles fit into global cycles is essential to make the best possible management decisions to maintain ecosystem health and productivity for now and the future.

Criteria 5. Uncommon or Rare Natural Features: Rare, unusual or remarkable geological sites, plants, animals and natural communities important to the identity of the Eastern Upper Peninsula’s natural resource landscape. Identification, conservation and restoration of these elements are a priority in sustainable management.

Criteria 6. Social / Cultural: The EUP Ecoregion is predominately a rural region with a large amount of public forest lands. Current social values rely on tourism, recreation, and resource extraction based on the existing natural resources. Life styles and values of the

14 of 244 D R A F T people of this region are strongly connected to its natural resources. Sustainability of these resources is essential to the social and cultural fabric of the region.

Criteria 7. Spiritual: Spiritual values are personal feelings and sentiments that natural resources stir within the human spirit and are sometimes called existence values. This criterion is concerned with the continued ability of the resources to provide these values. Since spiritual values are personal and primarily intangible, the indicators lean towards features of ecosystems that appeal to the senses or address the ability of people to use those resources. This value is very real and potentially very important.

Criteria 8. Recreation: The ability to maintain and strengthen the quality of leisure pursuits in the access of resources and amenities while avoiding any form of social or environmental degradation or exploitation.

Criteria 9. Ownership Patterns: The pattern and distribution of ownership and the use of lands that greatly affect the ability to sustain natural resources. Management options, resource demand, and ecological processes are all affected by how the land is managed, fragmented, and patterned. Successful sustainable management is dependent upon making connections across ownerships, boundaries, and landscapes.

Criteria 10. Economic Health: A wide range of goods and services are provided to the people of the EUP Ecoregion by and from the management of natural resources. These goods and services create jobs and economic stability to the region.

Criteria 11. Institutional Processes: Institutional processes deal with the legal and institutional framework for the application of ecosystem management. They deal with the policies, legislation, regulations, and guidelines that drive and direct ecosystem practices. They also direct how institutions cooperate with each other in the application of ecosystem management. These processes also examine the quality of opportunities for public involvement in ecosystem planning leading to resource management decisions.

1.4 - Plan Communications, Implementation & Review Requirements

The EUP Ecoregion will strive to be responsive, timely, and effective in its communications with the public. The public can generally reach a person during business hours. The ecoregion team members can be contacted in person by letter, phone, and/or e-mail. Internal and external customer service is a priority. Communications in the Ecoregion Planning process ensures that planning is open and accessible to those who have a concern about Michigan’s natural resources. Concerned members of the public have the opportunity to make their views known during the management planning process and implementation of the plan.

A three step communications process will be implemented to achieve these goals.

· First, communications (media based) will be put into practice by periodic updates of the DNR internet ecosystem management web site at www.michigan.gov/dnr. There will be news releases describing milestones in the EUP Ecoregion planning process. · Second, communications will be put into action in the form of focus-groups and workshops to solicit issues, test responses and gain support for the planning process and the implementation of the EUP Ecoregion plan.

15 of 244 D R A F T · Third, communications will be in the form of public meetings, open houses, attendance at ecoregion meetings, Compartment Reviews, interpretive programs, etc. within local Forest Units, State Parks, and communities throughout the ecoregion. The EUP Ecoregion Plan will be implemented upon the effective dates of signature of the Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Upon approval, the plan will be implemented for a 10 -15 year time frame with revisions as deemed appropriate. Throughout the planning process the EUP Ecoregion will collaborate with interested individuals, groups, and other governmental agencies.

1.5 - Location of the Ecoregion

The complexity and diversity of DNR administrative boundaries and the number of other ownerships pose a significant challenge for the EUP Ecoregion planning process and require a significant cultural shift in the implementation of ecosystem management.

Figure 1.1 Land ownership in the EUP Ecoregion

Historically the DNR has managed the State’s natural resources on a “Divisional” basis. The DNR has been conducting its planning efforts at the forest, watershed, and specific project/management area level. Each Resource Division focused on the resources for which it was directly responsible. Input or impact analysis on resources managed by DNR Divisions, other agencies, and other landowners occurred infrequently. The movement towards ecosystem management requires cooperation and an open decision process.

16 of 244 D R A F T The EUP Ecoregion is just one component in a larger national hierarchy of ecological classifications. Planning at the ecoregion level allows for more strategic planning and assessment across multiple landscapes, i.e. multi-forest, multi-agency, and multi- ownerships. Encompassing 3,898,728 acres or 6,091 square miles the EUP Ecoregion boundary extends eastward from the west boundary of the Hiawatha National Forest in Delta and Alger Counties to our border with Canada. The ecoregion borders three of the Great Lakes; Lake Superior to the north, and Lakes Huron and Michigan to the south.

Figure 1.2 EUP Ecological Land Units

Eight Divisions of the DNR have a variety of administrative boundaries both within the EUP Ecoregion and extending into two other of Michigan’s ecoregions. Each of the divisions has specific areas of responsibility, staff, and resources to accomplish their specific mission. In addition, within the ecoregion boundaries, there are also numerous federal, organizations, other governmental units, and private landowners that are important to management planning on an ecoregional basis. Appendix A describes the various DNR Divisional boundaries within the EUP Ecoregion, staff levels, and administrative responsibilities. In addition some of the major resource land holders within the EUP Ecoregion are presented below.

17 of 244 D R A F T 1.5.1 Federal Land Management Units

Figure 1.3 EUP Federal Land Management Units

Hiawatha National Forest (U. S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture)

The mission of the Hiawatha National Forest is the “Hiawatha National Forest Niche Statement” of the Forest Plan. www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/hiawatha

The Hiawatha National Forest’s 895,313 acres are split between its east and west units. The west boundary of the west unit of the Hiawatha National Forest is also the west boundary of the EUP Ecoregion. The east unit was established in 1909 and the west unit was created in 1931 and both units incorporated into the Hiawatha National Forest in 1962. The Hiawatha National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan have been in effect since 1986 and have required revisions at least every 15 years.

Seney National Wildlife Refuge (United States Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior)

The mission of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge is to maintain a mosaic of habitats that supports an array of both wetland and upland wildlife species. Plant succession will be to maintain a wide range of conditions. www.fws.gov/midwest/seney/factsheet.htm

18 of 244 D R A F T

Seney National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1935 for the management of diverse wetland habitats, provide breeding and migration habitat for migratory birds, and for the protection of a variety of wildlife.

Seney National Wildlife Refuge is 95,238 acres of diverse wetland and upland habitats. The Seney Wilderness area and Strangmoor Bog Natural Landmark encompasses 25,150 acres, (26%) of the refuge. The refuge consist of marshes, fens, and bogs; coniferous and northern hardwood forests; upland barrens and meadows. Approximately 65% of the refuge is wetland. The refuge supports an array of both wetland and upland wildlife species. More than 6,400 acres of open water are managed in 21 major pools. The refuge offers a range of programs, events, tours, facilities, and opportunities to view wildlife.

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore (United States National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior)

The mission of the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is dedicated to preserving a national significant portion of the Great Lakes shoreline, allowing public access to its geologic, scientific, scenic and historic features, offering opportunities for recreation, education, inspiration, and enjoyment. http://www.nps.gov

Pictured Rocks was the first National Lakeshore and was authorized in 1966. The park is over 73, 235 acres, including a 39,306 acre buffer zone, and at its widest point is only five miles. The Park hugs the Lake Superior shoreline for more that 40 miles. The Park is known for the multicolored sandstone cliffs, beaches, sand dunes and waterfalls of the Lake Superior shoreline.

1.5.2 Governmental Units

Tribal Lands

There are two federally recognized American Indian Tribes in the EUP Ecoregion. The Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. Both tribes sovereign status (tribes are independent sovereign nations) is recognized by Michigan, the U.S. government, and Canada.

The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians operates under a constitution and bylaws approved in November of 1975 by the Secretary of Interior. The Tribe enacts and enforces ordinances to govern Tribal lands, to establish businesses and to expend funds for the betterment of the community. The Tribe’s government is located in Sault Ste. Marie and satellite offices are located in St. Ignace, Manistique, Escanaba, Munising, Newberry, and Hessel. The Sault Tribe has Reservation Lands in the Sault and off Reservation Trust Lands throughout the ecoregion. www.saulttribe.org

19 of 244 D R A F T The Bay Mills Indian Community operates under a constitution and bylaws. The Tribe enacts and enforces ordinances to govern Tribal lands, to establish businesses and to expend funds. The Tribe’s government is located in Brimley and tribal Reservation lands are located in Brimley and on Sugar Island. Bay Mills has additional off Reservation Trust Lands throughout the ecoregion. Total Tribal ownership is 3,494 acres of which 1,500 are forests, 1,014 acres wetlands, and 64 acre lakes. www.baymills.org

County/Townships

Luce County · Total Area (square miles) 927.3 · Water Area (square miles) 24.22 · Land Area (square miles) 903.08 · Population, 2000 7,024 · Persons per square mile 7.8 · Number of Townships 4 · County Zoning in Place · County has a Comprehensive Plan for the County 2000 U.S. Census

Mackinac County www.mackinaccounty.net · Total Area (square miles) 1185.68 · Water Area (square miles) 164.09 · Land area (square miles) 1,022 · Population, 2000 11,943 · Persons per square mile 11.7 · Number of Townships 14 · County and Township Zoning in Place · County has a Comprehensive Plan for the County 2000 U.S. Census

Schoolcraft County www.manistique.org · Total Area (square miles) 1222.10 · Water Area (square miles) 43.99 · Land area (square miles) 1,178 · Population, 2000 8,903 · Persons per square mile 7.6 · Number of Townships 8 · County and Township Zoning in Place · County has a Comprehensive Plan for the County 2000 U.S. Census

20 of 244 D R A F T Chippewa County www.chippewacountymi.gov · Total Area (square miles) 1908.04 · Water Area (square miles) 346.98 · Land area (square miles) 1,561.06 · Population 2000 38,543 · Persons per square mile 24.7 · Number of Townships 16 · Individual Township Zoning in Place · County does not have a Comprehensive Plan for the County 2000 U.S. Census

Alger County (EUP Ecoregion) · Total Area (square miles) 786.43 · Water Area (square miles) 100.46 · Land area (square miles) 685.97 · Population 2000 9,862 · Persons per square mile 4.44 · Number of Townships in ecoregion 6 · Individual Township Zoning in Place · County has a Comprehensive Plan for the County 2000 U.S. Census

Delta County (EUP Ecoregion) www.deltacountymi.org · Total Area (square miles) 999.75 · Water Area (square miles) 332.26 · Land area (square miles) 667.47 · Population 2000 4,623 · Persons per square mile 6.17 · Number of townships in Eco Region 6 · County and Township Zoning in Place · County has a Comprehensive Plan for the County 2000 U.S. Census

1.5.3 Conservancy Lands

The Nature Conservancy

The mission of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. www.nature.org

21 of 244 D R A F T The Nature Conservancy is a leading international, nonprofit organization founded in 1951. The Nature Conservancy has 29,842 acres of nature preserves within the EUP Ecoregion. TNC in 1996 established a Great Lakes Program to identify high priority biodiversity conservation sites in the Great Lakes region based on ecoregion planning. Thirty four Conservation Areas and eleven Priority Conservation Areas in the EUP Ecoregion have been identified by The Nature Conservancy (The Nature Conservancy, 2000).

Maxton Plains Preserve (1,185 Acres) located on Drummond Island; Chippewa County is one of the finest examples of alvar grassland that only occurs in the Great Lakes. This habitat hosts a mixture of arctic tundra and Great Plains prairie species. Carl A. Gerstacker Nature Preserve (879 Acres) at Dudley Bay, Chippewa and Mackinac Counties. This preserve was created in 1993 and contains several miles of Northern Lake Huron shoreline with a number of endangered and threatened plants, interdunal wetlands, conifer swamps, cobbled bedrock beaches, and mixed hardwood forests. McMahon Lake Preserve (2,959 Acres) is located in the Two-Hearted-River watershed in Luce County. The site includes one of the state’s largest and finest examples of a patterned fen. The McMahon Lake Preserve first parcel was purchased in 1989 with other land donations by Escanaba Paper Company and William Malpass. Two Hearted River Preserve (23,338 Acres) is located in Luce County and is the largest private nature preserve in Michigan. The Two Hearted River is a Michigan Natural River and contains some of the most pristine native forest habitats in Michigan. The purchase of this property took place in 2005. At the same time the Northern Great Lakes Forest Project established a 248,000 acre conservation easement between the Forest Land Group and the Michigan DNR. Little Traverse Conservancy

The mission of the Little Traverse Conservancy is to protect the natural diversity and beauty of northern Michigan by preserving significant land and scenic areas, and fostering appreciation and understanding of the environment. www.landtrust.org

The Little Traverse Conservancy was established in 1972 as a non-profit land conservation organization. The Conservancy owns and manages forty three nature preserves in Chippewa and Mackinac counties with a total of 3,167 acres. Some of the larger preserves are:

Round Island Point Preserve (Chippewa County, 884 Acres) Baily/Lagerstrom Preserve (Chippewa County, 362 Acres) Jinny Palms Preserve (Chippewa County, 360 Acres) Aldo Leopold Nature Preserve (Mackinac County, 260 Acres) Birge Preserve (Mackinac County, 434.6 Acres) Boot Island Preserve (Mackinac County, 77.7 Acres)

22 of 244 D R A F T The Michigan Nature Association

The mission of the Michigan Nature Association is to carry on a program of natural history study and conservation education, and to acquire, maintain, and protect nature sanctuaries, natural areas, natural areas, and plant preserves in the State of Michigan. www.michigannature.org

The Michigan Nature Association was established in 1952 and is a non-profit conservation organization dedicated to protecting Michigan’s natural habitats and endangered species. Within the EUP Ecoregion the Michigan Nature Association owns 1,495 acres of land in Alger, Schoolcraft, Chippewa, and Mackinac Counties. Preserves located in the EUP Ecoregion are:

Hanford Memorial Nature Sanctuary (Alger County, 45.78 Acres) Twin Waterfalls Plant Preserve (Alger County, 15.45 Acres) Cedar Lake Nature Sanctuary (Schoolcraft County, 42.1 Acres) Huntington Memorial Plant Preserve (Schoolcraft County, 6 Acres) Lake Superior Nature Sanctuary (Chippewa County, 369 Acres) Soo Muskeg Nature Sanctuary (Chippewa County, 76.82 Acres) Purple Coneflower Plant Preserve (Mackinac County, 21 Acres) Roach Point Nature Sanctuary (Chippewa County, 478.85 Acres) Carlton Lake Wetlands Preserve (Chippewa County, 400 Acres) Beaver Dam Nature Sanctuary (Mackinac County, 40 Acres)

Michigan Karst Conservancy

The mission of the Michigan Karst Conservancy is the acquisition, management and protection of the finest examples in Michigan of karst areas and features, as well as scientific study, and conservation education regarding karst. www.caves.org/conservancy/mkc

The Michigan Karst Conservancy owns two preserves in Michigan. The 480 acre Fibron Karst Preserve in Mackinac County includes an extensive and nearly complete karst drainage system with features such as sinkholes, caves and disappearing streams. The Michigan Karst Conservancy has a memorandum of understanding with the Hiawatha National Forest to coordinate a survey of karst features and caves in the Forest.

1.5.4 Private and Investment Lands

Hiawatha Sportsman’s Club

The mission of the Hiawatha Sportsman’s Club is to promote good fellowship among its members, advance true sportsmanship on the field and stream, promote the finest of out-of-door recreation and the spirit of conservation of all natural resources among all its members.

23 of 244 D R A F T The Hiawatha Sportsman’s Club is a 35,000 acre private club located in west Mackinac County. The Club has approximately 5 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline with a strong emphasis on forest, fisheries, and wildlife management for its 1,185 Club members.

Plum Creek Timber Company Inc.

The mission of Plum Creek Timber Company Inc. is committed to being a premier land and timber company by demonstrating leadership and innovation in optimizing opportunities for value growth from the assets; practicing environmentally responsible resource management; providing consistently high quality products and services to our customers and business partners; fostering an ethical business culture that encourages individual ideas and initiative and rewards accomplishments; and achieving superior returns for our owners. www.plumcreek.com

Plum Creek Timber Company Inc. is one of the largest private timberland owners in the nation with approximately 8 million acres. Plum Creek is a Real Estate Investment Trust listed on the New York Stock Exchange and the Pacific Stock Exchange. All of the Plum Creek Timber Company Inc. timberland holdings are certified under the standards of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). In 2005 Plum Creek purchased approximately 650,000 acres of timberland in the Upper Peninsula from Escanaba Timber LLC. Approximately 110,823 acres is located within the EUP Ecoregion.

The Forestland Group, LLC.

The mission of the Forestland Group, LLC (TFG) is to acquire and manage timberland investments for institutions, families, and individuals. www.forestlandgroup.com

The TFG was formed in 1995 to pursue investments in naturally regenerating hardwood and pine forests for institutional investors. TFG manages approximately 1.5 million acres in eleven states. TFG is the only timberland investment management organization to preside over an entire portfolio of timberlands that has been certified according to the terms of the FSC. In 2002 the TFG purchased 389,202 acres of the Bernice Bishop Trust lands in the Upper Peninsula. Within the EUP Ecoregion TFG owns and manages approximately 237,156 acres. TFG, The Nature Conservancy, and the Michigan DNR entered into a legally binding purchase of a working forest easement to protect public access and protection of forests, lakes and streams on 248,000 acres within the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Under this agreement the TNC purchased 23,338 acres from TFG within the Two- Hearted River watershed in Luce County.

Resource Management Service, LLC (RMS)

Resource Management Service owns and manages 7,492 acres in Luce County and purchased the property in 2006 from International Paper. Founded in 1950, RMS is an independent, employee owned, timberland investment management firm that acquires and manages forest investments in the US on behalf of private clients and institutional investors. RMS is a federally registered investment advisor based in Birmingham, Alabama with an investment office in Boston, Massachusetts and forestry offices across the South. www.resourcemgt.com

24 of 244 D R A F T

Other Land Ownerships

Approximately 1.345 million acres (35%) of the EUP Ecoregion is classed as private ownership (farm land, misc. private forestlands, County/Municipal lands, tribal lands, and urban ownerships). Of this total approximately 1.2 million acres is classed as commercial forest lands. Within the ecoregion approximately 437,800 acres of private ownership is enrolled in the American Tree Farm System. The American Tree Farm System is a privately funded, national tree growing effort to promote growing of renewable resources on private lands while protecting environmental benefits and increasing public understanding of all benefits of productive forestry. Tree Farm landowners are certified under a set of standards, guidelines and performance measures that meet SFI standards. A third party audit of non-industrial private forest Tree Farms in the EUP Ecoregion received a certificate of compliance on 42,000 acres in 2005.

Figure 1.4 EUP Ecoregion Ownership

EUP ECO-REGION OWNERSHIP

STATE FOREST 1% 27% FOREST INDUSTRY 35% FEDERAL CONSERVANCY 0% FINANCIAL

9% 1% 27% OTHER PRIVATE STATE PARKS

25 of 244 D R A F T 2 – History of the Eastern Upper Peninsula

By its very nature, Ecosystem management results come in decades, not years, and our history shows events of the past directly affect those of the future. Humankind has had the greatest impact upon natural resources and the environment. Past events, both natural and human induced, have shaped the landscape that is the EUP. Oral and written histories tell us much of the social and economic lives of early people in this area and of events that have influenced the current social, economic and ecological fabric of the EUP.

2.1 - Pre-settlement History

Ancient Past

The Eastern Upper Peninsula is underlain by Silurian and Ordovician bedrock, principally limestone and dolomite, with some shale and gypsum as well. These deposits were laid down when the Upper Peninsula was part of an extensive area of shallow water sea. The features which can be seen today are the Niagaran Escarpment (A dolomite and limestone cliff feature which parallels the old Lake Michigan shoreline), alvar (limestone pavement along parts of the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron shoreline, especially the Garden Peninsula and Drummond Island), lacustrine sand or clay deposits (resulting from glacial lakes), with numerous rivers and streams in the lake plain.

From Munising to Paradise, there is an east-west running sandstone escarpment of Cambrian Age, exposed in many waterfalls. It also has poorly drained sand lake plains, sandy end moraines, and outwash plains. To the west is the Seney Lake plain which contains the largest expanse of wetland in the state. In the central U.P., are the deeper lacustrian soils. The bedrock here is typically overlain with 100 to 200 feet of glacial drift. To the east, more end moraines are found with lacustrine deposits of glacial and post glacial origin.

Glaciation has occurred here several times, with the most recent glacial retreat occurring about 10,000 years ago. The shoreline, the Great Lakes, and the landscape have been altered through time. Ancient lakeshores may be seen inland in many locations near the Great Lakes, especially where dune and swale formations parallel the lakeshore. On Drummond, Neebish and Sugar Island, rounded rock on loam soil ridges over sand and clay indicate where the Great Lake waves washed the shoreline hundreds to thousands of years ago. The farther from the lake, the further back in time it was a shoreline.

What likely preceded the glaciations is a period in earth history where the eastern Upper Peninsula was overlain by shallow seas. Fossil beds in several locations bear testimony to this ancient time. (Albert, 1994)

Pre-historic Humans

As the glaciers melted 10,000 years ago, Paleo-Indians came north into Michigan in pursuit of mammoths and large caribou herds. Michigan of that time was sub-arctic grasslands. As time went on and the climate warmed, the landscape changed. Mastodons and other cervids like elk and moose became more numerous.

During the Early Archaic period, from 10,000 to 8,000 years Before Present (BP), the climate changed dramatically and hunting methods underwent change as well. One of the

26 of 244 D R A F T major ways archeologists date these periods is through the type of tools used. This was probably a warmer and drier period than the present climate. Great lake levels were very low then, so much of the use may have been in areas now submerged.

By 8500 to 5100 BP, (Middle Archaic) many of the present landforms and drainages were visible on the landscape. People began to live along present day water courses, at least seasonally, as they adapted to their changing environment and the increasing woodlands.

The Late Archaic, 5000 to 2500 BP, the levels of the Great Lakes were much higher than they are now. Modern vegetative communities were likely seen in the landscape. People adapted new hunting and gathering techniques. People were exploring many environments and exotic raw materials can be found in these sites including copper and marine shells. Evidence of formal trade from far away places can be found at many sites. The area near present day St. Ignace was used heavily during this period. Archeologists have investigated at least one burial chamber created there during the Late Archaic. Group sizes might range up to 25 people.

The Early Woodland period involved the beginnings of agriculture (2000 to 1000 BP). Ceramics began to be used suggesting new food preparation methods. No sites from the Eastern UP can be documented during this period, although several sites have been found in southwestern Lower Michigan during this period.

The Middle Woodland (1000 to 500 BP) period is considered the golden age of mound builders. While the Hopewell culture of the Ohio Valley was occurring, extending into northeast Lower Michigan, the people found from Minnesota to the Eastern UP were not involved. Their society still revolved around hunting and gathering. However, seasonal influxes from Southern Michigan certainly occurred during fishing seasons. Ceramics from that area are sometimes found at sites here. Trading between the northern people and the southern Hopewellian influenced cultures undoubtedly occurred. There are many sites along the Straits, near the present day Sault Ste. Marie, near Brimley, and Grand Island to indicate heavy use along the lakeshore. Much evidence suggests that the Great Lake shoreline was a major travel route for the copper trade from the Western Upper Peninsula. It was probably during this period that the Burnt Bluffs site on the Garden Peninsula may have been used. (Halsey, 1999)

The Late Woodland period from 500 to 100 BP saw the development of tribal structures and hunting techniques that the first Europeans encountered. Due to the influx of Europeans, many tribes moved into the Lake States during this time. Fights with the Iroquois are well documented in Ojibwa legends. There were habitation sites on all river mouths and points of land suitable for habitation. Less is known of interior use, except as portage routes and hunting areas. Although, there is a story from Ojibwa tradition which tells of Myeengun, a medicine man of the 1600s and his vision and leadership to defeat an Iroquois Raid. The evidence for the story is on the rock art at Agawa Rock, Superior Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. Another raid is remembered through the naming of Iroquois Point, northwest of Brimley. (Conway, 1990)

The 1600s were a time of change for the Native Americans. Etienne Brule, a scout for the Frenchman Samuel de Champlain, is the first European credited with “discovering” Lake Superior around 1615. History records EUP visits of Jean Nicolet in 1634. He was sent by French authorities to establish trade between Georgian Bay and the Straits. The European demand for furs and the native demand for European goods lead to wide spread warfare in

27 of 244 D R A F T the Lower Great Lakes, which spread west, as tribes attacked neighboring villages to raid for furs and other goods. It is speculated that violence created a need for rituals at the group level to help protect people and record successful battles. Rock art showing canoes may have served as public notices of completed rituals to protect the Ojibwa from these attacks. Other rock art panels show the results of failed attacks to warn off the attackers.

A band of Iroquois followed old trading routes in Northern Lake Huron. They had attacked Ojibwa settlements, and they were intent on further attacks. The Iroquois came north on the Carp River, portaged overland (near the site of present day Trout Lake) to the East Branch of the Tahquamenon. Then they came downstream to the mouth of the Tahquamenon River into Lake Superior. Their intent was to stage an unexpected attack on the important Ojibwa village at what is now Sault Ste. Marie.

However, an Ojibwa medicine man, Myeengun, had predicted the arrival of the Iroquois raiding party. He had fought the Iroquois before at French River in Ontario. Myeengun fasted for spiritual power and asked for help from the underwater creatures. He was able to gather a group of warriors to ambush the raiders west of Sault Ste. Marie. The remaining Iroquois fled across the lake under attack. Off Agawa Rock, all of the remaining Iroquois raiders were drowned in their canoes. It is said that the long-tailed underwater lynx Michipeshu destroyed the Iroquois.

In 1662, there was another raid. The Iroquois tried to slip along the south shoreline of Lake Superior to raid the Ojibwa then camped on the north shore near Sault Ste. Marie Canada. They halted at a point just west of the Waishkey River to rest and prepare for the raid. The Ojibwa were lead by scouts to the site and attacked the raiding party. The bodies of the dead raiders were left at great numbers at what became known as Iroquois Point. The French Trader Perrot and the early Jesuit missionaries recorded the battle and commented on the skulls of the dead found at the point. Two raiders were sent back to tell the Iroquois of what happened. This was the last Iroquois raid into Lake Superior. (Cleland, 2001)

Rock art was placed in at least two locations to warn the Iroquois against future attacks. One location was at Agawa Rock (where the entire story including Michipeshu and other underwater creatures can be seen). The other location is not known today. It is said by some it was on the south shore of Lake Superior. Others say it was on the Carp River. No matter where they occur, pictographs (rock painting) and petroglyph (rock carving) sites are often considered sacred. They should never be touched, and they should always be treated with respect.

Long Past

Historical periods are noted as separate from prehistoric due to the ability to record events in a written format. European colonists brought their written languages with them. Although Spain began the earliest colonialization in North America, and claimed all of North America, they had no apparent impact in the Eastern Upper Peninsula. French and English interests dominated the area for many years.

28 of 244 D R A F T

2.2 - Post-settlement History

Colonial Period—The French-Canadian fur trade began in earnest about 1659. England began its own fur trading effort with the Hudson Bay Company in 1670. To protect its interests, French forces built fort St. Phillipe de Michilimackinac on the south shore of the Straits. Another fort, de Baude was built on the north shore. The Straits became a major fur trading area. Tensions ran high between England and France, resulting in eventual warfare. France lost these forts in 1761 and lost the French-Indian war in 1763. As a result, England began to explore this vast area with the Northwest Fur Company. The Northwest Fur Company probably did more business in the UP than the more northerly Hudson Bay Company. Sault Ste. Marie became a major fur trading center for the UP. Eventually, friction between colonists and the British lead to war.

Fearing a possible naval bombardment, the British forces of Fort Michilimackinac were relocated to the new Fort Mackinac on Mackinac Island, with some of the buildings moved across the ice in the winter of 1780-1781. The remaining structures were burnt to the ground to encourage the community to move to Mackinac Island. After the British lost the Revolutionary War, Jay’s Treaty of 1796, surrendered Mackinac Island to the Americans. The British retired to a fort on St. Joseph’s Island. This weakened British trade and influence in the Straits.

In the first battle in the War of 1812, the British staged a surprise attack on the north side of Mackinac Island. The Americans failed to recapture Mackinac Island, but won it back after the war with the Treaty of Ghent of 1815. The British hoped to retain control of the strategic Straits, so they moved again to a site in the Straits on southeast Drummond Island. Drummond Island was formerly known as Pontanaganipy, but was renamed after Sir Gordon Drummond, the British Commander for British forces in Canada. The Fort Drummond commander, Colonel McDouald maintained a British presence even after American independence. He encouraged native people to come and trade with the British rather than go across the straits to the Americans. Sometimes hundreds of native people were camped near the fort. It was an important hub in the fur trade. Eventually, in 1828, three years after the national boundary was established, the British were made to retire to their fort on Joseph Island in Canada. This forced the British to give up control of the trading routes on the Mackinac Straits, which in turn allowed the Americans to expand their fur trade and efforts to settle in the area.

Historic fur trade records indicate that bear, beaver, fishers, various cats, deer, moose, foxes, wolves, otters, mink, muskrats and raccoons were found in the early 1800’s forests. The treaty of 1836 was to have special significance to the Eastern Upper Peninsula, as it’s boundaries includes the EUP. Also in the early 1800’s, Americans and new immigrants moved west to settle in Michigan territory. By 1835, Michigan had a large enough population to become a state. Because of a boundary dispute with Ohio, statehood of Michigan was delayed for 2 years. In 1837, Michigan became the 26th state in the union. Interestingly, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan increased in size as a result of the Ohio dispute, by acquiring the western 2/3 of the Upper Peninsula from the Wisconsin territory. (State of Michigan website)

29 of 244 D R A F T Local Post Settlement History

From 1840 through1856, surveyors for the US General Land Survey Office conducted legal land surveys in the eastern Upper Peninsula. These surveys noted trees at corner locations and along survey lines, producing the most thorough sampling of the forest condition prior to any significant modern day settlement. Though interpretation of this sampling forms the basis for characterizing pre-settlement forests, they represent only a snapshot of the forest conditions that do not necessarily represent a state of equilibrium. It is likely that climate change has affected not only forest composition, but the disturbance patterns that affect it. However, comparing vegetation and disturbance patterns in the past does provide some insight into the role of humans in altering those patterns.

The impact on the land was comparatively light during these years, mostly near good ports along the Great Lake coasts. However, after discovery of iron in the Marquette Range (1844), and with the advent of intensive copper mining in the Keweenaw, the land began to sprout houses and settlers, as each wanted to cash in on the new land.

The desire to improve shipping from Lake Superior resulted in the canal and locks at Sault St. Marie between 1853 and 1855. Prior to the lock construction, ships were forced to stop and portage their cargoes around the rapids of the St. Mary’s river.

Figure 2.1 Soo Locks1860s

Iron was smelted in Newberry or in St. Ignace, as it was easier to bring the iron to the smelter than it was to bring the bulky charcoal to the mines. The intensive cutting of Eastern UP hardwoods had begun to feed the smelters. Land clearing continued as some soils were found conducive to farming. The white cedar swamps were being harvested to support home construction. Then the white pine cutting reached the UP. With the advent of the railroads in 1880’s, the Logging Era was in full swing resulting in extensive harvest of white pine. Towns like Seney became boom towns.

Subsequently, in the late 1890’s, hemlock was in great demand in the EUP to extract the tannin from its bark for making leather. By 1905 “The Tannery” in east Munising was using 10,000-15,000 cords of hemlock bark daily. By the time the company ceased operations in 1920, millions of tons of hemlock bark from the surrounding area had been harvested. At the peak of operations for the Tannery, the Munising Paper Company opened its mill in 1904 to utilize the hemlock timber left in the woods to rot after the bark had been stripped (Verme, 1996).

30 of 244 D R A F T By 1910, much of the supposed unending supply of white pine, hemlock, and hardwood was depleted, due to unsustainable and irresponsible exploitation. Most of the hemlock forests converted to other forest types. Human disturbance has affected hemlock more than any other species within the EUP landscape.

Settlers harvested timber, cleared land, and started wildfires contributing a new form of significant disturbance. Many of the notable fires during this period were late season incidents, impacting new settlements and the surrounding forests severely during significant drought periods. Fires in the eastern UP during this period coincided with catastrophic fires in other areas in the great lakes.

During the recent past, the Seney Fire stands out as most significant, burning throughout the summer and fall of 1976, spreading over more than 70,000 acres. Beginning in the early 20th century, investments in fire protection efforts to reduce the risk to communities and to improve firefighting capabilities have reduced the impact of fires events occurring during the late summer and fall.

With forest harvesting and subsequent fires, populations of open-land species such as the prairie-chicken and sharp-tailed grouse increased dramatically. The fires had negative impacts on soil fertility with nitrogen rich top soils burned off in areas of hot fires. Some of the most severely impacted sites are still stump barrens today. Vegetation and animal communities expanded or contracted depending on their tolerance to the many changes in the landscape. Many of the marginal farms failed over the next few years and large portions of the UP became the lands that no one wanted. Much of the land reverted to the state or federal government for non-payment of taxes. (Zhang, Pregitzer, and Reed, 2000)

Conservation Begins

During the latter half of the 1800’s, the fragmented forest resulted in a rapid increase in deer numbers. Deer populations probably reached their peak between 1875 and 1886. During this period more than 100,000 deer were killed by market hunters and shipped to urban areas southward. Similarly, unregulated fishing produced tremendous harvests, but were causing negative impacts on aquatic systems.

Moose and caribou were hunted heavily. There is a report of caribou being hunted at Carp Lake in 1849. Although the first Game Warden was established in 1887, it would seem that by 1910 no caribou remained in the UP. In 1916, two failed attempts were made to reintroduce caribou to Grand Island. As for moose, the population was so low by 1889, the legislature granted the animal’s complete legal protection.

The legislature was forced to enact the first hunting seasons and bag limits and by 1895, market hunting was illegal, but enforcement was not considered adequate until the early 1900’s. Many present day cedar swamps originated during this period of market hunting and reduced deer numbers, as deer would otherwise eat young cedar before it grew out of reach. (Verme, 1996)

Fisheries exploitation by settlers began commercially from about 1800 to 1870. The human population growth and activity had serious implications for environmental quality and fish populations. Dams for mills, uncontrolled logging activity and associated sedimentation degraded the available habitats as harvesting increase. Starting in the 1870’s fishing regulations and stocking efforts began. As the early 1900’s approached, exotic invaders

31 of 244 D R A F T

were increasingly found. The sea lamprey, for instance, reached Lake Ontario by the 1830’s, Lake Huron by 1932, Lake Michigan by 1936, and Lake Superior by 1946, with all of its associated impacts. (Dann and Schroder)

2.3 - Contemporary History

Recent Past--Department of Natural Resources History

During the last of the white pine days, many people were realizing that controls were needed on use of natural resources. In 1899, a Michigan law was enacted setting up a Forestry Commission and authorizing a state forest system . In 1909 the first full time forester was hired. In 1913, the Public Domain Act was passed to supercede the homesteading of tax reverted lands. Together with the Land Exchange Act of 1911, the way was created for the establishment of state forest reserves, which later became State Forests. The State Forest System began as 45,000 acres and grew as the lumbering era dwindled and depression hit in 1930. (From Forests and Forestry in the American States by the National Association of State Forests, 1968)

To reverse the exploitation of natural resources, the legislature created the first agencies to manage and protect our resources. In 1921, the legislature combined them all into the Michigan Department of Conservation. In the same year, the Conservation Commission, a citizen body appointed by the governor, was established to provide policy direction for Department activities. As more demands were placed on our resources by a growing society, the term “resource use” signaled a new era in conservation. Renamed the Department of Natural Resources in 1968 to shoulder broader responsibilities, the Department continues its evolution today in response to changing resource needs and priorities. (from DNR History on DNR Website 4-23-02).

Another conservation effort impacting the EUP was through one of the New Deal relief programs. On May 2, 1933 two hundred young men from Detroit arrived at an isolated spot on the Raco Plains in Chippewa County to set up Camp Raco. This was Michigan’s first Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) facility. Within months, many more camps were established across northern Michigan. By the time the program ended in 1942, over 100,000 Michigan men would have served the CCC. Their accomplishments include: planting over 484 million seedlings, expending 140,000 man-days in wildfire fighting, planting 150 million fish in rivers and lakes, and constructing 7,000 miles of truck trails, 504 buildings, and 222 bridges.

The Mackinac Bridge connecting Michigan’s two peninsulas opened on November 1, 1957, after a long history to attempt to bridge the nearly 5 mile gap between land masses. At the time of construction, this was the longest suspension bridge in the world. The bridge construction allowed for greater transportation within the state resulting in greater ease of visitation and use of the eastern upper peninsula natural resources. (from the State of Michigan website)

32 of 244 D R A F T

3 - Current EUP Conditions and Trends

3.1 - General Land Cover and Forest Resource Base

Section 3 contains descriptions of the current regional ecosystem landscape within the EUP Ecoregion and the changes and trends that have occurred from presettlement European times to present times. Furthermore this section describes the current conditions and trends for the EUP Ecoregion from the perspective of the forest resource base, forest health concerns, wildlife habitat and natural vegetative communities, fisheries and aquatic communities, and socioeconomic conditions within the EUP Ecoregion. Trend assessments of the landscape and the social and economic state of the ecoregion contributes to issue identification. Social, economic, and ecological objectives are then formulated into desired future conditions in Section 4 of the plan.

Ecoregional Landscape Planning

Hierarchical systems using ecological principles for classifying land have been developed for geographical scales ranging from global to local land units. (Table 3.1) The primary purpose for delineating ecological units is to identify land and water areas at different levels of resolution that have similar capabilities and potentials for management. Depending on scale, ecological units are designed to exhibit similar patterns in: (1) potential natural communities, (2) soils, (3) hydrologic function, (4) landform and topography, (5) lithology, (6) climate, and (7) natural processes such as nutrient cycling, productivity, succession, and natural disturbance regimes associated with flooding, wind, or fire (Cleland, D.T. et al. 1997).

Table 3.1 National Hierachy of Ecological Units Planning and Ecological Purpose, Objectives, The EUP Ecoregion is Analysis Scale Units and General Use one of four regions Ecoregion Domain Broad applicability for modeling Global Division and sampling. Strategic planning identified in Michigan by Province and assessment. International planning. the DNR utilizing Continental ecological classification

Regional developed by numerous Subregion Section Strategic, multi-forest, statewide, and researchers in the United Subsection multiagency analysis and assessment. States and Canada. All Landscape Landtype Forest or area wide planning, four ecoregions are association and watershed analysis. Land Unit Landtype Project and management area planning geographically based Landtype phase and analysis. systems for organizing Hierarchy can be expanded Very detailed project planning. knowledge about by user to smaller geographical areas and more detailed ecosystems and ecological units if needed. ecosystem responses to management. Each ecoregion provides a theoretical basis for science-based planning and adaptive management. The use of ecoregions often improves the accuracy of ecosystem models, projections of change, and predictions of desired future conditions. Michigan’s ecoregions are distinguished from one another based on differences in climate, hydrology, geology, soils, and potential natural vegetation. Ecological classifications in Michigan divide the state into progressively smaller pieces called ecological units. Within the EUP Ecoregion there are eight distinct identifiable Subsections, (D.T. Cleland, et. al. 1997) that

33 of 244 D R A F T

allow the DNR to provide a more strategic, multi forest, multi-agency/ownership analysis and assessment of resources. Regional and subsection designations recognize that the sustainable management of resources can be viewed as the aggregate of individual actions in a large landscape. It also recognizes the need and right of other ownerships and local managers to manage their particular tracts of land to accomplish their respective objectives.

According to Noss (1999) it is difficult to develop a strategy to manage resources in a sustainable manner without identifying the specific structural and functional changes that have led to current conditions. An understanding of how historical events have led to current conditions, coupled with an analysis of current inventory data and ecological units can provide the foundation for present strategies and future structural changes that will lead to sustainable management. This section will establish the current condition of our forests and explore the ecological consequences of changes in composition and structure that have occurred, beginning with a region wide perspective and then focusing upon State of Michigan owned forestland.

3.1.1 - Ecoregion-wide Forest Conditions and Trends

The EUP Ecoregion is comprised of 3,930,653 acres (6,142 sq. miles) in six counties of the Eastern Upper Peninsula. This Ecoregional planning effort is utilizing the Eight Subsection landscape boundaries developed by Cleland (Cleland, D.T. et al. 1997).

The EUP Ecoregion hierarchical regional classification has been described as the Northern Lacustrine-Influenced Upper Michigan and Wisconsin (Albert 1994). Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan’s EUP Ecoregion

SUB-SECTION Re: St Ignace Lake Plain SUB-SECTION Rd: Rudyard Silty Lake Plain SUB-SECTION Rc: Escanaba Lake Plain and Thin Till SUB-SECTION Rb: Seney Sand Lake Plain SUB-SECTION Ra: Grand Marais Glaciofluvial Moraine Complex SUB-SECTION Sc: Suomi Till Outwash Plain SUB-SECTION Tb: West Green Bay Till Plain SUB-SECTION Te: Green Bay Sandy Lake Plain

34 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.1 EUP Ecoregion Subsections, Cleland

The Ecoregion has relatively flat topography with large expanses of open peatlands and forested lowland swamps. Elevations range from 600 feet above sea level along the Great Lakes to 1,300 feet inland. The major land forms are a product of the glaciers that covered the EUP Ecoregion 4,000 to 10,000 years ago. Within the EUP Ecoregion the climate can be generally characterized as cooler and more variable than the Northern Lower Ecoregion, and is influenced by the close proximity of the Great Lakes. The average annual temperature is 39 to 43 degrees F. The average annual precipitation is 30 to 36 inches and the average annual snowfall recorded at weather stations throughout the Ecoregion is 56 to 147 inches (Jerome 2005).

Ecologically significant communities within the EUP Ecoregion include Alvar, which is a globally rare grassland plant community growing on thin soils over limestone or dolomite. Other and globally significant communities include patterned fens, Great Lakes marsh, wooded dune and swale complex, caves of karst origin, moraines and cobble beaches. Associated geological landforms of significance include the Niagara escarpment along Lake Michigan, the Lake Superior Munising sandstone formations of Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and Tahquamenon Falls. Endangered, threatened and special concern wildlife in the Ecoregion includes the gray wolf, bald eagle, osprey, common loon, red-shouldered hawk, Lake Huron locust, moose and lake sturgeon. Plants of conservation concern include Michigan monkey flower, Lake Huron tansy, Pitcher’s thistle, Dwarf Lake Iris, Lakeside Daisy, Houghton’s goldenrod and butterwort to name a few. In addition the forests of the EUP Ecoregion are recognized as a

35 of 244 D R A F T critical habitat for Neotropical migratory songbirds and the forests in the area of Whitefish Point in particular are a major bird pathway.

Abundant groundwater resources in the EUP produce high quality trout streams, springs and unique wetland forest types. Numerous inland lakes, kettle holes, and warm water streams are interspersed throughout the landscape. In addition, the EUP Ecoregion is the only region in the state that is bordered by three of the Great Lakes – Huron, Michigan and Superior.

Today, the majority of the landscape is still forested, except for highly productive agricultural or pastoral lands occurring on ground moraines and the clay lake plains in the eastern most part of the Ecoregion. About 3 percent of the Ecoregion is low intensity managed cropland that is used for forage and feed for dairy and other livestock.

The EUP forest is largely a second growth forest, as is most of Michigan’s forests. Extensive forests of the EUP Ecoregion are managed as either national or state forest (54%), with large areas of private-forest investment ownerships (9%). Three major events of historic dimensions have influenced the development of these forests. The first was exploitive cutting and fire near the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th Century. This intense logging provided a major part of the raw material and financial capital for the development of great cities such as Milwaukee and Chicago. The second event has been the major effort of the State of Michigan in fire protection and prevention. The third was the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps during the great depression that developed road systems, reforestation projects, stream restoration projects and waterfowl habitat in the Seney area.

Intensive logging began with white and red pine in the late 1800’s followed by hemlock, cedar, northern hardwoods, and other species resulted in changes in forest types and forest composition in the EUP. Pre-European settlement vegetation (Circa 1800) consisted of diverse forests, including northern hardwoods, jack pine barrens, white pine-red pine forests, hardwood-conifer swamps, conifer swamps, and muskeg. Where bedrock was exposed at the surface, grassland communities were present, and extensive Great Lakes marshes were dominant along the shoreline. Windthrow and fire were common and important natural disturbances on the landscape (Albert 1995).

The best data available for the EUP Ecoregion to compare changes in land use patterns within the region is the circa 1800 General Land Office Survey Map (MNFI 1998). This information is based upon an interpretation of General Land Office (GLO) survey notes from the period of 1816-1856, as transcribed onto 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps. A cover type map (Figure 3.2) was created by interpreting dominant tree species (as recorded for section and quarter-section corner monuments and as line trees), associated landforms, and existing surface geology and soils. The GLO survey maps provide a consistent landscape level perspective of the pre- European settlement cover types of the EUP Ecoregion, which can provide detailed information that is available from no other source.

36 of 244 D R A F T

Figure 3.2 EUP Ecoregion Circa 1800, GLO

The GLO map is useful for assessing broad post-settlement trends for different cover types. The 2003 Integrated Forest Monitoring Assessment and Prescription (IFMAP) land cover data and maps detail current forest canopy. The IFMAP land cover, produced by the DNR, (Figure 3.3) may be used for analysis of land cover patterns over all ownerships and compared with the GLO data. Current IFMAP land cover is based on satellite imagery, which captures only canopy cover. IFMAP is designed so that decisions that once were made only within the context of State land can be made in concert with other land management agencies and the public.

37 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.3 Current Landcover: IFMAP 2003

Trend: Ecoregion Trends in Forest Cover and Land Use Presettlement forest cover extrapolated from the GLO and current IFMAP based forest cover (in percent by cover type) are shown in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3.

Table 3.2 Pre-Settlement 1800 Cover Types

COVER ACRES % of The original pre-European settlement

TYPE EUP Total vegetation throughout the Ecoregion ASPEN-BIRCH FOREST 55550 1.4 reflected the local diversity of BEECH-SUGAR MAPLE-HEMLOCK FOREST 1061706 27.0 landforms, soil texture, and unique BLACK ASH SWAMP 2347 0.1 drainage class of the Ecoregion. The CEDAR SWAMP 189895 4.8 EXPOSED BEDROCK 2754 0.1 most dominant cover type was the GRASSLAND 91 0.0 mixed conifer swamp types, at 29.2% of HEMLOCK-WHITE PINE FOREST 232013 5.9 the entire region. Closely following the HEMLOCK-YELLOW BIRCH FOREST 18015 0.5 JACK PINE-RED PINE FOREST 113695 2.9 mixed conifer swamp cover types was LAKE/RIVER 89287 2.3 the hardwood type, composed of MIXED CONIFER SWAMP 1147053 29.2 beech, sugar maple, and hemlock at MIXED HARDWOOD SWAMP 7900 0.2 MUSKEG/BOG 217777 5.5 27%. Spruce-fir-cedar forests covered OAK/PINE BARRENS 188 0.0 9% of the region and pine forests of PINE BARRENS 44878 1.1 jack, red and white pine represented SAND DUNE 2943 0.1 7% of the EUP Ecoregion’s forests SHRUB SWAMP/EMERGENT MARSH 66122 1.7 SPRUCE-FIR-CEDAR FOREST 358631 9.1 (Table 3.2). SUGAR MAPLE-HEMLOCK FOREST 154073 3.9 Hemlock is the one most notable WET PRAIRIE 571 0.0 species that was identified as both a WHITE PINE-MIXED HARDWOOD FOREST 34496 0.9 WHITE PINE-RED PINE FOREST 130668 3.3 dominate cover type and a co-dominant Total 3930653 100.0

38 of 244 D R A F T component of two other cover types that are classed as mesic hardwoods (Table 3.2). Hemlock is a very shade tolerant species and requires moist soils (mesic sites) and a shallow litter layer. The history of hemlock stands suggests that the best management strategy for preservation of hemlock is protection from disturbance. Most of the white pine and hemlock forests were utilized early in the logging-era, and disturbance has affected hemlock more than any other species within the EUP landscape. Compared to modern times the aspen-birch shade intolerant cover types were present in only 1% of the EUP landscape. Grass openings, Wet Prairie and Pine Barrens, at 0%, 0%, and 1%, were a very minor part of the 1800 landscape.

Table 3.3 Cover Types: IFMAP 2003

COVER TYPES ACRES PERCENT Current IFMAP analysis (Table 3.3) indicates Upland Shrub/Low-density trees 97233 2.48 that the EUP Ecoregion has a more diverse Herbaceous Openland 173568 4.42 species mixed forest as a result of post Northern Hardwood Association 641223 16.33 Oak Association 10151 0.26 settlement disturbance and human land use. Aspen Association 327536 8.34 The EUP Ecoregion has experienced less Mixed Upland Deciduous 36008 0.92 fragmentation of the forest by human Pines 536186 13.66 development than most other areas of the Other Upland Conifers 25135 0.64 Mixed Upland Conifer 63782 1.62 State. Only 4% of the total Ecoregion (Table Upland Mixed Forest 105493 2.69 3.3) has been lost to other non-forest land Water 105733 2.69 uses. Much of this has been due to large Lowland Deciduous Forest 53100 1.35 public and forest industry ownership and low Lowland Coniferous Forest 701482 17.87 Lowland Mixed Forest 42298 1.08 intensity use of the landscape for agricultural Floating Aquatic 26545 0.68 practices. The dominant land use that has Lowland Shrub 428041 10.90 altered the pre-settlement forests has been Emergent Wetland 9878 0.25 agricultural development. Much of the Mixed Non-Forest Wetland 342988 8.74 Sand/Soil 16898 0.43 hardwood forests located on ground moraine Exposed Rock 636 0.02 have been cleared for agriculture and pasture. Mud Flats 33 0.00 Other Bare/Sparsely Vegetated 5477 0.14 EUP Eco-Region Totals 3926370 99.91 Cover Type Totals 3749423 95.51

Table 3.4 Land Use 2003

Of the 176,494 acres (Table 3.4) of land use Cover Types Acres % changes since pre-European settlement 7% of Forage Crops 115,080 3% these acres are now in agricultural use. Roads Roads/Paved 41,034 1% and highways have also had an impact on the Row Crops 9,405 0% forested areas of the EUP. One percent (41,034 Low Intensity Urban 5,555 0% acres) of the EUP is now in roads. Disruptions Non-Vegetated Farmland 2,040 0% of the unique wetland characteristics of the EUP High Intensity Urban 1,804 0% by road construction have altered wetland Parks/Golf Courses 858 0% hydrology and cover types. Wetlands have Airports 623 0% changed composition from forested to non- Orchards/Nursery 95 0% forested through altered hydrology and natural Total 176,494 succession, although there is little net difference Total EUP 2000 IFMAP 3,926,370 4% in wetland classifications. Notable changes in species composition are the increase of red maple and the decline of hemlock, white pine, beech, and yellow birch. Possible causes of change may be in the natural

39 of 244 D R A F T

disturbance pattern, or from iron smelting, and logging. The increase in aspen is a result of successional processes following disturbance, subsequently reinforced by management for wildlife and the preference of wood product and paper industries for aspen. The decrease in white pine and hemlock are related to early European utilization. The obvious changes were in the increase of openlands and fragmentation of the remaining forest for agriculture development.

Table 3.5 – Top Ten Forest Cover Types Circa 1800 to 2003

Cover Type Circa 1800 Acres % IFMAP Cover Types 2000 Acres % Mixed Conifer Swamp 1,147,053 29% Lowland Conifer Swamp 701,482 18% Beech-Sugar Maple 1,061,706 27% Northern Hardwood Assoc. 641,223 16% Spruce-Fir-Cedar 358,631 9% Pines (Jack, Red, White) 536,186 14% Hemlock-White Pine 232,013 6% Lowland Shrub 428,041 11% Muskeg-Bog 217,777 6% Mixed-Non Forest Wetland 342,041 9% Cedar Swamp 189,895 5% Aspen 327,536 8% Sugar-Maple-Hemlock 154,073 4% Herbaceous Openland 173,568 4% Jack-Red Pine 113,695 3% Water 105,733 3% White-Red Pine 130,668 3% Upland Mixed Forest 105,493 3% Lake-River 89,287 2% Upland Shrub 97,233 2% Total Top Ten 1800 3,694,798 94% Total Top Ten 2000 3,458,536 88% Total EUP Area 3,926,370 3,926,370

A comparison of the top 10 cover types (Table 3.5) for the EUP Ecoregion, circa 1800 and 2003 IFMAP data, provides further analysis of cover type acres and percentages of the Ecoregion as it looked prior to European settlement. Land cover classes that have increased substantially since pre-settlement are aspen at an 83% increase (291,986 acres) and an 83% increase in openland classifications (231,309 acres). Pine cover types have increased by 79% (422, 492 acres). The EUP Ecoregion ranks number one in cedar or lowland conifer acreage across the State. The 173,568 acres (4%) of herbaceous open land/grasslands has become an important characteristic of the EUP Ecoregion. Most of the grasslands are large in size and the EUP Ecoregion currently has 33% of Michigan’s grassland.

The Land Cover Change map (Figure 3.4) is a representation of the GLO changes that have occurred between vegetation and land uses within the Ecoregion and subsec tions, circa 1800 to present. The change comparisons are based on changed, unchanged, and minor changes that have occurred. The focus of Figure 4 is in the “unchanged” cover type classes.

40 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.4 Land Cover Change: Circa 1800 to 2000

Pre-settlement land cover and current land cover within the EUP Ecoregion have comparatively lower levels of compositional change. The forests of today still reflect much of the history of the period and the management of today’s forest will determine the forests of the future. The current 3,458,536 acres of forested land and the diverse cover types in the EUP Ecoregion plays an important role in the ecological, social and economic values that people put on these resources.

Traditional EUP industries, recreational activities, and human gathering and use of EUP forests have become culturally significant to its people and visitors alike. Understanding the human dimensions of forests and the value people put on the forest contributes to an understanding of how people are a part of ecosystems. Understanding the most current social, economic, and ecological trends within the forest will contribute to the improved management of the EUP Ecoregion forests and will also lead to a better implementation of ecosystem management.

Trend: EUP Ecoregion Public Ownership

Agency goals and objectives, state/federal laws, initiatives and guidance for strategic plans and programs, have changed for all of the public agencies within the last ten years. Ecoregional planning linkages to the USDA Forest Service National Hierarchical framework of ecological units has led to regionalization, classification and mapping systems for stratifying vegetative resources into more uniform management

41 of 244 D R A F T scales. Various units of government are working towards similar landscape planning for their respective ownerships and the EUP Ecoregion.

The objectives of Ecoregional planning by public agencies within the EUP has been to increase interdisciplinary involvement and use of consent-based decision making, an informed and involved public, a planning process that is flexible to reflect changing times, and planning that is credible to our publics. Public land ownerships highest priority is on maintaining the long-term integrity of land resources by protecting water quality, wetlands and riparian areas, maintaining the productivity of soils, habitat for all native forest flora and fauna, unusual or fragile natural areas, and important cultural values.

EUP public land managers have a history of developing and sharing resource data and information across administrative and jurisdictional boundaries as well as communicating technical information to specialists and lay people through the use of common terminology, common maps, and standardized data.

Trend: Changes in Forest Ownership in the EUP Ecoregion

Within the EUP Ecoregion approximately 355,471 acres of timber-producing land moved out of forest industry ownership from 2000 to 2006. Much of it went out of corporate ownership into more tax-advantaged financial ownerships, such as investment organizations or into tax-exempt conservation organizations. Within the next ten to fifteen years many of these lands likely will be subdivided into much smaller parcels and sold as recreational lands that will transform the social, economic and ecological landscapes of the EUP Ecoregion.

One explanation for significant shifts in forest land ownerships is that large forest industries no longer believe extensive landownership is in their best interest. As the more competitive global marketplace and investor dissatisfaction with returns puts pressure on corporate leaders, companies are looking to divestiture as a means to improve financial performance. Instead of owning and managing land, they are turning to long-term supply contracts to provide the strategic assurances needed. The question that arises is whether these owners will be patient in waiting out long investment cycles, and willing to fund the scientific expertise needed to provide scientific basis for sustainable forestry, or to forgo the timber revenues as might be required by achieving some conservation goals (The Sampson Group, Inc., 2000).

Trend: Land Use in the EUP Ecoregion

The Michigan Land Use Leadership Council (2003) has identified a number of current trends that may impact the EUP Ecoregion landscape and public forests within the region. The Council has found that land conversion and ownership is more rapid than population growth and is widely scattered across the landscape. Sprawl is happening even with slow population growth as there is migration of populations from urban to rural areas of the State. Michigan has the largest number of second homes in the nation and it is projected that by 2040, there will be a 34 percent increase from 1990. The greatest challenge that the EUP Ecoregion may face in the future will be fragmentation of forests. As large tracts of Investment Forest Ownerships are divided and sold, contiguous, large tracts of land become small parcels belonging to many owners for investment and second homes. These new ownerships are not likely or will

42 of 244 D R A F T not be able to manage a forest for timber harvesting, wildlife habitat, fisheries, and soil and water conservation purposes. There are multiple consequences when land becomes more fragmented. Timber becomes more expensive to harvest. Recreation is negatively impacted by loss of natural landscapes and there is limited access and fewer potential future recreation sites and activities. There is also a loss of biodiversity, more non-point sources of pollution of streams and lakes and loss of wetland and keystone wildlife habitat.

Trend: Logging Sector in the EUP Ecoregion.

The EUP Ecoregion has a long history as a significant source of forest products. Forest industry is vital to the regions economic, social and sustainability of its forest resources. The industry is especially important to rural Michigan, where reasonably good paying jobs are important to local economies. In the most rural communities of the EUP Ecoregion the forest products industry has been the third leading employer and economic contributor. A healthy forest industry is critical to managing the EUP Ecoregion forests because forest management is conducted mainly through commercial timber harvest.

The EUP Ecoregion has more than 178 highly diversified wood-based businesses and industries employing approximately 2,166 individuals (Table 3.6)

Table 3.6 EUP Forest Industry

The EUP Ecoregion has an EUP Eco-Region Forest Industry - 2006 average of 21 wood

Type of company 1 harvesting/logging firms per Estimated County county and a significant Employment 2 Secondary Logger/ Primary Mills number of primary and Mills Trucker secondary diversified wood ALGER 4 4 16 776 manufacturing industries CHIPPEWA 5 5 25 334 throughout the Ecoregion. MACKINAC 5 7 19 173 Primary and secondary LUCE 3 2 24 339 forest products companies SCHOOLCRAFT 2 3 26 349 within the Ecoregion DELTA 4 5 19 195 manufacture or procure products including but not TOTAL 23 26 129 2166 limiting to log homes, snow fence, paper, snowshoes, Primary companies use products directly from the woods; secondary companies add value to primary products. lumber, veneer, utility poles. 1 Some companies may have primary and secondary operations and do their own logging. The EUP Ecoregion forest 2 In some cases, employment numbers are based on the middle of a range provided by a company. industry and loggers are highly skilled and

Michigan DNR data 2006 knowledgeable of logging and environmental standards set by the Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI). Loggers, wood and paper producers have extensive training in responsible environmental practices and sound business practices to benefit landowners, customers and stakeholders within the Ecoregion.

43 of 244 D R A F T Loggers have played an important part in the region’s multi million dollar wood products industry as well as shaping the structure, composition, health, and future development of the forest resource. Despite the contributions of the logging industry to the ecological, economic and social well-being of the region there appears to be trends that are cause for concern. The following key findings from a recent study of the logging industry in Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula reflect trends that are occurring within the Ecoregion.

· The average logging firm has been in business for over 20 years and the average firm owner is 47 years old. There are relatively few new firms entering the sector. The majority (64%) of logging firms are fully mechanized. These are capital-intensive operations in which the median investment is $300,000. · Most logging firms (62%) are organized as one-person, owner-operator enterprises with no employees. The balance of firms employs approximately five full-time equivalent workers on average. Among firms with employees, over 85% reported difficulty finding skilled and reliable workers. · The average logging firm harvested 5,900 cords in 2003; however, production varied considerably. Mechanized firms that used both cut-to-length and feller-buncher systems were the most productive (approximately 20,000 cords per year) whereas chainsaw -based firms were the least (approximately 2,300 cords per year). · Most firms focus their procurement efforts on large timber sales but varied by harvest system. Private woodlands (i.e., non-industrial private forestlands) are the primary source of stumpage for the region’s logging sector, providing 60% of a firm’s timber on the average. Notably, one-in-four firms (26%) conducted terminal harvests (i.e., land clearing for residential or commercial development) in 2003. · Pulpwood is the primary output of the region’s logging sector, representing 68% of total firm production on average. Sawtimber accounts for 25% with veneer contributing another 5%. Firms identified mill price as the single most important factor when deciding where to sell their wood. Timeliness as the second most important consideration. · More than two-thirds (71%) of the region’s logging firms reported their profitability as breaking even or better in 2003. However, more than one-in- four firms (28%) said they experienced poor profit margins. 23% of the region’s logging firms stated they did not expect to be in business in five years. If these exits occur, it would represent a loss of more than 600,000 cords annual production. (Rickenbach, Steele, Schira, 2003)

The authors of this survey suggest that the logging sector will see three major challenges in the near future. First, private woodlands, the dominant source of timber supply, will continue to be fragmented and that specialization of logging firms and aggregation of small sales may yield continued access to this important source of supply. Second, a key issue facing the logging sector is continued change in wood markets i.e.; consolidation of pulp and paper firms into global firms; regional mill closures; divestitures of large forest holdings to land investment organizations; and international trade agreements. Third, the internal dynamics of the logging sector i.e.;

44 of 244 D R A F T the logging sector is maturing and nearing retirement age, few new logging firms, unclear future opportunities exist for further technology adaptation, and one of the most pressing challenges to firm profitability identified by loggers - stumpage availability is declining. The decline is due to a variety of reasons including more seasonal restrictions for forest health and water quality reasons, biodiversity and wildlife concerns, and social considerations (e.g. aesthetics, recreation, and other forest uses).

3.1.2 - DNR-owned Forest Land Conditions and Trends

The State Forest System (SF) in the EUP Ecoregion is a 1,043,716 acre managed forest system (Figure 3.5) covering more than 27% of the EUP Ecoregion. It represents 26.5% of the entire 3.9 million acre State Forest System (Appendix F). There are three Forest Management Units (FMU) within the EUP Ecoregion, managing approximately 350,000 acres each; Shingleton FMU, Newberry FMU and the Sault Ste Marie FMU.

Table 3.7 Area Class by FMU’s

The EUP SF has 70% of the forest classified as Commercial Forest Land (Table 3.7); Area Class Acres % which are lands capable of producing >20 Shingleton FMU Commercial Forest 261472 69% cu ft/ac/yr of timber and not removed from Non Timber Producing 50064 13% production. Non-timber producing land that Timber Producing Rsvd 26810 7% Non Timbered Land 34033 9% supports trees but not capable of producing Water 4056 1% 20 cu ft/ac/yr represents 17% of the entire 376435 100% forest. Cover types that represent non-

Newberry FMU Commercial Forest 234234 68% timber producing land include treed bogs, Non Timber Producing 68893 20% excessively wet swamps, some lowland Timber Producing Rsvd 5805 2% brush areas and very poor sites. Five Non Timbered Land 31502 9% Water 6012 2% percent (5%) of the forest is classed as 346446 100% Timber Producing – Reserved. These lands are capable of producing 20 cu Sault Ste Marie FMU Commercial Forest 231395 72% ft/ac/yr but are removed from timber Non Timber Producing 53518 17% Timber Producing Rsvd 17497 5% production by lease or land use Non Timbered Land 13919 4% commitment for such things as wildlife Water 4506 1% openings, riparian buffers, utilities, old 320835 100% growth, deer yards, etc. Non-Timbered TOTAL Commercial Forest 727101 70% Forest Land (8%) includes bogs, marshes, Non Timber Producing 172475 17% most lowland brush, improved roads, Timber Producing Rsvd 50112 5% Non Timbered Land 79454 8% beaches, and rock. Water makes up Water 14574 1% approximately 1% in the form of ponds, 1043716 100% lakes, and large streams.

45 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.5 EUP Forest Mineral and Fire management Division Management Units.

Ecoregional Planning on a Subsection Forest Management Level

The EUP SF is within five of the eight distinct landscape ecosystem classification subsections identified within the EUP Ecoregion (Figure 3.6). These five ecological units are used to facilitate an understanding of the nature, distribution, and current conditions of the Ecoregion and the resources that are present on the State Forest. The subsection provides a framework for integrated resource management and planning, biological conservation, comparison of differences in forest composition, occurrence, interactions, and productivity of plants and animals among ecosystems (Albert, 1994). The five subsections represent areas with distinctive natural conditions affecting forest species composition and forest productivity. When combined with existing conditions subsections can be used to project responses on State-owned lands to treatments and will be useful in establishing measurable goals and objectives to meet desired future conditions. The collection and monitoring of pertinent data on the forest will assist in the attainment of desired future conditions, goals, and objectives. Without measurable program goals and objectives, the forest managers and other interested parties cannot assess whether the forests are achieving planned and desirable results.

Desired future condition for vegetative management on forest lands within FMU’s and subsections include the amount of various forest types within the subsections, age- class distribution of the various forest types, the geographic distribution of forest types

46 of 244 D R A F T and age classes within the subsection, and the distribution of the location and size of forest patches. Ideally ecological planning of the forest conditions will strive for a regulated forest that provides for a sustainable range of forest products and wildlife habitat. Desired future conditions will be guided by assessment information, key issues, department policy, legislative mandates, direction from other department- division planning efforts, and statewide forest resource planning efforts. FMU’s on the SF will establish 10-year forest composition goals and treatment levels as well as establishing 25 to 50-year interim forest composition goals to track progress toward the desired future conditions of the forest. The FMU’s planning effort will consider the strategic landscape direction of the EUP Ecoregion and will determine the role the DNR will play in achieving broader regional landscape goals.

Of the five landscape ecological units on the SF lands, the Newberry FMU has two ecological landscape subsections and the Shingleton FMU and Sault Ste. Marie FMU have three ecological landscape subsections. Most contrasts of inventory to be described are from an archived 1988 SF inventory which roughly was collected between the years 1979 to 1988, and a recent 2006 inventory which covers the 1997- 2006 period.

Figure 3.6 EUP Ecoregion Landscape Ecosystems Subsections on EUP State Forest

47 of 244 D R A F T Grand Marais Glaciofluvial Moraine Complex Subsection (Ra)

The Grand Marais Glaciofluvial Moraine Complex (Ra) sub-section is in the northern half of the Ecoregion. The sub-section is characterized by sandy ridges of end moraine and pitted outwash. Bedrock geology running east and west of a sandstone escarpment is exposed in several locations within the sub-section, along which many waterfalls occur. Most notable are the Tahquamenon Falls, Miner’s Falls, and Pictured Rocks along the Lake Superior shoreline. The dominant use of this area has been for commercial timber production and recreation. Jack pine, red pine and white pine dominate the State Forest lands. The northern part of the sub-section supports some of the most extensive natural stands of red pine in the state. The coarse textured moraines (Newberry and Grand Marais moraines) support mesic hardwoods. (Albert). DNR silvicultural guidelines and treatments support the continuation of these stands in a natural state which includes them becoming more mixed pine forests.

Fire is an important natural disturbance in the dry conifer forest of this sub-region. Reforestation methods mimicking natural fire disturbance and prescribed fire are important management tools within this subsection. Mesic hardwood forests within the subsection have moist soils and are generally dominated by American beech, sugar maple, and red maple. The Ra subsection has 67% Upland and 22% Lowland cover types. Current forest health conditions in the form of the Beech Bark disease is of major concern for future stand structure.

Table 3.8 Ra 1988 to 2006 Cover Types

GRAND MARAIS GLACIOFLUVIAL MORAINE COMPLEX Change in Cover Types 1988 OI to 2006 OI for Subsectionction Ra Ra Cover Type 1988 % 2006 % change % change Jack Pine 76560 25% 68431 22% -8129 -11% Upland Hdwds 47485 16% 47459 16% -26 0% Red Pine 33483 11% 38891 13% 5408 16% low nonstocked 35785 12% 33927 11% -1858 -5% White Pine 14994 5% 25245 8% 10251 68% up nonstocked 32464 11% 24964 8% -7500 -23% low conifer 18556 6% 20264 7% 1708 9% Aspen 18457 6% 18953 6% 496 3% Cedar 5251 2% 6314 2% 1063 20% Water 4381 1% 5611 2% 1230 28% Paper Birch 6325 2% 3944 1% -2381 -38% Spruce Fir 3523 1% 3169 1% -354 -10% Swamp Hrdwds 3598 1% 2899 1% -699 -19% Hemlock 1887 1% 2045 1% 158 8% Oak 520 0% 1732 1% 1212 233% Lowlnd Poplr 1336 0% 1098 0% -238 -18% totals 304605 304946 341 0%

48 of 244 D R A F T

Figure 3.7 Ra Cover Type Change: 1988 to 2006

Dry conifer covertypes (Red, Jack, and White Pine) Cover Type Change in Grand Marais Glaciofluvial are the major component of Moraine Complex Subsection Ra the Grand Marais Glaciofluvial Moraine (Ra) 90000 80000 makes up 43% of the State 70000 Forest (Table 3.8). Jack 60000 pine, upland hardwoods 50000 1988

acres 40000 2006 and red pine are the three 30000 dominant cover types in the 20000 Ra subsection. The major 10000 0 acreage changes within the Oak Aspen Cedar Water Red Pine Hemlock last eighteen years have Jack Pine White Pine low conifer Spruce Fir Paper Birch Lowlnd Poplr been in the pine cover Upland Hdwds low nonstocked up nonstocked Swamp Hrdwds types (jack, red, white pine) Cover Types and the upland non-stocked cover type. The decrease in upland non-stocked cover type is due to conversion of this type to tree and shrub cover within the last eighteen years. Often white pine and other woody plants, through natural succession, will invade and convert upland non-stocked sites to tree cover.

Figure 3.8 Ra Jack Pine Age Class 1988 to 2006

Jack pine at 68,431 acres (22%) of the Ra Jack Pine Age Class Distribution in Subsection subsection) is by far the Ra major covertype in the Ra 18000 subsection, (Table 3.8). 16000 The 11% reduction of the 14000 jack pine covertype 12000 apparently is a result of 10000 Jack Pine 1988

acres 8000 Jack Pine 2006 the stands in this 6000 subsection being natural 4000 mixed pine stands (jack, 2000 red, white pine) that are 0

100+ inventoried as the most 0-9 Yrs 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 Not Coded dominant covertype Uneven Aged present at the time. Jack age class pine is the shortest lived species in this mix and was removed during timber harvests while leaving the longer lived red and/or white pine. This process of inventory and silvicultural technique explains the increase of the red pine cover type and the 11% decrease in jack pine acreage. There are approximately 18,000 acres currently over the rotation age of 60 years.

49 of 244 D R A F T The 68,431 acres of jack pine within the Ra subsection is intensely managed for fiber production. Historically fire played a major role in determining species composition, succession stage, forest structure, and configuration. With altered natural fire regimes, successful reforestation cultivation techniques have replaced fire as the tool to perpetuate jack pine. Disease, insects and other pathogens have and may impact community composition in the future.

Figure 3.9 Ra Hardwood Basal Area 1988 to 2006

There has been no change in the acres of Hardwood by BA in Subsection Ra upland hardwood cover type. Upland hardwoods 12000 (47,459 acres, 16% of the State Forest) are the 10000 second largest cover type 8000 in the Ra subsection. 1988 6000

Upland Hardwoods are acres 2006 managed under a 4000 regulated all aged/uneven-aged 2000 selective harvest system 0 and are generally 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 selectively thinned every basal area 20 years. Basal area is often used as a selection criterion for selectively managed hardwood forest types. Under a well regulated-managed hardwood system basal area will show an increase in the 80 to 100 square feet basal area range (Figure 3.9). The major concentrations of state forest Ra subsection hardwoods are located in the far west side of the subsection and adjacent to private Forestland Group properties. The major trend that may affect upland hardwood forests in the Ra subsection will be the advancing killing front of the Beech Bark Disease westward from Luce County.

Figure 3.10 Ra Red Pine Age Class 1988 to 2001

Figure 10 reflects the increase of red pine in the Red Pine Age Class Distribution in Subsection Ra 40 to 100+ age classes 10000 between the 1988 and 2006 9000 inventories. Much of this is 8000 attributed to cutting of mixed 7000 6000 1988 jack and red pine stands 5000

acres 2006 that were previously classed 4000 as jack pine under the 3000 2000 current Operations Inventory 1000 (OI). As the jack pine is 0 removed from mixed stands 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ the residual red pine 0-9 Yrs Not Coded changes the cover type Uneven Aged classification. Much of the age class red pine has been managed

50 of 244 D R A F T

predominantly as even-aged stands or for multi-canopied mixed aged stands with red pine and other conifers as co-dominates. The desired stand composition will range from stands dominated by red pine to mixed red-white-jack pine or mixed hardwood- conifer stands.

Figure 10 also illustrates a 40-year trend in age classes of little regeneration of the red pine forest. The red pine stands within the Ra subsection are natural stands and are being regenerated as shelterwood harvests to promote natural reproduction. Shelterwood harvests only began in mixed stands within the last 10 years due to markets and merchantability of stands. Red pine has an inconsistent seed crop production with a good crop averaging every 7 to 10 years. Because of this, it may take more than 20 years for regeneration to appear in the inventory since the OI process identifies the featured overstory and does not capture seedling production.

The red pine forest is maturing and there will need to be innovative techniques developed to assist in the regeneration of the red pine forest. In response to this need a long-term, interdisciplinary prescribed fire research project on 440 acres in Luce County has been initiated by Michigan Technological University to quantify tradeoffs of alternative fire and fire substitute treatments in natural red pine stands. This research project will determine which ecosystem functions of fire can be emulated satisfactorily.

Figure 3.11 Ra White Pine Age Class 1988 to 2006

At first glance of Figure 3.11 it would seem that white pine White Pine Age Class Distribution in Subsection Ra is not regenerating (0-19 yrs). An inventory attribute that is 12000 monitored in OI are 10000 understory species within a stand. OI shows that white 8000 1988 6000 pine seedlings and saplings 2006 acres are the second most common 4000 understory species after balsam fir and twice as 2000 common as hardwood. White 0 pine is second only to 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ 0-9 Yrs hemlock for shade tolerance Not Coded Uneven Aged among upland conifers. It will age class seed in under other cover types over a wide range of soils. These attributes allow white pine to be managed under an all aged silvicultural system similar to northern hardwoods. As a pure cover type understory regeneration will start to show up in Figure 3.11 as it matures and grows into a measurable size and becomes a part of the unique natural mixed pine forest of the Ra subsection.

51 of 244 D R A F T

Figure 3.12 Ra Harvest trends 1986 to 2006

In Figure 3.12 most of the final harvest acres are jack Harvest Trends in the Grand Marias GM Complex pine within the Ra 25,000.0 subsection. The majority of these stands are of the 20,000.0 same age and came into SALVAGE or IMPROVE SELECTION merchantability at the same 15,000.0 SHELTER WOOD PREP DELAYED REMOVAL time. Much of the REMOVAL THINNING acres accelerated harvest has 10,000.0 SHELTER WOOD been in jack pine budworm SEED TREE FINAL HARVEST salvage and over mature 5,000.0 stands. This level of harvest cannot be maintained over 0.0 the next decade. The 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 excess m ature and over year interval mature jack pine will only carry through seven years at the most.

Seney Lake Plain Subsection (Rb)

The Seney Lake Plain sub-section is a very poorly or excessively drained sand lake plain with transverse dunes and outwash plains. The area is noted for its shallow paludified peatlands (many patterned), jack pine barrens on the more droughty outwash plains, hardwood-conifer and conifer swamps. This subsection of sand lake plain contains the largest expanses of wetland in the State and almost all the State’s patterned peatlands occur in the Rb subsection (Albert 1994). Much of the ownership within the subregion is public; State, Forest Service and very notably the Seney Wildlife Refuge. Land management is primarily for timber and wildlife. Table 9 shows that two thirds of the State acreage (64%) of the Rb subsection covertypes are lowland types. One third (34%) is classed as lowland non stocked covertypes (marshes, bogs, etc). During the late 19th century the pine forest were heavily logged and the lowland conifers were only logged, to a limited extent, from the margins of the wetlands. Natural disturbances have included fire, windthrow, seasonal and beaver induced flooding. Spruce budworm has had a particular detrimental effect on the makeup of the lowland covertypes by eliminating balsam fir from the covertype.

52 of 244 D R A F T

Table 3.9 Rb 1988 to 2006 Cover Types

SENEY LAKE PLAIN Change in Cover Types 1988 OI to 2006 OI for Subsection Rb Cover Type 1988 % 2006 % change % change low nonstocked 130841 38% 119391 34% -11450 -9% low conifer 59787 17% 56019 16% -3768 -6% Cedar 21217 6% 34058 10% 12841 61% Jack Pine 33140 10% 32704 9% -436 -1% Upland Hdwds 23770 7% 22861 7% -909 -4% Aspen 16886 5% 22544 7% 5658 34% Red Pine 16781 5% 18382 5% 1601 10% Swamp Hrdwds 8073 2% 10509 3% 2436 30% up nonstocked 9945 3% 7511 2% -2434 -24% White Pine 4525 1% 6879 2% 2354 52% Lowlnd Poplr 6174 2% 4730 1% -1444 -23% Water 2298 1% 3723 1% 1425 62% Paper Birch 3645 1% 2847 1% -798 -22% Hemlock 1583 0% 2054 1% 471 30% Spruce Fir 3072 1% 1589 0% -1483 -48% Oak 225 0% 976 0% 751 334% Total 341962 346777 4815 1%

Figure 3.13 Rb Cover Type Changes: 1988 to 2006

Since 1988 there has been little overall change in Cover Type Change in Seney Lake Plain covertypes within the Subsection Rb subsection. The biggest 140000 change in this subsection is 120000 in the cedar and lowland 100000 nonstocked cover-types. 80000 1988

Approximately 11,400 acres acres 60000 2006 of the lowland nonstocked 40000 covertype has been 20000 reclassified as a cedar type. 0 Oak The difference between 1988 Cedar Aspen Water Jack Pine Red Pine Hemlock White Pine Spruce Fir low conifer Paper Birch Lowlnd Poplr and 2006 acres in cedar and Upland Hdwds up nonstocked low nonstocked Swamp Hrdwds lowland nonstocked cover types covertypes can be attributed to changes and methods in the inventory process and more detailed analyses of lowland types.

53 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.14 Rb Low. Conifer Age Class: 1988 to 2006

Much of the lowland conifer acres in the 1988 and 2006 Lowland Conifers Age Class subsection are Distribution for Subsection Rb inaccessible due to 18000 wetness. Many of the 16000 56,019 acres are 14000 considered to be affected 12000 10000 1988 by “limiting factors”. 8000 2006 Limiting Factors are often 6000 restraints which exist that 4000 restrict harvesting 2000 silviculturally- ready 0

10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ stands. In the Rb 0-9 Yrs subsection the most Uneven Aged common limiting factor is wetness.

There is an intense interest in timber outputs from lowland sites, but there are several conditions which will tend to perpetuate the large number of acres coded with this limiting factor. First, the lack of available producers who have the specialized equipment to operate under certain wet conditions and the flexibility to take advantage of seasonally dry opportunities to complete timber sales in a timely manner that the DNR timber sale contracting procedures require. Secondly, there will be greater attention paid to water quality concerns in the future. Third, forest regeneration is often more of a problem in wet areas and the regeneration issue has received heightened attention due to an emphasis on sustainable forestry and forest certification. Fourth, many of the lowland areas have significant wildlife habitat values and disturbances which may threaten these values are avoided. However, due to the sheer number of acres within this category and its broad and variable nature, this factor will receive a substantial amount of attention for review and validation this planning period.

Figure 3.15 Rb Jack Pine Age Class: 1988 to 2006

Jack Pine Age Class Distribution in Subsection Rb Cedar covertypes throughout the LSSF (Table 3.9 age class 9000 70-100) have received very 8000 little silvicultural treatments 7000 within the last twenty years. 6000 5000 1988 Limited access, loss of winter 4000

acres 2006 deer habitat, and difficulty in 3000 the regeneration and change in 2000 1000 composition despite 0 regeneration goals of cedar has 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ restricted management 0-9 Yrs Uneven Aged activities. age class

54 of 244 D R A F T

Nine percent of the subsection is in jack pine cover type, 32,704 acres. The two 8,000 acre spikes in the 1988 50 to 69 year age classes reflect the Cookson Bridge that crosses the Manistique River in Schoolcraft County. The bridge was a limiting factor in that due to its lack of maintenance weight restrictions prevented logging trucks crossing to reach jack pine timber. This bridge was replaced in 1996 and a large acreage of formally inaccessible mature jack pine was sold. Most of the accessible mature jack pine has been cut and is now regenerating, as reflected in the 2006 younger age classes (Figure 3.15).

Figure 3.16 Rb Aspen Age Class: 1988 to 2006

Although Aspen is a minor cover type (7%) in Aspen Age Class Distribution in Subsection Rb the Rb subsection (Figure 3.14) the SF goal in the 7000 late 1980’s was to 6000 increase aspen for wildlife 5000 habitat. A 5,658 increase 4000 1988 in acres (2%) was acres 3000 2006 achieved from some 2000 conversion of white birch, 1000 0 upland hardwood, spruce 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ fir, and upland non- 0-9 Yrs Uneven Aged stocked cover types. ageclass Aspen sites within the subsection are of poor quality and the trend will be towards less conversion to aspen in the future. Some of the aspen on the least accessible, poorest sites may succeed to other types.

Figure 3.17 Rb Hardwood Basal Area 1988 to 2006

Upland hardwoods in the Rb subsection (Figure 3.17) 1988 & 2006 Hardwoods by Basal Area in have remained relatively Subsection Rb stable in acreage except for 4500 some conversion to aspen. 4000 Hardwoods on State Forest 3500 land within the Rb 3000 subsection are exclusively 2500 1988

acres 2000 2006 found along the major rivers 1500 and drainages and fall 1000 within forest riparian 500 0 influence zones for special 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 management. basal area

55 of 244 D R A F T

Figure 3.18 Rb Harvest Trends 1986 to 2006

Harvest Trends in the Seney Lake Plain Figure 3.18 shows a 20,000.0 decline in final harvest 18,000.0 acres after 1998. This can 16,000.0 14,000.0 SALVAGE or IMPROVE be partially explained by the SELECTION 12,000.0 SHELTER WOOD PREP completion of sales sold DELAYED REMOVAL 10,000.0 REMOVAL

across the Cookson Bridge. Acres THINNING 8,000.0 SHELTER WOOD SEED TREE 6,000.0 FINAL HARVEST 4,000.0 2,000.0 0.0 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 Year Interval

Escanaba Lake Plain and Thin Till Subsection (Rc)

The Escanaba Lake Plain Thin Till - Rc subsection has been separated from the St Ignace Lake Plain subsection primarily because of the milder climate in this subsection. Located in the Stonington and Garden Peninsulas the growing season increases by 20 days in the southern part of this subsection and annual snow fall is much less than the St Ignace Lake Plain subsection by 20 inches. Limestone bedrock, sand lake plains, coastal marshes, and rocky ground moraine is locally extensive. In 1891 the hardwood was gone in the Garden Peninsula due to the extraction of iron from ore at the Jackson Iron Company at Fayette. The EUP SF lands, located in the Garden Peninsula, are still undergoing change in composition. The greatest change since 1988 has been in aspen, cedar and paper birch cover types (Table 3.10). The Rc subsection has seen an increase in aspen by 2,506 acres and cedar by 3,271 acres. The greatest decrease has been in the spruce-fir, paper birch, and upland hardwood cover types.

56 of 244 D R A F T

Table 3.10 Rc Cover Types 1988 to 2006

ESCANABA LAKE PLAIN AND THIN TILL Change in Cover Types 1988 OI to 2006 OI for Subsection Rc Cover Type 1988 % 2006 % change % change Aspen 8018 19% 10524 25% 2506 31% low conifer 8022 19% 5578 13% -2444 -30% Cedar 2018 5% 5289 12% 3271 162% Upland Hdwds 5587 13% 5028 12% -559 -10% Red Pine 2279 6% 2982 7% 703 31% up nonstocked 3873 9% 2956 7% -917 -24% low nonstocked 1926 5% 2731 6% 805 42% Paper Birch 3067 7% 1191 3% -1876 -61% Spruce Fir 1524 4% 1131 3% -393 -26% Jack Pine 1802 4% 1049 2% -753 -42% Oak 680 2% 964 2% 284 42% Swamp Hrdwds 403 1% 886 2% 483 120% Water 747 2% 800 2% 53 7% Hemlock 341 1% 579 1% 238 70% White Pine 710 2% 506 1% -204 -29% Lowlnd Poplr 389 1% 433 1% 44 11% Total 41386 42627 1241 3%

Figure 3.19 Rc Cover Type Change: 1988 to 2006

Aspen is the major cover type within the Rc Cover Type Change in the Escanaba Lake Plain and Thin Till subsection (25%). The Subsection Rc increase in aspen acres (Figure 3.19) is an 12000 apparent conversion from 10000

paper birch, spruce and 8000 upland hardwood cover 1988 6000

types. Figure 3.19 acres 2006 illustrates that what was 4000 inventoried as mixed 2000

lowland conifers have 0

now been inventoried as Oak Aspen Cedar Water Red Pine Hemlock Spruce Fir Jack Pine White Pine cedar cover types. low conifer Paper Birch Lowlnd Poplr Upland Hdwds up nonstocked Windthrow has been the low nonstocked Swamp Hrdwds most common type of cover types natural disturbance in the Rc subsection. The increase in red pine (Table 3.10) is due to the conversion from jack pine in the Thompson plains after the 1997 wind storm.

57 of 244 D R A F T

Figure 3.20 Rc Aspen Age Class 1988 to 2006

Figure 3.20, the spike in the 20-29 year age class 1988 & 2006 Aspen Age Class Distribution in Subsection Rc represents the increase in marketability due to the 4500 expansion in the Mead 4000 3500 paper mill in Escanaba. 3000 The spike also contains 2500 1988

stands that were acres 2000 2006 inventoried as paper birch, 1500 hardwood or spruce-fir in 1000 1988 and converted to 500 0 aspen. Age class 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 distribution indicates that a Yrs decline of harvestable age class aspen will take place within this planning period. This has significant implication to wildlife management and maintenance of habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Emphasis on balancing age class distribution will have to take place within the next two planning periods.

Figure 3.21 Rc Lowland Conifer Age Class 1988 to 2006

Figure 3.21, most of the lowland conifers in this 1988 & 2006 Age Class Distribution for Lowland Conifers in Subsection Rc subsection are on shallow limestone soils. These 3000 forests are prone to wind 2500 throw and other 2000 1988 disturbances including 1500

acres 2006 spruce budworm. The 1000 resulting openings created 500 by defoliation by the 0 spruce budworm have 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ resulted in regeneration 0-9 Yrs Uneven Aged leading to uneven aged age class stands.

58 of 244 D R A F T

Figure 3.22 Rc Cedar Age Class 1988 to 2006

Figure 3.22, the increase in cedar in this subsection is 1988 & 2006 Cedar Age class Distribution in largely a result of mistyping Subsection Rc of the lowland conifers in the 1988 inventory. These 2500 stands are identified for 2000 special use designation as 1500 deer yards for the area and 1988

acres 2006 are not managed for timber 1000 production. 500

0

10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ 0-9 Yrs

Uneven Aged age class

Figure 3.23 Rc Hardwood Basal Area 1988 to 2006

Upland hardwood loss of 900 acres, from 1988 to 1988 & 2006 Hardwood by Basal Area in 2006 was due to Subsection Rc management decisions for conversion to aspen. 1200 Much hardwood in this 1000 subsection, between 1988 800 and 2006, did not receive 1988 silvicultural treatment due 600

acres 2006 to lack of personnel and 400 other resources. Starting in 1999 a concerted effort 200 was made to more 0

0 intensively manage 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 hardwood stands in the Rc basal area subsection.

59 of 244 D R A F T

Figure 3.24 Rc Red Pine Age Class 1988 to 2006

Most of the red pine in the Rc subsection (Figure 1988 & 2006 Red Pine Age class Distribution in 3.2.4) is in planted stands Subsection Rc located along US-2 and 900 west of Indian Lake. They are plantations that have 800 700 been under an intensive 600 thinning regime. Towards 500 1988 the end of this planning acres 400 2006 period and the beginning 300 of the next, these planted 200 stands will be near 100 economic maturity and 0 may become candidate for 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ 0-9 Yrs final harvest. The Uneven Aged increase in the 0-9 age age class class reflects the planting that has occurred following the salvage of red pine planted stands after the 1997 windthrow event.

Figure 3.25 Rc Harvest Trends 1986 to 2006

The harvesting shown in Figure 3.25 shows few trends Harvest Trends for the Escanaba Lake Plain and because this subsection Thin Till contains fewer acres of state land than the other 4,000.0 subsections on the EUP SF. 3,500.0

The peaks can be attributed to 3,000.0 SALVAGE or IMPROVE specific years of entry when SELECTION 2,500.0 SHELTER WOOD PREP red pine (thinning) or DELAYED REMOVAL hardwood (selection) makes 2,000.0 REMOVAL THINNING Acres up a major portion of the cover 1,500.0 SHELTER WOOD SEED TREE types for that subsection. The 1,000.0 FINAL HARVEST large amount of salvage harvest in the 1996-2000 500.0 0.0 periods was due to the large 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 windthrow event of 1997. Year Interval

60 of 244 D R A F T

St Ignace Lake Plain Subsection (Re)

Subsection St Ignace Lake Plain-Re is typified by sandy lake plains and limestone bedrock formations at or near the surface and is dominated by conifer and hardwood uplands and wetland forests. Limestone bedrock is exposed along the Lake Huron shoreline in the east, (especially on Drummond Island). Complexes of parallel beach ridges and swales, and extensive conifer-dominated wetlands occur on both sand and bedrock. Due to the thin soils over bedrock and poorly drained soils within this subsection windthrow is common. A common term used by foresters and biologists to describe the forests of the St Ignace Lake Plain is “Mackinac Mix”. Stands are complex in structure and diverse in their mix of both hardwood and conifer species. Much of the current species diversity of the cover types is due to natural human disturbance within the early 20th century. GLO records identified many windthrow events on both uplands and wetlands along the great lakes shorelines. Both upland hardwoods and pines were cut and burned over by the 20th century.

Table 3.11 Re Cover Types 1988 to 2006

ST IGNACE LAKE PLAIN - 1988 OI to 2006 OI for Subsection HjRe Change in Cover Types 1988 OI to 2006 OI for Subsection Re Cover Type 1988 % 2006 % Change % Change Aspen 56167 20% 65126 21% 8959 16% Upland Hdwds 47959 17% 53181 17% 5222 11% Cedar 43300 15% 49786 16% 6486 15% low nonstocked 31842 11% 34484 11% 2642 8% low conifer 27487 10% 25621 8% -1866 -7% up nonstocked 22945 8% 15660 5% -7285 -32% Red Pine 10427 4% 15604 5% 5177 50% Lowlnd Poplr 11720 4% 13267 4% 1547 13% paper birch 12237 4% 9071 3% -3166 -26% Spruce Fir 7798 3% 7349 2% -449 -6% Jack Pine 4778 2% 4298 1% -480 -10% Water 3454 1% 3896 1% 442 13% White Pine 2428 1% 2627 1% 199 8% Swamp Hrdwds 2303 1% 2338 1% 35 2% Hemlock 1579 1% 1960 1% 381 24% Oak 378 0% 385 0% 7 2% 286802 304653 17851 6%

The EUP SF has seen a significant increase in forest acres in the Re subsection (Table 3.11). Most of the increase of 17,851 acres is due to recent land purchases, the largest of which was the 10,000-acre Simmon’s Woods property in the western most part of the subsection in Mackinac County. Other purchases include lands on Drummond Island. The four dominate cover types within this subsection are aspen, upland hardwoods, cedar, and lowland non-stocked. Although aspen is the most dominant cover type in this subsection the EUP SF has relatively little aspen at only 122,788 acres, representing close to 14% of the aspen acreage on the entire State Forest. In contrast, the majority of the State’s Cedar swam ps are located in the EUP Ecoregion (approximately 44% of the type). The Re subsection has the greatest concentration of cedar in the Ecoregion at 49,786 acres. A sizable loss of over 7,000 acres of upland non-stocked cover type (grass openings) has taken place since 1988 and natural succession to hardwood, aspen, and spruce-fir is taking place within this cover type.

61 of 244 D R A F T

Figure 3.26 Re Cover Type Change: 1988 to 2006

The vast majority of the increase acres of the various Cover Type Change in the St. Ignace Lake Plain cover types is strictly reflected Subsection Re in the large acquisitions of 70000 additional properties within the Re subsection. Aspen is the 60000 dominant species (21%) and 50000 has increased by 16% between 40000 1988

1988 and 2006. Red pine, not acres 30000 2006 a factor in recent property transactions, has increased by 20000 5,000 acres. Former mixed red 10000 and jack pine plantations 0

planted by the CCC’s in the Oak Cedar Water Aspen Hemlock Red Pine Jack Pine

30’s have received final low conifer Spruce Fir White Pine Paper Birch Lowlnd Poplr Upland Hdwds up nonstocked

harvests and have been low nonstocked Swamp Hrdwds replanted to red pine. Upland cover type non-stocked stands have been naturally succeeding to white pine and hardwood.

Figure 3.27 Re Aspen age Class 1988 to 2006

Aspen is the dominant species (21%) and has increased by 1988 & 2006 Aspen Age Class Distribution in 16% (Table 3.11). Aspen Subsection Re management for both timber production and wildlife habitat 14000 has been very prominent within 12000 this subsection. Special wildlife 10000 management areas such as the 8000 1988

Strickler management area, in acres 6000 2006 Mackinac County, and 4000 Drummond Island, in Chippewa 2000 County, have been targeted for 0

10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ mixed age aspen management. 0-9 Yrs

A disproportionate amount of Uneven Aged aspen in 1988 was in the 50- age class 69 year old age classes because there were little to no markets for aspen in the EUP. With the advent of more mills downstate and the newly built Louisiana Pacific Mill in Newberry utilizing aspen, market demand increased. Much of the available mature aspen in 2006 is located on Drummond Island, far from market sources.

62 of 244 D R A F T

Figure 3.28 Re Hardwood Basal Area 1988 to 2006

The Re subsection has very productive-high quality 1988 & 2006 Hardwood by Basal Area in hardwood sites. Many of the Subsection Re hardwood stands have been designated for long term 12000 management under the 10000 DNR’s Forest Development Fund (FDF). 8000 1988 If harvesting in hardwoods 6000 regularly had taken place, acres 2006 Figure 3.28 should show the 4000 basal areas more 2000 concentrated in the 80 to 100 0 sq ft. BA range. The 2006 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 data reflects year of entry basal area data from 1997 to 2006. During the early part of this period, many hardwood stands were delayed from silviculture management due to lack of labor resources. The DNR contracted hardwood marking in upland hardwoods was greatly expanded in 1999. The stands that have since been marked and have been cut will show reduced BA during the next several inventories.

Figure 3.29 Re Cedar Age Class Distribution 1988 to 2006

Figure 3.29 has a dramatic increase in acres of cedar 1988 and 2006 Cedar Age Class Distribution in in the 100 plus year age Subsection Re class. Much of these acres 35000 are attributed to the 30000 increase in markets for aspen. Aspen was a 25000 dominant overstory species 20000 1988 2006 on Drummond Island and acres 15000 the “Mackinac Mix” in 10000 Mackinac County, as 5000 markets for aspen 0 increased the overstory

10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ was removed and cedar 0-9 Yrs understory was left Uneven Aged following the harvest. On age class poorer lowland wet sites the die off of lowland poplar, fir, and paper birch has exposed the understory cedar. Cedar has not been intensively managed due to its value as deer winter habitat and complicated regeneration methods.

63 of 244 D R A F T

Figure 3.30 Re Low. Conifer Age Class 1988 to 2006

The lowland conifers in Figure 3.30 represent a common issue 1988 & 2006 Lowland Conifer Age Class Distribution in Subsection Re across the entire EUP. These stands are the most challenging 10000 to manage. They are often too 9000 wet to harvest except in the 8000 coldest of winters. Access is 7000 difficult considering the seeps 6000 1988 5000

and streams they often contain. acres 2006 On the poorer sites lowland 4000 conifer merchantable size isn’t 3000 reached until they are 80 to 100 2000 years old. They are prone to 1000 spruce budworm outbreaks 0 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ which will reduce volumes per 0-9 Yrs Uneven Aged acre below a merchantable level. age class Cedar is often a major component which has special wildlife considerations. Aspen is the major cover type in this subsection and will be managed on an even aged basis and will comprise the majority of final harvest acres within the Re subsection. The current level of harvesting should be able to be maintained over the current planning period. After this planning period merchantable aspen volumes will be reduced. Markets on Drummond Island have been limited in the past and the current level of harvest is expected to accelerate due to the over maturity of the aspen type.

Figure 3.31 Re Harvest Trends 1986 to 2006

Hardwoods are the second most dominant type in this Harvest Trends in the St. Ignace Lake Plain subsection. As the hardwood 30,000.0 matures and basal areas increase it is expected that 25,000.0 SALVAGE or IMPROVE selection harvests can be 20,000.0 SELECTION SHELTER WOOD PREP sustained on a 20 year cycle. DELAYED REMOVAL 15,000.0 REMOVAL THINNING acres SHELTER WOOD 10,000.0 SEED TREE FINAL HARVEST

5,000.0

0.0 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 Year Interval

64 of 244 D R A F T

Rudyard Silty Lake Plain Subsection (Rd)

Subsection Rudyard Silty Lake Plain is a broad clay lake plain of poorly drained soils with a small area of sand lake plain in the center of the subsection. The poorly drained shorelines of the clay lake plain support some of the most extensive shoreline marshes in Michigan. Much of the subsection is used for agriculture production. 64% of the State forest system within the subsection is classed as lowland forest types.

Table 3.12 Rd Cover Types 1988 to 2006

Rudyard Silty Lake Plain Changes in Cover Types 1988 OI to 2006 OI for SubsectionSection Rd Rd Cover Type 1988 % 2006 % Change % change low nonstocked 12006 26% 12665 27% 659 5% low conifer 7025 15% 6827 14% -198 -3% Aspen 5867 13% 6666 14% 799 14% Cedar 3901 8% 4152 9% 251 6% Swamp Hrdwds 3188 7% 3633 8% 445 14% Lowlnd Poplr 3697 8% 2918 6% -779 -21% Upland Hdwds 2504 5% 2383 5% -121 -5% Red Pine 1806 4% 2056 4% 250 14% up nonstocked 2353 5% 1761 4% -592 -25% Spruce Fir 1138 2% 1241 3% 103 9% Jack Pine 1064 2% 861 2% -203 -19% Oak 318 1% 803 2% 485 153% Water 617 1% 539 1% -78 -13% White Pine 228 0% 376 1% 148 65% Paper Birch 369 1% 374 1% 5 1% Hemlock 116 0% 120 0% 4 3% Total 46197 47375 1178 3%

Figure 3.32. Rd Cover Type Change: 1988 to 2006

Not many changes have occurred in this subsection. The Cover Type Change in Rudyard Silt Lake Plain slight increase in aspen acres Subsection Rd (Figure 3.32) could be explained 14000 by the slight decrease in the 12000 10000 lowland poplar acres (mistyping). 8000 1988

Upland non-stocked and lowland acres 6000 2006 non-stocked could be mistyped 4000 as well especially when 2000 inventoried in the winter. The Rd 0 Oak Aspen Cedar Water subsection is a difficult Hemlock Red Pine Jack Pine low conifer Spruce Fir White PinePaper Birch Lowlnd Poplr Upland Hdwds up nonstocked subsection to manage due to low nonstocked Swamp Hrdwds treatment limiting factors. Soil cover type structure and wetness of soils are the primary limiting factors.

65 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.33 Rd Low. Conifer Age Class 1988 to 2006 Lowland conifer is the second largest covertype within the Rd subsection. Figure 1988 and 2006 Low Conifer Age Class 3.33 illustrates that very little management Distribution in Subsection Rd has occurred within the lowland conifer cover type. These stands are getting older. 2500

Treatment limiting factors that have 2000 reduced the desirablity for harvest include wildlife management for winter 1500 deer habitat, soils, excessive soil 1988

acres 2006 moisture and accessibility. 1000

500

0

10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ 0-9 Yrs Uneven Aged age class

Figure 3.34 Rd As pen Age Class 1988 to 2006 Figure 3.34 illustrates the significant trend in the 1988 & 2006 Aspen Age Class Distrubution in increased market availability for Subsection Rd

aspen that occurred in 1989 2500 when the Louisiana Pacific Mill was built in Newberry. Access 2000 in this subsection is poor due to

the abundance of lowland types 1500 and the interspersed private 1988

acres 2006 land. The marketability of the 1000 overmature part of the aspen age classes shown in Figure 500 3.34 will be a challenge to manage due to the 0 overwhelming limiting factors 0-9 Yrs 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 age class within the Rd subsection.

Figure 3.35 Rd Cedar age Class 1988 to 2006

1988 & 2006 Cedar Age Class Distribution in Subsection Rd

3000

2500

2000 1988 1500

acres 2006

1000

500 0

10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ 0-9 Yrs Uneven Aged age class

66 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.36 Rd Swamp Hardwood Age Class 1988 to 2006

1988 & 2006 Swamp Hardwoods Age Class Distribution in Subsection Rd 2500

2000

1500 1988

acres 2006 1000 500

0

10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ 0-9 Yrs Uneven Aged age class

Figure 3.37 Rd Harvest trends 1986 to 2006

64% of the Rd subsection is in lowland 1988 & 2006 Lowland Poplar Age Class cover type. Access, wetness, and Distribution in Subsection Rd available markets within the Rd 1800 subsection are limiting factors for 1600 timber harvest. The cedar and swamp 1400 hardwood cover types in the Rd 1200 1000 1988 subsection are poor quality and hard to 2006 acres 800 manage due to low ground-wet 600 conditions, poor access and other 400 200 treatment limiting factors. 0

10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100+ Markets for lowland poplar increased 0-9 Yrs at the same time aspen did with Uneven Aged age class opening of the Louisiana Pacific mill in Newberry. Access to many lowland poplar stands are also a challenge and is limited to seasonal winter logging.

Figure 3.38 Rd Harvest Trends 1986 to 2006

This section will describe the EUP SF on the basis of OI Harvest Trends in the Rudyard Silty Lake Plain data and a few of the 39 3,500.0 attributes that provide stand 3,000.0 descriptive, site descriptive, and prescriptive information 2,500.0 SALVAGE or IMPROVE SELECTION during the inventory of the SHELTER WOOD PREP 2,000.0 DELAYED REMOVAL forest. OI locates and REMOVAL

Acres THINNING 1,500.0 identifies physical, biological, SHELTER WOOD economic, and social SEED TREE 1,000.0 FINAL HARVEST information on each unit of land. It provides information 500.0 for day-to-day operations 0.0 relating to resource 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 Year Interval

67 of 244 D R A F T management issues such as timber, wildlife, forest recreation, water, reforestation and land use. Many of the OI attributes provide a more detailed view of forest productivity and land use on the EUP SF.

Area Class and Influence Zones

The 1,043,716 acres of the EUP SF is considered the basis for management and assessing resource sustainability under SFI and FSC certification. The entire forest area can be subdivided into land-use classifications on the basis of productivity and /or management intent. The area class (Appendix G) and influence zone (Appendix H) perform this role in the OI. Following an initial overview, subsequent sections will go into more detail on several of the OI attributes.

Forest stands are classified in one of five area classes which reflect both biological productivity of the forest and land use. When the EUP SF is summarized by area class it can be seen that 75% of the area is classified in productive forest (commercial + reserved, >20 cu. ft./ac./yr.), providing the opportunity for management of timber, wildlife habitat, and dispersed recreational opportunities. Of the productive forest, 726,758 acres are commercially available (70%) while 50,112 acres (5%) are reserved. More than 73% of the area in reserves is classified as grasslands.

The stand attribute influence zone describes the primary land use for the forest. There are currently nine influence zones identified on the EUP SF. The general forest influence zone (68%) is a zone where “normal” forest management is practiced. In the remaining influence zones, forest management activities are modified or restricted (32% of the commercial forest) to suit the intent of the influence zone as specified in formal guidelines for treatments within these zones. Winter deer yard zones and water zones (22% of the commercial forest) make up the largest areas that call for restricted or modified forest management activities. Each influence zone type will have formal set of guidelines to specify how management activities are modified to meet the goal of the influence zone.

Forest Stand Conditions and Treatment Limiting Factors

Forest stand conditions are classified in the OI in one of ten classes on the basis of merchantability, stocking and vigor (Appendix I). Immature stands in 2006 account for nearly half of the forest (47%), with mature and un-even aged stands accounting for 33%. The LSSF has identified 55,849 acres (18%) as potential Special Conservation Areas (SCA). SCA’s are areas of state forest land that have had one or more conservation objectives, interests, or elements identified through a variety of methods and mechanisms and was designed to provide direction for addressing biological diversity conservation objectives. Potential Old Growth on the LSSF has been identified in the Operations Inventory database as SCA’s under stand condition 8. No vegetative management will occur in areas currently identified as SCA within this planning period.

68 of 244 D R A F T

The use of potential or designated old growth is a primary limiting factor. The term “potential old growth” stems from the “Strategy for Conserving Old Growth on State Forest Lands” that was approved by the Natural Resources Commission on December 8, 1994, and subsequent direction to FMFM and Wildlife Division field staff in March of 1995 to begin identification of forest stands as potential old growth. In this context, potential old growth describes a stand with special characteristics or location qualifying it for further consideration for inclusion in the old growth system. A potential stand does not become designated as old growth until such designation has been approved thorough the Biodiversity Conservation Planning Process.

The amount of acreage designated as potential old growth has expanded since 2000 and there is substantial variability in the acreage of designated potential old growth in the three FMU’s. Future trends will likely continue an increase in the number of stands coded with stand condition 8 as the designation now has a broader use that incorporates other biodiversity values within special conservation areas, such as Ecological Reference Areas, High Conservation Value Areas, and Special Conservation Areas (Section 5 of the EUP Ecoregion Plan). Additional biodiversity values will also be designated by approval through the Biodiversity Conservation Planning Process.

Treatment limiting factors are used to record constraints on the availability of a stand for harvest. Often, restraints exist that will restrict harvest and OI identifies the reasons that stands that appear silviculturally ready for harvest are not being cut. During the OI field examination any stand that meets silvicultural criteria and is not scheduled for harvest must have at least one treatment limiting factor identified. There are currently five categories of limiting factors: (1) Administrative and legal factors, (2) Accessibility factors, (3) Special management or use designation, (4) Markets and industrial factors, and (5) Technological/Ecological factors (Appendix J).

Of the 115,900 acres identified as having treatment limitations in the 2006 inventory database, 23% (26,387 acres) has been identified as potential old growth or future specific use consideration. Delayed treatment for age/size diversity is the second largest factor, 17% (19,769 acres). These are stands that have been delayed for treatment in order to maintain forest composition and balance of age class distribution. The third major limiting factor is wet conditions, (12% or 14,367 acres) that can cause an unacceptable damage to soil, water table, or residual trees.

Potential Special Management

Approximately 67,000 acres (6%) have been designated in OI as “Potential Special Management Areas” on the LSSF (Appendix K). Field managers used this category to capture potential unique qualities of the forest. More than 70% of the special management areas are classified as “other” (47,384 acres), an indication that this OI field may not be comprehensive enough and not clearly documented. Other alternative classification schemes (including OI’s potential old growth/Stand Condition 8 designation and the Special Conservation Area designation developed as part of DNR’s biodiversity initiatives) help to better document the designation of special management areas.

69 of 244 D R A F T

The four cover types with the largest special management acreages are: Upland Hardwoods (20%), Marsh (14%), Cedar (14%), and Red Pine (11%). Each of these four cover types has unique conditions which contributed to them receiving special management classifications. Upland hardwoods and red pine, growing on some of the best soils, lend themselves to large economic returns to the state if specific, managed improvements are conducted over time. The 13,129 acres of Upland Hardwoods and 7,325 acres of red pine were identified in the mid 1990’s under the Forest Development Fund (FDF) initiative for improvement harvests that will, over time, generate returns that will exceed monetary interest rates. Cedar (9,220 acres) has the unique quality of providing winter deer habitat for white tailed deer. The very large marsh complexes, 9,383 acres (14%), within the EUP SF provide a unique, aesthetic, ecological habitat on the EUP SF and have been identified with special management potential. Some potential old growth, large openings or remoteness of cover types may have been captured under the “other” special management potential category.

Forest Health

On the basis of the data in the OI, the EUP SF can generally be considered a healthy forest (Appendix L). The OI parameter identifies the presence of certain types of tree damage (e.g., conks, dead trees, etc.). There is no acknowledgement of either the agent of damage (e.g. budworm, flooding, etc.) or the severity of the damage. Ninety- five percent of the EUP SF can be considered healthy on the basis of this parameter. The cover types that have the most health problems are in lowland areas and ones that have low market value in the EUP. Paper birch, tamarack, and lowland poplar are species that are less than 90% healthy. Recent trends in the introduction and potential introduction of destructive exotic pests to the EUP have threatened the future health of the forest (Beech bark disease, emerald ash borer, and others).

Wildlife Species

The kind, abundance, and productivity of wildlife habitat are intimately tied to forest vegetation composition and how it is managed. Primary featured wildlife species are identified on a compartment basis within the operations inventory. Classes are limited to seven species or species groups for which the compartment is being managed (Appendix M). The classification system allows for the identification of primary and secondary classes. Deer are managed specifically on 28% of the land base (alone and in combination). Half of the EUP SF is being managed for a combination of wildlife species. Nineteen percent of the EUP SF is being managed for a single featured species; deer is the dominant single species. Sixteen percent of the EUP SF is being managed for species other than those listed. More than 50% of the compartments on the EUP SF do not have identified featured wildlife species in their inventory databases. In part, this is due to the limited species categories to select from as there may be other species or species groups besides those currently featured in OI that are being managed for in a given stand.

70 of 244 D R A F T 3.2 - Forest Health Conditions and Trends

The Eastern Upper Peninsula faces several major forest health concerns. The introduction of non-native plants, insects and diseases are a serious threat to the health and plant species composition of the State’s forest ecosystems. Cycles of endemic, natural insects also cause periodic disturbances and are among the more significant threats.

General Discussion

Among the many stressors that can alter forest productivity and vitality are fragmentation, air pollution, exotic plant species, native and exotic insects and diseases, and climate and weather-related events.

Native insects and diseases periodically kill weakened and senescent trees making way for new, vigorous forests. They also help recycle forests by decomposing trees to replenish the soil and supply nutrients necessary for forest growth. While outbreaks of some native insects and diseases periodically cause unacceptable growth loss and tree mortality, they contribute to the process of forest regeneration, growth, and renewal that is essential to stable, healthy forest ecosystems.

As global interactions increase, the threat of exotic insects and diseases being introduced into the United States increases. By not evolving with native forest systems, introduced insects and diseases are not integral parts of our forest ecosystems, therefore, these organisms may cause new and occasional devastating effects that can change forests forever. For example, emerald ash borer, chestnut blight, white pine blister rust, gypsy moth, Dutch elm disease, and beech bark disease have disrupted several forest ecosystems by greatly reducing or eliminating some forest tree species from their native habitats. Today, introduced agents pose a major threat to U.S. forests.

Forest Health Risk

The likelihood of mortality occurring in a forest ecosystem is a function of susceptibility and vulnerability.

Susceptibility. Susceptibility is the risk that insect and disease agents will be introduced and become established in the forest; Vulnerability. Vulnerability is the risk that mortality will occur once an insect or disease is established.

Forests that are both very susceptible to a pest attack and highly vulnerable to its affects (typically trees that are weakened or stressed) are the most likely to experience significant mortality related to that pest. In some cases, the impact of a single insect or disease agent is sufficient to cause mortality. This is often the case with exotic insects and diseases that have no natural enemies to keep them in check.

In the case of native insects and diseases, several agents often play a role in the loss of vigor and subsequent death of trees, a phenomenon known as forest decline.

71 of 244 D R A F T

Forest Decline

While decline is a natural process in the progression of forest ecosystems over time, it is a complex phenomenon that develops from the interactions of several factors that fall into one of three categories:

Predisposing factors alter trees ability to respond to injury-inducing agents like insects and diseases.

Inciting factors affect trees for a short duration, are physiological or biological in nature and generally produce dieback of small branches.

Contributing factors are a collection of opportunistic environmental and biotic agents like root diseases and wood-boring insects that move weakened trees progressively toward death.

Most forest declines share some common elements, including:

Climatic or site factors are almost always a predisposing or inciting factor.

Roots and their mycorrhizae die prior to dieback occurring on above-ground portion of trees.

Compared to healthy trees, those in decline, usually have less stored carbohydrates which are necessary to start spring growth and to regenerate defoliated leaves. Excessive depletion of these reserves limits trees’ ability to respond.

Armillaria root rot is commonly found in declining trees and forests.

Age and drought are often factors in decline.

Major Pests

The introduction of the exotic Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) is a threat to the ash resource of North America. The small, green metallic beetles have infested or killed an estimated 15 million ashes of all species in 21 counties in Southeast Michigan. Due to this new exotic insect, it is likely that future inventories of the ash resource will continue to decline.

New, outlying EAB populations continue to be found in Michigan. These outliers mostly represent pre-quarantine (e.g. year 2002 and earlier) spread of EAB. The 2005 EAB detection at Brimley was the first in the Upper Peninsula. The Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) and Michigan Department of Natural Resource (DNR) acted quickly to remove this population. All ash greater than one inch in diameter were removed within ½ mile of infested trees and burned. This was determined to be a 2002 introduction at Brimley State Park. No other EAB outliers have been detected in the Upper Peninsula as of summer 2006..

72 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.39 Emerald Ash Borer Regulated/Quarantined Counties & Quarantined Outliers

Black Ash Decline and Mortality continues to be common in many parts of the state. This is related to past drought conditions. Trees growing in wet soils, such as black ash, often suffer during droughts. Wetland trees tend to develop shallow root systems that cannot cope with a prolonged drop in soil moisture. Rising water tables after a prolonged drought may also drown deeper roots developed as the tree sought moisture during the drought years.

In 2000, discovery of Beech Bark Disease (BBD) in Michigan marked the beginning of a major shift in the ecology of its northern hardwood forests. BBD is caused by a combination of two pests, a scale insect (Cryptococcus fagisuga) and a fungal disease (Nectria). The scale insect allows the fungus to invade the trees, resulting in the formation of Nectria cankers on the tree trunk and large branches, killing infected areas. Trees eventually die, or break in wind or ice storms. The disease is expected to eventually spread through much of Michigan’s forestland.

73 of 244 D R A F T

Beech is a component of Michigan’s 7.2 million acres of Maple-Beech-Birch type. This represents 138 million beech trees in all size classes. Of these, 15 million larger beech (greater than 9-inch diameter) are highly vulnerable to tree mortality. BBD is presently killing beech in areas infested with beech scale for 10 years or more. In response, many hundreds of acres of American beech are being harvested in the killing front areas of the eastern Upper Peninsula.

To date it appears the spread rate of beech scale in Michigan is 10-15 miles per year, or about double that published for the Northeast. It is believed that the beech scale in the Upper Peninsula was widely distributed before the initial detection in 2000.

Figure 3.40 EUP Beech Bark Disease – 2005

The western half of Chippewa and Mackinac counties; most of Luce and Schoolcraft counties and the eastern half of Alger county are now included in the advancing and killing.

On a positive note, beech mortality did not increase in 2005 as dramatically as scale populations spread. Most advancing front areas are still in the early stages of scale infestation. The most dramatic increase in beech mortality was in Tahquamenon Falls State Park on the Chippewa/Luce County border where over 90% of the beech overstory is either dead or severely declining.

Beech bark disease has greatly increased the need for Hazard Tree work in state parks and state forest campgrounds. Recognizing and removing hazardous trees is very costly as are tree and landscape restoration activities.

74 of 244 D R A F T

Figure 3.41 Jack Pine Budworm – 2005

The Jack Pine budworm is considered the most significant pest of jack pine. Jack pine stands over 50 years old that have suffered 2 or more defoliations during the past 3 years are at highest risk of top kill or mortality. Tree mortality and top-kill resulting from budworm defoliation creates fuel for intense wildfires. Harvesting stands when they reach maturity can minimize budworm-caused tree mortality and reduce the threat of damaging wildfires.

The 2005 jack pine budworm epidemic defoliated 201,470 acres statewide. Budworm impact on high risk stands was assessed. Based on findings, many stands are being salvaged and pre-salvaged. Other stands were targeted for 2006 evaluation. Keeping harvest rotations to 50 years or less can significantly reduce mortality from jack pine budworm.

Figure 3.42. Spurce Budworm – 2005

The Spruce Budworm is one of the most destructive native insects in the northern spruce and fir forests of the Eastern United States and Canada. Periodic outbreaks of the spruce budworm are a part of the natural cycle of events associated with the maturing of balsam fir. A resulting loss of millions of cords of spruce and fir has occurred since the first recorded outbreak in Maine about 1807.

The states most often affected are Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin resulting in the loss of millions of cords of spruce and fir.

Balsam fir is the species most severely damaged by the bud-worm in the Eastern United States. White, red, and black spruces are suitable host trees and some feeding may occur on tamarack, pine, and hemlock. Spruce mixed with balsam fir is more likely to suffer budworm damage than spruce in pure stands.

75 of 244 D R A F T

The spruce budworm defoliated 9,471 acres in several counties in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula in 2005. Areas of light budworm defoliation have been visible for the last few years. The last epidemic began in the late 1960’s and lasted until 1982. Cycles repeat every 30-50 years depending on forest vulnerability. As with jack pine budworm, stands older than 50 years are vulnerable to damage. Upland fir and spruce/fir over 50 years old is at highest risk of top kill or mortality. Tree mortality and top-kill resulting from budworm defoliation creates fuel for intense wildfires. Harvesting stands when they reach maturity can minimize budworm-caused tree mortality and reduce the threat of damaging wildfires.

The Red-Headed Pine Sawfly periodically defoliates young red and jack pine causing top kill and tree mortality. Sawfly populations have been active in the eastern Upper Peninsula and the northern Lower Peninsula beginning in 2002. It can be treated by pesticides. The insecticide Dimlin 4L was aerially applied to 480 acres of infested planted red pine in 2005.

The exotic Gypsy Moth continues to expand it range in the Upper Peninsula. It defoliated 148,525 acres of oak forests statewide in 2005, up from 45,244 acres in 2004. A cool, wet spring in 2004 caused widespread infection of gypsy moth by an introduced fungal parasite (Entomophaga miamaiga). As a result, populations collapsed throughout the Midwest states. A warm, dry spring in 2005 did not favor Entomophaga, so populations of gypsy moth will likely increase in 2006.

The native Eastern Larch Beetle has killed tamarack (Larix laricina) in small pockets up to 100 acre stands. Both native tamarack and exotic larch are susceptible. Healthy trees can be attacked and killed once bark beetle populations build up on stressed trees. The last bark beetle epidemic resulted when tamarack was affected by two concurrent stresses; the drought of 2000-2001 and repeated defoliation by the Larch Casebearer, an introduced needle-mining insect. While populations are usually brought under control within 2 years by parasitic natural enemies, repeated heavy defoliation can cause branch dieback or tree mortality. Eastern larch beetle and larch casebearer populations have greatly declined with little reported defoliation or mortality in 2005.

Diplodia shoot blight, formerly called Sphaeropsis shoot blight infects many pine species. This disease causes severe damage only to trees that are predisposed by unfavorable environmental factors which include poor site, drought, hail or snow damage, compacted soils, excessive shading, insect activity or other mechanical wounding. The most common hosts are Austrian, Scots, red and jack pines. In trees that are relatively free from stress, this disease kills only current-season buds and shoots, and 2nd-year cones. There was little reported Diplodia in 2005.

Dutch elm disease continues to cause extensive mortality of American elm. Newly infected large trees may survive and show progressively more symptoms for one or more years. Although there are resistant American elms available for planting, caution should be used as this resistance has not been widely tested over a long period, and a new damaging bark beetle, the Banded Elm Bark Beetle , is killing elms in the western United States and has now been found in southern Michigan. American elm resources are expected to continue to decline.

76 of 244 D R A F T The Hemlock Looper is a native defoliating insect which causes periodic defoliation of hemlock throughout the eastern UP. The larvae can be extremely destructive to hemlock, balsam fir, and white spruce. During an outbreak it will also feed on many other species growing in association with hemlock including: larch, cedar, paper and yellow birch, basswood and maple. Hemlocks may die after one year of severe defoliation, fir in one or two years. Populations build rapidly and are difficult to detect, making management of looper epidemics nearly impossible. An exception is in key recreation areas where damage is detected early, allowing time for foliage protection measures.

The White Pine Weevil is a destructive insect of eastern white pine, jack pine and Norway spruce. The weevil breeds in and destroys the terminal leader of white pine, causing forking and crooking of the tree. It prefers open-grown trees where it feeds on the previous year’s terminal. Stem deformities result in wood defects such as compression wood and bark-encased knots that reduce the value of sawn lumber. This reduction in wood quality is considered the major impact of this weevil.

White Pine Blister Rust is the only stem rust of white pines in North America. It is an exotic disease first detected in 1898. White pine blister rust causes significant damage by forming cankers on the branches of white pines. These cankers often result in mortality of open grown trees less than 20 feet tall, and top kill, bole deformity and branch mortality in taller trees. High risk sites tend to be low-lying areas where cool air settles. Blister rust and the white pine weevil have given eastern white pine a reputation as a difficult species to grow in the Lake States. Better understanding of both weevil and blister rust biology and management has led to greater acceptance of white pine as a prominent understory regeneration species.

The incidence of the vascular disease Oak Wilt continues to expand into new areas of Michigan via firewood movement. Oak wilt is a lethal, obligate parasite of oaks. Thus, by removing infected trees and breaking root graft connections to neighboring oaks, the disease can be completely removed from a site. Early detection of oak wilt introductions is important in keeping the oak resource free of this disease. To date, oak wilt has not been detected in the eastern Upper P

The Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (HWA) has been in the United States since 1924. This Asian insect is a serious pest of eastern hemlock in the eastern United States. The hemlock woolly adelgid feeds during all seasons with the greatest damage occurring in the spring. The DNR and the MDA conducts annual HWA detection surveys in tree nurseries and high risk forest areas. To date, this adelgid has not establish

Invasive Non-Native Plants are a serious threat to native species, communities, and ecosystems. They can compete with and displace native plants and associated fauna. They can alter ecosystem functions and cycles significantly. Invasive plants are considered one of the most significant threats to biodiversity. Several invasive plants are currently being managed in the eastern Upper Peninsula.

Scots Pine is systematically being removed from state forestlands. The Seney Wildlife Refuge continues to battle common buckthorn populations with herbicides and prescribed fire. Garlic Mustard monitoring, management and eradication projects are gaining momentum in Michigan. Public and private organizations are cooperating in efforts to remove and keep garlic mustard from establishing in new areas of Upper Michigan and the Northwest Lower Peninsula. A seventy acre northern hardwoods site in the Eastern Upper

77 of 244 D R A F T Peninsula has a seven year prescribed burn plan which includes follow-up use of glyphosate herbicide to treat plants missed by fire. Treatments are designed to contain the spread of the plant and eventually eliminate garlic mustard. Additional monitoring of plant community response to burning and herbicide treatments is planned for 2006. Purple Loosestrife has been reduced in isolated areas by an introduced exotic leaf beetle, (Galareucella sp.). Additionally, there are several other invasive plants of concern which have been detected but not currently managed. Invasive plant management is an emerging discipline which requires training sessions for department personnel including plant identification and reporting protocols, and management strategies.

3.3 Rare and Exemplary Natural Communities

A natural community is defined as-

“An assemblage of interacting plants, animals, and other organisms, which repeatedly occurs under similar environmental conditions across the landscape and is structured by natural processes rather than modern, anthropogenic disturbances.”

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) has described 74 different natural communities in the State of Michigan (http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/data/). MNFI was established in 1980 and manages an ongoing, continuously updated information base regarding these biological features.

Current inventories in the EUP indicate that there are 30 different natural communities in the ecoregion (Table 1). The table is arranged alphabetically and includes the name, state rank (S) and Global rank (G) for each natural community element.

Table 3.13 EUP Ecoregion Natural Communities

Natural Community Status Natural Community Status Alvar S1 G2 Moist non-acid Cliff S2 G4 Bog S4 G3 Muskeg S3 G4 Boreal Forest S3 Northern Fen S3 G3 GU Cave S1 G4 Northern Wet Meadow S4 G4 Cobble Beach S3 G3 Open Dunes S3 G3 Dry non-acid Cliff S2 G4 Patterned Fen S2 GU Dry Northern Forest S3 G3 Pine Barrens S2 G3 Dry-mesic Northern Forest S3 G4 Poor Conifer Swamp S4 G4 Great Lakes Marsh S3 G2 Poor Fen S3 G3 Hardwood-conifer Swamp S3 G4 Rich Conifer Swamp S3 G4 Inter-dunal Wetland S2 G2 Sand/Gravel Beach S3 G3 Intermittent Wetland S3 G2 Sandstone Lakeshore Cliff S2 G3 Limestone Bedrock Glade S2 Sinkhole S2 GU G3G5 Limestone Pavement S2 G3 Southern Floodplain Forest S3 G3 Lakeshore Mesic Northern Forest S3 G4 Wooded Dune and Swale S3 G3 Complex

An S or G rank of 1 indicates that the community is critically imperiled because of extreme rarity (5 or few occurrences or very few acres) or because of some factor

78 of 244 D R A F T making it especially vulnerable to extinction. A rank of 2 indicates that the community is imperiled because of rarity (6-20 occurrences or few remaining acres) or because of some factor making it vulnerable to extinction. A G rank of 3 indicates that the community is very rare and local throughout it range while an S rank of 3 means it is rare or uncommon in the state. Ranks of 4 and 5 indicate that the community is apparently secure and demonstrably secure respectively. A rank of GU indicates that the natural community is possibly in peril range-wide, but the status is uncertain and there is a need for more information.

In addition to State and Global ranking (a ranking of rarity), each individually identified natural community (called Element Occurrences or EO’s) is assessed for its natural quality and natural condition and ranked as A= Excellent, B= Good, C= Fair, D= Poor.

Those natural communities that have EO ranks of A (excellent) or B (good) and Global or State ranks of 1 (endangered), 2 (threatened), or 3 (rare) will be designated as Ecological Reference Areas (ERA). ERA’s are high quality examples of functioning ecosystems that are primarily influenced by natural ecological processes. ERA’s serve as models of ecological reference within the EUP and can be located on any land ownership. Management activities and prescriptions in ERA’s on DNR managed lands are highly restricted to those that maintain or enhance the defined attributes and values and protect the immediate natural resource values or human health and safety.

One of the most ecologically important natural communities in the EUP Ecoregion is Alvar. Alvar grasslands are open landscapes where grasses and sedges grow on flat limestone bedrock. Alvar is among the rarest habitats in the world and is known only from the Great Lakes, the Baltic region of Europe and northwestern Ireland. Many uncommon species occur in these grasslands including species of the arctic tundra and the Great Plains prairies. Excellent examples of this natural community occur on Drummond Island, Chippewa County in an area known as the Maxton Plains.

Another rare natural community in the EUP is Great Lakes Marsh. Found mostly in protected bays and characterized by grasses, sedges and rushes in the shallow waters at the lake edge, they provide important habitat for water birds, waterfowl, mammals, fish and insects. During spring migration, terrestrial migratory songbirds feed on midges as they emerge from the water. Excellent examples of this habitat in the EUP Ecoregion include the Les Cheneaux region, the Munuscong River Delta and Little Bay De Noc.

Wooded dune and swale complexes occur along embayments of the Great Lakes where gradually dropping lake levels and postglacial uplifting have formed a series of alternating sandy beach ridges with low, usually wet swales. Generally, the inland ridges and swales are forested and those near the shoreline are open. This natural community is restricted to the shores of the Great Lakes. The shorelines along Whitefish Point in Chippewa County and much of West Mackinac County have good examples of this community type.

Patterned fens are distinguished by their hydrology which creates a distinctive pattern of alternating ridges of sedge peat, called strings, and wetter hollows, called flarks. Strings are dominated more by Sphagnum mosses and woody vegetation and flarks tend to be dominated by sedges and rushes. Excellent examples of this natural

79 of 244 D R A F T community occur on the Seney National Wildlife Refuge (Marsh Creek) and the MacMahon Lake area in Northern Luce County.

The Rich conifer swamp community is a mineral-rich, groundwater influenced, forested wetland occurring on soils with high organic material. It is dominated by northern white-cedar and is often referred to as a cedar swamp. Trees are shallow-rooted and prone to blow down due to high water tables. This natural community type is one of the most floristically diverse ecosystems in the upper Midwest, providing habitat for more than 25 percent of northern Michigan’s wildlife species and critical winter yards for deer. An exemplary site of this community type can be found at the Barfield Lakes in Luce County.

Information and abstracts for other natural communities in the EUP Ecoregion can be found on the MNFI website and through Nature Serve (www.natureserve.org/).

3.4 - Wildlife Conditions and Trends

The Eastern Upper Peninsula (EUP) Ecoregion is home to approximately 280 individual species of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians (MIWild), and many thousands of invertebrate species.

In the past, many efforts to conserve wildlife have centered on a single species approach and have resulted in a number of successes for both game and non-game species. In the EUP, the trumpeter swan, American marten and fisher were reintroduced and restored to healthy populations. Through laws and public acceptance, the gray wolf and moose self dispersed from Ontario and Minnesota to form rebounding populations in the EUP. Species such as the bald eagle, osprey, Hine’s emerald dragonfly and Kirtland’s warbler have benefited from research and projects directed to their recoveries in the ecoregion. White- tailed deer and the Canada goose have come back from historically low populations to those that are stable or even overabundant in some areas.

Strategies on the conservation of wildlife species have evolved with the understanding that human development has had, and will continue to have, tremendous impacts on the landscape. A shift in management is occurring by acknowledging that a species approach many not always be the most effective way by which to conserve the tremendous diversity of wildlife and natural plant communities in the State of Michigan. It is known that the survival of wildlife species is inextricably linked to the habitat that supports them, and that the degradation or loss of habitat is often the primary threat to species viability. Current thought is that a greater focus upon the maintenance of ecological processes would be more effective than strategies that focus upon individual wildlife species, and would provide a more productive use of limited conservation resources to benefit a greater number of species. Based on this premise, the DNR has developed the Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) with the goal of providing a common strategic framework that will enable Michigan’s conservation partners to jointly implement a long-term holistic approach for the conservation of wildlife species. Details of this approach can be found on the DNR website at www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_30909---,00.html .

Using an ecosystem management approach requires the consideration of how management actions affect all resources, not just individual resources in isolation. This does not mean, however, that management goals and strategies that focus on particular

80 of 244 D R A F T species cannot exist. Species management will still occur but with more consideration of how that management impacts other ecosystem components.

The following description of current wildlife conditions in the EUP Ecoregion follows the general outline of this approach, focusing on wildlife habitat and natural vegetative communities and their associated wildlife species. This section differs from the previous Current Forest Conditions and Trends section in that it uses wildlife habitat groupings of vegetation instead of timber cover types and the percentages of types may differ because of this. The vegetation classification used was dictated by the set of data that is currently available across all ownerships in the ecoregion, the IFMAP 2003 Current Landcover layer.

Within each habitat section the natural community that falls under this designation is generally mentioned. Natural community types in Michigan have been developed by MNFI and are an assemblage of interacting plants, animals, and other organisms, which repeatedly occurs under similar environmental conditions across the landscape and is structured by natural processes rather than modern, human induced disturbances.

Each habitat section also contains its importance to the species utilizing it, techniques that wildlife biologists and ecologists recommend for managing habitat, and trends occurring in the EUP Ecoregion.

Following the habitat section is a section that focuses on populations trends of several key wildlife species that are surveyed for and occur in the EUP.

3.3.1- Forested Habitats

In the EUP, forested habitats account for approximately 67 percent of the entire ecoregion, comprising the major habitat category of the region (Figure 3.43).

Figure 3.43 Major EUP Habitat Categories

3%

20%

Forest Upland Openlands

10% Non-forested Wetlands Water 67%

The present forested communities of the EUP are somewhat different from the pre- European settlement forest. Compared to pre-European settlement forest, in some

81 of 244 D R A F T areas, today’s forests are young and still recovering from the late 1800s lumbering era and resulting fires. Compared to the forest of the mid 1900s, todays forests are maturing. From a wildlife perspective, neither comparison reflects the complexity of relationships between forests and wildlife.

The value of a forest ecosystem to wildlife is a function of both the structural attributes of the stand, and the surrounding landscape mosaic. Stand characteristics such as vegetative species composition, vertical structure, dead wood, and ground cover are components that wildlife managers attempt to manipulate to improve the value of a stand for wildlife. Attributes of the surrounding landscape mos aic such as habitat connectivity, patch size, and landscape diversity are often just as important to determining the value of a stand for wildlife. Historically, wildlife evolved to the structural and compositional diversity of forests under conditions dictated by natural disturbance regimes such as fire, windthrow, and natural disease. In many cases, these ecological processes have been altered or restricted by humans. The primary disturbance factors effecting forests in the EUP ecoregion are commercial timber harvesting, residential and commercial development, exotic and native forest pest and disease, recreational activities, and road building. These disturbance factors, if unmitigated, result in a young, relatively fragmented forest that favors wildlife adapted to early successional forest types and edge. Management of forests in the EUP best serves wildlife diversity if management practices produce some areas of forest that mimic in structure and composition characteristics of all seral stages, from early successional forest type to late senescent forest types more representative of pre-European settlement vegetation.

Upland Deciduous Forest

Northern Hardwoods

Northern hardwoods account for approximately 18 percent of the total landscape, and 27 percent of forested habitats (Figure 3.44).

Figure 3.44 Major EUP Forested Habitats

3% Northern Hardwoods 15% 27% Lowland Coniferous Forest

Upland Coniferous Forest

28% Aspen & Birch

27% Lowland Decidous Forest

Northern hardwoods are synonymous with two natural communities in the EUP- Mesic northern forest and dry-mesic northern forest. Several plants and animals of concern

82 of 244 D R A F T occur in these communities including walking fern (state threatened), Hart’s-tongue fern (state endangered), goblin moonwort (state threatened), fairy bells (state endangered), red-shouldered hawk (state threatened) and northern goshawk (state special concern).

Northern hardwoods are a climax forest community in the ecoregion and provide habitat for approximately 114 wildlife species (MIWild) including the ovenbird, pileated woodpecker, American marten and broad-winged hawk. Large contiguous blocks of northern hardwood forest provide important habitat for area sensitive bird species and black bear. Maintaining habitat connectivity in this forest type is important for these species. Much of the EUP is considered degraded or very degraded with regard to the availability of large contiguous landscapes (~65%). However, about 35% of the region is considered fair, good, or excellent in its representation of large contiguous landscapes (MDNR Wildlife Action Plan, 2005).

This forest type is composed of multiple vertical strata, with wildlife species populating every vertical layer from burrows of red-backed voles on the forest floor to canopy nesting warblers. Dense underbrush provides prey species such as grouse and voles to find cover from aerial predators. Nocturnal animals, including bobcat and fox bed down in the underbrush during the day. Moisture seeking insects, amphibians, and reptiles find harbor among fallen leaves and large woody debris. Uneven-aged forest management promotes a forest of mixed-aged trees and herbaceous vegetation of many species and has the most positive impact of alternative forest treatments on overall biodiversity within this forest type (DeGraaf, 1991).

The value of northern hardwoods to wildlife is dependent upon maintaining both structural and compositional diversity within the stand. In most areas of the EUP, post European settlement management has reduced the conifer component of northern hardwood stands. Wildlife management practices employed to improve habitat in northern hardwood ecosystems include the restoration of this conifer component for species like the blackburnian warbler and white-tailed deer. Nesting woodland raptors need mature, forked hardwoods to build heavy stick nests. Other raptors such as Cooper’s hawks need mature conifers within hardwood stands for nesting. A steady supply of standing dead wood of varying size classes is necessary for cavity nesting birds such as the barred owl, pileated woodpecker, yellow-bellied sapsucker, black- capped chickadee and wood duck. These in turn help supplement woody debris on the forest floor that are important to a diverse array of species including insects, herpetiles, small mammals, marten, fisher and black bear.

Mast producing trees are integral to wildlife. Beech, oak and hazelnut provide hard mast rich in fats and proteins for wood duck, black bear, white-tailed deer, and flying squirrel. Dry seeds, catkins and samaras of ash, maple, elm, basswood, hop- hornbeam and birch are valued by birds. Fleshy fruits from cherry, mountain-ash, serviceberry, hawthorn, elderberry, holly and wild raisin are rich in carbohydrates and vitamins and are especially important and relished foods for many bird and mammal species. In the EUP Ecoregion, beech bark disease will change the composition of the northern hardwood forest community and a valuable source of hard mast for wildlife will be lost. It is unclear what will take the place of beech and what the subsequent response from wildlife may be. Ensuring that mast is provided in the northern hardwood ecosystem will be promoted by wildlife managers.

83 of 244 D R A F T Many Northern hardwood stands contain valuable microhabitats: Rapids clubtail is a rare dragonfly in the EUP Ecoregion that uses quiet water pools and cool rapid streams that flow through mesic northern forests. Vernal pools are integral to some life stages of woodland frogs and salamanders and need to be protected.

Aspen and White Birch

In the EUP Ecoregion, aspen, lowland aspen and birch make up approximately 10 percent of the landscape (see Figure 3.44), and 15 percent of all forested habitats. Seventy-five % is considered to be in fair to good condition and ~10% in excellent condition (MDNR Wildlife Action Plan, 2005). Aspen is an associate tree species in several natural communities; primarily mesic northern forest, dry-mesic northern forest, and dry northern forest, but is also found as a component of other communities. It is found on a wide range of sites, and its occurrence is usually due to some sort of historic disturbance. The intensive logging associated with European settlement greatly expanded this type from pre-European settlement times, by approximately 80%. Plants of special concern that occur in these communities in the EUP Ecoregion include sweet coltsfoot and rayless mountain ragwort. Animal species of concern include red-shouldered hawk, and northern goshawk.

Aspen is a valuable habitat component to a variety of wildlife. Forest gamebirds such as ruffed grouse and woodcock are strongly associated with this cover type. Ruffed grouse utilize aspen stands of all ages. Young stands are important brood habitat. Older stands are important over-wintering and breeding cover. A primary year-round food of grouse is aspen leaves and buds. The staminate flower buds of aspen are rich in proteins and an important nutritive source. Snow conditions in aspen stands provide burrowing cover which is important in some areas. Woodcock do well in young stands of aspen with high stem densities.

Ungulates such as moose and white-tailed deer heavily utilize the aspen type. In addition to the aspen itself, the shrub layer and herbaceous growth associated with this intolerant type are utilized by ungulates. Younger stands provide the most value, with the individual trees eventually growing out of reach. Aspen typically contains negligible amounts of conifer thermal cover for ungulates.

Snowshoe hare are found in aspen, particularly young stands where leaves, twigs, and tender bark provide food. Beaver are attracted for the same reasons, and use the branches for lodge construction. Black bear take advantage of aspen flower buds, and is an important food for a limited time, post denning.

Approximately 70 species of wildlife are associate with aspen and 68 species associated with birch (MIWild). Different species utilize various stages, with early developmental stages providing habitat for chestnut-sided and morning warbler, and late developmental stages providing habitat for red-eyed vireo and Connecticut warbler.

Dead and down trees in this type provide habitat for amphibians. Aspen is also an important tree for cavity development, benefiting both birds and mammals. Aspen stands often have understories that produce mast from beaked hazel, dogwood, and raspberry.

84 of 244 D R A F T White birch is an associate tree species in several natural communities including rich conifer swamp, boreal forest, and dry northern forest. The foliage, buds, seeds, bark, and wood of the white birch can all be consumed by various wildlife species. Foliage is browsed by white-tailed deer, snowshoe hare, and beaver. The inner bark of white birch is a preferred food of beaver. Buds and seeds are an important winter food source for small mammals and numerous birds including American goldfinch, pine siskin, northern junco, and ruffed grouse. Insects attracted to spring flowers are preyed upon by migrating warblers. In addition, the tree is a preferred target for the yellow-bellied sapsucker. Regenerating stands of birch and aspen are important sources of summer, fall, and winter browse for ungulates. Finally, like aspen, birch can be an important tree for cavity development in maturing stands. Wildlife management techniques and trends in aspen and birch include the variable retention of aspen and birch when final harvests occur, retaining mesic conifers within aspen stands, retaining and recruiting standing dead wood and down dead wood, protecting raptor nesting trees and wildlife den trees, and distributing age classes across the EUP landscape.

Eastern Hemlock

Eastern hemlock is a dominant or associate tree species in several natural communities including mesic northern forest, dry-mesic northern forest, and hardwood- conifer swamp. Species of special concern associated with hemlock in the EUP Ecoregion include pine-drops, red-shouldered hawk, and northern goshawk. Most of the mesic conifer, of which hemlock is a component, in the EUP is considered to be in fair or good condition (~80%). Much of the remaining areas are considered degraded (~15%). Mesic conifer natural communities are considered rare or uncommon in Michigan (MDNR Wildlife Action Plan, 2005). Research in the Grand Marais Glaciofluvial-Moraine Complex and the Seney Lake Plain subsections indicate that hemlock has declined approximately 70 percent from Circa 1800 (Zhang et al., 2000).

In Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 37 species of mammals, 20 species of reptiles and amphibians (Wydeven and Hays, 1995), and 31 species of birds (Howe and Mossman, 1995) have some stage of their life history associated with hemlock. Hemlock serves as an important source of thermal cover for white-tailed deer and moose. It also provides cover for porcupines, fisher, and marten, as well as nesting cavities for woodpeckers, flickers, and red squirrels. Hemlock can function as nesting cover for numerous bird species including blackburnian warbler, black-throated blue warbler and black-throated green warbler. Extensive tracts of dry-mesic northern forest provide habitat for large mammals such as moose, bears, and wolves. Hemlock is a long-lived species (600+ years), and individuals can be left as legacy trees to provide perches and cavities. Large mature trees eventually blow down, providing coarse woody debris on the forest floor which has value to foraging predators, amphibians, and forest regeneration.

Hemlock seeds, are eaten by a number of species including red crossbill, white-winged crossbill, pine siskin, chickadee, and red squirrel. White-tailed deer browse on lower branches and needles of young hemlock. Deer, snowshoe hare, and mice all feed on young hemlock adding to the challenges associated with regenerating this type.

Hemlock is expected to continue to receive significant attention with respect to restoration and enhancement. Wildlife management practices for restoring and

85 of 244 D R A F T enhancing hemlock include leaving all hemlock within northern hardwood stands, under planting hemlock where suitable, regenerating hemlock along the drip line of existing stands to expand them where possible, and retaining canopy closure of at least 80 percent to retain their snow intercept value. Retaining standing and laying dead wood, raptor nests and den trees, and retaining representation of all vegetative species within the hemlock ecosystem is desired.

Mackinac Mix

The Mackinac Mix is a colloquial term used by foresters and biologists to describe a forest type community in the St. Ignace Lake Plain Subsection. It is a community that is complex in geology, soils, vegetative structure and species composition. In this subsection, limestone is either at or close to the surface and soils are diverse ranging from sands that are excessively drained to poorly drained muck. This diversity of soil types along with management practices of the past has resulted in a true mosaic of forest tree species.

This community is primarily composed of trembling aspen, big-toothed aspen, balsam fir, spruce and white birch. Secondary species include sugar maple, hemlock, yellow birch, red maple, cedar and tamarack. As site quality increases, the composition of the community changes so that species that may occur secondarily in one stand under a set of ecological conditions, now occurs as a primary species under another set of ecological conditions. It is a unique vegetative mix that is complex to describe. Many wildlife species respond quite positively to this habitat type as it generally occurs as a part of a larger mosaic. Only those species that are restricted by normal range, patch size or those having narrow habitat requirements are not found here. The St. Ignace Lake Plain Subsection responds favorably to management designed for early successional species, aspen and birch in particular. Game species, white-tailed deer and ruffed grouse in particular, respond vigorously to habitat management here.

Wildlife management techniques and trends in this habitat type include maintaining aspen for game management, retaining representation of a diverse mix of vegetation, the retention of yellow birch and hemlock in particular within the type, and retaining and enhancing standing and laying dead wood, raptor nests and den trees.

Upland Coniferous Forest

This broad category includes white spruce, fir and pines of all types: jack, white, and red in both natural and planted pine types. Approximately 19 percent of the EUP Ecoregion is in Upland Coniferous Forest (Figure 3.44), accounting for 28 percent of all forested habitat. Natural communities include dry-mesic northern forest and dry northern forest in the EUP. The individual species mentioned below are also important components of other forest types providing structure and biodiversity values to the forest. Most of the dry conifer within the EUP is considered to be in fair or good condition (~75%) and some areas are considered in excellent condition (~10%). The remaining areas are considered degraded or very degraded (MDNR Wildlife Action Plan, 2005).

The majority of upland coniferous forest occurs in the Grand Marais Glaciofluvial Moraine Complex subsection that stretches across the northern third of the EUP. Large stands of naturally reproducing pines occur here. Artificial regeneration is

86 of 244 D R A F T employed where natural reproduction fails or to supplement natural regeneration. It would be desirable to increase the use of prescribed fires for regeneration in this subsection.

White Pine

White pine is a dominant or associate tree species in several natural communities including boreal forest, dry-mesic northern forest, dry northern forest, mesic northern forest, hardwood-conifer swamp, wooded dune and swale complex, poor conifer swamp, rich conifer swamp, relict conifer swamp, pine barrens, Great Lakes barrens, northern bald, bedrock glade and alvar. Several plants and animals of special concern occur in these communities including, purple clematis (state threatened), Canada rice- grass (state threatened), pine drops (state threatened), bald eagle (state threatened), and merlin (state threatened).

Fifty seven species of wildlife are associated with white pine of various developmental stages (MIWild). White pine trees can function as nesting cover for numerous bird species including pine siskin, red crossbill and white-winged crossbill. Extensive tracts of dry-mesic northern forest provide habitat for large mammals such as moose, bears, wolves and martens. This community provides summer nesting habitat for many neo- tropical migrants such as scarlet tanagers, black-throated green warblers and black- throated blue warbler. Trees are often windfirm and individuals can be left as legacy trees. Super canopy and legacy trees are often used by raptors as perches and are the preferred tree of choice for nesting bald eagles and osprey when they are located near bodies of water. Large mature trees with broken tops provide valuable habitat for cavity nesting wildlife. Fallen tops can provide cover for a variety of species, including snow-shoe hare. White pines have sturdy, creviced bark that black bear cubs can easily climb to escape danger and because of this are considered the preferred escape tree, female bears will take their cubs year after year to the same tree. In addition, black bears will make dens under the root mass of uprooted trees.

White pine, like other pine species, can be important habitat for winter migrants because of the energetic advantage provided by dense foliage. White pine forests provide dens for porcupines, marten and fisher; and nesting cavities for woodpeckers, flickers and flying squirrels. Mature stands of white pine may provide thermal protection in winter for many wildlife species, including white-tailed deer and spruce grouse. Thermal protection and protection from avian predators is provided by young trees where there are dense branches close to the ground for many wildlife species, such as ruffed and spruce grouse.

White pine seeds are eaten by a number of species including red crossbill, white- winged crossbill and migrant pine grosbeaks. Black-backed woodpecker (state special concern) could forage in this forest type when a significant component of standing dead trees is present. White-tailed deer browse on lower branches and needles of young white pine. Squirrels, chipmunks and mice feed on seeds and on the soft needles. These small mammals in turn attract woodland hawks and owls to white pine forests.

Wildlife management techniques and trends include retaining super canopy trees within stands, restoring white pine as a component of northern hardwood stands, retaining and enhancing standing and laying dead wood, raptor nests and den trees,

87 of 244 D R A F T and managing for a diverse suite of tree and herbaceous species in the pine ecosystem.

Jack Pine

Jack pine is a dominant or associate tree species in several natural communities including interdunal wetland, poor conifer swamp, boreal forest, dry northern forest, oak-pine barrens, pine barrens, and Great Lakes barrens. Several plants and animals of special concern occur in these communities in the EUP Ecoregion including Canada rice-grass (state threatened), Kirtland's warbler (federally endangered and state endangered), and prairie warbler (state endangered). Sixty six species of wildlife are associated with jack pine of various developmental stages (MIWild). Jack pine trees can function as nesting cover for numerous bird species including pine sisken and golden-crowned kinglet. Additionally, jack pine, like other pine species, can be important habitat for winter migrants because of the energetic advantage provided by dense foliage. Mature stands, in landscapes lacking significant lowland conifer, can function as important thermal cover for white-tailed deer as well. In addition, mature stands with significant standing dead trees can attract woodpeckers including the northern flicker and black-backed woodpecker. Jack pine seeds are eaten by a number of species including red crossbill, red squirrel, red- backed vole, and white-footed mouse. Further, needles are an important food source for the spruce grouse. Jack pine seedlings and annual growth may function as a fall and winter browse for ungulates and snowshoe hare. In the EUP, jack pine is highly associated with blueberry species. In good berry production years, these sites can be important sources of food for black bear and other soft mast foragers.

In the Seney outwash plains sub-section, where water tables are close to the surface and jack pine forest occurs in large blocks, particularly in northern Schoolcraft County, unique habitat exists for rare plant communities including a species of spike rush that is only known from this location in the State. Management activities in these floristically unique areas need to take the conservation of these rare plants into account when developing a harvesting strategy.

Wildlife techniques and trends managing the jack pine resource include managing jack pine in increased patch size of at least 100 acres on suitable sites, variable retention of red pine and white pine at low densities within stands and along the edges of stands, the retention of snags and large woody debris and using prescribed fire as the preferred method of regeneration.

Red Pine

Red pine is a dominant or associate tree species in several natural communities including boreal forest dry-mesic northern forest, dry northern forest, pine barrens, Great Lakes barrens, and bedrock glade. A few plants and animals of special concern occur in these communities in the EUP Ecoregion including Canada rice-grass (state threatened).

Fifty four species of wildlife are associated with the red pine forest (MIWild). Red pine trees can function as nesting cover for numerous bird species including pine sisken, yellow-rumped warbler and pine warbler. Additionally, red pine, like other pine species, can be important habitat for winter migrants because of the energetic advantage

88 of 244 D R A F T provided by dense foliage. Red pine seeds are eaten by a number of species including red crossbill, migrant pine grosbeaks, and red squirrel. Super canopy and legacy trees can be used by raptors as perches or occasionally as nesting sites.

Red pine in the Grand Marais Glaciofluvial Moraine Complex subsection in northern Luce, Chippewa, and Alger Counties are of natural reproduction origin. Numerous studies have shown that wildlife species in general tend to prefer stands of naturally reproduced red pine over plantations. Some of this preference can be explained by the differences in stand structure between the two. Natural red pine forests tend to have more vertical and horizontal structure, more vegetative diversity, and a mosaic of habitat patches. Planted red pine stands tend to be more of a monoculture with low vegetative species diversity. Planted red pine in the EUP is relatively uncommon on State Land, and primarily occur in West Mackinac and Schoolcraft Counties in the St. Ignace Lake Plain.

Wildlife Management practices for red pine in the EUP Ecoregion include the use of prescribed fire to regenerate the type, variable retention of pine and other species within stands, retaining raptor nesting trees and wildlife den trees, and retaining and restoring snags and large woody debris in pine forests.

White Spruce/ Balsam Fir

White spruce/balsam fir is a forest type usually associated with the boreal forest community, but can also be found in the dry-mesic, and mesic northern forest communities. Plants of special concern include small-flowered woodrush and where this type is within the influence zone of the great lakes, a variety of orchids may occur. One rare raptor, the merlin (state threatened) occurs in this forest type. Eighty eight species of wildlife are associated with this mixed upland conifer community.

Upland spruce/fir is beneficial to both “edge” and “interior” wildlife species. Edge species such as white-tailed deer and snowshoe hare are usually associated with young stands, although they often use older stands for protection from weather and predators. Interior species such as marten and warblers use mature stands for most of their habitat needs. While not as beneficial as northern white cedar and eastern hemlock as thermal cover for ungulates, it does have value. As a result, species such as moose and deer use it in winter, and fisher, lynx, and marten use it as travel lanes. During summer months balsam fir stands provide shade that cools deer, moose and bear. Moose commonly rest in fir stands near wetlands where they feed. Birds using fir for nesting include warblers such as cape may, blackpoll, and blackburnian. Species such as marten, hare, songbirds, and deer use fir for protection from predators.

Many wildlife species feed on balsam fir, but only a few use it to much extent. Fir needles and buds are utilized by spruce grouse. Fir browse may form up to 30% of the fall and winter diet of moose. Fir stands attacked by spruce budworm attract many insect-eating birds, especially cape may, black-throated green, and blackburnian warblers, as well as the black-backed three-toed woodpecker. Woodpeckers also produce cavities that are used by various wildlife species. After harvest, slash supports insects eaten by birds such as slate-colored junco and winter wren.

Wildlife practices include maintaining a mix of species within spruce and fir forests to maintain biodiversity, the variable retention of green patches in final harvest areas,

89 of 244 D R A F T retaining raptor nesting trees and wildlife den trees, and retaining and restoring snags and large woody debris.

Lowland Coniferous Forest

This broad classification includes tamarack, cedar, black spruce, lowland fir, lowland pine and hemlock. This forest community makes up approximately 18 percent of the EUP Ecoregion, 27 percent of all forested habitat (Figure 3.44) and is very important to wildlife. About half of the lowland conifer in the EUP is considered to be in fair or good condition and the remaining half is considered degraded or very degraded. Some lowland conifer natural communities are classified as rare or uncommon in the State (MDNR Wildlife Action Plan, 2005).

Northern White Cedar

Northern white cedar is a dominant or associate tree species in several natural communities including rich conifer swamp, poor conifer swamp, relict conifer swamp, hardwood conifer swamp, boreal forest, mesic northern forest, cobble beach, and alvar glade. Several plants and animals of concern occur in these communities including calypso orchid (state threatened), limestone oak fern (state threatened), ram’s head orchid (state special concern), black crowberry (state threatened), red-shouldered hawk (state threatened), eastern massasauga (state special concern), and Hine’s emerald dragonfly (state endangered). Rich conifer swamp provides habitat for sixteen rare plant and fifteen rare animal species.

Studies in the east central Upper Peninsula identified eighty four wildlife species using developmental stages of the northern white cedar community (Doepker and Ozoga, 1990). Thirty nine species used regenerating, 45 young, 62 mature and 64 old developmental stages of northern white cedar. More permanent wildlife residents were associated with mature and old stages than with the regenerating or young stages. Mature and old developmental stages support more potential bird species than young stages, due to vegetation structure being more complex both vertically and horizontally. The presence and abundance of snags and dead and downed woody material, found in greater abundance in more mature stands, are important habitat features influencing wildlife habitat suitability.

Northern white-cedar provides food and shelter for wildlife. Pileated woodpeckers feed on carpenter ants that nest in and feed on the heartwood of northern white-cedar. Other birds that are especially abundant in northern white-cedar forests include white- throated sparrow, golden-crowned kinglet, yellow-bellied flycatcher, ovenbird, redpoll, pine siskin, northern parula, winter wren, Swainson's thrush, and numerous wood warblers. Blackburnian warbler, Cape May warbler, ovenbird, and golden-crowned kinglet breed in the densest stands. White-tailed deer, snowshoe hares, and porcupines heavily browse the foliage.

With the onset of winter, northern white cedar is a preferred habitat for resident wildlife species. Snowshoe hare, bobcat, gray wolf, and white-tailed deer all intensify their use of cedar during the winter months. Small mammals found in abundance in mature, cedar dominated communities include masked shrew, red-backed vole, short-tailed shrew and meadow vole. These and other small mammals form the prey base for carnivores such as ermine, long-tailed weasel, marten, and fisher. Northern white

90 of 244 D R A F T cedar is a preferred species in deeryards because it provides excellent protection from snow and wind, and is the only browse species that, by itself, will maintain deer over winter in good health. Dense mature stands exhibit narrow thermal ranges, warm average temperatures, low wind flow, and diminished hazardous conditions. High quality deer wintering areas are characterized by having approximately 50% of the landscape in productive, mature or over-mature, well-stocked (100 square feet of basal area) coniferous stands. Shelter requirements for deer may vary considerably dependent on the magnitude of winter weather severity and the quality and quantity of food available. Wildlife management practices include retaining 80-100% canopy closure within identified deer wintering areas, retaining cedar as a component of mixed stands, regenerating the cedar resource where possible including the use of prescribed fire, and promoting and retaining snags and dead wood on the forest floor. A recent DNR initiative to conserve “critical” lands in deer wintering complexes in the Upper Peninsula is underway through the direct acquisition, conservation partnerships and easements of habitat.

Black Spruce/Tamarack Forest

Black spruce and tamarack are dominant or associate tree species in several natural communities in the EUP Ecoregion including poor conifer swamp, hardwood conifer swamp, and rich conifer swamp. Species of concern using these communities include moose (Special Concern), spruce grouse (Special Concern), northern goshawk (Special Concern), wolf (Federal and State Threatened), and calypso orchid (Special Concern).

Fifty three species of wildlife are associated with black spruce dominated forests (MIWild). Black spruce occasionally grows in pure stands, but often is found growing together with tamarack. These forests have a continuous canopy of densely grown trees. Besides mosses, few understory plants grow under their shade. This forest type provides excellent cover for white-tailed deer, moose and their associated predators in winter months.

Pure tamarack forests have a loose canopy cover, due to their more sparse foliage. Forty three species of wildlife are associated with stands dominated by tamarack. Both forests are characterized by a thick layer of sphagnum and feather mosses and wisps of old man’s beard lichen draping from branches, in which the northern parula warbler conceals its nest.

Spruce grouse feed on conifer needles and the tough, leathery leaves of heath plants. Warblers, kinglets, chickadees and squirrels utilize the tiny seeds of spruce cones and the three-toed woodpecker specializes in eating insect larvae in rotted trees. Black bear focus on feeding on the grasses that green up early in this community when emerging from their dens. Small mammals, including the southern bog lemming, burrow into the thick sphagnum and in turn provide a source of energy for predators such as owls, hawks and American marten.

Wildlife management practices include the maintenance of canopy closure within “critical” deer wintering areas, maintaining spruce and tamarack across the landscape, and retention and enhancement of snags and large woody debris.

91 of 244 D R A F T 3.3.2 Upland Open-land and Shrub-land Habitats

Approximately 10 percent of the EUP Ecoregion is Upland Open-land and Shrub-land habitat (Figure 3.43). Over 100 vertebrate animal species, and over 50 rare plant species, utilize the various open-land ecosystems in the EUP Ecoregion (MDNR et. al, 2000). Resource managers have attempted to maintain viable populations of several open-land species through habitat maintenance activities in and around large opening complexes. This is a minority land cover type in the Ecoregion, though important to many species of wildlife. Early in the settlement of the EUP in the mid 1800’s, logging and wildfire created large areas of open-land habitat. Wildlife species in these habitats experienced rapid population growth as forests returned to an early stage of succession and species associated with grassland habitats moved in. After the turn of the 20th century, fire suppression, plant succession, reforestation and urban expansion have gradually reduced the amount of open-land habitat available to wildlife. As a result, some populations of open-land species have experienced population declines that are still evident today.

Because there is a need for habitat recommendations to be considered in future integrated ecosystem planning efforts the “Conservation Strategy for Large Open-lands and Associated Wildlife in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan” was drafted in June of 2000 as a cooperative effort between the DNR , Hiawatha National Forest, U.S.D.A Natural Resources Conservation Service in Sault Ste. Marie, the USFWS Seney National Wildlife Refuge, MNFI, Michigan Technological University and the Michigan Sharp-tailed Grouse Association.

The strategy promotes the use of a coarse filter approach to maintain an open-land system large enough to support viable populations of as many native species in the EUP as possible, by selecting the highest priority habitats and species to protect through interdisciplinary planning at multiple spatial scales. Management recommendations are based on the ecological potential of the land and include practices that maintain ecosystem integrity and biological diversity.

The EUP has been a largely forested landscape for thousands of years and has one of the most species-rich bird communities in North America, including many species of the forest interior. Management of open-lands is best done within this context, and the EUP should perhaps not be considered a major reservoir of open-land species. However, the EUP does support many open-land species, and recent declines in Michigan’s grassland and shrub/early successional birds are of considerable priority for conservation and need to be considered across the ecoregion (MDNR et. al, 2000).

Forage Crops/non-tilled Agriculture

This habitat type is approximately three percent of all lands in the EUP and approximately 30 percent of the open-lands in the EUP (Figure 3.45). Forage Crops/non-tilled agriculture is composed primarily of hayfields and pasture. The Rudyard Silty Lake Plain Subsection in northeastern Chippewa County accounts for the most extensive open-land in the Upper Peninsula today, and is predominantly in private ownership. Most of the hayland in the EUP is considered to be in fair or good condition as wildlife habitat (~60%) and about 20% is considered in excellent condition.

92 of 244 D R A F T The remaining areas are considered degraded or very degraded (MDNR Wildlife Action Plan, 2005).

Figure 3.45 Major EUP Open-Land Habitats

30% 30% Forage crops/non-tilled agriculture Herbaceous Openland

Upland shrub/low density trees

40%

Species of concern using this habitat type include short-eared owl (State endangered), northern harrier (special concern), and sharp-tailed grouse (special concern). Other species of note in this community type include northern irruptive species such as snowy owl, rough-legged hawk, and hoary redpolls migrating south in search of food. Extensive hayfields in the town of Rudyard in Chippewa County is a reliable spot for birders to view irruptive owl species. Fifty two species of wildlife have been documented using this habitat type (MIWild).

Wildlife management techniques and trends include promoting State and Federal programs designed to conserve grassland habitat, delaying mowing until after the primary nesting season (after July 15), and planting a mixture of plant species instead of fields dominated by one species. Some trends in landownership in the EUP are the succession of agricultural lands to upland shrub and young forested communities and the conversion of agricultural lands to urban development.

Herbaceous Open-land

Herbaceous open-lands make up approximately four percent of the EUP, and 30 percent of the open-land communities in the EUP. Associated natural community types in the EUP Ecoregion include Great Lakes barrens and pine barrens. Species of concern occurring in herbaceous open-land communities include sharp-tailed grouse (special concern), merlin (state threatened), Kirtland’s warbler (Federal and State endangered), birdfoot violet (state threatened), and Hill’s thistle (special concern).

Herbaceous open-lands are dominated by cool and warm season grasses that may have scattered isolated trees or shrubs. The primary tree species are generally fire- adapted species such as jack pine and red pine. Common shrubs include pin cherry and juneberry or sugarplum. Herbaceous and low shrub vegetation includes Pennsylvania sedge, grasses, sweet fern, blueberry and bracken fern. On sites where severe fires have altered soil characteristics, stump fields exist and herbaceous growth with few scattered trees produce a savanna like system. Some of this type is also

93 of 244 D R A F T highly disturbed and dominated by exotic invasive plants; the area known as the “Bullock Ranch” in Schoolcraft County along the “Seney stretch” is an example of a degraded open-land community. Herbaceous open-lands are used by at least 76 wildlife species including white-tailed deer, black bear, coyote, upland sandpiper, savannah sparrow, eastern bluebird, common nighthawk, and brown thrasher (MIWild).

Wildlife techniques and trends in managing this habitat type include maintaining the structure and function of historic open-lands, determining where openings should be maintained or created to meet specific management objectives, promoting prescribed fire to restore and maintain native plant and animal communities, and the control of exotic invasive plant species.

Nearly half of herbaceous open-lands and the upland shrub/ low density trees type in the EUP are considered to be in fair condition, ~25% in good condition and ~25% in degraded condition (MDNR Wildlife Action Plan 2005).

Upland Shrub/low density trees

Approximately three percent of the entire EUP Ecoregion is in this habitat type or 40 percent of all open-land communities. It is dominated by sweet fern, blueberry and various upland shrubs to having densities of coniferous, deciduous or both types of trees that is less than 60 percent canopy closure. Young regenerating pine is also classified in this category on the IFMAP imagery. Pine Barrens and Great Lakes barrens are the natural communities associated with this habitat type in the EUP.

Species using this type include Kirtland’s warbler (federally endangered), sharp-tailed grouse (special concern), upland sandpiper, bluebird, white-tailed deer, western fox snake, common nighthawk and prairie warbler. Approximately 100 species of wildlife have been documented in this community type (MIWild).

They can be generally described as having an overstory dominated by jack pine in low densities on xeric, sandy soils. In more mesic sites, red pine and white pine can also be found. On sites where severe fires have altered soil characteristics stump fields exist and herbaceous shrubby growth with a few scattered trees. If left alone, many of these sites over time will rebuild soil layers and eventually be restored to their original forest type prior to being logged. This habitat type is largely maintained by fire, without which the canopy closes and succession to forest will occur.

Wildlife management practice in this habitat type include maintaining the structure and function of historic open-lands; the establishment of very large blocks of temporary openings or clearcuts when harvesting jack pine; determining where openings should be maintained or created to meet specific management objectives; determining where openings that historically supported forest vegetation will be allowed to succeed; promoting prescribed fire to restore and maintain native plant and animal communities; and the control of exotic invasive plant species.

3.3.3 Wetland Habitats

Wetlands are some of the most productive environments for a wide variety of wildlife species. Wildlife habitat values associated with wetlands are generally best conserved

94 of 244 D R A F T or enhanced by maintaining or restoring the natural hydrological regimes of wetland communities, and maintaining or enhancing structural characteristics when managing forested wetland habitats. Non-forested wetlands are some of the least managed vegetation types on State Lands in the EUP, except where they were created by the damming of streams and are managed as wildlife floodings.

The Eastern Upper Peninsula (EUP) Ecoregion is characterized by a relatively flat topography, with large expanses of open peatlands and forested lowland swamps. Including those forested wetland communities (as mentioned previously in Forested habitats) the EUP is approximately 43 percent wetland (Figure 3.46). The vast majority of wetlands fall within the Seney Lake Plain Subsection (especially those that are non- forested) and the St. Ignace Lake Plain Subsection.

Figure 3.46 EUP Wetland and Upland Habitat Categories

20%

Upland Forest 47% Upland Openland Habitat Forested Wetland

23% Non-Forested Wetland

10%

Of that 43 percent, approximately 20 percent are non-forested wetlands further divided into two major categories- Lowland shrub and a catch-all category of mixed non- forested wetland.

Lowland Shrub

This habitat type includes bog, treed bog, fen and shrub-carr vegetation types. Associated Natural communities include: bog, intermittent wetland, muskeg, northern fen, patterned fen, poor fen and northern wet meadow. Lowland shrub accounts for approximately 11 percent of the entire EUP Ecoregion and 55 percent of non-forested wetland communities (Figure 3.47). Much of this habitat type is in State and Federal ownership in the EUP acquired through tax reversion (as has most public lands), and through the recognition of unique habitat- especially in the case of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge (SNWR).

95 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.47 Major EUP Wetland Habitat Categories

Lowland Shrub 45%

55% Mixed Non-forested Wetland

These vegetative communities can be quite biologically diverse and support a suite of rare species. Species of concern utilizing these types in the EUP include moose (Special Concern), gray wolf (Federal and State Threatened), bald eagle (Federal and State Threatened), Osprey (Federal and State Threatened), yellow rail (State Threatened) Hine’s emerald dragonfly (Federal and State Endangered), ebony bog- haunter (Special Concern), dwarf raspberry (State Endangered), slender spike-rush (State Endangered) and New England sedge (State Threatened). Approximately 50 species of wildlife use these vegetative communities (MIWild).

Open bogs, sedge meadows, fens, shrub swamps and marsh communities typically occur in large patch sizes contribute significantly to open-land habitat in the EUP. Some species that use upland opening complexes also will use open wetland communities, notably sharp-tailed grouse and LeConte’s sparrow.

Large numbers of black bears have been noted, particularly over SNWR, in sedge dominated communities digging up and eating clumps of sedge in early spring. These may be one of the few food resources available to bears as they emerge from their hibernacula. Likewise, white-tailed deer utilize this food resource as it greens up prior to many other plants.

Much of the lowland shrub in the EUP is considered to be in fair to good condition (65%), the remaining areas are considered degraded or very degraded (MNDR Wildlife Action Plan, 2005).

Wildlife management practices in this habitat type include the restoration and maintenance of natural wetland hydrology, supporting restoration of wetlands on private lands through State and Federal grants, limiting fragmentation of large wetland complexes, minimizing intrusive activities, controlling invasive plant species, buffering management activities adjacent to wetlands, and the maintenance of wildlife floodings and the Munuscong Wildlife Area for the restoration and management of wild birds and mammals and their associated recreation values.

96 of 244 D R A F T Mixed Non-Forested Wetland

This is a “catch-all” category of wetlands in the IFMAP land cover dataset. Many wetlands in the EUP are vegetatively diverse and so it is difficult for remotely sensed data to fix a signature on this type of community, which accounts for approximately 9 percent of the EUP Ecoregion, and 45 percent of the non-forested wetland category (Figure 3.47). Associated natural communities may include interdunal wetland, intermittent wetland, great lakes marsh, bog, muskeg, patterned fen, poor fen, northern fen, and northern wet meadow. Species of concern using this habitat type include moose (special concern), yellow rail (State threatened), northern harrier (special concern), and dwarf raspberry (State endangered).

This classification type is a mix of alder, willow, emergent marsh vegetation and bog all closely interspersed. It can be generally characterized as having high water tables and being wet most times of the year. Vegetative diversity generally leads to wildlife diversity and this is a good example of that condition, as approximately 80 species of wildlife use these wetland types (MIWild).

Redpolls and chickadee’s pry seeds from alder catkins, warblers and flycatchers glean insects among alder and willow. White-tailed deer, moose, and snow-shoe hare browse on willow and dogwood. Bobcats pursue snow-shoe hare in these communities. American woodcock utilize this type for foraging, especially as it occurs in close proximity to an opening that can be used for their aerial courtship display.

Wildlife techniques and trends for habitat management include the maintenance and restoration of natural hydrology, minimizing intrusive activities, controlling invasive plant species, and buffering management activities adjacent to wetlands.

3.3.4 Wildlife Population Trends for Key Species in the EUP

Population data for wildlife species in the EUP is limited to a few species of special interest. It is desirable to have population information for more species in the future, and indeed possible with cooperation from interested partners. The Breeding Bird Atlas data will soon be available to compare trends in resident birds in a few years to the data published in 1991 and will be reflected in the update of the plan in a few years time. The following population information is for species that the DNR and the public have had a long standing interest in.

Ruffed Grouse

Ruffed Grouse population trends are monitored through the use of drumming route index. The DNR along with partners, including the Seney National Wildlife Refuge and the Hiawatha National Forest, has conducted 14 ruffed grouse drumming survey routes since 1991. Consistent with common knowledge, the EUP ruffed grouse population has been cyclical with population lows occurring during mid-decade years. The most recent peak and valley appear to have occurred in 2000 and 2005 respectively. The 2006 data indicate that the population potentially is beginning the assent portion of the cycle.

97 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.48 Annual Ruffed Grouse Drums Heard per Sample Point

Annual Ruffed Grouse Drums Heard per Sample Point

2.50

2.00 1.50

1.00

0.50 0.00 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Sharp-tailed Grouse

Since 1999, the DNR has worked cooperatively with the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Hiawatha National Forest, Sharp-tailed Grouse Association, and private citizens to monitor sharp-tailed grouse activity at known leks across the EUP. Due to their dynamic nature and mobility between leks, it is difficult to accurately monitor population trends. However, by examining a couple of indices, it appears that the population has remained relatively stable over the past seven years. Lek occupancy rates have oscillated between 73% and 86%. Meanwhile, with the exception of 2005, the number of birds per occupied lek has remained steady at about10 birds/lek.

Figure 3.49 Lek Survey Results

% of Leks Occupied Lek Survey Results 1 15 0.8

0.6 10

0.4 5 0.2 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Birds/Lek Birds/Occupied Lek

Woodcock

The DNR Working in partnership with the US Fish and Wildlife Service along with the Hiawatha National Forest, and the Seney National Wildlife Refuge conduct approximately 14 woodcock peenting survey routes each year. Contrary to the State- wide and flyway trends, data from these routes suggest woodcock have been generally

98 of 244 D R A F T increasing in the EUP since 1991. The 2006 peenting count was nearly 50% higher than that of 1991. Figure 3.50 Woodcock Heard per Route

Woodcock Heard per Route

10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

White-tailed Deer

Over the past 16 years, two systems have been utilized to develop white-tailed deer population estimates. Pellet/dead deer surveys were utilized throughout the 1990s. In 2001 the DNR shifted to the Sex-Age-Kill population modeling method. These data indicate that the deer population increased nearly 150% from approximately 83,000 animals in 1990 to nearly 207,000 animals in 1995. Two consecutive harsh winters in 1996 and 1997 resulted in reducing the herd down to about 106,000 deer. Subsequently, mild winters facilitated a rebound to an estimated 151,000 animals in 2000. In 2001, another harsh winter produced in a 30% reduction in the estimated deer herd. Over the past five years, the herd has continued a slightly downward trend with the projected 2006 population levels at less than 100,000 animals.

Figure 3.51 EUP Estimated Deer Population Level

EUP Estimated Deer Population Level

200000

150000

100000

50000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

99 of 244 D R A F T

Moose

The only monitoring efforts currently being employed for moose are based upon citizen sighting reports. Population estimates and trends cannot be derived from these data. However, using the location data from the citizen reports, it is clear that the majority of moose activity occurs between Ekerman and Shingleton, north of M-28.

Beaver

Beaver population numbers for the EUP are unknown. However, since beaver are a harvested species, we can index harvest to gauge potential changes in the population. Data analysis has focused on statewide evaluations thus, regional data does not exist. Statewide beaver harvest has fluctuated moderately about an approximate mean of 30,000 annually since 1980. Harvest peaked in 1996 at approximately 90,000 but has averaged 38,000 since that time.

3.5 - Water and Fisheries Conditions and Trends

General Trends Over Time

Fisheries Management is a very young science. During the first half of the 20th century, biologists spent their time documenting fish communities across the state and often fish stocking efforts were made to initiate or supplement a desired game fish species. Biologists also eradicated existing species in some small lakes through the use of chemicals and subsequently stocked them with desirable fish in order to change them into single-species trout fisheries. Not much else was done for active management, as evidenced by a common phrase of the time, “A bucket of rotenone and a bucket of fish.”

Through the 1960s, small streams were often dammed to produce trout ponds. In the 1970s, biologists began manually removing certain fish species with nets to benefit fish community balance. For example, a large percentage of a stunted sport-fish population would be removed to allow the remaining members to grow faster. Also, certain “rough” fish species (e.g. suckers, bullheads) would be removed when their populations became so large that they began degrading the rest of the fish community.

During the 1980s, biologists experimented with modifying habitat to produce or enhance critical areas linked to survival of a desired species. The majority of projects involved placing rock along windswept lake shorelines to increase and enhance walleye spawning habitat. The 1990s witnessed a decline in spawning reef installation, continued manual removal efforts, and increased effort to not only stabilize eroding stream banks but to enhance the stream habitat for various purposes including natural reproduction and creating cover for juvenile and adult fishes.

Most Recent Trends

Biologists are becoming more involved in region wide and statewide planning in addition to developing waterbody specific management plans. The Ecoregional planning process is a good example of this trend. Even so, unit biologists’ primary responsibility remains that of providing diverse, sustainable fisheries for the angling public. If habitat conditions and water fertility allow, undesirable fish communities in lakes can be modified in order to provide an

100 of 244 D R A F T acceptable fishery. To modify the fish community, there are several management tools available. Managers can stock a new species to correct unbalanced predator to prey ratios, change the size of a currently stocked fish species, control undesirable competing species, or to simply provide a new or enhanced angling experience. Aquatic habitat manipulations are also a major management tool. For example, stream habitat enhancement techniques have been developed that re-position sand deposits to promote localized scouring of the stream bed. This technique improves spawning habitat and creates fish-holding pools in the streams. In addition, biologists can either implement new or modify existing harvest regulations to reach the management goal. Biologists still occasionally conduct some chemical reclamation treatments and re-stocking efforts. However, because of adverse public opinion and the cost of chemicals, less emphasis is now placed on chemical reclamation work, with more emphasis on modifying the fish community structure through the less invasive techniques as mentioned above. Native species management in general is also supplanting the use of species not native to the region.

In many cases, habitat protection, enhancement, or restoration are now given equal consideration with fish stocking programs. For that reason, biologists now generally let the aquatic ecosystem determine which game fish will be managed in a given water body.

New survey tools have resulted in better definition of fish communities and their habitats. For example, Fisheries Division recently implemented a statewide, standardized, aquatic community and habitat survey protocol. The standardization and use of a wider range of survey gear on each water body gives a more realistic picture. In addition to the traditional fish sampling methods, survey gear now also includes gear to sample non-game fish, habitat description and vertical temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH profiles, plus chlorophyll samples for an indication of fertility and primary productivity. The greater definition of the water body resulting from these surveys allows better understanding of the lake ecosystem and fish community dynamics. Resulting fisheries management will therefore be more science-based and will produce more long-term fish community stability in those waters. Data from those surveys are collated into a state-wide database. Filtering and trend analyses of that large database can lead to proactive regulations designed to optimize fishing opportunity while protecting native species and promoting sustainability.

Current Management Philosophy

Fisheries Division works in partnership with many regional special interest angling groups such as Trout Unlimited, Pike Hunters, Bass clubs, and Muskies Unlimited as well as various local special interest groups. All entities want their special interest fishery managed as the highest priority. In some instances, that management is acceptable, but it cannot occur in all instances due to constraints of DNR staff time, funding issues, or other factors. Although trying to cater to these groups in certain circumstances, fisheries biologists are in actuality environmental managers whose primary focus must be the health of the aquatic community. The management philosophy in multi-species lakes is to maintain a stable fish community balance in terms of species diversity, relative abundance, growth rates, average sizes and natural reproduction, while concurrently providing an angler-acceptable fishery. In that context, biologists use stocking, harvest regulations, and habitat protection and restoration as their main tools.

Fish are stocked for many reasons and, as such, stocking is highly controversial. Although fish stocking is a useful management tool and some fisheries would not exist without it, stocking will not always provide optimum or even desirable results. Artificial stocking

101 of 244 D R A F T generally does not take into consideration available forage. For that reason, fish may be stocked into a lake that does not have the forage base to support the stocked fish in combination with naturally reproduced fish. In this scenario, the lake may lose a whole year- class of the affected species. If that situation occurs consistently, then the entire fish community will suffer from lack of survival and slower growth due to forced changes in diet. In contrast, natural reproduction combined with adequate spawning habitat in general has the capability of filling whatever niche is available to that species. Thus, natural reproduction will always be more responsive to fluctuations in forage population abundance. Dr. R.C. Ball, retired from MSU, explained the role of fish management, “Fisheries managers have to take care of the habitat, and then the fish will generally take care of themselves.”

While stocking fish is not always an appropriate tool to manage a fishery, biologists often implement or modify harvest regulations to meet management goals. Active management through harvest regulations can affect modest changes in fish community structure. However, the 1990’s saw a strong attempt to produce uniform regulations statewide, with minimal special regulations for unique situations. Some of the unique situation regulations include trophy fisheries. Another is the liberal creel regulations for waters with stunted pike. Simplification of the Fishing Guide is a noble goal, but by necessity it reduces specific management capability. For example, the regulations must be conservative enough to protect all of the sensitive fish populations statewide, such that some thriving populations remain under-utilized. In addition, regulations cannot change quickly enough to protect a unique fishery that is suddenly in jeopardy due to unforeseen events. Finally, no regulation can offset the loss of critical habitat in a waterbody. If a fish species cannot survive long enough to spawn, or find enough food to maintain average or above growth rates, then the regulation will have little effect on that specific population.

Fisheries Division currently works very closely with internal, multiple-disciplinary resource management teams and external, governmental and non-governmental, stakeholders to more proactively protect aquatic resources and habitats. Some examples include: implementation of Divisional habitat management polices; representation on the EUP Ecoteam; state forest management unit compartment reviews; DEQ permitting and bio- monitoring processes, implementation of state forest work instructions; coordination of management activities with other Upper Great Lakes states, Canada, Chippewa Tribes, Hiawatha National Forest, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services, local conservation districts and watershed associations, Lake Superior State University, Northern Michigan University, and organized angling groups (e.g., Two-Heart Chapter of Trout Unlimited).

Current EUP Water Conditions

The Eastern Upper Peninsula (EUP) generally contains three types of lakes, coolwater, coldwater and low pH. The coolwater lakes are larger, generally ranging from about 100 to 10,120 acres. Dominant species include yellow perch, northern pike, smallmouth bass and walleye. In general, the lakes are in the northern limits for bluegill, pumpkinseed, black crappie, largemouth bass, and muskellunge. Coldwater lakes are smaller and generally somewhat deeper. Many of them support trout populations (and are often stocked). In addition, several small DNR-owned artificial impoundments generally are managed for trout fisheries. Low pH lakes are generally found close to the Lake Superior shoreline. Several lakes are too acidic to support any fish species, while others support truncated species diversity. Experimental attempts were previously made to increase the pH in several lakes,

102 of 244 D R A F T none of which provided a lasting change. As a result, current management options for those lakes are to stock brook trout, which are tolerant of low pH, or do nothing at all.

Most streams in the EUP are small, with sand or mud substrate, and bordered with tag alder. Although most streams are classified as trout streams, they are difficult to access and almost impossible to fly-fish. Despite the fact that they support small natural populations of brook trout, very few non-residents know how or where to fish them. Even so, some of the smaller trout streams are well-known and receive considerable angling pressure. In general, however, the few larger, swifter, hard-bottomed rivers are subject to significant angling pressure. Streams supporting sport fisheries in the Upper Peninsula are almost completely trout and salmon waters, and almost all are sustained by natural reproduction. Several popular trout fisheries began declining during the 1970s, as greatly increased sand bedload smothered spawning habitat, filled deeper holding water, and almost destroyed the aquatic insect forage base. Insects and periphyton cannot colonize the constantly shifting sand particles. Although Fisheries Division stocked trout in the 1980s and 1990s to supplement the reduced natural reproduction, emphasis is now shifting to stream enhancement. The work entails adjustment of in-stream large woody material to protect raw eroding banks, scour deeper holding waters, scour sand off gravel spawning areas, and re- deposit sand into backwater areas. We also currently maintain sand traps in select rivers to manually remove as much sand as possible.

Current Inland EUP Fish Species Conditions

Brook Trout. Brook trout inhabit cold, clear, headwater spring ponds, springs, and spring- fed streams. They have been successfully stocked into small, deep, cold lakes and ponds, as well as in artificial in-stream impoundments. Brook trout generally require well oxygenated water with temperatures less than about 70 degrees F. They commonly associate with bottom types of mud, silt, sand, and gravel. In the EUP, brook trout populations exist in 153 acres of lakes and ponds, and in 504 miles of stream. This is the most common trout species in inland waters of the EUP. Water temperature, stream discharge volume and areas of groundwater expression (i.e., springs and upwellings) are key habitat features.

Brown Trout. Brown trout are also common to cold water streams. However, it is often found in waters that are too warm and turbid for brook trout. In many instances, such as the Sage and Hendrie river systems, brook trout will be found in the colder headwater streams, while brown trout will be found in the warmer, slower, and more turbid downstream reaches. Substrate types brown trout can be found over include mud, sand, silt, gravel, and rubble. Brown trout are not common in the EUP and are not found in any lakes or ponds. Brown trout were previously stocked in the Sage and Hendrie Rivers, and continue to be stocked in the Carp, Tahquamenon, and Indian rivers. Fishable populations may be found in approximately 97 miles of stream and river habitat.

Rainbow Trout. Rainbow trout, unlike brook trout or brown trout, prefer faster, high- gradient, stretches of cold streams and rivers. That characteristic, however, is generally lacking in the EUP. Rainbows, also take well to cold, soft-water, deep inland lakes. For that reason, the DNR manages several small, deep lakes as rainbow trout fisheries. Excellent rainbow trout fisheries exist in 137 acres of lakes and ponds.

103 of 244 D R A F T Steelhead. Steelhead are migratory rainbow trout, and unlike the other Pacific salmon, are a longer-lived species capable of migrating back into the Great Lakes after spawning. Steelhead can spawn multiple times, often returning in later years to the natal streams. EUP steelhead fisheries are generally found in the larger Great Lakes tributaries, such as the Two Hearted, Carp, and Manistique Rivers, and the St. Marys River Rapids. Although they can be found in several smaller, quieter streams, and their young are abundant in those streams, the returning adults are not present in large enough numbers to support significant angling pressure. Excellent steelhead fishing can be found in the St. Marys River Rapids, which is considered a world-class fishery. Steelhead are present in 249 miles of Great Lakes streams.

Smallmouth Bass. Smallmouth bass are particularly well suited for the EUP climate. They are common in the Manistique, Tahquamenon, Millecoquins and St. Marys Rivers, as well as in large, clear-water lakes. They are found most frequently in clear to slightly turbid, shallow water, over substrates of sand, gravel, rubble, and boulders. In lakes, smallmouth bass seek out rock ledges and rocky bottoms, but can be found along weedy shorelines or in reed colonies. Trout streams often support smallmouth bass, but they typically inhabit the lower stream reaches too warm to support the trout. Fishable populations of smallmouth bass may be found in 164,141 surface acres of lakes and larger rivers.

Walleye. Walleye are generally associated with large rivers and drainage lakes. Due to their desirability, however, they have been stocked into many waters where they are non- native. They also do very well in large impoundments and smaller landlocked waters, and can be found over substrates of sand, gravel, mud, rubble or boulders. Most lakes with walleye are over 200 acres, with substantial areas of open water habitat present. Reproduction is generally sporadic in the more fertile waters. Walleye fisheries can be found in 169,731 acres of lakes and 157 miles of river habitat.

Northern Pike. Northern pike are widely dispersed throughout the EUP. They inhabit cool to moderately warm, weedy lakes, ponds, and sluggish rivers. They can be found over a variety of substrates. Pike prefer areas of light to dense aquatic vegetation and a wide range of turbidity. Even so, pike are much more common in clear to only slightly turbid water. Northern pike waters comprise 176,025 surface acres and an additional 157 miles of river.

Yellow Perch. Yellow perch are ubiquitous to the inland waters of the EUP. Even so, not all waters are considered excellent for perch fishing, and the waters that are excellent are subject to significant population cycling between years. Perch are adaptable to a wide variety of habitats, but lakes, backwaters and sloughs with modest amounts of vegetation and moderate fertility seem to offer the best perch habitat. Sand, gravel and mud are the preferred substrates. The EUP contains 176,118 surface acres and 134 miles of river having sustainable perch populations.

Muskellunge. Muskellunge are generally rare within the EUP. Large lakes with submerged macrophyte colonies and extensive deep water refuge and shallow water feeding areas are preferred. They also inhabit medium to large rivers with slower current and deep pools. If no cool water refuge is available, the muskellunge can withstand 900 F for short durations. They are also more tolerant of low dissolved oxygen levels than many other game fish species found in the same habitat. The EUP contains 109,755 surface acres and 71 river miles of muskellunge fishing opportunity.

104 of 244 D R A F T Rock Bass. Rock bass can be found in most EUP larger, slower streams and rivers, and lakes. They prefer cool to warm waters over a gravel or rocky bottom, with some vegetation present. They will also be found in varying degrees of turbidity. Excellent fisheries can be found in 177,672 surface acres, and in 66 miles of riverine systems.

Lake Sturgeon. Lake sturgeon were once widely found throughout the Great Lakes and interconnecting waters. Habitat degradation and over-fishing has reduced most populations to either remnant or extirpated status. Lake sturgeon adults utilize either the Great Lakes (or large inland lakes) and inland rivers for completion of their life cycle. Adults live in the large lake systems and migrate in the spring to streams and rivers for spawning purposes. Spawning sites are generally fast-flowing with large cobble or boulders while juveniles utilize nursery areas that are low-gradient and slow moving.

Recent research and rehabilitation efforts have focused on the re-introduction of lake sturgeon into suitable habitats, mainly targeting rivers which have/had a population of lake sturgeon and currently possess physical characteristics suitable for spawning activities and the rearing of juvenile fish. Several tributary and lake systems to Lake Michigan in the EUP Ecoregion have been ranked as high priority for lake sturgeon re-introduction efforts: the Manistique River, Indian Lake (in the Manistique River watershed), the Sturgeon River (Big Bay de Noc) and the Whitefish River (Little Bay de Noc). The Millecoquins River has been rated as “medium” priority for lake sturgeon re-introduction. Native American lore described the lower Tahquamenon River as a prime fishing source for lake sturgeon. Currently, however, several recent boomshocking surveys through that section of river have failed to capture any lake sturgeon.

Non-Game species. Fisheries Division did not traditionally survey or catalog non-game fish species. Previous lake surveys described angler-targeted species and occasionally remarked upon unusually large populations of white suckers and brown bullheads. Non- game species were generally lumped into the category “forage base,” or “rough fish,” whenever they were described at all. The non-game fish category generally includes suckers, burbot, and bullheads, which might at times also be targeted by anglers. With the new trend toward more comprehensive surveys, however, an increasing number of surveys will describe a more complete fish community.

Previous stream surveys generally listed the several species residing in the survey area. Most stream surveys targeted trout waters which supported a sparse, cold water specific species diversity generally including brook trout, mottled sculpin, blacknose dace, creek chub, Iowa darter, Johnny darter, and log perch. In contrast, the Manistique River watershed assessment (2004) described 60 fish species throughout the entire watershed. Of the total number of species, 34% were considered game fish, which includes the several panfish species, and 66% were non-game fish. The Tahquamenon River supports 53 species. Because the Tahquamenon Falls blocks natural fish migration, only 45 species reside above the Tahquamenon Falls and 32 below the falls. Of the total number of species, 32% are considered game fish, including panfish, and 68% are non-game fish.

Exotics and Nuisance species. A variety of exotic and invasive species are beginning to become established in the EUP inland waters. East Lake, Luce County, has been infested with Eurasian Milfoil for several years. Although treated several times with 2-4-D, it is still present. Twin Lake, Luce County, now has an established population of zebra mussels while zebra mussel shells were collected several years ago from Gulliver Lake, Schoolcraft County. However, monitoring efforts since the initial report have not discovered additional

105 of 244 D R A F T specimens either on boat docks, rocks or bricks. Because both lakes are heavily utilized by transient boaters, zebra mussels will most likely continue to spread to other local waters in the EUP.

Zebra mussels are already found in large numbers along the north shoreline of Lakes Huron and Michigan. Rusty crayfish are found in Lake Huron in the Hessel and Les Cheneaux waters. Spiny waterfleas are present in Lakes Huron and Michigan, as well as throughout the St. Marys River. Alewives are present in Lakes Huron and Michigan, as well as in the lower reaches of the St. Marys River. Sea lamprey are present all through the Great Lakes waters of the EUP. Sea lamprey control is largely conducted by the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service through their Sea Lamprey Control Units in Marquette and Alpena. Round goby and Eurasian ruffe are also found in the near-shore waters of the Bays de Noc. Carp are found in the near-shore areas of Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan plus a few of the larger inland lakes.

Cormorant populations have been increasing throughout the Great Lakes region resulting in localized impacts to various, shallow-water fish stocks. Reports and complaints by the public have also been increasing on inland lakes in the EUP. The Fisheries Division is working with an inter-agency committee to direct limited monitoring and control efforts for reducing cormorant impacts.

Current Great Lakes Fisherie s

Lake Superior

General. Lake Superior is the largest, coldest, least productive and least modified of the Great Lakes. As such, its fish community, though altered, is dominated by native species, predominantly lake trout and several whitefish species. Lake trout are targeted both commercially and by anglers in the open water, while the whitefish species are targeted near river mouths, especially the pier at Grand Marais. Steelhead and salmon are also popular along some of the lake’s shoreline and river mouths. The EUP is host to two unique, non-native salmonid fisheries. One of these is Coho salmon, which are currently being stocked into one tributary stream near Munising, the only location in the entire Lake Superior basin. In addition to lake sturgeon as mentioned above, a lakewide coaster brook trout restoration effort is being implemented all along the U.S. shore of Lake Superior.

Whitefish Bay. Walleye are stocked in Brimley Bay, and support both commercial and sport fisheries. The somewhat warmer waters within Brimley Bay also support a good yellow perch fishery.

Lake Huron

St. Marys River. Because of its unique habitat, the St. Marys River fish species were mostly described previously with the inland waters, separately from the rest of Lake Huron. However, the St. Mary’s River is also the only location in the upper Great Lakes where Atlantic salmon are stocked. Though Atlantic salmon have been caught in all of the Great Lakes, the only consistent fishery occurs between the international bridge in Sault Ste. Marie and downstream to Sugar Island.

Detour Area. From the Detour Straits out into Lake Huron past the lighthouse, anglers annually target the various salmon species that concentrate in the area to begin ascending

106 of 244 D R A F T the St. Marys River to the Rapids. Distinct salmon populations also travel through the Detour Straits to the Garden River in Ontario for spawning. Commercial fishermen generally target lake trout and whitefish species in this area.

Les Cheneaux. The Les Cheneaux channels at Cedarville and Hessel also provide protected waters and shallow shoreline habitat for species such as yellow perch, northern pike, rock bass, smallmouth bass, muskellunge, walleye, splake, and lake herring. The approximately 7,000 acres of protected habitat allow easier angler traffic without critical attention to weather conditions. Fishery problems relating especially to yellow perch have been exacerbated by a huge cormorant population during the last twenty years and likewise a large alewife contingent during the last thirty years. Currently, cormorant control procedures are beginning to limit their numbers, while alewives are suffering a concurrent decline in abundance. The yellow perch population appears to be instantly rebounding from the continued depression in numbers.

St, Martins Bay. St. Martins Bay supports a good open-water angler fishery for salmon and commercial fishery for whitefish. In addition, steelhead stage in the open water prior to ascending the Carp and Pine rivers.

Lake Michigan

St. Ignace, Green Isles. This shoreline area between the mainland and the islands are known for smallmouth bass fishing. It has, however, never been surveyed, and little else is known about it.

Epoufette Bay. Concurrently with Kenyan Bay, surveys showed residual populations of northern pike, smallmouth bass, yellow perch, carp, and white suckers. The island blocking Kenyan Bay, however, was completely inundated with a large cormorant colony, and very few smaller fish were captured. It is unknown whether any or what component of the original fish communities survive to the present.

Manistique. The fishery off Manistique consists of some smallmouth bass along the Lake Michigan shoreline and salmon fishing in the open water. Thompson Creek becomes a special fishery during the fall, as brown trout and coho salmon congregate to attempt an ascension of the creek into the hatchery.

General. The commercial fishery consists mainly of whitefish species. Commercial vessels moor at Naubinway and Manistique.

3.6 - Socioeconomic Context - Human Uses and Trends

Social and economic values associate with Michigan’s forests are both rich and complex. The following section describes those values using several primary and secondary data sources.

Introduction

Knowledge of the social and economic patterns and trends will assist in EUP Ecoregional planning and assist other publics in understanding relationships between public lands and communities within the Ecoregion. Assembly of social and economic trends for the EUP Ecoregion was collected from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau 2000

107 of 244 D R A F T census, (www.census.gov), the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Michigan State University Research report 568 (December 1999), and the Social and Economic Assessment for the Michigan National Forests, July 25, 2003, www.fs.fed.us/r9/hiawatha/social.assesment.revision. During the compilation of the Ecoregion Plan the 2000 and 2004 population census estimates were the most current statistics available. Year 2000 population census figures also include the eight State Correction facilities located within the Ecoregion.

US Census: Population, Density and Rates of Change

Population of the EUP Ecoregion in the 2000 census was at 76,168 persons; representing 0.77% of the total Michigan population (Figure 3.52). The EUP Ecoregion mean population density per square mile of land area is just 6 percent of the state average (10.9 compared to 175 for all of Michigan). Recent population trends (April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004) showed population decline in five counties with a range from -4.7% to -0.3% (Figure 3.54). Chippewa County was the exception with a 0.6% increase. In contrast, between the 1990 and 2000 census, Michigan had a numerical population increase of 643,000. If the institutional population is not accounted for the EUP growth between 1990 to 2000 drops from 13% to 11%. The five largest communities within the EUP Ecoregion are: Sault Ste. Marie (16,542 persons); Manistique (3,583 persons); St. Ignace (2,678 persons); Newberry (2,686 persons); and Munising (2,539 persons).

Figure 3.52 Year 2000 population in EUP Ecoregion by county. Percent of region’s population provided in parentheses.

Alger Co. 5,132 Delta Co. (6%) 4,623 (6%)

Luce Co. 7,024 (9%)

Chippewa Co. 38,543 (50%)

Schoolcraft Co. 8,903 (12%)

Mackinac Co. 11,943 (16%)

108 of 244 D R A F T `Figure 3.53 Year 2000 population density in EUP Ecoregion by county.

Alger

Delta

Luce

Schoolcraft

Mackinac

Chippewa

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Persons/square mile

Figure 3.54 Estimated population trends in EUP Ecoregion by county. Percent change in population, 2000 to 2004, listed in parentheses.

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000 Chippewa (+0.6%) Mackinac (-4.7%) 25,000 Schoolcraft (-0.3%) Luce (-2.5%) Delta (-0.4%) 20,000 Population Alger (-1.0%)

15,000

10,000

5,000

0 1990 2000 2004 est. Year

109 of 244 D R A F T US Census: Housing Density and Development

Mean housing units per square mile of land unit is 6.9. Housing units are higher per square mile in the eastern and southern portions of the EUP. The amount of Federal and State ownership within the Ecoregion leads to the lowest number of housing units per square mile of any Ecoregion. This figure may be misleading with respect to density, since the dominance of public lands actually concentrates housing development into the remaining areas.

Table 3.14 Households and housing units per square mile for counties in the EUP Ecoregion.

Second or seasonal homes constitute a high proportion of all housing units in the EUP Ecoregion (Figure 3.55). Housing units These types of homes can range from Households per sq. mile a retiree’s summer home to a Lower CHIPPEWA 13,491 12.4 Peninsula family’s weekend getaway. MACKINAC 5,072 9.2 Statewide, these types of homes only constitute 5.5% of all housing units, SCHOOLCRAFT 3,616 4.8 while for example Mackinac County’s LUCE 2,486 4.4 housing units are over 40% seasonal. Owners of these homes are heavy DELTA 2,422 6.2 recreational users and important ALGER 2,844 4.4 contributor to local economic health, according to the Michigan Economic TOTAL 29,931 6.9 Development Corporation (Smyth, 2005).

Figure 3.55 Seasonal homes as a percent of all housing units in each county. Total numbers of second/seasonal homes are listed in parentheses.

Luce (1,255)

Alger (1,842)

Schoolcraft (1,720)

Mackinac (3,945)

Chippewa (4,776)

Delta (2,332)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Percent

110 of 244 D R A F T US Census: Population Age Structure and Gender Characteristics

Comparison of population age structure within the Ecoregion and the State reflects certain problems that are characteristically associated with rural resource dependent regions. Below-average economic conditions and job opportunities within the EUP Ecoregion for younger generations have created a disproportionately low percentage of younger to middle age individuals between the ages of 18 to 44. Percentages of the younger population are 5.5% lower than the rest of Michigan, whereas the percentages of the older population, 65 plus years, is greater by 5.5%. The median age within the region (41.9 years) is well above state average, and is 6.4 % greater than the state’s median age. On a percentage basis, four of the six counties in the EUP Ecoregion rank within the top 26 Michigan counties for populations 65 years old and older.

Ecoregion population and gender statistics reflect the eight correctional facilities. Gender inequality specifically reflects the all male institution of the correctional facilities in the counties with correction institutions. Mackinac and Delta Counties, which do not have correction facilities, reflect statewide statistics for gender.

Table 3.15 Age group proportions by county in the EUP Ecoregion. School- AGE GROUPS Chippewa Mackinac craft Luce Delta Alger Mean Michigan Under 18 21.30% 22.20% 22.80% 21.40% 19.38% 14.96% 20.96% 26.10% 18 To 24 11.90% 6% 6.80% 8.60% 4.98% 3.16% 6.91% 9.40% 25 To 44 31.80% 25.10% 26.10% 30.50% 22.98% 24.02% 26.75% 29.80% 45 To 64 22.30% 28.40% 25.80% 24.10% 31.32% 31.10% 27.17% 22.40% 65 & older 12.70% 18.20% 18.60% 15.40% 21.35% 20.74% 17.83% 12.30%

Median age 36.2 42.8 41.4 38.6 46.68 45.96 41.94 35.5

Figure 3.56 Selected age group proportions by county in the EUP Ecoregion. Median ages are listed in parentheses.

Michigan (35.5)

Alger (46.0)

Delta (46.7)

Luce (38.6) 60+ years Under 18 years Schoolcraft (41.4)

Mackinac (42.8)

Chippewa (36.2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Percent

111 of 244 D R A F T US Census: Ecoregion Racial/Ethnic Characteristics

The 2000 percentage of white population and American Indian population in the EUP Ecoregion is greater than statewide percentages. On a percentage basis, the EUP Ecoregion has a greater population percentage of American Indian than anywhere else within the State. The Black or African American population higher percentages are reflected in those counties that have correctional facilities. The Ecoregion is not as diverse as the rest of Michigan.

Table 3.16 Racial distributions by county in the EUP Ecoregion. SCHOOL- RACE CHIPPEWA MACKINAC CRAFT LUCE DELTA ALGER MICHIGAN White 75.90% 80.10% 88.70% 82.80% 92.85% 91.28% 80.20% Black 5.50% 0.20% 1.60% 7.50% 0.13% 6.10% 14.20% American Indian 13.30% 14.20% 6.10% 5.50% 3.95% 2.74% 0.60% Asian 0.50% 0.30% 0.40% 0.40% 0.18% 0.50% 1.80% Other 0.40% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.05% 0.22% 1.30%

US Census: Income and Poverty Characteristics

There are 29,931 households in the EUP Ecoregion that have a median income, in 1999 dollars, of $34,804 (Figure 3.57). This is $9,863 (22.1%) less than the mean of $44,667 for the State of Michigan. Lower median incomes are also relatively typical of rural resource- dependent regions. Per capita income for the EUP Ecoregion is $18,377 or 82% of the per capita income for the State of Michigan. 35% of the households in the EUP Ecoregion collect Social Security Income compared to 26% of Michigan households. Percent of population for whom poverty status is determined (a weighted average threshold of approximately $10,000 income for a two person household 65 years and over) for all individuals within the Ecoregion is 11.70%, while 7.95% of families are below poverty level within the Ecoregion (Figure 3.58). A total of 35% of all households receive Social Security income, as compared to 26% of Michigan households statewide.

Figure 3.57 Household and per capita income by county.

$45,000 Household $40,000 Per Capita

$35,000

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000 $5,000

$0

Chippewa Per Capita Mackinac Schoolcraft Luce Household Delta Alger Michigan 112 of 244 D R A F T

Figure 3.58 Proportion of individuals and families living below the poverty level by county in the EUP Ecoregion.

16.0%

14.0% Individuals 12.0% Families

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0% Families Individuals Luce Chippewa Mackinac Delta Alger Schoolcraft Michigan

US Census: Ecoregion Employment Characteristics

EUP Ecoregion top three occupational categories are Management, Professional, and Related occupations at 26.75%; Service occupations at 23.31%; Sales and Office occupations at 22.25% (Table 3.17). Service occupations in the EUP Ecoregion reflect the extensive tourist related industry. One quarter (24.74%) of all workers within the Ecoregion is classed as government workers; local, state, or federal. This is twice the statewide average. Local government employment accounts for almost half of all government jobs and State Government approximately 30% with significant employment concentrated at correctional facilities. The majority of Tribal employment (government and casinos) is located within the EUP. Seasonal unemployment rates fluctuate dramatically due to winter snowfall and cold temperatures affecting construction and the dependency of summer tourism in the EUP Ecoregion. For example, Mackinac County unemployment rate increases from 1.6% in the summer to over 21% in winter. Overall, the region has one of the highest unemployment rates of any Michigan region.

113 of 244 D R A F T

Table 3.17 Proportion of individuals 16 years or older in selected occupations by county. MEAN OCCUPATION CHIPPEWA MACKINAC SCHOOLCRAFT LUCE DELTA ALGER % MICHIGAN MGT/ PROFES. 26.20% 26% 24.30% 24.50% 23.80% 35.71% 26.75% 31.50% SERVICE 28.30% 22.60% 23.10% 29.30% 17.45% 19.12% 23.31% 14.80% SALES/OFFICE 25% 23.60% 20.30% 22.70% 16.55% 25.33% 22.25% 25.60% FARM/FISH/FORES 0.60% 1.80% 2.50% 2.40% 4.95% 0.92% 2.20% 0.50% CONSTRUCTION 9.10% 15.40% 14.10% 9.80% 15.13% 7.84% 11.90% 9.20% PRODUCTION 10.80% 10.60% 15.60% 11.40% 22.00% 11.08% 13.58% 18.50%

Table 3.18 The EUP Ecoregion industry: Population over 16 years old employed in selected occupations.

INDUSTRY CHIPPEWA MACKINAC SCHOOLCRAFT LUCE DELTA ALGER TOTAL FORESTRY/FISHERY 218 131 173 92 105 86 805 CONSTRUCTION 1,000 585 250 148 210 188 2,381 MANUFACTURING 770 197 359 189 352 488 2,355 RETAIL TRADE 1,759 538 393 272 230 219 3,411 TRANSPORTATION 616 283 134 100 207 54 839 INFORMATION 301 44 43 16 17 31 452 FINANCE 538 192 162 100 53 96 1,141 ADMINISTRATIVE 698 161 78 58 62 85 1,142 EDUCATION 1,954 433 251 198 148 183 3,167 HEALTH CARE 1,634 464 499 344 199 222 3,362 RECREATION 1,200 294 124 65 38 52 1,773 FOOD SERVICES 1,341 511 256 254 153 178 2,693 PUBLIC ADMIN. 2,007 516 258 357 71 254 3,463

Table 3.19 Proportion of government employees by county in the EUP Ecoregion. MEAN GOVERNMENT CHIPPEWA MACKINAC SCHOOLCRAFT LUCE DELTA ALGER % MICHIGAN WORKERS 30.80% 24.70% 21.30% 28.10% 13.80% 29.76% 24.74% 11.40%

114 of 244 D R A F T

Table 3.20 EUP Ecoregion Principal Employers: NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES Michigan Department of Corrections: Correctional 2202 Institutions Michigan Tribal Casinos: Casino, Resort Hotels, 2190 Restaurants, etc. Forest Industry, Primary & Secondary & Logger/Trucker 2166 Public Schools: Kto12 1336 Hospitals: Medical and surgical 1168

Selected results from the MAES/MSU EUP Research Report

The following sections are excerpts from the report entitled “The Role of Natural Resources in Community and Regional Economic Stability in the Eastern Upper Peninsula.” This report collected results from various studies conducted on economic, recreational, and social activities related to natural resources in the Eastern UP between 1996 and 1999. This study focused on Luce, Mackinac and Chippewa Counties only, so the findings are more limited in scope than the EUP Ecoregion. These excerpts are based on interviews and mail surveys of both permanent and seasonal residents from those three counties.

Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities

Outdoor recreation is an important dimension of life in the eastern U.P. In the household survey, respondents reported the activities in which they or some member of the household participated during 1996 (Table 3.59). Permanent residents were more likely to engage in gardening activities, snowmobiling and ORV use, while seasonal residents reported higher rates of participation in fishing, swimming, boating, wildlife viewing and cutting firewood. Respondents were also asked to choose their favorite outdoor activity. Both seasonal and permanent residents listed fishing, hunting and walking/hiking as their top three activities. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the percentages of households selecting a given activity as a favorite (Table 3.59).

Residents’ Perceptions of Outdoor Recreation Activities

Though the household survey contained a limited number of recreational activities, respondents in the oral history interviews could mention any activities in which they had participated at some point during their lives. In these interviews, people discussed participating in activities such as boating, camping, swimming, feeding birds and deer, skiing, planting trees, watching wildlife, skating, hiking, horseback riding, canoeing, snowmobiling and walking outdoors. These outdoor activities were conducted primarily for recreation and exercise rather than to gather or harvest natural resource items.

115 of 244 D R A F T

Camping is another activity that was often mentioned by both permanent and seasonal residents. Many permanent residents used to live in the Lower Peninsula and would camp when they came up seasonally. One man who later became a permanent resident stated, “We used to come up and go camping—we had a smelt dipping time…We used to come up and camp over by Carp River and spend the weekend out there and just generally have a good time.” Camping was often done in conjunction with other activities such as hunting and fishing and was done primarily because people enjoyed spending time outdoors and enjoyed participating in those activities.

The Extent of Natural Resource Use

The people of the eastern U.P. have used and interacted with natural resources in many ways throughout their lives. More than 50 percent of the households in the mail survey fished, hunted, picked wild berries or cut firewood in the past year (Figure 3.59). Figure 3.60 shows the percent of oral history interviews that mentioned participating in a particular gathering or harvesting activity at some point throughout their lives. As stated, because the household survey question was limited to certain activities, participation rates from the survey can be given only for hunting, fishing, wild berry picking, vegetable gardening, cutting firewood, mushroom picking and tapping for maple syrup. Other activities that were often cited in the oral histories but were not included in the household survey included farming, harvesting wood on their property, gathering apples and trapping animals for their pelts.

Figure 3.59 Percent of eastern U.P. households that participated in gathering and harvesting activities in the past year.

Fishing

Wild berry picking

Hunting

Cutting firewood

Vegetable gardening

Mushroom picking

Other gathering activities Gathering and harvesting activities

Tapping for maple syrup

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent of households surveyed

116 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.60 Percent of oral history interviews in which eastern U.P. respondents mentioned participating in a particular gathering or harvesting activity during their lives.

Fishing

Hunting Wild berry picking Gardening

Burning wood

Cutting wood

Farming

Harvesting wood

Mushroom picking

Gathering or harvesting activity Tapping for syrup Apple picking

Trapping

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent of interviews

Cited by 64 percent of the respondents in the household survey, wild berry picking was the second most common gathering activity. The interviews show that most people gathered wild blueberries, though people also gathered strawberries, raspberries, huckleberries, blackberries, elderberries and serviceberries. One woman in Luce County asserted, “We have a lot of raspberries and strawberries…I love picking berries.” Fifty-eight percent of the residents in the household survey stated that they hunted during the past 12 months. Most people hunted for deer, rabbits, bear, upland birds such as partridge and waterfowl. While discussing his childhood in the eastern U.P., one man stated,

“We always hunted. Hunted birds and deer…hunt a lot of coyote and fox in the wintertime.”

Two activities that often arose together in the oral history interviews were cutting and burning wood. Fifty percent of the respondents in the household survey had cut firewood in the past year. Interviewees said that they cut and burned wood to save money, to be self- sufficient and also simply because they enjoyed wood heat. One resident of Chippewa County observed, “It’s more economical and we have the wood to do it. It saves money. We have electric heat, and that’s pretty expensive here.” As they grew older, many of these people preferred to purchase wood because it was too much work for them to cut it themselves. Most people cut the wood from private land holdings, but some people obtained permits to cut dead or fallen trees from nearby state land.

An important aspect of this activity is having the woods available to cut on either private or public land. Perhaps this importance is also revealed by the frequency with which people

117 of 244 D R A F T

discussed how much they enjoyed the amount of public land available in their counties. Public lands were mentioned in a favorable manner by respondents in nearly half of the oral history and focus group interviews. Public lands give residents without much private property the opportunity to participate in activities such as hunting, fishing, berry picking and cutting wood. When one man from Mackinac County was asked what he felt about the extent of the public land in his county, he replied,

“I think [public land] is one of the reasons we are up here. It creates an awful lot more opportunities for people to not have to own vast tracts of land to be able to enjoy those kinds of diverse opportunities.”

One clear trend is a decline in use of natural resources for household income over time. As participation in these activities has become less necessary for some household income, other benefits of gathering activities, such as participation with family members, enjoyment of the outdoors or values for working outdoors, have become proportionally more important today than they were in the past. Eastern U.P. residents have participated in natural resource gathering activities for a variety of reasons for recreation, for sharing, for a feeling of self-sufficiency and for household income. Today, even though many people do not have to use natural resources for household income to the extent they used them in the past, they still participate in these activities because these activities remain important. One member of the Bay Mills tribe commented on this trend when she noted,

“My father is the oldest of 14 kids and so back then, he had to pick the berries. They don’t have to do it now, but they enjoy doing it, you know.”

Importance of Values

One of the most common trends revealed through the interviews was the importance of gathering and harvesting natural resources in fulfilling important values for eastern U.P. residents. The values most often mentioned included a strong work ethic, self-sufficiency and independence, and a relationship with the natural environment. For many people, one of the most important reasons for gathering and harvesting natural resources was for the feeling of independence and self-sufficiency that they obtained through participating in these subsistence activities.

Regardless of the specific type of gathering or harvesting activity, one of the most common threads throughout these interviews was the importance of the natural environment in general. When asked about the importance of the natural resources and the environment to him, a man from Luce County answered,

“Oh, sure. When we had the farm I used to go hunting and I would end up not hunting. I’d be looking at all the trees and the plants and different things and I would go out and walk through the woods for two hours and never actually hunt because I was too busy looking at trees and things...I think it is very important.”

118 of 244 D R A F T

In general, the type of natural resource gathering or harvesting activity was not nearly as important as the fact that these activities placed the individual in the natural environment. Many people believed that there was value in having contact with nature. In the household survey, “being close to nature” was the sixth most important value to eastern U.P. residents. As seen from the oral history and focus group interviews, people often participated in activities such as farming, hunting or fishing because they simply enjoyed being outdoors. One Native American man stated,

“I like deer hunting, but it’s probably more or less being out in the woods more than anything. If you’re out deer hunting you still see fox or coyotes or just watch squirrels or something run around. I guess I kind of like the camaraderie of hunting as much as anything.”

Another man from Chippewa County commented on the importance of participating in outdoor activities when he noted the changes in natural resource gathering and harvesting activities over his lifetime. “You see all these kids run around with nothing to do and we’ve always had somethin’… goin’ on…you were either goin’ fishing, or you’re goin’ hunting or goin’ out to pick berries…you’re always doin’ somethin’ outside.” Respondents have perceived certain changes in their surroundings over the years. In the mail survey, more than half of the respondents indicated that they believe there have been increases in mall/shopping center development, seasonal home building and hotel/motel development as well as overall population size and the amount of traffic in the past five years (Figure 3.61).

The interviews revealed that these perceived changes posed concerns for the future of their counties. One set of concerns involved development issues such as population and housing growth, especially housing development along the waterfront.

Population growth was considered a concern by 38 percent of the interviewed respondents. When asked how she felt about population growth, one woman from Mackinac County declared, “We hate to see it. There’s gettin’ so many people.” Many people feared that this growth would ruin their favorite characteristics of their counties such as peace and quiet, not being crowded and the feeling of safety. As one man asserted, “I think [population growth] would be bad. If you get enough of jobs and enough of people, you’re back to the big city again, so you haven’t got country living.” Fifty-one percent of the interview respondents felt that there will be a much greater population of people living in the eastern U.P. in the future. Many others also believed that there will be an increase in development and an increase in retirees coming to live in the area. One man from Chippewa County predicted, “In the next five years, there’s gonna be some real rude awakenings...more and more people are gonna be movin’ to the area...I think in the next five years, you’re gonna see a big growth.” Another man from Mackinac County voiced a similar prediction when he asserted, “I think that in 50 years the Upper Peninsula will be just like the Lower Peninsula.”

119 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.61. Percent of respondents who feel each characteristic of the eastern U.P. has changed over the past five years (n=840).

Scenic beauty

Fishing quality

Harvesting trees

Hotel/motel dev.

Water quality Seasonal home dev.

Amount of traffic

Population size Decreased Mall/shopping center dev. Stayed same Job opportunities Increased Access to public lands & water

Air quality

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent of respondents

When questioned about their ideal image for the future of their county in 50 to 100 years, 62 percent of the respondents interviewed wished that it would remain the same. One woman from Chippewa County said, “It’d be very similar to what it is now. Still lots of trees, still clean streams and clean water.” Another woman noted, “I’d like it small and quiet and [where] people know each other.” Eleven percent of the respondents jokingly or seriously stated that they wanted to remove the Mackinac Bridge to avoid additional growth and the crowds they observe downstate. But 11 percent of the respondents interviewed would also like to see increases in industry and jobs. These respondents wanted to increase employment to allow more young adults to remain in the area instead of having to leave the county in search of jobs. One man from Chippewa County who had as a young adult left the eastern U.P. to find work commented, “It would help if we had enough industry around so that kids graduating from school would have a job here so they don’t have to migrate to the cities.” The major exception to the “no growth” ideal image was seen in Luce County. Luce residents were more likely to want additional growth and jobs because they felt that a high proportion of their youth moved away to find employment.

Despite the concerns residents have about growth and its byproducts, they have little sense of control over the changes that they see taking place. One Mackinac County resident expressed these concerns by saying, “You’re going to have it built up more and more all the time around here and that’s, that’s something you’re not going to stop.” Another resident from Chippewa County echoed those comments: “There’s nothin’ you can do about it. You can’t stop it. I wish you could but you can’t.” Feelings of helplessness, or at least general acceptance of the inevitable, were expressed by many participants in the interviews.

120 of 244 D R A F T Preferences for Future Development

An additional question in the mail survey was used to ascertain residents’ preferences for economic development in the eastern U.P. Several development strategies were presented to respondents to assess levels of support for each (Figure 3.62). The two that received the greatest proportion of supportive responses were more outdoor recreation opportunities (66 percent strongly or somewhat support this option) and tourism (68 percent strongly support or somewhat support). However, the strategy that received the highest proportion of strong or partial support was essentially a non-development strategy: setting aside natural areas (75 percent). This poses some questions, since many individuals in the oral histories indicated that they feel there is enough government-owned land. It is also difficult to determine what respondents interpreted as natural areas in the mail survey. Another interesting point to note about these strategies is that, though there was strong support for tourism, there is relatively low support for more seasonal homes (only 28 percent strongly support or somewhat support this option). Before reaching any conclusions about tourism development, there has to be more exploration of what residents feel is appropriate tourism for the eastern U.P.

Seasonal and permanent residents. Seasonal residents generally expressed weaker support than permanent residents for industrial and extractive activities such as manufacturing, harvesting trees and processing wood products (Figure 3.63). Seasonal residents also expressed greater opposition to prisons but were more supportive of limiting growth and setting aside natural areas.

Figure 3.62 Percent of respondents who support given strategies for the future of the eastern U.P.

Limiting growth Attracting retirees

More outdoor recreation opportunities

Setting aside natural areas

More seasonal homes

Attracting prisons

Attracting manufacturing firms

Casino gaming

Tourism

Mining

Processing wood products

Harvesting trees

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % strongly or somewhat supporting

121 of 244 D R A F T Figure 3.63 Differences in support for development strategies between permanent and (non-resident) seasonals.

Limiting growth

Setting aside natural areas

Attracting prisons

Attracting manufacturing firms Seasonal

Tourism Permanent

Processing wood products

Harvesting trees

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 % who strongly support Private Forest Landowner Survey

The following section summarizes results from a survey of randomly selected private non- industrial forest landowners in the state. Respondents from the Eastern UP have been extracted to show their particular interests and needs.

Background

In the spring of 2003, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources granted USDA Forest Service Stewardship funds to the MSU Department of Forestry to conduct a survey of non- industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners who have had no affiliation with forest or forestry-related programs in the past. This survey has been developed to provide a counterpoint to a previously conducted survey of NIPF landowners who are (or had been) involved with various forestry programs or organizations, including the Forest Stewardship Program, the Commercial Forest Program, the Michigan Forest Association, and the Two- Hearted Watershed cooperative management program. Members of these programs, however, represent a fraction of the total NIPF landowners in the state. The intent of this followup survey has been to determine the barriers to forest management perceived by those landowners who are not involved in programs.

Overview of Results

Results from the EUP sample show that, on average, EUP landowners have acquired their land relatively recently. The average year respondents acquired their land is 1981 (median year is 1986). There are also many in the survey sample who are nonresident landowners. The percent of EUP landowners whose primary residence is located on their forested land

122 of 244 D R A F T is 44.8%. For the other 55.2%, or non resident landowners, the average distance from their forested land is 108 miles. For all EUP respondents, average forest acreage ownership is 119 acres, while the median forest acreage is only 63 acres.

Private forest landowners in the EUP are, on average, older than the overall state population. The average age of respondents is 57 years, and nearly one-half (47.7%) of the respondents are over 60 years old. This higher age factor is also reflected in respondents’ employment status—nearly one third (29.9%) are retired. Education levels among respondents are generally higher than the overall population, with a median education level in the “some college” category. Average household income level is near state averages, between $40,000-59,999. The greatest concern among the demographic characteristics of the current survey is the proportion of male to female respondents. Only 16.7% of the respondents are female, although past experience with such surveys has suggested that many respond to questionnaires with implicit input from their spouse.

A wide range of questions in the NIPF landowner survey relate to various aspects of forestland ownership. These include current uses of and activities conducted on the land; aspects of past harvesting activity (if any); and uses of and satisfaction with technical assistance. Other questions ask about participants’ preferences for various sources of information and assistance, as well as previous involvement in programs and organizations. A few examples of the results are listed below.

The top three and bottom three reasons for owning forested land are listed in Table 3.21. It is noteworthy that harvesting any sort of products from their forested land is reported to be the least important to them.

Table 3.21 – Reasons for owning forested land, ordered according to average importance.

Reason for owning forested land Average (1=very % responding imp’t, 5=not “very important” imp’t) (n=67) To enjoy beauty or scenery 1.38 67.2 For privacy 1.50 62.5 As part of my home, vacation home, farm or ranch 1.60 59.7 To protect nature and biologic diversity 1.79 48.4 For hunting or fishing 1.84 59.4 For recreation, other than hunting or fishing 1.89 42.2 To pass land on to my children or other heirs 2.08 40.0 For land investment 2.27 30.6 For production of sawlogs, pulpwood, or other timber 3.02 15.9 products For production of firewood or biofuel (energy) 3.18 14.8 For cultivation/collection of non-timber forest products 3.39 9.7

Another set of questions in the survey related to respondents’ use of, and preferences for, different information sources. Respondents were asked to indicate which information source they used in the past, and to rank their top three preferred ways to receive forestry information in the future. The proportions of EUP respondents who used certain information sources, and those who ranked each item as #1 are listed in Table 2. Although the sample

123 of 244 D R A F T size is low for this question, these results are comparable to the overall sample of 457 respondents.

Table 3.22. The proportion of respondents who ranked as number one the method by which they would like to receive forestry information in the future.

Information source % used % listed as number information source one rank for receiving in the past (n=67) info (n=28) Conference/seminar/workshop 10.4 21.4 Field tour 13.8 10.7 Correspondence course through mail 10.3 7.1 Publication/book/newsletter 22.0 21.4 Newspaper or magazine article 22.4 10.7 Video tape for home viewing 8.5 17.9 Television program 12.1 0.0 Radio program 5.1 0.0 Internet/web information 9.0 7.1 Computer CD-ROM disk 3.4 0.0 Membership in a landowner organization 3.4 3.6

Demographic Patterns and Trends

The EUP Ecoregion consists of six counties in the eastern Upper Peninsula: Chippewa, Mackinac, Schoolcraft, East ½ of Delta, and East 2/3 of Alger.

The EUP Ecoregion population in 2000 was 76,168. From 1980 to 2000 the population increased by 13%.

Population estimates for 2004 predicted a decline in five of the six counties.

18% of the Upper Peninsula’s population lives in the Eastern U.P.

The EUP Ecoregion has a higher percentage of population of Native Americans than any other Ecoregion.

Population density ranges from 6.26 people per square mile to 24.7 per square mile.

Major industry sectors include Government, Services, and Trade.

Compared to statewide distribution, the EUP has higher Government employment and lower Manufacturing employment.

Population is growing slowly compared to the rest of Michigan.

Youth population shrinking with loss of population of ages 24 and under.

The Regional population is aging, with a higher than average median age.

Jobless rate within the EUP Ecoregion has followed the statewide trend.

124 of 244 D R A F T Unemployment in the EUP Ecoregion is more seasonal than state and nation. 4 - Ecoregional Management Direction

4.1 - Definition of Terms

The following definitions of terms are provided to facilitate understanding of the content of this section of the management plan.

4.1.1 - Desired Future Conditions

Desired future conditions provide a broad vision for the future state of the EUP Ecoregion. This vision is in line with the Department’s mission of being “committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the State’s natural resources for current and future generations.” Desired future conditions are long term by nature and may encompass several generations. The Department has a vision of the desired future conditions of the EUP Ecoregion which is predicated upon a sustainable, ecosystem-based management philosophy. In particular, this vision applies to DNR managed lands, parks and recreation resources, and fisheries and wildlife. When achieved, the desired future conditions will:

· Sustain fundamental ecological processes and functions that, in turn, support representative, diverse, and productive biological assemblages providing a wide array of resource outputs. · Provide for a variety of ecosystem services that help sustain human populations and quality of life (e.g. purification of air and water, carbon storage, and moderation of drought and flood conditions). · Provide for a variety of sustainable human values that are derived from ecosystems; including economic, social, recreational, and intrinsic values.

4.1.2 - Goals

A goal is a concise statement which provides the means for the achievement of desired future conditions. Management goals may be short-term or long-term in nature (10 to 50+ years) and are necessary to help achieve the desired future conditions. Goal statements recognize that the sustainable management of resources within the EUP Ecoregion is viewed as an assemblage of individual actions in a large landscape. It also recognizes the need and right of private landowners and local managers to manage their particular tracts of land to accomplish their respective objectives. The EUP Ecoregion team recognizes that collaborative management is an approach dependent on willing partners, respect for each other’s roles and responsibilities, access to common information, and trust.

4.1.3 – DNR Management Objectives

An objective is a concise statement of measurable planned results that respond to pre- established goals. Objectives are more specific and concrete than goals. Implicit within each objective is that it will be carried out with due consideration for other

125 of 244 D R A F T ecological, social and economic objectives. The objectives within each section are management activities that the DNR intends to follow to achieve the plan’s goals.

4.1.4 - Standards

A standard is a mandatory means by which goals are achieved. Identified standards are expected to be followed in carrying out the stated DNR management objectives. The DNR has adopted the use of Forest Certification Work Instructions to guide the planning, operations, and review of management on DNR managed lands in addition to other state and departmental policies and laws. DNR staff is instructed to follow these Work Instructions in their daily work. Following these instructions will allow the DNR to meet the requirements of sustainable resource management as defined by both SFI and FSC certification standards.

4.1.5 – Monitoring Criteria

Monitoring criteria provide a measure by which progress is assessed toward the attainment of sustainable management goals and desired future conditions. Metrics have been identified and will be applied to measure progress towards the EUP Ecoregion desired future conditions and ecological, social and economic values identified by interested partners and citizens.

4.1.6 – Guidelines

A guideline is a non-mandatory means by which goals are achieved. Identified guidelines are expected to be followed in carrying out the stated DNR management objectives. Guidelines are often in the form of a document providing direction to achieve goals. Where guidance documents exist, they are listed under the guidelines heading rather than specific operational guideline details.

4.2 - Desired Future Conditions, Goals & Objectives

This section contains specific statements of the desired future condition of the EUP Ecoregion and the identification of goals and objectives through which the desired future conditions will be achieved. Desired future conditions, goal, and objectives will not be pursued independently, but rather in concert with other desired future conditions, goals, and objectives. Standards, Monitoring Criteria, objectives and guidelines are included as tools and references for DNR staff to use in the achievement of these goals through the operational management of the DNR in the EUP Ecoregion.

EUP Ecoregion Criteria and Indicators are used to establish specific goals to reach the desired future conditions. Monitoring Criteria will assist in strategic planning by providing a mechanism to measure progress toward goals, and provide tools for communicating results to policy makers and the public.

The desired future conditions described here are predicated upon those identified throughout this initial planning cycle and will be expanded upon in the future.

126 of 244 D R A F T 4.2.1 - Recreation Management

4.2.1.1 – Boating and Fishing Access Sites and Marinas/Harbors

Desired Future Conditions

A variety of Great Lake, inland lake, and river boating and fishing access sites will be provided whereby the general public and those with various types and sizes of boats can have safe and adequate access to these waterbodies. Safe harbors of refuge on the Great Lakes for various types and sizes of boats will also be provided.

Goals

1. Seek funding to develop, maintain, and operate boating facilities in a safe, customer-oriented, universally accessible, and ecologically responsible manner. 2. Provide Michigan residents and visitors access to EUP Ecoregion’s lakes, rivers, and streams through high-quality public facilities. Such access should range from easy and convenient through restricted, undeveloped access.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Evaluate and prioritize marina and boating access sites annually for maintenance and resource damage mitigation projects by Parks and Recreation staff. 2. Acquire, conserve, and develop boating access to the Great Lakes and inland lakes and rivers 3. Evaluate harbors on the Great Lakes shoreline to provide for the safe boating enjoyment of these waters and continue to strive to complete the harbors of refuge system. 4. Encourage tourist-related economic development. 5. Provide transient and seasonal moorage through public-private development and private operation of facilities through long-term leasing of publicly-owned properties. 6. Encourage local units of government on an ongoing basis to evaluate existing waterfront property ownership to determine best use and reuse of such property for water dependent purposes. 7. Permit the existing State/Local Harbor and Docks Program to focus on transient boater needs by meeting seasonal boater needs through the Harbor Development Program. 8. Work to operate boating facilities through partnerships with local communities, public agencies, conservation groups, friends groups, and concessionaires. 9. Strive to meet the demand of new boating access site facilities in high priority areas.

127 of 244 D R A F T 10. Evaluate and renovate existing boating facilities, and construct and manage new ones to meet accessibility standards and guidelines.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.5 – Social Impact Considerations and Public Involvement Processes. 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6 – Forest Management Unit Analysis 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.2 – Best Management Practices Non-conformance Reporting Instructions 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.1 – Implementing Public Information and Educational Opportunities on State Forests 5. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.2 – Integrating Public Recreational Opportunities with Management on State Forest Lands 6. Public Act 320 of 1947.

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 8 – Recreation, Indicators 8.6, 8.7

Guidelines

1. SOBA Handbook for the Location, Design, Construction, Operation, and Maintenance for Boat-launching Facilities 2. DEQ Michigan Clean Marina Guidebook 3. PRD Design Guide, 2003 4. PRD Harbor Development Standards Guidance 5. Great Lakes’ Harbors-of-Refuge network

4.2.1.2 - Recreational Trails

Desired Future Conditions

Provide designated motorized and non-motorized recreation trails in a variety of settings. Motorized trails will include loops and connectors to form an inter- connected network.

Goals

1. Fund, develop, maintain, and operate facilities in a safe, customer- oriented, universally accessible, and ecologically responsible manner. 2. Secure the system of recreational trails of various types through the use of partnerships, acquisition, long-term leases, or permanent easements.

128 of 244 D R A F T 3. Create connected, destination, point-to-point routes to support leisurely, longer distance ORV routes across the EUP, similar to the snowmobile trail system. 4. Operate the existing EUP pathway/ski trail system in a manner that meets department maintenance standards and visual management guidelines, provides safe access and use, connects with existing recreation resources, promotes multiple use and minimizes resource damage and user conflicts.

DNR Management Obje ctives

1. Every five years, plan a third party assessment of ORV use and the ORV riding community to reflect their concerns, compile data regarding the environmental and economic impacts of ORV use and obtain suggestions to improve Michigan’s ORV Program. 2. Continue the ongoing annual snowmobile grooming cost analysis. 3. Conduct EUP annual trail and trailhead maintenance throughout the snow free months (April 1 – October 31) that correspond to the general trail use season. 4. Enhance organizational effectiveness and efficiency by clarifying responsibilities. Strengthen the working relationship among FMFM Recreation and Trails staff, EUP field staff and grant program staff. 5. Conduct annual Pre and Post-Season snowmobile Grant Sponsor meetings. 6. The existing trail system will be maintained, upgraded and expanded for increased use in a manner that meets appropriate environmental protections, BMP standards as well as the Department’s maintenance and safety standards. 7. Evaluate the trail systems and the associated facilities to ensure they meet the DNR’s recommendation for universal access standards and guidelines. 8. Protect existing snowmobile and ORV trails from degradation due to timber or other land management activities. 9. Close unauthorized trails to access and where possible restore to natural conditions. 10. Execute a concerted monitoring effort to identify, document and repair ORV- damaged lands in the EUP. 11. Identify and utilize volunteer safety training instructors for safety training classes. 12. Snowmobile trail connectivity shall be accomplished through the purchase of permanent, deeded easements on private lands with available funds. 13. Partner with non-governmental organizations and with governmental agencies in the effort to manage recreational trail systems. 14. Seek means to publicize, more effectively, the existing ORV and snowmobile recreational opportunities in the EUP.

129 of 244 D R A F T 15. Update, as needed, pathway maps to include approved uses. Minimize visual quality degradation due to timber or other land management activities. 16. Within 5 years work with Recreation and Trails Program staff to develop legislation to create a permanent funding source for non-motorized trails. 17. Within two years, develop and implement a EUP non-motorized trail inspection/monitoring system. 18. Annually evaluate existing non-motorized trail facilities and where practical, reconstruct these trails to meet the DNR’s recommendation for universal access standards and guidelines. 19. Seek means to conduct cross-country ski trail grooming operations as needed, generally from December 1 through March 31.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.1 – Forest Operations 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.2 – Best Management Practices Non-Conformance Reporting Instructions 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.1 – Implementing Public Information and Education Opportunities on State Forests 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.2 – Integrating Public Recreational Opportunities with Management on State Forest Lands 5. PA 451 of 1994, ORV Part 811 and Snowmobile Part 821

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 8 – Recreation, Indicators 8.2, 8.7 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11 – Institutional Processes, Indicators 11.1, 11.2, 11.4

Guidelines

1. DNR Snowmobile Grant Handbook 2. DNR ORV Grant Handbook Cluster 3. Use non-motorized trail inspection/monitoring system to evaluate and prioritize trail maintenance needs. 4. Michigan Statewide Trails Initiative. 5. State Comprehensive Recreation Plan (SCORP)

4.2.1.3 - Campgrounds

Desired Future Conditions

Concentrated and dispersed camping and cabin rental opportunities will be provided in a variety of settings.

130 of 244 D R A F T Goals

1. Utilize available records for monitoring campground use in the EUP. 2. Establish minimum use levels and campground distribution standards for the EUP District. 3. EUP State Forest Campgrounds meeting minimum use levels will be maintained and upgraded to meet accessibility standards, for continued public use. 4. Track dispersed camping numbers.

5. Conduct a survey a minimum of once during the planning period to identify camping trends and needs.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Annually evaluate all State Forest Campgrounds against the minimum campground use levels and campground distribution standards for the EUP District. 2. Continue the program of upgrading campgrounds meeting minimum campground use levels and campground distribution standards for the EUP District to current accessibility standards. 3. Within five (5) years, EUP District staff, with Forest Management Unit assistance, will develop a database that includes all EUP campgrounds, State Forest, State Park, National Forest, Local Unit of Government, and private. 4. Evaluate new campground proposals using campground distribution standards developed by EUP District staff and campground program management staff. 5. Within four years develop regional dispersed camping tracking process and procedures.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.1 – Forest Operations 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.2 – Best Management Practices Non-Conformance Reporting Instructions 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.1 – Implementing Public Information and Education Opportunities on State Forests

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 8 – Recreation, Indicators 8.2, 8.5, 8.7

Guidelines

1. Campground minimum use levels will consider revenues as well as annual camp days

131 of 244 D R A F T 2. Utilize SF Campground database records, State Park use records, National Forest Campground use records, and Local Unit of Government use records for monitoring public campground use in the EUP. Utilize State Chamber of Commerce records for private campground use statistics.

4.2.1.4 - Visual Management

Desired future Conditions Visual management will provide aesthetically pleasing viewscapes and landscapes which have a positive impact on a person’s perception.

Goals

1. Visual management guidelines will be developed that recognize and promote values of biological diversity. 2. Assist public agencies and private landowners develop and apply visual management guidelines. 3. Land Managers and Specialists will develop and implement visual management guidelines for activities in their work areas.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Work with DNR planning and database systems (IFMAP, WAP) to recognize and incorporate visual management elements. 2. Document visual management activities for all program areas. 3. Utilize interpretive signs to help the public understand important management activities and biological processes.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.4 - Biodiversity Management on State Forest Lands. 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6 - Forest Management Unit Analysis. 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.1 - Implementing Public Information and Educational Opportunities on State Forests. 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 7.1 - Timber Sale Preparation and Administration Procedures. 5. Operations Inventory Manual, Chapter 3. 6. FMFMD policy 251A

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2 – Ecosystem Condition and Productivity, Indicators 2.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 7 – Spiritual, Indicators 7.2

132 of 244 D R A F T Guidelines

1. Evaluating Riparian Management Zones on State Lands (Approved Interim Guidelines) 2. Fisheries Division Policies. 3. Water Quality Management Practices on Forest Land 4. Visual Management Handbook (http://dnrintranet/pdfs/divisions/forest/VMHDocument.pdf)

4.2.2 – Resource and Vegetation Management

4.2.2.1 - Biodiversity

Desired Future Conditions

Forested and non-forested communities will be resilient, healthy and sustainable, with natural ecological processes that are supportive of a wide variety of native terrestrial and aquatic species, and relatively free of exotic invasive plant and animal species.

Goals

1. Manage the EUP ecoregion to encourage the maintenance of intact and functional landscapes, ecosystems, and communities. These lands will provide healthy and sustainable habitat for the broad range of the EUP’s native plant and animal species within the context of their ecological potential at landscape, ecosystem, and community scales. 2. Managers will consider the potential role of vegetation management decisions on DNR administered lands in mitigating threats to biodiversity relative to adjacent ownerships within the ecoregion, State, and Great Lakes region. 3. Vegetation management activities will be consistent with an understanding of the natural range of variation of the community as defined by historic disturbance influences and system tolerance, species composition, site suitability, structure, and extent. 4. Within stand structural and compositional diversity will be enhanced, restored, and maintained, consistent with the natural range of variation across the landscape. 5. Habitat connectivity will be maintained, enhanced, and restored, consistent with the inherent landscape potential. 6. The DNR will promote the understanding of biodiversity across all ownerships within the EUP Ecoregion.

133 of 244 D R A F T DNR Management Objectives

1. Implement the Biodiversity Conservation Planning Process. 2. Seek known occurrences of T & E listed species and exemplary natural communities prior to planned intrusive work activities. In addition, areas that have been identified as having high potential for the occurrence of the above shall seek a survey prior to work commencing in accordance with work instruction procedures. This should be done by land managers in all divisions. 3. Utilize ecological classification systems including the landscape level National Hierarchy of Ecological Units and the Kotar Habitat Type Classification System (Burger and Kotar 2003) to inform decisions on site suitability. Where a classification system is not currently available, soils and other information will be used. 4. Representation of native species of shrubs and trees will be sought within landscape communities where these species have historically occurred. Representation will be accomplished by retaining under-represented species in harvest areas until such time that they become re-established. Special emphasis will be given to the restoration of the mesic conifer component within mixed mesic conifer-deciduous communities. This mesic conifer component in EUP State Forest landscapes will be substantially increased over the next twenty years. 5. Management activities will achieve and maintain adequate regeneration for uneven-aged cover types. “Adequate” is defined as the ability to ensure the long term sustainability of species composition within the community. 6. Encourage natural regeneration and the use of native plants for activities on State lands in the EUP Ecoregion. 7. Avoid the disturbance of existing dead wood including down woody debris (DWD) and snags (excluding hazard trees). 8. Management activities that promote the invasion and spread of invasive exotics will minimized where possible. The current distribution of recent invasive exotics on state lands in the EUP ecoregion will be determined annually through the compartment review process and other special projects, and projects to reduce exotic invasive plant species will be implemented within the planning period across the landscape. 9. Evaluate fragmentation of landscapes in terms of vegetation management in a landscape context and mitigate by maintaining habitat corridors for wildlife species that are dependent upon habitat connectivity across a mosaic of cover types. 10. Develop, initiate and conduct inventories on focal species and areas of special concern. 11. Train EUP staff and stakeholders in the conservation of biological diversity within the planning period.

134 of 244 D R A F T Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.4- Biodiversity Management on State Forest Lands. 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6- Forest Management Unit Analysis. 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 5.1- Coordinated Natural Resource Management Research 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 7.1- Timber Sale Preparation and Administration Procedures. 5. DNR Conservation Area Management Guidelines, issued September 2005.

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1 - Conservation of Biological Diversity, Indicators 1.1, 1.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2 - Ecosystem Condition and Productivity, Indicators 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 5 - Uncommon or Rare Natural Features, Indicators 5.1, 5.2, 5.3

Guidelines

1. Implementing Mesic Conifer Restoration on State Land (Western Upper Peninsula Ecoteam, 2004). 2. MDNR In-stand Retention Guidelines, In Draft, 2006. 3. MNFI Species and Natural Community Abstracts. 4. Assessment of Anthropogenic Disturbances to Mesic Northern Forests and Summary of Restoration Strategies: A Multi-Scale Approach. MNFI Report Number 2005-15, September 2005. 5. USFS Region 9 Conservation Assessments and Approaches. 6. Clay Lake Plain Ecosystem Project, 1995. 7. Two-Hearted River Landscape Ecosystem Conservation Plan, TNC 1995. 8. Two-Hearted River Watershed Landscape Management Resource Guide, July 2000. 9. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources- Ontario's Forest Management Guides 10. DNR Land Owner Incentive Program- Restoration of Mesic Conifers in the UP on Private Lands. 11. Native/Non-Native Species QAT Recommendations- Interim Guidelines for the Use of Native/Non-Native Species in District 4. MDNR April, 1996.

135 of 244 D R A F T 4.2.2.2 – Forest Resources

Desired Future Conditions

The EUP Ecoregion forests will work cooperatively with the forest products industry, other major land owners, and other public agencies to manage a stable base of timberland and offer a diverse mix of tree species, tree sizes, production of commercial timber and non-timber products, while also providing conservation of biological diversity and other forest uses. Silvicultural practices will sustain ecological, social and economic values of the forests of the EUP Ecoregion.

Goals

1. Maintain up-to-date, comprehensive information on forest inventories and engage in efforts to keep abreast of market conditions at the local, state, national and international levels. 2. Timber harvests are in line with sustainable levels while increasing the quantity and quality of wood products for harvest from appropriate forest lands. 3. Forest management activities will strengthen and diversify local economies by supporting efficient use of diverse forest uses, services and multiple products. 4. Forest management activities will preserve viable pools of native genetic stock, and utilize regionally adapted seed stock for reforestation and afforestation. 5. In forested ecosystems, the application of silvicultural prescriptions will be maintained to foster spatial and temporal diversity and complexity of stand structure. 6. Forest Management Unit operations at the Stand and Compartment level will integrate Ecoregional landscape considerations. 7. Silvicultural treatments selected will consider the impacts of herbivores upon natural and artificial forest regeneration, to ensure the retention of endemic species and species that are difficult to regenerate, and to prevent changes in the species composition of forests due to herbivores. 8. Promote sound forest management activities on private lands through private landowner and logger education. 9. Forest management will strive to achieve balanced age and size class distributions of forest stands across the ecoregional landscape (taking into account all ownerships and special resource areas). 10. Early-successional cover types (comprised of shade intolerant aspen, paper birch, jack and red pine) will generally be managed as even-aged stands with balanced age class structure of forest types, geographic distribution of forest types and age-classes across ecological subsections. 11. Mid-successional cover types (comprised of intermediate shade tolerant white pine, yellow birch, red oak and black spruce) will generally be managed as all-aged stands with uneven-aged class distributions of

136 of 244 D R A F T forest types, geographic distribution of forest types and age classes across ecological subsections. 12. Late-successional cover types (comprised of shade tolerant sugar maple, beech, hemlock, balsam fir, white cedar, and white spruce) will generally be managed as all-aged stands with uneven-aged class distributions of forest types, geographic distribution of forest types and age classes across ecological subsections. 13. Silvicultural practices will encourage regeneration that moves the forest toward the desired future condition. 14. Site suitability of species will be used as a guiding principle for forest vegetation management. 15. Projections and sustainability of harvest levels will be based upon inventory growth and regeneration data, site index models, and desired future conditions. Once desired conditions of species composition and age-class structure have been achieved, harvest and growth records will demonstrate that the volume harvested during any 10-year span does not exceed the net growth accumulated over that same period. 16. Where forest stands are primarily managed for fiber production, forest management will generally follow rotation lengths as recommended in silvicultural guidelines (dependent upon the tree species, site indexes and production goals – i.e. pulpwood vs. sawlog management objectives). 17. Ecosystem service provided by the State Forest (such as carbon sequestration, purification of air and water, and provision of habitat) will be considered in forest. 18. Ensure availability and sustainability of non-timber forest products within ecosystem limits. 19. Integrate non-timber forest products into forest management planning.

DNR Management Objectives

1. The EUP Ecoregion will take into account the social and economic importance of timber production from forest resources. 2. EUP Ecoregion FMU’s will work towards converting to IFMAP (Integrated Forest Monitoring Assessment and Prescription) inventory system throughout the planning period. 3. Utilize the National Hierarchy of Ecological Units by incorporating landscape-level concerns that will include forest habitat diversification and connectivity. 4. Projections and sustainability of harvest levels will be based upon biological, social, and economic information, including inventory growth and regeneration data, site index models, and desired future conditions. 5. The Kotar Habitat Type Classification System will be used in determining site suitability when considering which trees are best adapted to specific sites. 6. Forest operations will meet or exceed BMP practices to protect soil and water quality.

137 of 244 D R A F T 7. Work with stakeholders to maintain healthy ungulate populations that are proportionate with healthy forest ecosystems. 8. Work with the Hiawatha National Forest as they carry out their management of forest resources as outlined in their Forest Plan. 9. DNR State Forest system will actively manage its lands to assure a stable, long-term sustainable timber supply. 10. Early successional forest types will be managed on an even aged basis to achieve a balanced age class distribution across ecological subsections. 11. Aspen harvests will likely decline over this planning period because the majority of acres are in the 10 – 29 year age classes, younger than the prime merchantable age. (See “Age-class Distribution by Sub-section”, Section 3.1.2) As more acres of young aspen move into merchantable age classes, in approximately 10 years, volume per acre and wood quality are expected to increase. 12. Jack pine harvests will likely decline over this planning period due to efforts to balance age classes and the current relatively low number of available acres in the 40 - 59 year age classes. (See “Age-class Distribution by Sub-section”, Section 3.1.2) As more acres move into merchantable age classes, in approximately 20 years, volume per acre and wood quality are expected to increase. 13. Red pine harvest acres will remain at their current levels or slightly increase this planning period due to plantation thinnings, final harvests in CCC plantations, and shelterwood harvests in natural stands. 14. Lowland types will be harvested at a greater rate this coming decade as they mature into merchantable size classes. More harvesting will occur while maintaining important habitat values associated with the lowland types. 15. Oak will be planted into beech-dominated stands to help mitigate loss of mast habitat due to beech bark disease. Mesic conifers (hemlock and white pine) will be planted in some locations to achieve a more diversified hardwood cover type as it existed historically. 16. Mid and late successional forest types will be managed using partial harvest techniques allowing natural seeding and regeneration. 17. Northern hardwood harvests will decline slightly over the next ten years as recently harvested stands fill in. Harvests of this type may pick up again towards the end of the ten-year period. 18. The white pine cover type will continue to expand and seed into other pine-dominated stands as well as openings. Harvest acreage will decline over the next decade as shelter wood harvested stands seed in. 19. Cedar stands will continue to mature while the market demands remain low. With EUP cedar stands having high deer winter habitat value it is unlikely current harvest levels will change. 20. Advance sound forestry practices on private, non-industrial lands through collaboration with and support for assistance programs for such lands.

138 of 244 D R A F T 21. Collaborate with other major land owners and governmental units in landscape-level planning when such opportunities arise. 22. Evaluate local and regional economic impacts of non-timber forest products and DNR timber sales as part of DNR inventory and timber sale decision making processes. 23. Communicate to stakeholders the social, economic, and ecological benefits of a working forest as part of sustainable forestry management. 24. Coordinate with other ownerships in the regional landscape on the conservation of High Conservation Value Areas.

Standards

1. DNR State Forest Management Plan 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6 – Forest Management Unit Analysis. 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.7 – State Timber Harvest Trends. 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 2.1 – Reforestation.

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1 – Conservation of Biological Diversity, Indicators 1.1, 1.3 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2 – Ecosystem Condition and Productivity, Indicators 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 4- Ecological Cycles, Indicator 4.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 6 – Social/Cultural, Indicators 6.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 9- Ownership Patterns, Indicator 9.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 10 – Economic Health, Indicators 10.1, 10.2, 10.3

Guidelines

1. The compartment review process should include an assessment of current conditions to include: 2. Common vegetation, animals and their habitats 3. Unique, vulnerable, rare and threatened plant communities 4. Sensitive, threatened and endangered species and their habitats 5. Water and fishery resources 6. Soil resources 7. Natural disturbance regimes 8. Potential successional pathways, as identified using the Kotar Habitat Type Classification System (Burger and Kotar, 2003). 9. Special Conservation Area, High Value Conservation Areas, and Ecological Reference Areas.

139 of 244 D R A F T 10. The current ecological conditions supported by these factors should be compared with both historical conditions and desired future conditions within a landscape context. This assessment should be used to develop management options and silvicultural practices that will achieve long-term desired future conditions and maintenance of the ecological functions and productivity of the forest. 11. Forest management should consider that landform, localized climate, soils, topographic aspect, growth-limiting nutrient factors, localized precipitation rates and forest canopy cover can create micro-climates that possess different hydrologic properties and support different forest communities across the forest landscape. The Kotar Habitat Type Classification System should be used to assist in determining site suitability when considering which tree species are best adapted to specific sites and local hydrologic conditions. 12. Forest management efforts will promote prompt reforestation. 13. The rate of harvest of forest products should not exceed levels that can be biologically sustained. The sustainability of harvest levels is based upon growth and regeneration data, site index potentials and growth models, and limits are modified by desired future conditions of the forest.

4.2.2.3 – Wildlife

Desired Future Condition

Wildlife resources, natural communities, and ecosystems will provide diverse, sustainable habitats necessary to meet the needs of common, declining, and rare plant and animal species and other human values.

Goals

1. Land will be managed using an ecosystem-based conservation approach to provide the age and size classes, and successional stages necessary for the habitat needs of wildlife at abundances necessary to maintain biological diversity, ecosystem structure and function, and management goals. 2. Enhance, restore and conserve functioning landscape mosaics, within stand structural and compositional diversity and habitat connectivity in forested landscapes consistent with inherent landscape potential. 3. Promote the wise use of wildlife resources to provide recreational, aesthetic, spiritual and economic benefits to the citizens and visitors of the EUP Ecoregion. 4. Provide for the conservation of focal species, Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) and other specific plants or habitats by designating special management areas and developing specific strategies for the management of these resources.

140 of 244 D R A F T DNR Management Objectives

1. Restore mesic conifers to forest types where they historically occurred as associates, reviewing appropriate restoration sites annually. 2. Strive to achieve and maintain balanced age class distributions over even-aged forest types. 3. Maintain acceptable levels of within stand regeneration in uneven-aged forest types. 4. Maintain, restore and protect wildlife habitat features associated with dead wood, legacy trees, riparian areas, vernal pools, caves and rocks. 5. Manage habitat patch size in desired forest types as required to maintain minimum viable populations of various wildlife species. 6. Maintain, restore and conserve the spatial distribution of forest types to facilitate movement of wildlife and connectivity of habitat. 7. Implement silvicultural management guidelines that address the needs of a diverse assemblage of plant and wildlife species and biodiversity concerns by 2007. 8. Provide high quality habitat to support hunting, trapping and viewing recreation, including aspen as an important component within the EUP landscape. 9. Manage cedar and lowland conifer forests primarily as habitat for deer and other wildlife species. 10. Manage populations of keystone wildlife species within limits dictated by biological, social, and economic factors. 11. Manage habitat for ungulates to provide adequate browse for healthy populations while minimizing the impact upon the long-term sustainability of summer range vegetative communities. 12. Implement the “Conservation Strategy for Large Open-Lands and Associated Wildlife in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan” by 2008. 13. Develop and implement management strategies for Special Conservation Areas, such as, critical winter deer habitat and Kirtland’s warbler nesting areas, on state land within the planning period within the Statewide biodiversity planning context. 14. Develop and implement management strategies for focal species and SGCN in the EUP Ecoregion within the planning period.

141 of 244 D R A F T Standards

1. DNR Natural Resource Commission Policy and Procedure 32.22-07, Forest Management, issued July 11, 2005. 2. DNR Natural Resource Commission Policy and Procedure 39.21-08, Wildlife Flooding Projects – Operation and Maintenance, issued July 11, 2005. 3. DNR Natural Resource Commission Policy and Procedure 39.21-18, Wildlife - Procedure on Flooding Projects for Fish or Wildlife, issued July 11, 2005. 4. DNR Natural Resource Commission Policy and Procedure 39.21-20, Beaver Management, issued July 11, 2005. 5. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.4 – Biodiversity Management on State Forest Lands. 6. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 2.1 – Reforestation. 7. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.1 – Forest Operations. 8. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 5.1- Coordinated Natural Resource Management Research 9. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.2- Recreation. 10. DNR Wildlife Division Draft Policy on Ecosystem Management, issued February 2005. 11. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of 1994. Section 324.40501- Wildlife Restoration, Section 401- Wildlife Conservation. 12. DNR Parks and Recreation Management Plans

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1- Conservation of Biological Diversity, Indicators 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2- Ecosystem Condition and Productivity, Indicators 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 4- Ecological Cycles, Indicator 4.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 8- Recreation, Indicators 8.1, 8.3, 8.4, 8.7

Guidelines

1. Conservation Strategy for Large Open-lands and Associated Wildlife in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Draft 6-17-2000. 2. MDNR In-Stand Retention Guidelines 3. MNFI Species and Natural Community Abstracts.

142 of 244 D R A F T 4. Assessment of Anthropogenic Disturbances to Mesic Northern Forests and Summary of Restoration Strategies: A Multi-Scale Approach. MNFI Report Number 2005-15, September 2005. 5. USFS Region 9 Conservation Assessments and Approaches. 6. Deer Range Improvement Program Guidelines, MDNR 1978. 7. Clay Lake Plain Ecosystem Project, 1995. 8. Two Hearted River Landscape Ecosystem Conservation Plan, TNC 1995. 9. Two-Hearted River Watershed Landscape Management Resource Guide, July 2000. 10. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources- Ontario's Forest Management Guides 11. Consider the surrounding landscape mosaic in habitat management decisions.

4.2.2.4 – Fisheries

Desired Future Conditions

Aquatic resources shall provide a diversity of cold, cool, and warm water habitats which support healthy fish and aquatic communities characterized by balanced stocks of game and non-game species, adequate natural reproduction, protection of rare or threatened aquatic species, and minimization of invasive exotic species.

Goals

1. Protect and maintain healthy aquatic environments and communities, and rehabilitate those that are degraded. 2. Provide diverse public fishing opportunities to maximize the value of recreational fishing to anglers. 3. Permit and encourage economically efficient and stable commercial fisheries, which accommodate Tribal fishing rights and do not conflict with recreational fisheries. 4. Foster and contribute to public stewardship of natural resources through a scientific understanding of aquatic communities, human use of aquatic resources, and aquatic resource management.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Maintain good water quality through applicable state laws, administrative rules, Department policies and procedures and through the environmental and compartment review processes. 2. Protect, restore, or enhance riparian and near-shore habitats as appropriate as habitat for fisheries and other aquatic species.. 3. Provide a full spectrum of fishing opportunities (e.g. flies only, quality lakes, panfish, trout, perch, etc.) for the angling public.

143 of 244 D R A F T 4. Maintain and rehabilitate streams to provide stable channel characteristics, appropriate thermal regimes, and instream or overhead cover for aquatic species. 5. Restore free flowing free flowing conditions to artificially impounded streams when survey data, public opinion, and angling reports indicate that an impoundment is no longer ecologically or economically sustainable. 6. Minimize the distribution of invasive exotic species through monitoring, direct control, and public educational outreach in coordination with the Tribes, federal, state and local governments, and stakeholder groups. 7. Acquire land for public access and protection of aquatic habitat at prioritized and important locations. 8. Replace and encourage the recruitment of large woody structure in streams and the near-shore habitat of lakes and ponds through forest conservation practices. 9. Conduct educational programs with lake associations, sportsmen clubs, and other organizations to promote the value of near-shore large woody structure and other riparian zone management issues. 10. Conduct a survey and monitoring program on public waters to evaluate existing fish community structure, water quality and physical habitat conditions, and document exotic and/or nuisance plant or animal species. Analyses of these data will provide updated and more comprehensive prescriptions and management plans. 11. Identify select cold water streams where managers agree to encourage coniferous vegetation in the buffer. 12. Participate in the inter-agency Cormorant Coordination Group to identify suitable locations for cormorant depredation studies and control projects. 13. Conduct meetings with stakeholder organizations to explain and educate the public about the ecological danger posed by invasive aquatic exotic and nuisance plant and animal species. 14. Flowing aquatic resources will be maintained and rehabilitated such that warm water streams support healthy aquatic communities, including beaver. Concurrently, high-quality, designated trout streams will be protected from beaver-caused impounding through implementation of the Department’s Beaver Management Policy and in coordination with forest management practices. 15. Monitor and regulate sport and commercial harvest of gamefish species in 1836 Treaty waters of the Great Lakes pursuant to 2000 Consent Decree. Share harvest information and biological survey data with Consent Decree parties in a timely manner.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.2 – Management Review Process

144 of 244 D R A F T 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.4 – Biodiversity Management on State Forest Lands 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.5 – Social Impact Considerations and Public Involvement 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6 – Forest Management Unit Analyses 5. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 2.3 – Integrated Pest Management and Forest Health 6. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.1 – Forest Operations 7. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.2 – Best Management Practices Non-Conformance Reporting Instructions 8. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.3 – Best Management Practices – Road Closures 9. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 5.1 – Coordinated Natural Resource Management Research 10. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.2 – Integrated Public Recreational Opportunities with Management on State Forest Lands 11. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 7.1 – Timber Preparation and Administration Procedures 12. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 7.2 – Legal Compliance and Administration of Contracts 13. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 9.1 – Collaboration with Tribes in regard to Management of State Forest Land 14. Department Policy No. 2110.1-Beaver Management 15. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act 451 of 1994. 16. PA 154 of 2005, Section 305, pertaining to management of cormorants. 17. Natural Resources Commission Policy No. 3108 (Fish Stocking); No. 3110 (Fish Management Priorities) 18. Fisheries Orders: 200.06; 201.05; 204.06; 206.05; 209.03; 210.06; 213.04; 214.06; 215.06; 217.02A; 218.06; 219.02A; 220.06; 221.03; 224.02; 225.06; 228.03; 230.03; 231.03; 234.04; 237.04; 240.05; 241.06; no order number (Designated Lamprey Barriers). 19. 2000 Consent Decree

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1 – Conservation of Biological Diversity; Indicators, 1.2; 1.3 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2 – Ecosystem Conductivity and Productivity; Indicators, 2.2; 2.4 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 3 – Water and Soil Conservation; Indicators, 3.1; 3.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 4 – Ecological Cycles; Indicators, 4.2

145 of 244 D R A F T EUP Ecoregion Criterion 5 – Uncommon or Rare Natural Features; Indicators, 5.1; 5.2; 5.3 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 6 – Social/Cultural: Indicators, 6.2; 6.4 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 7 – Spiritual; Indicators, 7.1; 7.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 8 – Recreation; Indicators, 8.1; 8.3; 8.6; 8.7 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 9 – Ownership Patterns; Indicators, 9.2; 9.3 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11 – Institutional Processes; Indicators, 11.1; 11.2; 11.3; 11.4

Guidelines

1. Fisheries Division/Habitat Management Unit Policy Statements 2. Fisheries Division Strategic Plan 3. Best Management Practices Manual 4. Shoreline, stream bank, or instream habitat modifications will be subject to Fisheries Division habitat management policies or guidelines, including: Best Management Practices, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines, Forest Treatment Proposals and MDEQ permitting protocols and dredging windows. 5. Michigan Fish Stocking Guidelines II: with Periodic Updates 6. Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan

4.2.2.5 – Rare and Exemplary Communities

Desired Future Conditions

Viable rare and exemplary natural communities will be managed and protected on DNR-administered lands while working cooperatively with partners to enable the same on other ownerships.

Goals

1. Identify and evaluate ecosystem condition for rare and exemplary communities. 2. Maintain, enhance or restore natural species composition and ecological functions. 3. Establish appropriate levels of protection. 4. Develop management and monitoring plans.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Identify resources to complete Michigan Natural Features Inventory field surveys and assessments for rare, exemplary, threatened, and endangered natural communities on DNR administered lands in the EUP. 2. Evaluate the ecological condition and threats for existing sites and annually for newly identified rare natural communities.

146 of 244 D R A F T 3. Determine immediate and long term protection and management goals, values and impacts, objectives and tasks for existing sites and annually for newly identified rare natural communities. 4. Implement short term protection and management tasks for known rare natural communities and annually for newly identified rare natural communities. 5. Initiate long term protection and management goals and objectives within the planning period for known rare natural communities and annually for newly identified rare natural communities. 6. Monitor the completion of programmatic and site specific external (administrative) goals, objectives and tasks and the success of management (maintenance, enhancement and restoration) goals, objectives and tasks within the planning period and annually for newly identified rare natural communities. 7. Partner with other public agencies, universities, land trusts and interested public to identify, manage, protect and monitor rare natural communities. 8. Work with volunteers to assist in periodically monitoring threats and management success at rare community sites. 9. Evaluate lands for their potential to be recommended for designation as SCAs/HCVAs/ERAs or designation under Wilderness and Natural Area regulations (P.A. 451 of 1994, Part 351).

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.4 – Biodiversity Management on State Forest Lands. 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.1 – Forest Operations 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 5.1 - Coordinated Natural Resource Management Research 4. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Forest, Mineral and Fire Management 2005 Draft Conservation Area Management Guidelines with Appendices. 5. DNR – Forest, Mineral and Fire Management. In prep. High Conservation Value Area and Ecological Reference Area Monitoring Guidelines. 6. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2000. Natural Areas Program Strategic Plan.

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1- Conservation of Biological Diversity, Indicator 1.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2 - Ecosystem Condition and Productivity, Indicators 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 3- Water and Soil Conservation, Indicator 3.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 5 -Uncommon or Rare Natural Features, Indicators 5.1, 5.3 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 8- Recreation, Indicator 8.3

147 of 244 D R A F T EUP Ecoregion Criterion 9- Ownership Patterns, Indicator 9.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11- Institutional Processes, Indicators 11.1, 11.2

Guidelines

1. MNFI Species and Natural Community Abstracts. 2. USFS Region 9 Conservation Assessments and Approaches

4.2.3 – Watershed Management

4.2.3.1 – Soil Resources

Desired Future Conditions

Soil resources will be conserved to support diverse and unique ecosystems providing habitat for plants, animals and other organisms.

Goals

1. Protect, maintain and enhance soil ecosystem health and productivity. 2. Incorporate soils GIS information into forest management planning efforts. 3. Strive to maintain or improve knowledge and understanding of the relationship between soil ecosystems, forest ecosystems and forest management activities.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Retain habitat for soil organisms by considering forest floor litter composition when making forest prescriptions. 2. Prevent accelerated soil erosion and mitigate on-going soil erosion on problem sites. 3. Use soils GIS data to assist with planning and management decisions. 4. Develop partnerships with other agencies and organizations that can help improve knowledge and understanding of the soil resource and any mitigation issues that may arise. 5. Consider site and soil characteristics in vegetative management activities.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instructions 1.4 – Biodiversity Management on State Forest Lands 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 2.1 – Reforestation 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 2.2 – Use of Pesticides and Other Chemicals on State Lands 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instructions 3.1 – Forest Operations

148 of 244 D R A F T 5. DNR Forest Certification Work Instructions 3.2 – Best Management Practices Non-Conformance Instructions 6. DNR Forest Certification Work Instructions 3.3 – Best Management Practices – Road Closures 7. DNR Forest Certification Work Instructions 5.1 – Coordinate Natural Resource Research

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1 – Conservation of Biological Diversity, Indicators 1.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2 – Ecosystem Condition and Productivity; Indicators 2.2; 2.4 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 3 – Water and Soil Conservation, Indicators 3.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 4 – Ecological Processes, Indicators 4.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 5- Uncommon or Rare Natural Features, Indicator 5.3

Guidelines

1. Prescriptions should seek to retain soil organic matter content, nutrient retention and cycling by retaining plant litter upon the floor of forest stands. 2. Use soil maps to identify wet soils that are vulnerable to compaction and rutting, and avoid actions (such as harvesting during wet seasons) that will cause excessive soil disturbance. 3. BMP-related problems must be immediately identified, reported and dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner. 4. Management prescriptions should follow BMP guidelines for slope and buffer widths that limit soil disturbance and biomass removal on high gradient sites (>10% slope) where the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation into aquatic systems is high. Management activity should be avoided in areas with >50% slope. 5. Forest management prescriptions should strive to balance the retention of forest litter, large woody debris and snags with a reduction of excess fuel loads that can contribute to catastrophic stand fires, which result in the loss of biomass and the alteration of carbon balances. 6. Water Quality Management Practices on Forest Land, MDNR 1994.

4.2.3.2 - Riparian Areas & Wetlands

Desired Future Conditions

Riparian and wetland areas shall be resilient to natural and human induced disturbances, and yield abundant quality aquatic environments to meet the needs of plants, fish, wildlife and people.

149 of 244 D R A F T Goals

1. Riparian management zones (RMZ) will be managed to maintain and enhance natural aesthetic values and free-flowing conditions for warm, cool and coldwater streams, and for values of water quality, aquatic habitat, recreation, forest products, unique wildlife habitats, wildlife travel corridors, threatened and endangered species, unique ecological communities and cultural resources. 2. Wetlands will be protected and managed for water quality benefits, biodiversity, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic values, recreation and timber production, threatened and endangered species, unique ecological communities and cultural resources. 3. Contribute to the DNR statewide objective of restoring and/or creating 30,000 acres of wetlands contiguous with grasslands. Naturally functioning wetland resources shall be identified, conserved, restored and enhanced, with specific priority given to the protection, restoration and creation of Great Lakes coastal marsh, inland emergent marsh, ephemeral wetlands, and wet prairie communities.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Riparian management zones will be identified and mapped. 2. Acquire and maintain lowland and swamp conifer complexes to provide winter thermal cover for wildlife. 3. Identify, inventory, map, and control invasive species to prevent further wetland degradation. 4. Avoid new motorized trail development within lowland and swamp conifer complexes. 5. Prevent uncontrolled watercraft and vehicular use within wetlands and RMZ. 6. Implement Best Management Practices (BMP) when working in and adjacent to riparian and wetland areas and obtain appropriate work permits. 7. Restore and improve degraded hydrologic regimes for the maintenance of native aquatic communities resulting in viable populations of desired plant, fish and wildlife species. 8. Consider for removal dams not meeting management so that natural function may be restored to rivers and streams. 9. Determine and manage the abundance and distribution of beaver to sustain pond habitat while minimizing adverse effects upon coldwater stream habitats, buildings, and road and trail crossings. 10. Provide a continuum of successional stages along riparian and wetland areas to provide habitat for diverse wildlife species.

150 of 244 D R A F T Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.2 – Best Management Practices Non-Conformance Reporting Instructions 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.3 – Best Management Practices Road Closures 3. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, PA 451, 1994 Part 305 Natural Rivers 4. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 P.L. (90-542 as amended)(U.S.C. 1271-1287) 5. North American Waterfowl Management Plan 6. DNR Beaver Management Policy

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1 – Conservation of Biological Diversity, Indicators 1.1, 1.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2 – Ecosystem Condition and Productivity, Indicators 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 3 – Water and Soil Conservation, Indicators 3.1, 3.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 4 – Ecological Cycles, Indicators 4.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 9- Ownership Patterns, Indicator 9.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11- Institutional Processes, Indicators 11.1, 11.4

Guidelines

1. Water Quality Management Practices on Forest Land/ Forestry BMP’s Manual 2. Evaluating Riparian Management on State Lands, April 2004.

4.2.4 - Species of Greatest Concern

4.2.4.1 - Federal Threatened & Endangered Species

Desired Future Conditions

Populations of known federal and state listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats will be protected and managed in an effort for reclassification.

Goals

1. Cooperate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the identification and recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species that occur in the EUP Ecoregion. 2. Manage DNR administered lands to provide important habitats for restoring, conserving, and enhancing known federal and state listed threatened and endangered species.

151 of 244 D R A F T 3. Protect known occurrences of federal and state listed threatened and endangered species on state owned lands with primary emphasis directed toward the most viable occurrences. 4. Advocate the conservation of federal and state listed threatened and endangered species on non-state owned lands. 5. Identify research needs for individual species that are federal and state listed including research relating to essential habitat requirements, physiological needs, genetics, and floral biology. 6. Maintain and strengthen existing partnerships between private land owners, state, federal and tribal governments and work toward building new ones. 7. Develop and distribute effective outreach tools to all stakeholders. 8. Protect, maintain, and restore natural communities for the benefit of threatened and endangered species.

DNR Management Objectives

1. The taking of any state listed threatened and endangered species of wildlife, fish or plants will be avoided in all situations, except following consultation with the DNR Endangered Species Coordinator or with the use of guidelines prepared by the DNR endangered species program for avoiding or minimizing impact to the species. 2. Identify and protect critical habitat essential for the survival of federal and state listed threatened and endangered species. 3. Land managers in all divisions shall seek known occurrences of T & E listed species prior to planned intrusive work activities. 4. The DNR and other partners and volunteers will conduct field surveys of suitable habitats to identify new occurrences, evaluate recovery possibilities at discovered sites and verify extent and status of historically documented sites for selected species. 5. The DNR will work with MNFI staff to identify known occurrences and report new occurrences of federally listed plant or animal species. 6. Monitor the progress and status of federal and state listed threatened and endangered species on state owned lands for population demographics, viability, and threats. 7. Competition and habitat alteration by non-native plants will be controlled wherever possible. 8. The DNR, in association with partners, will develop management guidelines or recovery plans for threatened and endangered species and their habitats. 9. EUP DNR staff will work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on voluntary conservation agreements designed to help protect and conserve species with local and tribal governments, private landowners, land conservancies, and private sector agencies. Conservation agreements will define specific actions or management activities to enhance and protect listed species.

152 of 244 D R A F T 10. The EUP DNR staff will promote and work with incentive-based programs to encourage cooperation from landowners in the voluntary enhancement of habitat for federal and state listed threatened and endangered species on their properties. 11. The DNR will encourage the acquisition of lands to benefit the conservation and restoration of federal and state listed threatened and endangered species. 12. Threats to federal and state listed species populations such as habitat destruction and loss from increased development and recreation, industrial and agricultural impacts, disease, predation, inadequate protection by existing laws, pollution, hydrological disruptions, and competition from introduced non-natives will be evaluated for management actions. 13. The DNR will develop and maintain communication with neighboring federal and state agencies, Ontario Province of Canada, local governments, tribal agencies, private landowners, land conservancies, and private sector agencies regarding the known presence, maintenance, and restoration of all known federal and state listed threatened and endangered species potentially occurring on their ownerships. 14. The DNR will develop effective communication and outreach products to educate state land managers, non-governmental agencies, tribal and local governments, and the public and private sector. 15. Training will be provided to DNR staff on threatened and endangered species identification and natural history.

Standards

1. Any activity on State owned land that may take an endangered or threatened species must be coordinated with the DNR Endangered Species Coordinator. Permits may be issued only for scientific, zoological, or educational purposes, or for propagation in captivity to ensure survival of a species. The DNR Endangered Species Program coordinates permit requirements for federally listed species with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.4- Biodiversity Management on State Forest Lands. 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.1- Forest Operations 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 5.1- Coordinated Natural Resource Management Research 5. Part 365 (Endangered Species Protection) of P.A. 451 of 1994 protects all plants and animals listed as threatened and endangered in Michigan. 6. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Public Law 93-205, 87 Stat. 884 7. Michigan Ginseng Act, Act 184 of 1994 8. Federal and State Recovery Plans 9. PRD Stewardship Plans

153 of 244 D R A F T Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1- Conservation of Biological Diversity, Indicators 1.1, 1.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 5-Uncommon or Rare Natural Features, Indicators 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 8- Recreation, Indicator 8.3

Guidelines

1. Identified habitats for federal and state threatened and endangered (T&E) species should be maintained. Restoration of degraded T&E habitat should be considered in management plans when such potential areas are identified. 2. Where identification of a community type indicates the probability of a federal and state listed plant or animal being in or near a proposed forest treatment, new surveys should be conducted prior to development of management plans or the implementation of management prescriptions. Requests for survey work should be forwarded through the Forest Management Unit Manager to the Forest Resource Management Section Manager. 3. Locations of newly discovered species should be reported to the Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 4. Conflicts, or potential conflicts, in the management of species should be referred to the DNR Endangered Species Program Coordinator for assistance. 5. Data on specific locations of federal and state threatened and endangered species must not be shared with anyone outside the DNR without express approval of the DNR Endangered Species Coordinator. All comments regarding T & E species for Compartment Review should be placed in “locked comments” in the Operations Inventory database. 6. MNFI Species and Natural Community Abstracts. 7. USFS Region 9 Conservation Assessments and Approaches.

4.2.4.2- Species of Special Concern

Desired Future Conditions

Maintain viable populations of Species of Special Concern to prevent reclassification to State Threatened or Endangered status.

Goals

1. Protect, maintain, and restore natural communities, for the benefit of species of special concern. 2. Determine the status of listed species of Special Concern in the Eastern Upper Peninsula.

154 of 244 D R A F T 3. Protect and manage known occurrences of species of Special Concern and their habitats on state owned lands in the EUP Ecoregion. 4. Advocate protection of species of Special Concern and their habitats on ownerships in the EUP Ecoregion. 5. Define and protect critical habitat essential for the survival of species of Special Concern in the EUP Ecoregion. 6. Identify research needs for species of special concern including essential habitat requirements, physiological needs, and genetics.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Conduct field surveys with other partners and volunteers of suitable habitats to identify new occurrences, and verify extent and status of historically documented sites. 2. Work with MNFI staff to identify known occurrences of species of Special Concern and report new occurrences. 3. Land managers in all divisions shall seek known occurrences of T & E listed species prior to planned intrusive work activities. 4. Avoid the taking of any species of Special Concern. 5. Develop management guidelines for species of Special Concern and their associated habitats using the best available science. 6. Eliminate competition from non-native species whenever and wherever possible. 7. Work to develop and maintain communication with and foster voluntary conservation agreements designed to help protect and conserve species with local governments, tribal governments, private landowners, land conservancies, and private sector agencies. Conservation agreements will define specific actions or management activities to enhance and protect listed species. 8. The DNR will develop effective communication and outreach products to educate state land managers, non-governmental agencies, tribal and local governments, and the public and private sector. 9. Train EUP Ecoregion staff on species of Special Concern identification and natural history.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.4- Biodiversity Management on State Forest Lands. 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.1- Forest Operations 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 5.1- Coordinated Natural Resource Management Research 4. Special concern herpetiles shall not be taken or possessed except as authorized by a scientific collectors permit.

155 of 244 D R A F T 5. Part 529 (Christmas Trees, Boughs, Plants, and Other Trees) of P.A. 451 of 1994 6. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act- Act 451 of 1994- Section 324.41103- Orders protecting fish, animals or birds.

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1- Conservation of Biological Diversity, Indicators 1.1, 1.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 5-Uncommon or Rare Natural Features, Indicators 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 8- Recreation, Indicator 8.3

Guidelines

1. Special Concern, when and where possible, should be treated with similar management consideration as threatened and endangered species. 2. Identified habitats for Special concern species should be maintained. Restoration of degraded habitat should be considered in management plans when such potential areas are identified. 3. Where identification of a community type indicates the probability of a Special concern plant or animal being in or near a proposed forest treatment, new surveys should be conducted prior to development of management plans or the implementation of management prescriptions. Requests for survey work should be forwarded through the Forest Management Unit Manager to the Forest Resource Management Section Manager. 4. Report locations of newly discovered species to the Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 5. MNFI Species and Natural Community Abstracts. 6. USFS Region 9 Conservation Assessments and Approaches. 4.2.5 - Land Use Management

4.2.5.1 - Easements

Desired Future Conditions

The DNR will hold conservation easements upon private lands to maintain ecological values and to provide public access. Easements may be granted on DNR administered lands to authorize a specific long-term use which provide biological, social, and economic benefit.

Goals

1. Secure critical habitats and recreational access on desirable lands, including those held in the Commercial Forest Act, through acquisition and conservation easements.

156 of 244 D R A F T 2. Use easements as a way to maintain control and monitor use of state lands by private companies and individuals. 3. Increase use of conservation easements to secure perpetual recreational use of privately held properties.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Work with land conservancies and large landowners to facilitate the acquisition and monitoring of parcels with conservation easements. 2. Consider the protection of the natural environment as the primary consideration when granting easements. 3. Ensure that herbicide treatments on easements on State Forests comply with Forest Certification Standards. 4. Place emphasis on using native seeds on public easements in the EUP.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.4 - Biodiversity Management. 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 2.2 - Use of Pesticides and other chemicals. 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.2 - Integrating Public Recreational Opportunities with Management on State Forest Lands. 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 7.2 - Legal Compliance and Administration of Contracts. 5. Natural Resources Commission Policy 4605, Easement for the Use of State Lands 6. NREPA, Chapter 21, Part 21, 324.2140 7. FMFMD policy 212 for Easements

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 9 – Ownership Patterns, Indicators, 9.2, 9.3

Guidelines

1. “Conservation Easements and Kamehameha Conservation Easement”, June 13, 2005. 2. Interim Guidelines for the Use of Native/Non-Native Species in the Eastern Upper Peninsula, MDNR April 1996.

157 of 244 D R A F T 4.2.5.2 - Special Use Permits and Leases

Desired Future Conditions

Leases and Use Permits will allow certain uses to occur on DNR administered land for specific time periods for purposes to meet social and economic needs while maintaining the ecological integrity of public resources.

Goals

1. Utilize leases and use permits to manage the wise use of DNR administered lands and minerals to minimize adverse affects on those lands.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Ensure leases and use permits are granted following published guidelines 2. Mineral rights are leased after consultation and review by land managers from appropriate DNR Divisions. 3. Use concessionaire agreements as a tool for EUP managers to control commercial use of DNR administered lands. 4. Grant use permits for shorter term use of State Parks, Recreational Lands, and State Forest Land.

Standards

1. Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.4 - Biodiversity Management on State Forest Lands. 2. Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.1 - Forest Operations. 3. Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.3 - Best Management Practices- Road Closures. 4. Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.2 - Integrating Public Recreational Opportunities with Management on State Forest Lands. 5. DNR policy 26.01-01—DNR as Lessor—Leases of State Land and Property 6. DNR Policy 26.04.04, Use of State Owned lands Administered by the Department of Natural Resources. 7. Natural Resources Commission Policy 3201, Water Rights of Way 8. FMFMD policy 216 for events 9. FMFMD policy 215 for private gates 10. Act 451, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), MCL 324.501 et seq. (Part 5) 11. Parks and Recreation Policy # 8.7

158 of 244 D R A F T Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 6 – Social/Cultural, Indicator 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 8 – Recreation, Indicators 8.2, 8.5 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 10 – Economic Health, Indicators, 10.2

Guidelines

1. Power Point “Permission to Use State Lands”, Department Procedure Implementation Training, February 28, 2006 2. Use Permits-Staff Instructions revised 1-6-06

4.2.6 - Minerals & Geology

4.2.6.1 – Nonmetallic Mineral Development

Desired Future Conditions

Nonmetallic minerals will be utilized to benefit social and economic needs with due consideration of other resource values and the rehabilitation of mined areas.

Goals

1. Provide for orderly development of State owned nonmetallic mineral resources. 2. Encourage the private sector rather than the State to risk capital exploration and development of nonmetallic minerals. 3. Optimize revenue from State-owned nonmetallic minerals when consistent with other natural resource management objectives.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Manage nonmetallic leases and development on public lands to develop the resources and to protect the environmental, recreational, and esthetic values of the land. 2. Establish nonmetallic mineral leasing and development on public lands in a manner that will assure optimum economic return to the State. 3. Require progressive and final rehabilitation of extraction sites to address visual impact, air and water quality impacts, and accommodate subsequent land uses. Rehabilitation will take surrounding land use and approved land use designations into consideration. 4. Establish, review, and recommend as necessary, site specifications and review the reclamation requirements in the lease and mining plan to assure the ecologic integrity of the extraction site. 5. Use native plant material for restoration of extraction sites where and when possible.

159 of 244 D R A F T Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.5 – Social Impact Considerations and Public Involvement Processes 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6 – Forest Management Unit Analyses 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.1 - Forest Operations 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instructions 3.2 – Best Management Practices Non-Conformance Reporting Instructions 5. DNR Forest Certification Work Instructions 7.2 – Legal Compliance and Administration of Contracts

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 3 – Water and Soil Resources, Indicators 3.1, 3.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 6 – Social /Cultural, Indicators 6.2, 7.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 10 – Economic Health, Indicators 10.1, 10.2

Guidelines

1. Interim guidelines for the Use of Native/Non-Native Species in the Eastern Upper Peninsula., MDNR April, 1996.

4.2.6.2– Unique Geologic Features

Desired Future Conditions

Unique geologic features will be protected from degradation and where appropriate supported by an educational effort designed to help visitors understand, appreciate and thereby protect the resource.

Goals

1. Seek and support the protection of unique geologic features within the Ecoregion and protect imperiled or critically imperiled communities. 2. Encourage adequate opportunities for identification and access to unique geologic features while protecting these features for future generations. 3. Seek a better understanding and mapping of the three dimensional framework of the surface and bedrock geology of the Ecoregion and other unique geologic features that are found within the EUP Ecoregion. 4. Avoid modifying microclimate and microhabitat conditions that unique geologic features provide certain biological communities. 5. Encourage public education, information, and interpretation of unique geologic features to citizens within the Ecoregion.

160 of 244 D R A F T DNR M anagement Objectives

1. Encourage regional policymakers and DNR staff to obtain and update geologic and earth-science information to make wise decisions regarding urban, forest and agricultural land use, the protection of aquifers, and the well being of citizens in the areas of unique geologic features of the EUP. 2. Encourage the wise use of geologic resources and limit damage to significant unique geologic features or develop and enforce regulations to curtail recreational activities that cause significant damage to unique geologic features. Access will be restricted when resource protection or public safety becomes a priority. 3. Document and map areas of karst, alvar related geologic features, subterranean streams, rock outcrops and subcrops, glacial beach ridges and coastal dune/beach areas. 4. Identify, document, and monitor sources of disturbance, invasive species, and presence of natural vegetative communities beneficial to wildlife and rare species dependent upon specific unique geologic features. 5. Encourage interpretive education pertaining to the unique geological features, such as the sandstone cliffs and perched Grand Sable Dunes at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, the sandstone bedrock escarpment at Tahquamenon Falls State Park and Wagner Falls Natural Area, the spring at Palms Book State Park, the rock cliff at Fayette Historic State Park, and the alvar community on Drummond Island.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.5 – Social Impact Considerations and Public Involvement Processes 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6 – Forest Management Unit Analysis 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.1 – Forest Operations 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.2 – Integrating Public Recreational Opportunities with Management on State Forest Lands 5. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 9.1 – Collaboration with Tribes in Regard to Management of State Forest Land

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1 - Conservation of Biological Diversity, Indicators 1.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 5 – Uncommon or Rare Natural Features, Indicators 5.3 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 6 – Social/Cultural, Indicator 6.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 7 Spiritual, Indicator 7.1

161 of 244 D R A F T Guidelines

1. When appropriate, work with municipalities to promote planning and zoning insuring adequate protection of unique geologic features. 2. Work with land managers to develop priorities for unique geologic features management and protection. 3. Pursue partnerships with conservancy, geological institutions and societies, educators and other interest groups to provide education and monitoring of unique geologic features.

4.2.7 - Forest Pest Management

4.2.7.1 – Insects& Diseases

Desired Future Conditions

Forest resources will experience minimal negative impacts from forest pests which will reduce losses due to insects and diseases.

Goals

1. Use appropriate tools and tactics to prevent economically important pest damage while minimizing environmental damage. 2. Treat a pest only when and where needed and in a way that optimizes the natural mortality factors in the ecosystem. 3. Solicit input from a variety of forest resource specialists and managers. 4. Improve the quality and quantity of forest resource commodity yields and noncommodity values and experiences by minimizing the negative impact of forest insects and disease. 5. Regularly monitor and survey Michigan’s state and private forest resources for signs and symptoms of insects and diseases, and forest stresses which predispose the resource to damage by secondary pests. 6. When acquiring and delivering pest management information, ensure that only credible, accurate, and scientifically valid information is made available to users. 7. Minimize pesticide use to achieve management objectives.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Identify key landownership values, individual management objectives associated with the forest and management needs of forest stands. 2. Identify and assess potential pests and their potential effect. 3. Use surveys to monitor pest populations and stand conditions and recommend economically and socially sound alternatives to minimize the impact of insect or disease problems.

162 of 244 D R A F T 4. Use silvicultural guidelines to reduce timber losses to insect and disease and minimize pesticide use to achieve management objectives and use of chemical pesticides when they are legal, reasonable cost effective, and available to meet management objectives. 5. Use an interdisciplinary approach will be used to reduce forest losses through the use of optimum mixes of pest control techniques. 6. Implement Forest Health Management program (FHM), to reduce mortality and loss of growth in EUP Ecoregion forests.

Standards

1. Forest Certification Work Instruction 2.2: Use of Pesticides and Other Chemicals on State Forest Lands. 2. Forest Certification Work Instruction 2.3: Integrated Pest Management and Forest Health. 3. DNR Policy and Procedures No. 591 Forest Pest Management, dated June 14, 1988. 4. DNR Policy and Procedures No. 592 Pesticide Use

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1- Conservation of Biological Diversity, Indicator 1.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2 – Ecosystem Condition and Productivity, Indicators 2.1, 2.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 3 – Water and Soil Conservation, Indicator 3.2

Guidelines

1. Use the FHM program to promote healthy and productive forests by using IPM to reduce susceptibility and vulnerability to damaging insects and diseases. 2. The do-nothing alternative should be used when the economic, social or environmental costs of the proposed alternative exceed expected benefits, or if no acceptable management alternatives are available. 3. Use Pest-directed tactics to increase mortality in the pest population. The primary pest-directed tools should include chemical and biological pesticides and one should minimize pesticide use to achieve management objectives. Use alternatives to chemical pesticides when they are legal, reasonably cost effective, and available and meet management objectives. Forest-directed tactics should take advantage of the interrelation of forest stand dynamics with pest populations. 4. Silvicultural approach and use of silvicultual guidelines to reducing losses to forest pests should be used to reduce stand susceptibility and vulnerability. Silvicultural management manipulates the environment to make it more favorable for the plant and less favorable for the pest.

163 of 244 D R A F T 4.2.7.2 - Invasive Species

Desired Future Condition

Negative impacts from non-native, invasive plant and animal species will be minimized where possible to protect ecosystem function and species diversity.

Goals

1. Identify critical habitats and natural communities in the EUP Ecoregion that are imperiled by invasive plant and animal species. 2. Educate EUP Ecoregion staff and the public about the identification, regulation, ecology and control of invasive species. 3. Consider the control of invasive species in forest management prescriptions. 4. Solicit public support for resource stewardship by seeking partnerships with stakeholders and other governmental agencies in education, outreach and control strategies. 5. Prevention of the spread of invasive exotics to new habitats will remain an integral part of any management plan (terrestrial or aquatic).

DNR Management Objectives

1. Develop a list of invasive plant species for the EUP Ecoregion 2. Inventory state lands for significant populations of invasive species that are established and negatively affecting native populations. 3. Work cooperatively with the Michigan Invasive Plant Council, private landowners, conservancy organizations, researchers, corporate forest lands, federal, local and tribal units of government on strategies to use the best science available to reduce the impacts of invasive species in the EUP Ecoregion. 4. Train EUP staff on early identification and rapid response for critical invasive species. 5. Use the opportunistic surveys field in the IFMAP process to document presence of invasive species. 6. Through the compartment review process, annually identify areas in need of invasive species control, implement control plans, and monitor results. 7. Promote prescribed fire as an effective tool for invasive species control where appropriate. 8. Monitor and evaluate the effects of exotic species on aquatic communities. 9. Utilize available resources for identifying, tracking and reporting of aquatic invasive species. 10. Promote grant and cost-sharing opportunities such as Michigan Department of

164 of 244 D R A F T 11. Environmental Quality’s Aquatic Invasive Species Information and Education 12. Small Grants Program for public educational and training programs. 13. Annually inspect all public boat access sites on inland waterbodies with know invasive exotics for proper signage, prior to each boating season.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 2.1 – Reforestation. 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 2.2 – Use of Pesticides and other Chemicals on State Forest Lands. 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 2.3 – Integrated Pest Management and Forest Health. 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 5.1- Coordinated Natural Resource Management Research 5. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 8.1 – Michigan DNR Staff Training for State Forest Management. 6. MDA Regulation No. 715- Prohibited Noxious Weeds list. 7. USDA Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974- List of Federal Noxious Weeds. 8. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act- Act 451 of 1994, part 413- Transgenic and Non-native Organisms; part 457- Mussels; part 459- Propagation of Game Fish in Private Waters; part 487- Sport Fishing. 9. Michigan Aquaculture Development Act- Act 199 of 1996, sections: 286.875; 286.879; 286.880; 286.881; 286.883. 10. State of Michigan Administrative Rules R299.1051, R299.1052 (Importation and Transportation of Fish and Eggs), and R299.1061 (Marketing of Imported Commercial and Game Fish). 11. Fisheries Orders 209.03 (Possession and Transport of Exotic Species); 227.04a (Waters Open and Regulations Governing the Taking of Wigglers and Crayfish for Commercial Purposes; 228.03 (Regulations on the Take of Mollusks). 12. Michigan Aquatic Nuisance Species State Management Plan Update. Office of the Great Lakes, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. October, 2002.

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1- Conservation of Biological Diversity, Indicator 1.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2- Ecosystem Condition and Productivity, Indicators 2.1, 2.2

165 of 244 D R A F T Guidelines

1. Staff using equipment to mow vegetation, move earth or contain fires should hose down the underside of such equipment before leaving the site at which they are working to eliminate the unintended movement of invasive species. 2. Use resources provided by Michigan Sea Grant (www.miseagrant.umich.edu/) as a clearinghouse for reporting the presence of aquatic exotic species. 3. Use resources provided by the Great Lakes Information Network (www.glin.net/envt/flora-fauna/invasive/invasive.html) for identifying and tracking the distribution of aquatic invasive species. 4. Aquatic Nuisance Species Handbook for Government Officials. Office of the Great Lakes, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. July, 1999. 5. Integrated Pest Management for Nuisance Exotics in Michigan Inland Lakes. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Michigan State University, Extension. June, 2000. 6. Encourage safe boating practices wherever aquatic exotics are present: 7. Remove all visible plant material, mud and debris form boat, motor and trailer before leaving waterbody. 8. Drain water from all bait containers, live-wells and bilge before leaving waterbody. 9. Dispose of unwanted bait on shore or in an approved disposal site, away from any waterbody. 10. Before using boat or equipment in another waterbody either rinse all equipment including boat, motor and trailer with high-pressure water heated to at least 104 degrees, or air dry everything for five days.

4.2.8 - Fire Management

4.2.8.1 - Fuel Management

Desired Future Conditions

Management practices will be utilized to ensure a minimum of excessive wildland fuel hazard associated with management activities and natural disturbances.

Goals

1. Enforce proper utilization of forest products and disposal of slash as specified by Timber Sale Contracts, use permits, and slash disposal regulations. 2. Prevent and/or reduce excessive fuel loads in fire-prone landscapes that result from natural disturbances and commercial and non-commercial treatments.

166 of 244 D R A F T 3. Fuel management practices will recognize and accommodate levels of course woody debris necessary to promote and protect accepted resource values.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Identify “communities at risk” and “fire-prone landscapes” as geographic areas of special importance for periodic fuels assessment and fuel management practices when loadings are deemed excessive. 2. Incorporate activity fuel load assessments in Timber Sale Administration reports and in Timber Cutting Reports. Implement fuel load mitigation activities where necessary, especially in fire-prone landscapes. 3. Identify and assess significant natural disturbances within 30 days of the event to determine extent and context of extraordinary fuel loads. Implement plans to reduce excessive fuel loads in fire prone areas. 4. Plan for and implement public outreach designed to inform property owners about hazardous fuels in the urban interface and promote “defensible space” designs for their property. 5. Implement retention guidelines for dead wood to promote in-stand biodiversity values. 6. Working in partnership with local cooperators, encourage land owners and residents within the Wildland Urban Interface to reduce excessive fuel loads and to establish “defensible space” landscapes around structures.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6 – Forest Management Unit Analysis 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 2.1 – Reforestation 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 5.1 – Coordinated Natural Resource Management Research 4. Act 451 of 1994 (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Part 519 (Slash Disposal) and associated administrative rules R299.901 through R299.907.

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1- Conservation of Biological Diversity, Indicator 1.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2 – Ecosystem Condition and Productivity, Indicators 2.1, 2.4 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11 – Institutional Processes, Indicators 11.3,11.4

Guidelines

1. National Fire Plan

167 of 244 D R A F T 4.2.8.2 - Prescribed Fire

Desired Future Conditions

Prescribed fire will be utilized as a natural process to promote healthy conditions in fire-adapted ecosystems, as a practice to meet silvicultural objectives, as a treatment to control invasive and/or exotic vegetation, and as a means to mitigate hazardous fuels.

Goals

1. Ensure that qualified Land Managers are provided management direction and encouraged to prescribe fire treatments where they are the best means to meet management objectives. 2. Encourage and support the conduct of prescribed fire on other ownerships in the Eastern Upper Peninsula where those practices support the desired future conditions identified in this plan. 3. Educate the public in the role of fire in landscape processes and maintain public support for prescribed fire as a safe way to provide for that role.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Review all resource management guidelines, such as the “Red Pine Project” and “Conservation Strategy for Large Open-Lands” to ensure that they provide adequate management direction and site evaluation criteria to aid resource managers in selection of appropriate prescribed fire practices. 2. Establish 10 year prescribed fire treatment acreage targets for each of the major fire-adapted cover types and special management areas to facilitate completion of priority treatments. 3. Provide resource managers appropriate training in wildland fire effects, prescribed fire planning, and smoke management to insure knowledgeable prescription of individual treatments. 4. Incorporate wildland fire manager review of proposed prescribed fire treatments to insure that public and firefighter health and safety are adequately considered. 5. Review employee training and qualification records annually to insure that they progress toward and maintain prescribed fire qualifications identified for them in the “Michigan Addendum to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) National Interagency Incident Management System (NIIMS) Wildland Fire Qualification System Sub-guide PMS 310-1. 6. To ensure that prescribed burns are conducted according to stated goals, the Management Unit supervisor(s) and UP Fire Management Duty Officer will participate in the approval of prescribed burn plans and, along with the Prescribed Burn Boss, share in the burn day “Go” “No Go” Decision.

168 of 244 D R A F T 7. Document the fuel and weather conditions, the observed fire behavior, and the first order fire effects for all prescribed fire practices attempted and/or completed and provide to resource managers to facilitate the evaluation of overall efficacy of both general and specific prescriptions. 8. Ensure that BMP practices are applied during fire line construction. 9. Conduct prescribed fires with qualified personnel according to a prescribed burn plan that addresses the treatment objectives for the site, protects public health and safety, respects resource values, complies with the priority and funding assigned, and insures effective control until it is declared out.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6 – Forest Management Unit Analyses 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 2.1 – Reforestation 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 5.1 – Coordinated Natural Resource Management Research 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.1 – Implementing Public Information and Educational Opportunities on State Forests 5. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.1 – Forest Operations (BMP’s) 6. DNR Natural Resource Commission Policy No. 4208, Prescribed Burning, issued January 1, 1977. 7. DNR Policy and Procedure 33.42-08. Prescribed Burning, issued July 11, 2005 8. Water Quality Management Practices on Forest Land, DNR 1994. 9. Smoke Management Plan

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2 – Ecosystem Condition and Productivity, Indicators 2.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 4 – Ecological Cycles, Indicators 4.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11 – Institutional Processes, Indicators 11.3, 11.4

Guidelines

1. Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics Guide

4.2.8.3 - Fire Prevention

Desired Future Conditions

The health and safety of the public will be protected through effective prevention of human-caused wildfires.

169 of 244 D R A F T Goals

1. Ensure that “open burning” is conducted safely and consistent with air quality laws and regulations. 2. Identify and target the leading cause(s) of wildfires, implementing plans of education and enforcement to reduce their overall threat to public health and safety. 3. Promote general wildland fire safety awareness among the public. 4. Reduce fire hazards in the Wildland Urban Interface.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Regulate open burning by establishing daily restrictions for issuance of burning permits to the public in accordance with Public Act 324.515. 2. Analyze wildfire occurrence statistics and locations at least annually to determine the leading causes and problems. Work with cooperator agencies to develop and deliver a consistent message targeted toward those specific causes, citizen groups, and problem behaviors each year. 3. Investigate all wildfires in areas under DNR jurisdiction to determine cause and origin and identify responsible party in anticipation of enforcement action. 4. In cooperation with other fire management agencies, identify and implement tools and activities designed to utilize Smokey Bear to promote general wildland fire safety awareness in each management unit each year. 5. For all wildfires caused by humans that occur in DNR jurisdiction, submit a “Claims for Suppression Cost Collection” to the responsible individual by locally preferred means whenever law enforcement officials present them with an appearance ticket. 6. Insure that DNR fire management personnel are trained and equipped to conduct, coordinate, and encourage wildland fire hazard assessments for interested property owners in the wildland urban interface. 7. Ensure that BMP practices are applied during fire line construction and fire line restoration. 8. Identify and target the leading cause of wildfires and implement an education and enforcement plan to reduce their overall threat to public health and safety.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.1 – Implementing Public Information and Educational Opportunities on State Forests 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 7.1 – Timber Sale Preparation and Administration Procedures 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 8.1 – Michigan DNR Staff Training

170 of 244 D R A F T 4. State Forest Management 5. FMFM Policy 521 (Forest Fire Law) 6. FMFM Policy 522 ( Control of Open Burning) 7. FMFM Policy 511 (Five Year Unit Management Planning) 8. FMFM Policy 561 (Smokey Bear)

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2 – Ecosystem Condition and Productivity, Indicators, 2.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11 – Institutional Processes, Indicators 11.4

Guidelines

1. FMFM Five year fire planning manual

4.2.8.4 - Fire Suppression

Desired Future Condition

The health and safety of the public, property and natural resources will be protected by effectively coordinating the suppression of wildfires that occur on lands under DNR jurisdiction.

Goals

1. Employ qualified wildland fire management staff to maintain readiness levels that insure wildfires can be attacked effectively for protection of public health and safety. 2. Maintain a complement of wildland fire equipment and supplies that will most efficiently support suppression operations necessary for lands protected by the DNR. 3. Detect and respond to all wildfires during the first burning period with qualified firefighters, while ensuring public and firefighter health and safety, as well as respecting private property and natural resource values.

171 of 244 D R A F T DNR Management Objectives

1. During the snow free wildland fire season, each FMFM Management Unit supervisor will evaluate fire danger level daily and make work assignments to insure adequate staffing for fire control purposes. 2. Conduct periodic Preventive Maintenance Inspections of all wildland fire control equipment to insure its operability in anticipation of wildfire response. 3. Ensure that annual refresher training for DNR wildland firefighters includes familiarization with assigned wildland fire equipment. 4. Promote efforts designed to increase the capability of local fire departments, including programs such as the Volunteer Fire Assistance Program, Federal Excess Property Program, GSA Purchasing Program and FFTC Wildland Fire Training Programs. 5. Conduct a periodic review of the natural resource and property values in the eastern Upper Peninsula and ensure that a balance of personnel, equipment, methods, and facilities is provided to protect those values from significant hazards and risks on a cost effective basis. 6. Annually confer with cooperating wildland fire, emergency management, and central dispatch agencies to review past efforts, identify changes in capabilities and procedures, and renew working relationships for the coming fire season. 7. Review employee training and qualification records annually to assure that they progress toward and maintain wildland fire suppression qualifications identified for them in the “Michigan Addendum to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) National Interagency Incident Management System (NIIMS) Wildland Fire Qualification System Subguide PMS 310-1”. 8. Encourage DNR FMFM land managers and other DNR employees to maintain wildland fire qualifications and CDL qualifications. 9. Conduct wildfire detection according to daily fire danger levels. 10. Implement the Incident Command System (ICS) on each wildfire incident under DNR jurisdiction to guarantee safe and effective conduct of the suppression effort. 11. Ensure that the Incident Commander (IC) conducts an After Action Review (AAR) for all incidents that have at least 3 responding resources, and that the Marquette Incident Coordination Center conduct an Administrative Fire Analyses for all Type 3 incidents managed by MDNR in the eastern UP. 12. Perform early sizeup, prepare timely suppression plans, and lead other firefighters in strategies and tactics that bring about control of wildfire consistent with department policy. 13. Support Interagency Cooperation where it is necessary to insure effective pre-suppression and suppression of wildfires on all lands in the EUP Ecoregion.

172 of 244 D R A F T 14. Identify situations where confinement strategies would be appropriate for protection of public health, safety, and property, where anticipated fire effects are consistent with resource management objectives, and where these strategies can produce adequate control.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6 – Forest Management Analyses 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.1 – Forest Operations (BMP’s) 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 8.1 – MDNR Staff Training for State Forest Management 4. FMFM Policy 111 (Field Office Staff/Hours of Work for Fire Control) 5. FMFM Policy 141 (Wildfire Training for Fire Departments) 6. FMFM Policy 161 (Physical Fitness Standards) 7. FMFM Policy 512 (Annual Fire Plan) 8. FMFM Policy 511 (Five Year Unit Management Planning) 9. FMFM Policy 513 (Administrative Fire Analysis) 10. FMFM Policy 514 (Incident Command System) 11. FMFM Policy 542 (Fire Operations Involving Structures) 12. FMFM Policy and Procedure 572, Wildfires in State Natural Areas, dated March 15, 2001. 13. Cooperative Agreements with Hiawatha National Forest, Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshsore, Michigan Fire Chiefs Association, Michigan Fireman’s Association, and Michigan Fire Marshall 14. Mutual Aid agreements with Local Fire Departments

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2 - Condition and Productivity, Indicators 2.1, 2.4 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 4 – Ecological Cycles, Indicator 4.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 9 – Ownership Patterns, Indicators 9.1, 9.3 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11 – Institutional Processes, Indicators 11.3, 11.4

Guidelines

1. Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics Guide 2. Water Quality Management Practices on Forest Land, MDNR 1994.

173 of 244 D R A F T 4.2.9 - Land Ownership

4.2.9.1 - Acquisition

Desired Future Conditions

Acquisition of land shall occur to block in ownership, improve access, recreational opportunities, and protect unique natural resource and cultural values which are best held in long term public ownership.

Goals

1. Acquisition and other property transactions in EUP are accomplished with full disclosure of information to the public and with public involvement. 2. Attempt to acquire critical habitat for wildlife species 3. Attempt to acquire unique natural features, such as, waterfalls, Karst formations, and islands and protect land from harmful development 4. Where acquisition is the best or only alternative, create connected, destination, point-to-point routes to support leisurely, longer distance recreational trails across the EUP

DNR Management Objectives

1. Post clearly worded acquisition protocols on the EUP ecoteam website. 2. Seek appropriate staffing to handle acquisitions and other property transactions. 3. Train staff on procedures for purchase and other property transactions. 4. Attempt to acquire easements to state lands for public access where needed and desirable. 5. Purchase conservation easements to meet the objectives if outright purchase is not an option. 6. All Divisions help identify and report desirable lands for acquisition. 7. Aquire habitat for species of special concern, threatened, rare, and endangered species of plants or animals, and desirable wintering habitat for deer. 8. Purchase permanent deeded easements on private lands with available funds to accomplish snowmobile trail connectivity.

Standards

1. Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.4 – Biodiversity Management on State Forest Lands 2. Act 193, P.A. 1911, Act 17, P.A. 1921, Act 241, P.A. 1972, Act 231, P.A. 1970.

174 of 244 D R A F T Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 1- Conservation of Biological Diversity, Indicators 1.1, 1.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 6- Social/Cultural, Indicator 6.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 9 – Ownership Patterns, Indicators 9.1, 9.2, 9.3

Guidelines

1. Land Exchanges and sales: A Guide to Property Transactions with the DNR

4.2.9.2 - Boundary Designation

Desired Future Conditions

There will be clearly defined boundaries on DNR administered lands which facilitate public land administration.

Goals

1. Clearly define State Park and State Forest Boundaries. 2. Cooperate with EUP public agencies and private landowners to locate property lines held jointly with the DNR.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Follow proper procedures for identifying property lines, and work with the survey crews as needed on all projects adjacent to other ownerships. 2. Designate all timber sales boundaries adjacent to other ownerships with paint to avoid trespass. 3. Collect information on all documented surveys in the EUP that may affect DNR administered lands. 4. Protect all survey corners on timber sales by contract language and through timber sale inspection. 5. All field operations will help to identify and report infringements to boundaries of State Parks (PRD) and State Forest Lands.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instructions 1.4 – Biodiversity Management on State Forest Lands 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instructions 6.1 – Implementing Public Information and Educational Opportunities on State Forests 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instructions 7.1 – Timber Sale Preparation and Administration Procedures 4. Operations Inventory Manual. FMFMD policies 213, 214, 215, and 251.

175 of 244 D R A F T Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 9 – Ownership Patterns, Indicators, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3

Guidelines

1. Visual Management Handbook (http://dnrintranet/pdfs/divisions/forest/VMHDocument.pdf)

4.2.10 - Transportation System

4.2.10.1 - Road Maintenance, Road Closure, and New Roads

Desired Future Conditions

A forest road system will be safely maintained and limited to those roads that are necessary to conduct forest operations and allow public access with minimal environmental damage.

Goals

1. A forest road system (both permanent and temporary) will be developed and maintained affording users a high degree of safety while being cost effective to manage through design and maintenance consistent with the intended use. 2. Seek adequate funding for a forest road inventory identifying use, maintenance requirements, environmental damage, and public safety issues. 3. Forest road systems will be minimized to those roads that are necessary to conduct forest operations and identify the minimum road system that is commensurate with resource objectives (including public access), reflects likely funding, and minimizing adverse environmental effects. 4. Identify and close roads no longer required for access or management or part of a designated recreational ORV trail system that pose the greatest risk to forest fragmentation, public safety, or environmental quality while maintaining those roads necessary for access. 5. Close or re-route forest roads that pose treats to threatened and endangered species, cultural and historical sites. 6. The length and number of temporary logging roads and skid trails will be minimized and will be immediately closed following harvest to prevent fragmentation of currently intact forest areas. 7. New permanent roads for private use across public lands will be discouraged

176 of 244 D R A F T DNR Management Objectives

1. The DNR will continue to inventory, document, and seek adequate funding that will support the maintenance of a quality and safe forest road system within the EUP Ecoregion. 2. Give priority maintenance to upgrading the most heavily used roads in the EUP Ecoregion to provide safe and efficient travel and to reduce adverse environmental impacts. 3. Road closures will be conducted in such a manner that will protect the habitat, scenic value of the resource, ecological integrity of the site, and public safety. 4. Where appropriate, roads will be evaluated for conversion to less costly and more environmentally beneficial uses. 5. Close or repair forest roads contributing soil sedimentation to streams, lakes and wetlands due to bridge failure, culvert failure, flooding, or public safety issues. 6. New road construction will consider the social and economic values associated with or impacted by new roads which will include: utilization, forest health, fire protection, recreation, cultural uses, historical sites, and the administration of State lands to protect the public health and safety and private access. 7. Consider environmental impacts upon the maintenance of ecological processes, introduction of invasive species, effects on threatened and endangered species and areas of high unique biodiversity in new road planning.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.1 – Forest Operations 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.2 – Best Management Practices Non-Conformance Reporting Instructions 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.3 – Best Management Practices: Road Closures 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.2 – Integrating Public Recreational Opportunities with Management on State Forest Lands 5. Water Management Quality Practices in Forest Land (Michigan DNR 1994)

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 2 – Ecosystem Condition and Productivity, Indicators, 2.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 3 – Water and Soil Conservation, Indicators, 3.1, 3.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 6- Social/Cultural, Indicator 6.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 7 – Spiritual, Indicators, 7.1, 7.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 8- Recreation, Indicator 8.4

177 of 244 D R A F T EUP Ecoregion Criterion 9 – Ownership, Indicator, 9.3

4.2.11 - Law Enforcement

4.2.11.1 - Law Enforcement

Desired Future Conditions

Enforcement of natural resource laws will protect human health and safety, educate the public, and maintain the sustainability of Michigan’s resources.

Goals

1. Continue to provide the EUP Ecoregion with a diverse team of highly trained well equipped, motivated and ethical personnel who are leaders in resource law enforcement, empowered to perform their duties in a safe and effective manner. 2. Continuously improve relationships between divisions, external groups, media and members of the criminal justice community by forming partnerships and recognizing the value of volunteer programs. 3. Continuously improve Law Enforcement Division’s communications with the public, by developing innovative methods of interacting with the media and stakeholders, and implementing public outreach programs that develop support for the Division. 4. Provide effective law enforcement and education through FMFMD Forest Officers and Park Rangers for the protection of the natural resources on lands administered by the DNR and the safety of the public.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Maintain a staff of 21 Law Enforcement Division Field Conservation Officers and 3 Sergeants in the EUP Ecoregion. 2. Maintain a communication link between divisions and address issues as they arise. 3. Maintain a link with other law enforcement agencies, media and stakeholders within the EUP Ecoregion. 4. Review regional annual Law Enforcement Division work plans with other DNR Divisions and agencies. 5. With the cooperation of DNR Law Enforcement Division, Forest Officers will work with Conservation Officers at various times as additional support and to enhance the Forest Officer’s education and enforcement skills. 6. Forest Officers and Park Rangers will attend recertification and update sessions annually. 7. Review regional annual State Forest Officers work plans with other DNR Divisions and agencies within the EUP Ecoregion.

178 of 244 D R A F T Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.2 – Best Management Practices Non-Conformance Reporting Instructions 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 3.3 – Best Management Practices Road Closures 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.1 – Implementing Public Information and Education Opportunities on State Forests 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.2 – Integrating Public Recreational Opportunities with Management on State Forest Lands 5. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 7.2 – Legal Compliance and Administration of Contracts 6. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 8.1 – MDNR Staff training for State Forest Management 7. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 9.1 – Collaboration with Tribes in regard to Management of State Forest land

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 8 – Recreation, Indicators, 8.1, 8.2, 8.6 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11 – Institutional, Indicators, 11.1, 11.4

Guidelines

1. Parks and Recreation Policy #7.1: Law Enforcement 2. FMFM Forest Officer Policy and Procedures: 700 to 708

4.2.11.2 - Contract Enforcement

Desired Future Conditions

All contracts will be written to be easily understandable, describe all necessary and relevant conditions, are legally constructed, fairly issued, promptly executed, and expeditiously enforced.

Goals

1. All staff will be knowledgeable about preparation and use of contracts, applicable to their position. 2. Contracts will be simple while still including the necessary provisions. 3. All qualified contractors will be provided an equal opportunity to win a state contract. 4. Contract provisions will be adhered to by all parties, all parties communicate to resolve problems, and proper legal action is utilized for resolution where appropriate.

179 of 244 D R A F T DNR Management Objectives

1. Train all staff in contract administration who are involved in the preparation, use, and enforcement of contracts. 2. Provide required public notice for, and bid out, all appropriate contracts in a lawful and expedient manner. 3. Monitor and periodically audit the enforcement of all contract specifications.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 7.1 – Timber Sale Preparation and Administration Procedures 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 7.2 – Legal Compliance and Administration of Contracts 3. Public Act 451 of 1994: Part 525 - Disposal of Timber from State Lands 4. DNR administrative procedure: 13.01 – Sections 1-19 5. Administrative Guide to State Government: Sections 500 and 600

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11 – Institutional Processes, Indicators, 11.1, 11.4

4.2.11.3 - Trespass

Desired Future Conditions

Incidents of trespass upon State lands will be minimized and resolved in a timely fashion.

Goals

1. Incidents of trespass upon DNR administered lands will be identified and resolved through administrative remediation, compensation, or civil action in accordance with applicable procedures and statutes. 2. Document all trespasses upon DNR administered lands. 3. All Forest Management, Wildlife and Parks & Recreation management staff will be educated in dealing with trespass and other land use issues. 4. Educational and informational materials on appropriate use of state land are made available to the public conducting activities on or adjacent to state land.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Efforts will be made to resolve all pending trespass cases in an appropriate and timely manner.

180 of 244 D R A F T 2. Work with Law Enforcement Division, Park Rangers, and the Forest Officer program to increase law enforcement presence to address trespass problems. . 3. Support, conduct, and expand the land survey program in the EUP Ecoregion. 4. Provide public access to State land use rules at DNR facilities within the EUP Ecoregion.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6 – Forest Management Unit Analyses 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.1 – Implementing Public Information and Education Opportunities on State Forests 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 7.2 – Legal Compliance and Administration of Contracts 4. DNR Policy/Procedure: Section 26 (various), 28-46.05, 32-22.07 5. NRC Policy: 2207, 2612, 2702, 5501 6. FMFM Policy: 211-215

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11 – Institutional Processes, Indicators, 11.1

4.2.12 – Governmental and Stakeholder Relations

4.2.12.1 – Tribal Government

Desired Future Conditions

Ecosystem based management will be coordinated government-to-government with Native American Tribes, honoring tribal rights reserved by treaty, and respecting spiritual and cultural values held by the Tribes

Goals

1. EUP Ecoregion staff will honor ceded 1836 treaty obligations with Native American Tribes in a governmental to governmental relationship; in addition we will follow provisions of court decisions of all treaties. 2. EUP Ecoregion staff will consider all archeological, cultural, spiritual, and all other sites of traditional interest related to Michigan tribes as confidential and shall comply with disclosure policy. 3. Native American Tribes will be recognized as having a unique status as key clients and partners in the protection of the sustainability of resources and heritage of the EUP Ecoregion.

181 of 244 D R A F T DNR Management Objectives

1. The EUP Ecoregion planning staff will conduct and document all meetings with the recognized EUP Ecoregion Tribes and detail current Ecoregional planning initiatives annually. 2. EUP Ecoregion plans will consider tribal rights reserved by treaty, spiritual, cultural values and practices, archaeological and heritage resources, and adjacent reservation lands and trust lands within the Ecoregion. 3. EUP Ecoregion will improve its understanding of native tribes’ knowledge about, and relationship with, the environment and cultural heritage, and document this knowledge to improve the development of programs. This can be achieved by developing a working relationship and exchange of ideas and information between DNR staff and Tribal resource managers. Standards 1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.5 – Social Impact Considerations and Public Involvement 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6 – Forest Management Unit Analysis 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 5.1 – Coordinated Natural Resource Management Research 4. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.1 – Implementing Public Information and Educational Opportunities on State Forests 5. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 9.1 – Collaboration with Tribes in Regard to Management of State Forest Land

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 6 - Social/Cultural, Indicators: 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, EUP Ecoregion Criterion 7 – Spiritual; Indicator 7.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 9 - Ownership Patterns; Indicators 9.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 10 - Economic Health; Indicator 10.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11 – Institutional Processes; Indicators: 11.1, 11.2

Guidelines

1. Establish and improve communications and collaborative process with locally recognized Michigan Tribal Governments; Bay Mills Indian Community and Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. 2. Seek a description of traditional geographic areas of interest within the EUP Ecoregion. 3. Ensure that Native American Tribal Governments are notified and included in Ecoregional planning and inform Tribal Government representatives of open house and compartment reviews.

182 of 244 D R A F T 4. Acknowledge that other recognized Michigan Native American Tribes outside of the Ecoregion may have treaty rights and cultural interests within the Ecoregion.

4.2.12.2– Federal and Local Government

Desired Future Conditions

The DNR will share information and cooperate with Federal and local units of government in land use decision making and citizens will have the opportunity to participate in planning activities.

Goals

1. Collaborate with federal local units of government in the management of state lands as well as local government planning initiatives. 2. Strive to strengthen and diversify local economies by supporting diversified recreational uses and products from the forest. 3. Seek public participation of all citizens and will include the interests, concerns and needs of federal and local government.

DNR Management Objectives:

1. In partnership with MSU Extension, develop a regional education program in providing, promoting and facilitating “smart growth” development in the region. 2. Provide technical assistance to federal agencies, communities, and associated economic and community development agencies in projects that will positively benefit the preservation and protection of the overall ecological and cultural values of the EUP Ecoregion. 3. Establish a regional geographic information system based on; reliable data, organization and accessibility of data, and develop partnerships with other agencies and the private sector in sharing GIS data.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.5 – Social Impact Considerations and Public Involvement Processes 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6 – Forest Management Unit Analyses 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.1 – Implementing Public Information and Education Opportunities on State Forests 4. Parks and Recreation Division Management Planning Process

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 6 - Social/Cultural, Indicators, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4

183 of 244 D R A F T EUP Ecoregion Criterion 7 – Spiritual, Indicator 7.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 9 – Ownership Patterns, Indicator 9.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 10 – Economic Health, Indicator 10.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11 – Institutional Processes, Indicators, 11.1, 11.2

Guidelines

1. Provide resource expertise, data, analysis and other information to units of government in the development of land use policies. 2. Conduct public information meetings on special projects within the communities that are most affected, meet with and form, citizen advisory committees where appropriate. 3. Provide information and education opportunities to community schools, conservation groups, community recreation, and other governmental entities within the community that show a willingness to manage community land and resources.

4.2.12.3 – Non-Governmental Organizations

Desired Future Conditions

Non-governmental organizations and citizens will be provided the opportunity to be engaged in decision making to keep the lines of communications open, while developing a sense of ownership among partners.

Goals

1. Collaborate in the management of resources and regularly communicate with stakeholder focus groups and citizen advisory committees. 2. Maintain a diversity of public participation by organizations and citizens.

DNR Management Objectives

1. Maintain a current and up to date list of stakeholders mailing addresses and e-mail addresses in order to reach our stakeholders more efficiently. 2. Create a system where stakeholders can offer suggestions/concerns/etc. in an organized and structured fashion. 3. Utilize the DNR web site as an information medium and as a means to notify stakeholders of current activities and events.

Standards

1. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.5 – Social Impact Considerations and Public Involvement processes 2. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 1.6 – Forest Management Unit Analyses

184 of 244 D R A F T 3. DNR Forest Certification Work Instruction 6.1 – Implementing Public Information and Education Opportunities on State Forests 4. Parks and Recreation Division Management Planning Process

Monitoring Criteria

EUP Ecoregion Criterion 6 - Social/Cultural, Indicators, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 7 – Spiritual, Indicator 7.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 9 – Ownership Patterns, Indicator 9.2 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 10 – Economic Health, Indicator 10.1 EUP Ecoregion Criterion 11 – Institutional Processes, Indicators, 11.1, 11.2

Guidelines

1. Evaluate/Survey the respect stakeholders have towards the EUP Ecoregion’s ability to engage with stakeholders in an ethical and professional manner. 2. Utilize stakeholder focus groups and citizen advisory committees.

185 of 244 D R A F T 5 - Special Resource Area Management Direction

Add Standard Text Here 5.1 - Special Conservation Areas

5.1.1 – Proposed/Nominated Natural Areas

(Includes those areas proposed and nominated for legal dedication, those administratively recognized, and those dedicated by NRC resolution.) Add Management Direction Here 5.1.1.1 - Standards

Add Standards Here 5.1.1.2 - Guidelines

Add Guidelines Here 5.1.2 – National Natural Landmarks

Add Management Direction Here 5.1.2.1 - Standards

Add Standards Here 5.1.2.2 - Guidelines

Add Guidelines Here 5.1.3 - Old Growth & Biodiversity Stewardship Areas

Add Management Direction Here 5.1.3.1 - Standards

Add Standards Here 5.1.3.2 - Guidelines

Add Guidelines Here 5.1.4 – Trout Streams and Trout Lakes 5.1.4.1 - Standards

5.1.4.2 - Guidelines

5.1.5 – Springs, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas

5.1.5.1 - Standards

5.1.5.2 - Guidelines

5.1.6 - Large Landscape Level Forests

Add Management Direction Here

186 of 244 D R A F T 5.1.6.1 - Standards

Add Standards Here 5.1.6.2 - Guidelines

Add Guidelines Here 5.1.7 - Habitat Areas and Corridors

(deer yards, etc) Add Management Direction Here 5.1.7.1 - Standards

Add Standards Here 5.1.7.2 - Guidelines

Add Guidelines Here 5.1.8 - Restricted Access Areas

(limited transportation network, slope, ownership patterns) Add Management Direction Here 5.1.8.1 - Standards

Add Standards Here 5.1.8.2 - Guidelines

Add Guidelines Here 5.1.9 - Archaeological Sites

Add Management Direction Here 5.1.9.1 - Standards

Add Standards Here 5.1.9.2 - Guidelines

Add Guidelines Here 5.1.10 - Cultural and Customary Use Areas

Add Management Direction Here 5.1.10.1 - Standards

Add Standards Here 5.1.10.2 - Guidelines

Add Guidelines Here 5.1.11 - Visual Management Areas

Add Management Direction Here

187 of 244 D R A F T 5.1.11.1 - Standards

Add Standards Here 5.1.11.2 - Guidelines

Add Guidelines Here 5.1.12 – Concentrated Recreation Areas

5.1.12.1 - Standards

5.1.12.2 - Guidelines

5.1.13 - Mineral Resource Areas

Add Management Direction Here 5.1.13.1 - Standards

Add Standards Here 5.1.13.2 - Guidelines

Add Guidelines Here 5.1.14 – Great Lakes Islands

5.1.14.1 - Standards

Add Standards Here 5.1.14.2 - Guidelines

Add Guidelines Here 5.1.15 – Contiguous Resource Areas

5.1.15.1 - Standards

Add Standards Here 5.1.15.2 - Guidelines

Add Guidelines Here 5.1.16 - Other Areas

(Additional areas that are not covered above. e.g. soil limited areas.) 5.1.16.1 - Standards

Add Standards Here 5.1.16.2 - Guidelines

Add Guidelines Here

188 of 244 D R A F T 5.2 - High Conservation Value Areas (HCVA)

5.2.1 – Legally Dedicated Natural Areas

Add Management Direction Here 5.2.1.1 - Standards

Add Text Here 5.2.1.2 - Guidelines

Add Text Here 5.2.2 - Wilderness or Wild Areas

Add Management Direction Here 5.2.2.1 - Standards

Add Text Here 5.2.2.2 - Guidelines

Add Text Here 5.2.3 - Natural Rivers

5.2.3.1 - Standards

5.2.3.2 - Guidelines

5.2.4 - Critical Dunes

Add Management Direction Here 5.2.4.1 - Standards

Add Text Here 5.2.4.2 - Guidelines

Add Text Here 5.2.5 - Dedicated Species Recovery Areas

(KW Areas are one example) Add Management Direction Here 5.2.5.1 - Standards

Add Text Here 5.2.5.2 - Guidelines

Add Text Here

189 of 244 D R A F T 5.2.6 - Dedicated Management Areas

(Sand Lakes Quiet Area is one example) Add Management Direction Here 5.2.6.1 - Standards

Add Text Here 5.2.6.2 - Guidelines

Add Text Here 5.2.7 – Environmental Areas

5.2.7.1 - Standards

5.2.7.2 - Guidelines

5.3 - Ecological Reference Areas (ERA)

Add Management Direction Here

5.3.1 - Standards

Add Text Here 5.3.2 - Guidelines

Add Text Here

190 of 244 D R A F T 6 - Monitoring, Review & Revision

6.1 - Management Review System

Add Standard Text Here

6.2 - Plan Monitoring

Add Standard Text Here

6.3 - Plan Revision

Add Standard Text Here

191 of 244 D R A F T 7 – Appendices

Appendix A – Michigan Department of Natural Resources Administrative Boundaries

Office of Land and Facilities (OLAF)/Facilities Operations and Support (FOS)

The mission of OLAF/FOS is to promote the Department of Natural Resources’ mission by serving the public in a friendly, professional and helpful manner and provide quality support services to division field operations employees.

EUP administrative support is provided by OLAF/FOS. The EUP administrative area is comprised of four offices: the Newberry Operations Service Center (OSC), Naubinway Field Office, Sault Ste. Marie Field Office and the Shingleton Field Office. The administrative area has a manager (a core team member of the EUP Ecoregion), account technician, three full time secretaries, and three part time secretaries. Land and Facilities supports the Department's natural resources management responsibilities by providing quality facility management and real estate services.

The primary function of these employees is to support the user divisions: Forest, Mineral and Fire Management; Fisheries, Wildlife, Land and Facilities, Law Enforcement and Office of Communications, in all aspects of administrative duties such as accounting and secretarial. FOS also services the public by being a first line of communication between the public and the user divisions. The OSC and two of the field offices in this administrative area also support License Control by using the Retail Sales System (RSS), the license program for the State of Michigan. All hunting, fishing and trapping licenses plus state park, snowmobile and Off Road Vehicle (ORV) stickers can be sold through this program.

Office of Land and Facilities / Land Survey Unit

A survey crew under OLAF is stationed out of the Newberry OSC and covers the land surveying needs of the EUP. The survey crew is comprised of one Senior Land Surveying Technician and one Land Survey Technician. Supervision of the EUP crew is by a Registered Land Surveyor stationed out of the Baraga OSC. Requests for land survey projects originate mainly though the land managing divisions of the DNR. The majority of the land survey crews’ time (99%) is spent on FMFMD timber sale and state land trespass cases. These projects are for determining boundary lines and setting corners to delineate state land.

Office of Communications

The Office of Communications has an interpretive manager located at the Newberry OSC. The manager oversees permanent and seasonal park interpreters throughout the Upper and Northern Lower Peninsulas. These interpreters are often the only contact state park visitors have with the DNR. They conduct programs which explain significant cultural and natural features within the park. Park interpreters also do outreach programs, create audio-visual programs, and design wayside exhibits, pamphlets and other educational materials for the DNR.

192 of 244 D R A F T Law Enforcement Division, (LED)

Figure 7.1 EUP Law Enforcement Division Management Units

The mission statement of the Law Enforcement Division is to protect Michigan's natural resources and the environment, and the health and safety of the public through effective law enforcement and education.

In the EUP Ecoregion the Law Enforcement Division (District 4) structure includes Alger, Chippewa, Luce, Mackinac, Marquette and Schoolcraft Counties. LED District 3 includes Delta County.

There are three administrative areas in LED District 4. Area 1 is Marquette County and West Alger County. Area 2 is East Alger County, Luce County, West Chippewa County, West Mackinac County and Schoolcraft County. Area 3 is Central and East Chippewa County and East Mackinac County.

The entire LED District 4 is under the command of one lieutenant (a core team member of the EUP Ecoteam) who is stationed at the Newberry OSC. Each of the Law Enforcement areas has one sergeant assigned as the immediate supervisor and six field officers. The current staffing level is: Area 1, one sergeant and four field officers; Area 2, one sergeant and two to three field officers; Area 3, one sergeant and four to five field officers. District 4 Conservation Officers are patrolling 5,424 square miles and District 3 Officers patrol 668 square miles within the EUP Ecoregion.

193 of 244 D R A F T Conservation officer duties vary from season to season. Day-to-day work primarily consists of dealing with persons recreating out-of-doors. Conservation officer’s work varied shifts, often outside in inclement weather. Examples of work include: observing and checking hunters and anglers; enforcing regulations governing the operation and use of snowmobiles, off road vehicles and watercraft; enforcing laws that protect the environment; and outdoor recreation safety education, such as hunter safety classes, marine safety classes and snowmobile safety classes.

Conservation officers are certified Michigan Peace Officers, and are also empowered to enforce general Michigan criminal Law in the State of Michigan. They write criminal case briefs and assist other law enforcement agencies as requested.

Fisheries Division

The mission of the Fisheries Division is to protect and enhance the public trust in populations and habitat of fishes and other forms of aquatic life, and promote optimum use of these resources for benefit of the people of Michigan.

Aquatic resources encompass fish species, all other aquatic organisms and their habitats. The division implements ecosystem management using ten guiding principles: 1. Recognize limits on productivity. 2. Preserve and restore fish habitats. 3. Preserve native species. 4. Enhance natural reproduction of native and desirable naturalized fishes. 5. Acknowledge the role of stocked fishes. 6. Recognize naturalized species. 7. Adopt the genetic stock concept. 8. Recognize that fisheries are an important cultural heritage. 9. Prevent unintentional introduction of exotic species. 10. Protect and enhance threatened or endangered species

194 of 244 D R A F T Figure 7.2 EUP Fisheries Division Management Units

The EUP Ecoregion encompasses three fisheries management units, located in three Great Lakes basins. In the Lake Huron basin (140,389 acre watershed), the Northern Lake Huron Management Unit (MU) is based in Gaylord and the staff is supervised by the Lake Huron basin coordinator (a Lansing position). For the Lake Michigan basin (1,811,892 acre watershed), the Northern Lake Michigan MU, located in Escanaba, is supervised by the Lake Michigan basin coordinator at Plainwell. The Lake Superior basin, (1,964,851 acre watershed) is supervised by the Lake Superior basin coordinator located at the Eastern Lake Superior MU in Newberry. There is also a DNR hatchery near Thompson, which is supervised by the Fisheries Biologist posted there. This hatchery and the Marquette hatchery are supervised by the Marquette Hatchery Manager.

The Newberry OSC office houses the Eastern Lake Superior Unit Manager (a core team member of the EUP Ecoteam), a Fisheries Biologist, and three Fisheries Technicians. They all provide Fisheries management for the Eastern Lake Superior Basin.

Parks and Recreation Division

The mission of Parks and Recreation Division is to acquire, protect, and preserve the natural, historic and cultural features of Michigan’s unique resources and provide public recreation and educational opportunities.

195 of 244 D R A F T Figure 7.3 EUP Parks & Recreation Division Management Units

In the EUP Ecoregion, Parks and Recreation Division administers seven state parks, three state harbors, one scenic site, approximately 61 Boating Access Sites (BAS), as well as numerous islands, isolated land holdings on small rivers and streams and one national memorial. Within the EUP Ecoregion the Parks and Recreation Division and Mackinac State Historic Parks administers 42,885 Acres.

There are two administrative Parks and Recreation units found within the EUP Ecoregion. The Newberry Operations Service Center (OSC) houses a District Supervisor (a core member of the EUP Ecoteam) administers all Parks and Recreation sites except Indian Lake Palms Book, Fayette, and Wagner Falls that are administered out of the Baraga OSC. Staffing at the Newberry OSC also includes a Park and Recreation Manager that oversees access sites and harbors. The seven member Mackinac Island State Park Commission administers Mackinac Island State Park.

State Parks / Field Offices in the EUP Ecoregion

Straits State Park (2004 Visitation: 73,135) (181 Acres) Administered by a park supervisor with administrative support, three seasonal park rangers and twelve summer rangers.

Father Marquette (National Memorial) (58 Acres) Administered by staff from Straits State Park

196 of 244 D R A F T

Brimley State Park (2004 Visitation: 84,246) (165 Acres) Administered by a park supervisor with administrative support provided by Straits State Park. The staff is made up of two seasonal park rangers and nine summer rangers.

Tahquamenon Falls State Park (2004 Visitation: 481,833) (38,496 Acres) Administered by a park manager with an administrative support person, word processing clerk, park supervisor, three permanent park rangers, five seasonal park rangers, one seasonal janitor, seventeen summer rangers and a park interpreter.

Muskallonge Lake State Park (2004 Visitation: 74,741) (217 Acres) Administered by a park supervisor with one seasonal park ranger. Nine summer rangers and administrative support from Tahquamenon Falls State Park.

Palms Book State Park (2004 Visitation: 51,648) (388 Acres) Administered by Indian Lake State Park

Wagner Falls Scenic Site (22 Acres) Administered by Indian Lake State Park

Indian Lake State Park (2004 Visitation: 66,869) (847 Acres) Administered by a park supervisor with an administrative support person and four seasonal park rangers. Park staff also operates and maintains 20 BAS and a remote campground on the west side of Indian Lake.

Fayette State Park - (Dedicated National Historic Site) (2004 Visitation: 70,712) (711 Acres) Administered by a park supervisor with administrative support at Indian Lake State Park. Staff includes a permanent carpenter, three seasonal park rangers and 11 summer rangers.

Mackinac Island Historic State Park (Dedicated National Historic Site) (Over 800,000 Visitations) (1,800 Acres) www.mackinacparks.com

The mission of Mackinac State Historic Parks we protect, preserve and present Mackinac’s rich cultural and natural resources to provide outstanding educational and recreational experiences for the public.

Created in 1895, this was Michigan’s first park. The Park is administered by the seven-member Mackinac Island State Park Commission.

197 of 244 D R A F T Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division (FMFMD)

The Mission of Forest, Mineral, and Fire Management Division is to provide for the protection, integrated management and responsible use of a healthy productive forest and mineral resource base for the social, recreational, environmental and economic benefit of the people of the State of Michigan.

The EUP FMFMD has a district supervisor (a core team member of the EUP Ecoteam) assigned to the Newberry Operations Service Center (OSC). Also at the OSC are several staff members with EUP Ecoregion responsibilities: inventory and planning specialist, recreation specialist, service forester, roving forester, timber management specialist and a part-time secretary. The district supervisor reports to the UP field coordinator located in Marquette. Any of the staff assigned to the UP field coordinator may assist on projects or have assignments in the EUP Ecoregion, as part of their functions. The ORV technician, for example, is housed in the Newberry OSC, but has UP wide responsibilities. Similarly, Wyman nursery is located in the EUP Ecoregion but has statewide responsibility for tree seedling production. Figure 7.4 EUP Forest, Mineral & Fire Management Division Management Units

There are presently three FMFM Forest Management Units in the EUP Ecoregion that manage 1,043,716 acres of forested land: Newberry, Shingleton, and Sault Ste. Marie. There are several satellite stations including, Detour and Naubinway for Sault Ste. Marie, and Seney and Wyman Nursery for Shingleton Forest Management Unit. The unit managers have assistant managers for Land Management and for Fire/Recreation Programs. Foresters and forest technicians handle land use issues, operations

198 of 244 D R A F T inventory and timber sales on state land. Fire officers handle recreational maintenance, road maintenance and maintain fire equipment. Fire officers are required to fight fire and participate in prescribed fire operations. Many foresters and forest technicians are involved in these activities as well as any other DNR personnel who wish to become fire line qualified. Sometimes fire fighters are required to work out side of the ecoregion, or even out of the state.

Forest Management Units/Field Offices in the EUP Ecoregion

Shingleton Forest Management Unit The Shingleton Forest is located in Schoolcraft County and East Alger County with field offices in Seney and Wyman Nursery in Manistique. Staff includes a Forest Unit Manager and Forest Fire Officer Supervisor, five foresters, one forest technician and six fire officers. · 376,435 Acres of State Forest land. · 11 State Forest Campgrounds with 130 sites. · 2005 Visitations 4,446 · 4 State Forest Pathways 39.75 miles. · 29 Miles of ORV Trails. · 512 Miles of Snowmobile Trails – with 5 Trail sponsors.

Newberry Forest Management Unit The Newberry Forest Unit is located in Luce County and the north west two Townships of Chippewa County. Staff includes a Forest Unit Manager and Forest Fire Officer Supervisor, four foresters, and three fire officers. · 346,446 Acres of State Forest land. · 17 State Forest Campgrounds with 329 sites. · 2005 Visitations 12,388 camper days. · 2 State Forest Pathways 15.25 miles. · 141 Miles of ORV Trails. · 237 Miles of Snowmobile Trails – with 2 Trail sponsors.

Sault Ste Marie Forest Management Unit The Sault Ste Marie Forest Unit is located in Chippewa and Mackinac Counties with field offices at Detour Village and Naubinway. Staff includes a Forest Unit Manager and Forest Fire Officer Supervisor, five foresters, two forest technicians, and four fire officers. · 320,835 Acres of State Forest land. · 11 State Forest Campgrounds with 279 sites. · 2005 Visitations 8,186 camper days. · 6 State Forest Pathways 23.40 miles · 250 Miles of ORV Trails.

199 of 244 D R A F T · 566 Miles of Snowmobile Trails – with 8 Trail Sponsors.

Wildlife Division (WD)

The mission of the Wildlife Division is to enhance, restore and conserve the state’s wildlife resources, natural communities and ecosystems for the benefit of Michigan’s citizens, visitors and future generations.

Figure 7.5 EUP Wildlife Division Management Units

Wildlife personnel not only have the primary responsibility for the management and regulation of bird and mammal species and their habitats but also have the lead responsibility for rare species which includes plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles and fish. Wildlife Division has joint management responsibilities with FMFMD for state forest management activities.

The EUP Ecoregion boundary contains all of the Wildlife Division’s EUP Management Unit which is comprised of Chippewa, Mackinac, Luce, and Schoolcraft Counties, the eastern part of Alger County and the Garden Peninsula in Delta County (5,228 square miles). The EUP District Wildlife Biologist (a core team member of the EUP Ecoteam) and a Wildlife Ecologist are located in the Newberry OSC office. Wildlife field personnel are located at the Sault Ste. Marie, Naubinway, Newberry, and Shingleton Field Offices. The Cusino Wildlife Research Station is located at Shingleton. The remaining western part of the EUP Ecounit in Delta and western Alger counties (864 square

200 of 244 D R A F T miles) are administered by the Western Upper Peninsula Management Unit which has its headquarters in Marquette.

201 of 244 D R A F T Appendix B – Michigan Department of Natural Resources State Council Charges to Ecounit Teams, September 15, 2000

CHARGES TO ECOUNIT TEAMS

“The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the State’s natural resources for current and future generations”

In mid –1997 the Michigan Department of Natural Resources began developing a comprehensive program to adopt a holistic resource management process. This program has been known as Joint Ventures. The primary objective is to develop strategies for sustainable resource planning and management. The core of this approach is to utilize principles of ecosystem management, application of new technologies such as geographic information systems (GIS), and implementation of adaptive management techniques to sustain the diversity and productivity of Michigan’s natural resources.

The appointment of Ecounit Teams to guide resource assessments, planning and management is a significant step in implementing Joint Ventures. The mission of the Ecounit Teams is:

“To plan and coordinate management of Michigan’s natural resources, utilizing ecosystem management principles.”

To fulfill this mission the Statewide Council presents the following charges to the Ecounit Teams:

· Principles of ecosystem management will be utilized for planning and managing Michigan’s natural resources. The Ecological Society of America described 8 elements of ecosystem management that have been endorsed by the Statewide Council: 1. Sustainability. Ecosystem Management does not focus primarily on “deliverables” but rather regards intergenerational sustainability as a precondition. 2. Goals. Ecosystem Management establishes measurable goals that specify future processes and outcomes necessary for sustainability. 3. Sound ecological models and understanding. Ecosystem Management relies on research performed at all levels of ecological organization. 4. Complexity and connectedness. Ecosystem Management recognizes that biological diversity and structural complexity strengthen ecosystems against disturbance and supply the genetic resources necessary to adapt to long-term change. 5. The dynamic character of ecosystems. Recognizing that change and evolution are inherent in ecosystem sustainability, Ecosystem management avoids attempts to “freeze” ecosystems in a particular state or configuration.

6. Context and Scale. Ecosystem processes operate over a wide-range of spatial and temporal scales, and their behavior at any given location is greatly affected by surrounding systems. Thus there is no single appropriate scale or timeframe for management.

7. Humans as ecosystem components. Ecosystem Management values the active role of humans in achieving sustainable management goals.

202 of 244 D R A F T 8. Adaptability and accountability. Ecosystem Management acknowledges that current knowledge and paradigms of ecosystem function are provisional, incomplete, and subject to change. Management approaches must be viewed as hypotheses to be tested by research and monitoring programs.

· Ecounit Team members are responsible for communicating and implementing the cultural shift necessary for successful implementation of the Joint Ventures philosophy. Historically the DNR has managed the State’s natural resources on a “Divisional” basis. Each Resource Division focused on the resources for which it was directly responsible. Input or impact analyses on resources managed by other Divisions occurred infrequently. New technologies, and a growing recognition by the DNR and the public that decisions impact on resources beyond those explicitly managed, have created an opportunity to apply a broader management strategy for the State’s natural resources. This change in the basic culture of an agency cannot come about without the acceptance by personnel who will carry out this plan. More specifically, Ecounit Teams will: 1. Focus on Divisional, inter-Divisional and stakeholder communications as a way of implementing coordinated management. 2. Identify communication/education needs (internal and external) as part of the planning process. 3. Identify barriers to communications that the Statewide council can help remove 4. Identify public communication needs that can be integrated with other public communication strategies or work plans. · Ecounit Teams will define appropriate geographic boundaries for their Ecounits. 1. It has been suggested that the boundary for the Eastern Upper Peninsula Ecounit be a line roughly corresponding with the western boundary of the Hiawatha National Forest. For purposes of resource assessment, planning and management, a final boundary decision needs to be made. 2. A decision also needs to be made on a boundary (or boundaries) for the Northern Lower Peninsula (NLP) Ecounit. It has been suggested that the entire NLP might be too large and diverse an area for one planning effort. The NLP Ecounit Team will determine the appropriate geographic scale for the Ecounit(s) and provide the decision and rationale to the Statewide Council. If the NLP is to be subdivided the team should consider appropriate boundaries such as watersheds, terrestrial ecological classifications, political boundaries or other features. · The Ecounit Team will be responsible for resource assessments for the Ecounit. Resource assessments will be conducted at appropriate scales and at the Ecounit level will include assessments across all ownerships. Terrestrial resource assessment and planning will utilize the hierarchical classification developed by Albert (1994). The DNR can only conduct management on state land and aquatic resources, however ecounit managers must recognize that private land management can influence state land management activities. Examples include assessments of timber resources on public and private lands, habitat for threatened and endangered species, private and public natural or reserved areas, habitat corridors, mineral resources, and other values. The Integrated Forest Management Application Program (IFMAP) provides a model for resource assessment at a variety of spatial scales. · Ecounit Teams will be responsible for developing resource management plans for the Ecounit. 1. Ecounit Teams will use the prototype planning process developed for the Lake Superior State Forest in cooperation with BioForest Technologies, Inc. as a model planning process. This process will be evaluated and modified as necessary by each Ecounit Team. The Statewide Council must review modifications. 2. Plans for aquatic and terrestrial values may differ in geographic scale and format but must be compatible with goals and objectives developed in the planning process. Te rrestrial management influences aquatic resources. Aquatic resource management impacts recreation and other values.

203 of 244 D R A F T 3. Resource management plans may be thought of as hierarchical or layers comprising a whole. There are many scales of resource planning that must be considered when developing resource management plans. Other plans to consider may range from Regional plans such as the Lake Area Management Plans to globally significant species recovery plans to site specific management requirements for wolf denning sites, and raptor nests. 4. Each Division’s annual operational plans (e.g. annual timber harvest, habitat management, species management, mineral management etc.) will be compatible with the Ecounit’s resource management plan. · The Ecounit Teams will determine a reasonable time frame for development of resource management plans. Planning will not be delayed because of “incomplete” resource assessments. There is never “enough” information. However, because of the dynamic nature of the planning process adaptations can be made as necessary · Ecounit Teams will operate as self-directed work teams. 1. If an Ecounit Team member has concerns about a Division-specific issue or policy clarification should be obtained from an appropriate Division staff member e.g. Field Coordinator or Program Specialist. 2. If a team has concerns about policies or issues that span Divisions or Ecounits they should go to the Statewide Council for clarification or guidance. · Existing laws, policies and Division’s goals and objectives will determine Ecounit Teams’ management authority. However Ecounit Teams are encouraged to recommend improvements. · Each Ecounit Team will select a team leader and representative to the Statewide Council. Each team will determine the appropriate time frame for serving in these positions. The same or different individuals can hold these positions. · Ecounit Teams need to have linkages to Division staffs and Management Teams. Divisions may need to assign a staff member (such as Field Coordinator or Staff Planner) to serve as a liaison between staff and the Ecounit Team. Divisions not having direct involvement in the process (HRD, Audit, Legal Services, I&E) may appoint a contact person to maintain communications with the Ecounit Teams. · Ecounit Teams are responsible for distributing information to keep the DNR and the public informed about their activities. Teams will develop a communications strategy for sharing information and updating Department personnel and stakeholders on team activities. Teams should work closely with the Information and Education Division on communications strategies. · Ecounit Teams are responsible for identifying training needs. The Department Training Officer and Division Training Officers shall be kept apprised of training needs. Funding training will generally be worked into Division budgets. · Ecounit Teams will utilize existing staff to the greatest extent possible for resource assessment and planning. Wildlife and Forest Management Divisions will both have permanent staff assigned to support the Ecounit Team. The Ecounit Team will be responsible for work assignments and can assign tasks to any employees in the Ecounit through the respective Division’s team member. For instance, there may be instances where information is needed on fire management, forest health, or threatened and endangered species that can be imported from existing field staff. There may be other instances where specialized skills and information need to be imported from outside agencies. Each team member will work with Division staff to resolve employee time and workload issues required for resource assessment and planning. · Ecounit Teams will utilize the current process for requesting services from the Spatial Information Resource Center. If issues arise that cannot be resolved by the ViGIL board the Statewide Council will resolve them. · The Ecounit Teams will work with FOSB to ensure that clerical support is available for the Ecounit Team. This could be a significant time consumer for clerical support staff. Meeting minutes

204 of 244 D R A F T need to be recorded and distributed, mailing lists maintained, meetings arranged etc. etc. Do not underestimate the importance of clerical support. · Each Division will allocate funding for Ecounit Teams based on each Division’s annual work plans. This is the same as the current work planning/budget process. There may be instances where there is a need for shared expenses not covered by each Division’s budget allotments. Requests for these funds should be directed to the Statewide Council. · Ecounit Teams will provide the Statewide Council a plan for implementing these charges by May 1, 2001. The Canadians use “Terms of Reference” for this process and the EUP developed a draft that could be shared with the NLP.

The Michigan DNR is one of the first state agencies in the country to undertake an integrated ecosystem approach to resource planning and management on such a large scale. We expect the process to be adaptive and innovative. The Ecounit Teams are not expected to develop identical assessment and planning processes but they must be based on the concepts of resource sustainability, incorporate the elements of ecosystem management and be a fully open and participative public process. The Council recognizes that these charges will raise additional questions and that there is no blueprint for success. The Statewide Council looks forward to working with the Ecounit Teams to resolve outstanding issues and plan for the sustainable management of Michigan’s natural resources.

205 of 244 D R A F T Appendix C - Part 525, Statewide Forest Resources Plan, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended.

Act No. 125 Public Acts of 2004 Approved by the Governor May 28, 2004 Filed with the Secretary of State May 28, 2004 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 28, 2004

STATE OF MICHIGAN 92ND LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION OF 2004

Introduced by Reps. Casperson, Stahl, Pastor, Sheen, Walker, Pappageorge, Shackleton, Amos, Nofs, Meyer, Huizenga, Nitz, Palsrok, Palmer, Emmons, LaJoy, Voorhees, Moolenaar, Ward, Bisbee, Hune, Farhat, Mortimer, Hummel, Caswell, Robertson, Shaffer, DeRoche, Julian, Taub, Richardville, Vander Veen, Brandenburg, Acciavatti, Drolet and Bradstreet

ENROLLED HOUSE BILL No. 5554

AN ACT to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled “An act to protect the environment and natural resources of the state; to codify, revise, consolidate, and classify laws relating to the environment and natural resources of the state; to regulate the discharge of certain substances into the environment; to regulate the use of certain lands, waters, and other natural resources of the state; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state and local agencies and officials; to provide for certain charges, fees, and assessments; to provide certain appropriations; to prescribe penalties and provide remedies; to repeal certain parts of this act on a specific date; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts,” by amending the heading to part 525 and section 52501 (MCL 324.52501), as added by 1995 PA 57, and by adding sections 52502, 52503, 52504, 52505, and 52506.

The People of the State of Michigan enact: PART 525 SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY ON STATE FORESTLANDS

Sec. 52501. As used in this part: (a) “Breast height” means 4.5 feet from highest ground at the base of the tree. (b) “Certification” means a process where an independent third party organization assesses and evaluates forest management practices according to the standards of a certification program resulting in an issuance of a certificate of compliance or conformity. (c) “Certification program” means a program that develops specific standards that measure whether forest management practices are consistent with principles of sustainable forestry. (d) “Conservation” means the wise use of natural resources. (e) “Diameter class specifications” means a classification of trees based on the diameter at breast height. (f) “Plan” means the forestry development, conservation, and recreation management plan for state forests as provided for in section 52503. (g) “Reforestation” means adequate stocking of forestland is assured by natural seeding, sprouting, suckering, or by planting seeds or seedlings. (h) “Residual basal area” means the sum of the cross-sectional area of trees 4 inches or greater in diameter measured at breast height left standing within a stand after a harvest. (i) “State forest” means state land owned or controlled by the department that is designated as state forest by the director. (j) “Sustainable forestry” means forestry practices that are designed to meet present and future needs by employing a land stewardship ethic that integrates the reforestation, managing, growing, nurturing, and harvesting of trees for useful products with the conservation of soil, air and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and visual qualities.

206 of 244 D R A F T

Sec. 52502. The department shall manage the state forest in a manner that is consistent with principles of sustainable forestry and in doing so shall do all of the following: (a) Manage forests with consideration of its economic, social, and environmental values by doing all of the following: (i) Broaden the implementation of sustainable forestry by employing an array of economically, environmentally, and socially sound practices in the conservation of forests, using the best scientific information available. (ii) Promote the efficient utilization of forest resources. (iii) Broaden the practice of sustainable forestry by cooperating with forestland owners, wood producers, and consulting foresters. (iv) Plan and manage plantations in accordance with sustainable forestry principles and in a manner that complements the management of and promotes the restoration and conservation of natural forests. (b) Conserve and protect forestland by doing all of the following: (i) Ensure long-term forest productivity and conservation of forest resources through prompt reforestation, soil conservation, afforestation, and other measures. (ii) Protect the water quality in streams, lakes, and other waterbodies in a manner consistent with the department’s best management practices for water quality. (iii) Manage the quality and distribution of wildlife habitats and contribute to the conservation of biological diversity by developing and implementing stand and landscape-level measures that promote habitat diversity and the conservation of forest plants and animals including aquatic flora and fauna and unique ecosystems. (iv) Protect forests from wildfire, pests, diseases, and other damaging agents. (v) Manage areas of ecologic, geologic, cultural, or historic significance in a manner that recognizes their special qualities. (vi) Manage activities in high conservation value forests by maintaining or enhancing the attributes that define such forests. (c) Communicate to the public by doing all of the following: (i) Publicly report the department’s progress in fulfilling its commitment to sustainable forestry. (ii) Provide opportunities for persons to participate in the commitment to sustainable forestry. (iii) Prepare, implement, and keep current a management plan that clearly states the long-term objectives of management and the means of achieving those objectives. (d) Monitor forest management by promoting continual improvement in the practice of sustainable forestry and monitoring, measuring, and reporting performance in achieving the commitment to sustainable forestry. (e) Consider the local community surrounding state forestland by doing both of the following: (i) Require that forest management plans and operations comply with applicable federal and state laws. (ii) Require that forest management operations maintain or enhance the long-term social and economic well- being of forest workers and local communities.

Sec. 52503. (1) The department shall adopt a forestry development, conservation, and recreation management plan for state owned lands owned or controlled by the department. Parks and recreation areas, state game areas, and other wildlife areas on these lands shall be managed according to their primary purpose. The department may update the plan as the department considers necessary or appropriate. The plan and any plan updates shall be consistent with section 52502 and shall be designed to assure a stable, long-term, sustainable timber supply from the state forest as a whole. (2) The plan and any plan updates shall include all of the following: (a) An identification of the interests of local communities, outdoor recreation interests, the tourism industry, and the forest products industry. (b) An identification of the annual capability of the state forest and management goals based on that level of productivity. (c) Methods to promote and encourage the use of the state forest for outdoor recreation, tourism, and the forest products industry. (d) A landscape management plan for the state forest incorporating biodiversity conservation goals, indicators, and measures. (e) Standards for sustainable forestry consistent with section 52502. (f) An identification of environmentally sensitive areas. (g) An identification of the need for forest treatments to maintain and sustain healthy, vigorous forest vegetation and quality habitat for wildlife and environmentally sensitive species. Sec. 52504. (1) After the plan is adopted under section 52503, the department shall harvest timber from the state forest and other state owned lands owned or controlled by the department in compliance with the plan and any plan updates.

207 of 244 D R A F T (2) Unless otherwise dedicated by law, proceeds from the sale of timber from the state forest and other state owned lands owned or controlled by the department shall be forwarded to the state treasurer for deposit into the forest development fund established pursuant to section 50507.

Sec. 52505. (1) The department shall seek and maintain third-party certification that the management of the state forest and other state owned lands owned or controlled by the department satisfies the sustainable forestry standards of at least 1 credible nonprofit, nongovernmental certification program and this part. (2) Beginning January 1, 2006, the department shall ensure that the state forest is certified as provided for in subsection (1). (3) Beginning the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section, the department shall commence a review and study to determine the appropriateness of certifying parks and recreation areas, state game areas, and other wildlife areas on state owned lands owned or controlled by the department. Not later than 1 year after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section, the department shall report and recommend to the legislature the appropriateness and feasibility of certifying those lands.

Sec. 52506. By January 1 of each year, the department shall prepare and submit to the commission of natural resources, the standing committees of the senate and the house of representatives with primary jurisdiction over forestry issues, and the senate and house appropriations committees a report that details the following from the previous state fiscal year: (a) The number of harvestable acres in the state forest as determined by the certification program under section 52506. (b) The number of acres of the state forest that were harvested and the number of cords of wood that were harvested from the state forest. (c) The number of acres of state owned lands owned or controlled by the department other than state forestlands that were harvested and the number of cords of wood that were harvested from those lands. (d) Efforts by the department to promote recreational opportunities in the state forest. (e) Information on the public’s utilization of the recreational opportunities offered by the state forest. (f) Efforts by the department to promote wildlife habitat in the state forest. (g) The status of the plan and whether the department recommends any changes in the plan. (h) Status of certification efforts required in section 52505 and, beginning in 2006, a definitive statement of whether the department is maintaining certification of the entire state forest. (i) A description of any activities that have been undertaken on forest pilot project areas described in section 52511.

Enacting section 1. This amendatory act does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 92nd Legislature are enacted into law: (a) Senate Bill No. 1023. (b) Senate Bill No. 1024.

This act is ordered to take immediate effect.

208 of 244 D R A F T Appendix D - Excerpts of planning principles from the FSC Standards.

PRINCIPLE 7 MANAGEMENT PLAN

A management plan -- appropriate to the scale and intensity of the operations -- shall be written, implemented, and kept up to date. The long-term objectives of management, and the means of achieving them, shall be clearly stated.

7.1. The management plan and supporting documents shall provide: a) Management objectives. b) Description of the forest resources to be managed, environmental limitations, land use and ownership status, socio-economic conditions, and a profile of adjacent lands. c) Description of silvicultural and/or other management system, based on the ecology of the forest in question and information gathered through resource inventories. d) Rationale for rate of annual harvest and species selection. e) Provisions for monitoring of forest growth and dynamics. f) Environmental safeguards based on environmental assessments. g) Plans for the identification and protection of rare, threatened and endangered species. h) Maps describing the forest resource base including protected areas, planned management activities and land ownership. i) Description and justification of harvesting techniques and equipment to be used.

Applicability Note: The management plan may consist of a variety of documents not necessarily unified into a single planning document but which represents an integrated strategy for managing the forest within the ecological, economic, and social limitations of the land. The plan includes a description and rationale for management elements appropriate to the scale, intensity, and goals of management, and may include:

Silvicultural systems Regeneration strategies Maintenance of structural and species diversity Pest control (disease, insects, invasive species, and vegetation) Soil and water conservation Methods and annual rates of harvest, by species and products Equipment and personnel needs Transportation system Fire management Prescribed fires Wildfires Fish and wildlife and their habitats (including non-game species) Non-timber forest products Methods and annual rates of harvest, by species and products Regeneration strategies Socioeconomic issues Public access and use Conservation of historical and cultural resources Protection of aesthetic values Employee and contractor policies and procedures Community relations

209 of 244 D R A F T Stakeholder notification Public comment process For public forests, legal and historic mandates American Indian issues Protection of legal and customary rights Procedures for integrating tribal concerns in forest management Management of sites of special significance Special management areas High Conservation Value Forests Riparian management zone Set asides of samples of representative existing ecosystems Sensitive, rare, threatened, and endangered species protection Other protected areas Landscape level analyses and strategies

7.1.a. Management objectives 7.1.a.1. A written management plan is prepared that includes the landowner's short-term and long-term goals and objectives (ecological, social, and economic). The objectives are specific, achievable, and measurable. 7.1.a.2. The management plan describes desired future conditions that will meet the long-term goals and objectives and that determine the silvicultural system(s) and management activities to be used.

7.1.b. Description of forest resources to be managed, environmental limitations, land use and ownership status, socioeconomic conditions, and profile of adjacent lands 7.1.b.1. The management plan describes the timber, fish and wildlife, harvested nontimber forest products, soils, and non-economic forest resources. 7.1.b.2. The management plan includes descriptions of special management areas; sensitive, rare, threatened, and endangered species and their habitats; and other ecologically sensitive features in the forest. 7.1.b.3. The management plan includes a description of past land uses and incorporates this information into the vision, goals, and objectives. 7.1.b.4. The management plan identifies the legal status of the forest and its resources (e.g., ownership, usufruct rights (see Glossary), treaty rights, easements, deed restrictions, and leasing arrangements). 7.1.b.5. The management plan identifies relevant cultural and socioeconomic issues (e.g., traditional and customary rights of use, access, recreational uses, and employment), conditions (e.g., composition of the workforce, stability of employment, and changes in forest ownership and tenure), and areas of special significance (e.g., ceremonial and archeological sites). 7.1.b.6. The management plan incorporates landscape-level considerations within the ownership and among adjacent and nearby lands, including major bodies of water, critical habitats, and riparian corridors shared with adjacent ownerships.

7.1.c. Description of silvicultural and/or other management system 7.1.c.1. Silvicultural system(s) and prescriptions are based on the integration of ecological and economic characteristics (e.g., successional processes, soil characteristics, existing species composition and structures, desired future conditions, and market conditions). (see also sub-Criterion 6.3.a)

210 of 244 D R A F T 7.1.c.2. Prescriptions are prepared prior to harvesting, site preparation, pest control, burning, and planting and are available to people who implement the prescriptions.

7.1.d. Rationale for the rate of annual harvest and species selection 7.1.d.1. Calculations for the harvests of both timber and non-timber products are detailed or referenced in the management plan and are based on net growth, yield, stocking, and regeneration data. (see also 5.6.b) 7.1.d.2. Species selection meets the social and economic goals and objectives of the forest owner or manager and leads to the desired future conditions while maintaining or improving the ecological composition, structures, and functions of the forest. 7.1.d.3. The management plan addresses potentially disruptive effects of pests, storms, droughts, and fires as they relate to allowable cut.

7.1.e. Provisions for monitoring forest growth and dynamics (see also Principle 8) 7.1.e.1. The management plan includes a description of procedures to monitor the forest.

7.1.f. Environmental safeguards based on environmental assessments (see also Criterion 6.1.)

7.1.g. Plans for the identification and protection of rare, threatened, and endangered species. (see also Criterion 6.3.)

7.1.h. Maps describing the forest resource base including protected areas, planned management activities, and land ownership. 7.1.h.1. The management plan includes maps of such forest characteristics as: relevant landscape-level factors; property boundaries; roads; areas of timber production; forest types by age class; topography; soils; riparian zones; springs and wetlands; archaeological sites; areas of cultural and customary use; locations of sensitive, rare, threatened, and/or endangered species and their habitats; and designated High Conservation Value Forests.

7.1.i. Description and justification of harvesting techniques and equipment to be used. (see also Criterion 6.5) 7.1.i.1. Harvesting machinery and techniques are discussed in the management or harvest plan and are specifically matched to forest conditions in order to minimize damage. 7.1.i.2. Conditions for each timber sale are established by a timber sale contract or written harvest prescription and accompanying timber sale map.

7.2. The management plan shall be periodically revised to incorporate the results of monitoring or new scientific and technical information, as well as to respond to changing environmental, social and economic circumstances. 7.2.a. Operational components of the management plan are reviewed and revised as necessary or at least every 5 years. Components of the long-term (strategic) management plan are revised and updated at the end of the planning period or when other changes in the management require it. (see also Criterion 8.4)

7.3. Forest workers shall receive adequate training and supervision to ensure proper implementation of the management plans.

211 of 244 D R A F T 7.3.a. The forest owner or manager assures that workers are qualified to implement the management plan (see also Criterion 4.2). 7.3.b. The management plan is understandable, comprehensive, and readily available to field personnel.

7.4. While respecting the confidentiality of information, forest managers shall make publicly available a summary of the primary elements of the management plan, including those listed in Criterion 7.1. Applicability Note: Forest owners or managers of private forests may withhold proprietary information (e.g., the nature and extent of their forest resource base, marketing strategies, and other financial information). (see also Criterion 8.5) 7.4.a. A management plan summary that outlines management objectives (from sub- Criterion 7.1.a.), whether on private lands or the land pool under a resource manager, is available to the public at a reasonable fee. Additional elements of the plan may be excluded, to protect the security of environmentally sensitive and/or proprietary information. 7.4.b. Managers of public forests make forestry-related information easily accessible (e.g., available on websites) for public review, including that required by Criterion 7.1.

212 of 244 D R A F T Appendix E - Excerpts of planning objectives from the SFI Standards.

Objective 1. To broaden the implementation of sustainable forestry by ensuring long-term harvest levels based on the use of the best scientific information available.

Performance Measure 1.1. Program Participants shall ensure that long-term harvest levels are sustainable and consistent with appropriate growth-and- yield models and written plans.

Indicators: 1. A long-term resource analysis to guide forest management planning at a level appropriate to the size and scale of the operation, including a. a periodic or ongoing forest inventory; b. a land classification system; c. soils inventory and maps, where available; d. access to growth-and-yield modeling capabilities; e. up-to-date maps or a geographic information system (GIS); f. recommended sustainable harvest levels; and g. a review of nontimber issues (e.g., pilot projects and economic incentive programs to promote water protection, carbon storage, or biological diversity conservation). 2. Documentation of annual harvest trends in relation to the sustainable forest management plan. 3. A forest inventory system and a method to calculate growth. 4. Periodic updates of inventory and recalculation of planned harvests. 5. Documentation of forest practices (e.g., planting, fertilization, and thinning) consistent with assumptions in harvest plans.

Objective 12. To broaden the practice of sustainable forestry by encouraging the public and forestry community to participate in the commitment to sustainable forestry and publicly report progress.

Performance Measure 12.3. Program Participants with forest management responsibilities on public lands shall participate in the development of public land planning and management processes.

Indicators: 1. Involvement in public land planning and management activities with appropriate governmental entities and the public. 2. Appropriate contact with local stakeholders over forest management issues through state, provincial, federal, or independent collaboration.

Objective 13. To promote continual improvement in the practice of sustainable forestry and monitor, measure, and report performance in achieving the commitment to sustainable forestry.

Performance Measure 13.1. Program Participants shall establish a management review system to examine findings and progress in implementing the SFI Standard, to make appropriate improvements in programs, and to inform their employees of changes.

Indicators: 1. System to review commitments, programs, and procedures to evaluate effectiveness. 2. System for collecting, reviewing, and reporting information to management regarding progress in achieving SFI Standard objectives and performance measures. 3. Annual review of progress by management and determination of changes and improvements necessary to continually improve SFI conformance.

213 of 244 D R A F T

Appendix F – Eastern Upper Peninsula Ecoregion Team

The core team is comprised of each division’s “District” supervisor and is responsible for the resource decisions that will come before the team. Responsibilities also include assuring staff assistance from their respective field personnel and securing the monies needed for plan implementation. By having each division represented, the scope of the team embraces the Department’s mission of managing all of the state’s resources in a holistic manner.

Core Team Members

John Cischke, Law Enforcement Division, Newberry Operations Service Center (OSC) Gary Ellenwood, Parks and Recreation Division, Newberry OSC Ann Mattson, Field Operations Services, Newberry OSC Robert Moody, Fisheries Division, Newberry OSC Rex Ainslie, Wildlife Division, Newberry OSC Michael Paluda, (Acting) Forest, Minerals and Fire Management Division, Marquette OSC

The support team responsibilities are to provide the core team with information necessary to make resource management decisions, plan development, and monitoring. Each support team member brings skills and information to assist the core team with decision making and Ecoregional Planning.

Support Team Members

Sherry MacKinnon, EUP Wildlife Ecologist, Newberry OSC Darrell Welch, EUP Inventory and Planning Specialist, Newberry OSC Richard Stevenson, EUP Cooperative Forest Management Specialist, Newberry OSC Matt Tonello, Department Of Information and Technology, Roscommon OSC

214 of 244 D R A F T Appendix G – Proposed Eastern Upper Peninsula Ecoregion Criteria and Indicators and potential Metrics

CRITERION 1 Conservation of Biological Diversity

Biological diversity, or biodiversity, is the variability among living organisms and the ecological systems of which they are a part. Biodiversity can be measured at the landscape, ecosystem, species and genetic levels. The conservation of biodiversity ensures that all ecosystems maintain their integrity and continue to be productive and to adapt to changing conditions.

INDICATOR 1.1 Landscape and Ecosystem Diversity

The complexity of landscapes is determined by the number of patches, their characteristics, their size and shape and their connectivity. Ecosystem diversity is the kind and number of ecosystems in an area and the patterns of association of ecosystems with one another and the recurrence of these patterns in a given landscape. The impacts of change in landscapes are expressed through shifts in ecosystem diversity.

METRIC 1.1.1 Percentage and extent of vegetation types relative to historical conditions (at varying scales)

METRIC 1.1.2 Richness and evenness of ecosystems or vegetation types (By age class for forested systems)

METRIC 1.1.3 Richness and evenness of glacial landforms or soil types and index of topographic heterogeneity

METRIC 1.1.4 Percentage, area, and representativeness of vegetation types in designated protected areas of natural and scientific interest

METRIC 1.1.5 Level of fragmentation, connectivity, shape, size and spatial distribution of vegetation types

METRIC 1.1.6 Connectivity of glacial landforms and/or soil types

METRIC 1.1.7 Number, area and distribution of unusual or rare vegetation types

INDICATOR 1.2 Species Population Diversity

Species diversity refers to the number and relative abundance of species found in an area. The impacts of change in ecosystems are expressed through shifts in species biodiversity.

METRIC 1.2.1 Absolute and relative abundance of habitat types and their importance for focal species..

METRIC 1.2.2 Changes in habitat of focal species.

METRIC 1.2.3 Species classified as threatened, endangered, rare or vulnerable and their population sizes and habitat condition

METRIC 1.2.4 Number of known species that occupy a smaller portion of their former range and the number of known species that occupy a larger portion of their former range

METRIC 1.2.5 Species richness of all plants, animals and fungi within representative

215 of 244 D R A F T ecosystems

INDICATOR 1.3 Genetic Diversity

Genetic diversity includes the range of genetic characteristics found within a species and among different species.

METRIC 1.3.1 Proportion of forest area as plantations using native vs. non-native genotypes

METRIC 1.3.2 Proportion of water bodies using native vs. non-native fish stock genotypes

METRIC 1.3.3 Proportion of water bodies with sustainable fisheries produced by stocked vs. natural reproduction

METRIC 1.3.4 Proportion of planted openings on managed lands with native vs. non- native species

CRITERION 2 Ecosystem Condition and Productivity

Ecosystem condition is a measure of relative freedom from stress and the relative level of physical/biological energy within an ecosystem. Ecosystem productivity refers to the rate of production of organic matter within an ecosystem. This results from interactions between biological components and abiotic factors such as soil, water and climate. Sustainable productivity is dependent upon the ability of ecosystems to recover from or adapt to disturbances; both natural and human induced. A healthy and diverse ecosystem is better able to respond to and recover from changes in its environment.

INDICATOR 2.1 Incidence of Disturbance and Stress

Ecosystem change is constant. Many of these changes are adaptations to disturbance. Disturbances generally cause ecosystems to revert to earlier successional stages or establish new patterns of succession. Fundamental to the continued health, vitality and productivity of ecosystems are their ability to adapt to the various stresses placed upon them. Disturbances may be part of natural ecological cycles or the result of human activities. Human-induced stress and disturbance include introduced (exotic) species, prescribed burning, fire suppression, populations out of balance with available habitat, pollution and land-use practices. Natural disturbances include native insects, high wind events and fire.

METRIC 2.1.1 Area and severity of forest stressor

METRIC 2.1.2 Area and severity of wind and fire activity

METRIC 2.1.3 Presence, extent and number of invasive exotic species

METRIC 2.1.4 Presence, extent of disease

METRIC 2.1.5 Area and severity of mammalian herbivory

METRIC 2.1.6 Area and intensity of timber harvest

METRIC 2.1.7 Land clearing/urban sprawl

216 of 244 D R A F T

INDICATOR 2.2 Ecosystem Resilience

Resilience is a measure of an ecosystems’ ability to maintain its natural range of variability given its disturbance regime and other dynamics. Resilience reflects the persistence of ecosystems and their capacity to respond to changes and disturbances.

METRIC 2.2.1 Area by vegetation type and age class

METRIC 2.2.2 Area successfully regenerated by vegetation type

METRIC 2.2.3 Ecological function, activity and responses to perturbation within “protected areas”

METRIC 2.2.4 Distribution and abundance of top carnivores.

METRIC 2.2.5 Distribution and abundance of mammalian herbivores

METRIC 2.2.6 Ratio of exotic invasive plant species to native plant species in natural vegetative communities

METRIC 2.2.7 Presence of spring ephemerals

INDICATOR 2.3 Biomass

Biomass represents the total mass of living organisms inherent in an ecosystem. It is an integrating measure of ecosystem condition (health and vitality of all species and habitat types). Evidence that the condition of habitat types is constant or improving indicates that they are being managed in a sustainable way. In this case, we are measuring forest productivity.

METRIC 2.3.1 Mean annual increment by forest type and age class

METRIC 2.3.2 Net annual growth by forest type and age class for the EUP

METRIC 2.3.3 Biomass volumes of standing flora.

INDICATOR 2.4 Ecosystem Structure

Vegetation and other biotic and abiotic materials provide the physical structure within which most organisms live. Ecosystem structure includes the presence and arrangement of these physical structures in three dimensional space. Species richness in some taxa is correlated with ecosystem community structure.

FORESTED ECOSYSTEMS METRIC 2.4.1 Number of super canopy trees

METRIC 2.4.2 Snags per area, basal area, mean DBH and decay class

METRIC 2.4.3 Cavities per area by size class

METRIC 2.4.4 Coarse woody debris per area, mean DBH and decay class

METRIC 2.4.5 Number of vertical vegetation layers per area

217 of 244 D R A F T METRIC 2.4.6 Number and size of tree fall gaps, harvest gaps and maintained wildlife openings per area in northern hardwood ecosystems

METRIC 2.4.7 Tree size: basal area per acre/hectare for different forested communities

METRIC 2.4.8 Distribution of cliffs, outcrops, sinks and glacial erratics

METRIC 2.4.9 Number of vertical vegetation layers per area

METRIC 2.4.10 Ratio of open water to emergent vegetation in wetlands

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS METRIC 2.4.11 Surface and sub-surface geology of valley segment

METRIC 2.4.12 Number of vertical vegetation layers by valley segment

METRIC 2.4.13 Surface and sub-surface hydrology of valley segment

METRIC 2.4.14 Coarse woody debris per area, mean DBH and decay class

METRIC 2.4.15 Bathymetric shape of lakes

METRIC 2.4.16 Aquatic plant abundance and distribution

CRITERION 3 Water and Soil Conservation

Water and Soil are essential to sustaining the functioning and productive capacity of ecosystems. Water conservation is an important provision of suitable aquatic environments for plants and animals, and for the provision of potable water for humans and wildlife; whereas, soil conservation is the maintenance of the living substrate for forests, shrubs and grasslands.

INDICATOR 3.1 Water Quality

Long term productivity and resilience of habitats, and a potable water supply for humans and wildlife, are dependent upon an abundant and clean water source. In order to ensure that aquatic ecosystems are maintained, policies that address stream crossings, watershed management and riparian areas will help maintain water flow patterns, water levels and water quality.

SURFACE WATER METRICS METRIC 3.1.1 Percent of rural/urban land managed for water conservation (watershed quality)

METRIC 3.1.2 Water chemistry (pH, dissolved O², water conductivity, turbidity and water temperatures) and volume flow

METRIC 3.1.3 Fecal coliform

METRIC 3.1.4 Nutrients (nitrates and phosphates)

METRIC 3.1.5 Fish species diversity

METRIC 3.1.6 Benthic species diversity

METRIC 3.1.7 Number of water crossings per unit area

218 of 244 D R A F T METRIC 3.1.8 Pesticide residue concentrations in surface water

METRIC 3.1.9 Area of wetlands

METRIC 3.1.10 Surface withdrawals by volume

GROUND WATER METRICS METRIC 3.1.11 Ground Water Recharge Zones

METRIC 3.1.12 Ground water elevations

METRIC 3.1.13 Quality of drinking water

METRIC 3.1.14 Total water wells abandoned due to man-made contaminants

METRIC 3.1.15 Sub-surface withdrawals by volume

INDICATOR 3.2 Soil Conservation

The long-term productivity and resilience of forests and other habitats are dependent upon the maintenance of appropriate levels of soil oxygen, nutrients and organic matter. In order to ensure that terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are maintained and improved, policies must be enacted to provide for specific management practices or the protection of sensitive sites.

METRIC 3.2.1 Area of lands managed for soil conservation (reflects the fragility of the soil on some sites))

METRIC 3.2.2 Soil stability and productivity (pH, soil faunal and fungal activity, soil erosion, degradation indices)

METRIC 3.2.3 Area of vegetated riparian corridors

CRITERION 4 Ecological Cycles

Ecological cycles are a complex of self-regulating processes responsible for recycling the earth’s limited supplies of water, carbon, nitrogen and other elements necessary to sustain life. Understanding the role that local systems play in these global cycles is essential for the development of sound ecosystem management and sustainability.

INDICATOR 4.1 Carbon Cycle

The global carbon cycle represents an important set of processes linking plant and animal communities with climate change. The release or removal of CO2 to and from the atmosphere impacts on global ecological cycles. Forests, wetlands and water bodies can act as either sinks (a vigorous and growing forest) or sources for atmospheric carbon, depending on whether they are primarily storing carbon or releasing it. Knowledge of the influence of natural disturbances and human intervention on this role can indicate the type of forest practices required for sustainable management.

METRIC 4.1.1 Area of forest permanently, semi-permanently, or temporarily converted to non-forest land use

METRIC 4.1.2 Carbon pool in forest products

219 of 244 D R A F T METRIC 4.1.3 Carbon pools in soils

METRIC 4.1.4 Amount of fuels consumed

METRIC 4.1.5 Fuelwood consumption/atmospheric

INDICATOR 4.2 Hydrological Cycle

Hydrological cycles involve the movement of water from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth in the form of precipitation; from soils to streams to lakes; and from soil to plants to the atmosphere. Because of their vast area in the EUP, forests play a major role in Great Lakes hydrological cycles. Changes in forestland cover and management influence the storage and movement of water and the timing of the various components of the hydrological cycle. The forest can regulate the flow of water into lakes and wetlands directly or by influencing stream and river flows. Consequently, sustainable forest management plays a crucial role in contributing to the regulation of the hydrological cycle.

METRIC 4.2.1 Number, distribution and acres of impoundments affected by natural and artificial water control structures

METRIC 4.2.2 Surface area of lakes and wetlands; total flow data for rivers and streams

METRIC 4.2.3 Changes in Great Lakes water levels

METRIC 4.2.4 Annual precipitation

METRIC 4.2.5 Groundwater withdrawals

METRIC 4.2.6 Great Lakes water withdrawals

METRIC 4.2.7 Acres of artificially created surface

CRITERION 5 Uncommon or Rare Natural Features

Identification and recognition of uncommon geological sites, plant and animal species, and ecological communities can make a difference between success and failure at sustaining our heritage and protection of natural systems over the long run.

INDICATOR 5.1 Uncommon or Rare Vegetation Types

METRIC 5.1.1 Type, area, distribution and quality of uncommon or rare vegetation types. Size and distribution of uncommon or rare habitat types

METRIC 5.1.2 Type, area, distribution and representativeness of uncommon or rare vegetation types and their protection status (i.e. protected areas Natural areas, Old growth, Wild and Scenic Rivers, State Parks

METRIC 5.1.3 Type, area and distribution of uncommon or rare vegetation types under active management

METRIC 5.1.4 Availability of critical fisheries habitat to support natural reproduction

METRIC 5.1.5 Miles of undeveloped Great Lakes shoreline, inland lakes and water courses

220 of 244 D R A F T INDICATOR 5.2 Uncommon or Rare Species

METRIC 5.2.1 Population levels, habitat distribution and changes over time of selected uncommon or rare species (species will need to be selected)

METRIC 5.2.2 Number of species classified as threatened, endangered, rare or vulnerable relative to the total number of known species by taxa

INDICATOR 5.3 Geophysical and Hydrophysical Features

METRIC 5.3.1 Number, location and protection status of physical features and landforms (karsts, dunes, rock outcrops, eskers, drumlins, moraines, fossil beds)

METRIC 5.3.2 Number of unique water features: aquifers, artesian wells, springs, waterfalls, recharge zones.

CRITERION 6 Social / Cultural

The Eastern Upper Peninsula Ecoregion is a predominantly rural and natural resource rich region of Northern Michigan. This has provided a context for the social-cultural values of communities that make the sustainability of resources essential to the social and cultural fabric of the region. People who live in the Ecoregion point to the importance of their lifestyles and the strong connection with the land.

INDICATOR 6.1 Stability of Land Use

METRIC 6.1.1 Percentage of lands that are under alteration by vegetative type

METRIC 6.1.2 Area of lands under restoration by vegetative type

METRIC 6.1.3 Amount of change of ownership

METRIC 6.1.4 Amount of ownership fragmentation and parcelization of land

METRIC 6.1.5 Traditional non-profit uses for cultural forest products (e.g.berries, syrup, mushrooms, black ash, cattails, etc.)

METRIC 6.1.6 Number and size of forested parcels that have been added to or removed from the Commercial Forest Program

INDICATOR 6.2 Place for Nature and Scientific Study

METRIC 6.2.1 Area and vegetation types in areas of natural and scientific interest

METRIC 6.2.2 Number of educational and recreational opportunities

METRIC 6.2.3 Presence of natural features, plant species and wildlife species important to the identity of area

INDICATOR 6.3 Archaeology and History

Resource management planning takes into account the identification and protection of known unique or significant Native American, Euro American, social, cultural and or spiritual sites.

221 of 244 D R A F T

METRIC 6.3.1 Archaeological Site Potential.

METRIC 6.3.2 Presence of a known archaeological site (more weight can be given to sites that are on the National Register of Historic Places, this register includes prehistoric sites as well).

METRIC 6.3.3 Presence of an area(s) of Historical/Cultural Significance (many times these areas may show no visible signs of their significance, e.g. a Native American Indian trail corridor where the trail is no longer visible, or a spot at which a meeting or discovery took place).

METRIC 6.3.4 Presence of spiritual/ceremonial activities.

INDICATOR 6.4 Presence of Local Planning Efforts for the Sustainability of Natural Resources and Communities

METRIC 6.4.1 Percent of townships addressing sustainability of natural resources and communities.

METRIC 6.4.2 Percent of counties addressing sustainability of natural resources and communities.

METRIC 6.4.3 Presence of regional or watershed area planning efforts

CRITERION 7 Spiritual

Spiritual values are personal feelings and sentiments that natural resources engender to the human spirit and are a reason for sustaining the landscape to provide those experiences. Because the essence here is personal and to a large degree intangible, the indicators pertain to the features of the ecosystem which are most evocative to the senses and secondly, which pertain to the ability of people to use those resources.

INDICATOR 7.1 Undeveloped Natural Resources

METRIC 7.1.1 Size and distribution of natural and ‘special management’ areas and allowed use of those areas

METRIC 7.1.2 Road and motorized trail density

METRIC 7.1.3 Density and distribution of dwellings and commercial structures

METRIC 7.1.4 Measure / monitor distribution of undeveloped areas in populated areas

INDICATOR 7.2 Aesthetics

METRIC 7.2.1 Area and distribution of “secluded” natural resources.

METRIC 7.2.2 Presence of litter or trash dumped on public land

METRIC 7.2.3 Number of designated access opportunities to view scenic vistas and/or wildlife

METRIC 7.2.4 Miles of road by use class, distribution and density in EUP

222 of 244 D R A F T METRIC 7.2.5 Visual management OI – Travel Influence Zones

METRIC 7.2.6 Emotional/intrinsic values (Are my needs being met?)

CRITERION 8 Recreation

An activity pursued during leisure time and by free choice that provides its own satisfaction.

INDICATOR 8.1 Hunting, Trapping and Fishing

METRIC 8.1.1 User days/ activity

METRIC 8.1.2 Satisfaction levels

METRIC 8.1.3 Population health by species

METRIC 8.1.4 Population density by species

METRIC 8.1.5 Harvest number by species

METRIC 8.1.6 Number and distribution of shooting ranges

METRIC 8.1.7 Amount of Commercial Forest (CF) lands, changes in status

METRIC 8.1.8 Law Enforcement activity – number of warnings, summons, arrests per activity

METRIC 8.1.9 Number of safety training opportunities per activity

METRIC 8.1.10 Accident trends per activity per season

INDICATOR 8.2 Designated Trails – Motorized and Non-motorized (hiking, RV, snowmobile, skiing, equestrian)

METRIC 8.2.1 Infrastructure and resources available for trail maintenance

METRIC 8.2.2. User days per activity

METRIC 8.2.3 Miles of trail systems by trail ownership and management type

METRIC 8.2.4 Percentage of stream and wetland crossings complying with BMPs, laws and policies.

METRIC 8.2.5 Number of safety training opportunities per activity

METRIC 8.2.6 Accident trends per activity per season

INDICATOR 8.3 Nature Appreciation and Education

METRIC 8.3.1 Area of EUP by vegetation type, age class and ownership

METRIC 8.3.2 Miles of public Great Lakes shoreline, inland lakes and water courses

223 of 244 D R A F T METRIC 8.3.3 Percentage, area and representativeness of vegetative types in areas of natural and scientific interest

METRIC 8.3.4 User days/activity

METRIC 8.3.5 Number of unique species observation opportunities

METRIC 8.3.6 Ecotour opportunities

INDICATOR 8.4 Special Scenic Sites

METRIC 8.4.1 Size and distribution of natural and ‘special’ areas and their allowed use

METRIC 8.4.2 Miles of designated scenic routes

METRIC 8.4.3 Number of designated viewing areas

INDICATOR 8.5 Camping – Includes Dispersed and Designated Sites

METRIC 8.5.1 Number, type and distribution of campground facilities- rustic, modern, semi-modern, cabins

METRIC 8.5.2 Number of campsites by type in campgrounds

METRIC 8.5.3 User days by campground and campsite

METRIC 8.5.4 Number of dispersed camps per year

METRIC 8.5.5 Environmental impact of camping Benchmarks: -Soil erosion from human use -Trash presence -Carrying capacity of facility vs. overuse

INDICATOR 8.6 Water Recreation – Motorized and Non-motorized (including swimming, scuba diving, kayaking, etc.)

METRIC 8.6.1 User days per activity (power/sail boating, jet-skis, canoes, rafting/tubing, kayaking, swimming, snorkeling, fishing, water skiing, boat races, cruise ships, sail boarding, etc)

METRIC 8.6.2 Number of water access sites and boat slips by type and capacity for watercraft and available amenities

METRIC 8.6.3 Change in status of water body designation and use

METRIC 8.6.4 Number of safety training opportunities per activity

METRIC 8.6.5 Accident trends per activity per season

INDICATOR 8.7 Diversity of Recreational Opportunities: the availability of different ways for people to recreate on the landscape

METRIC 8.7.1 Availability of recreational activities by type i.e. lakes, rivers, forest, parks

METRIC 8.7.2 Universal (barrier free) access to facilities

224 of 244 D R A F T METRIC 8.7.3 Quality and satisfaction of recreational experience (would LED activity indicate quality?)

METRIC 8.7.4 Seasonally adjusted number of participants

CRITERION 9 Ownership Patterns

The pattern and distribution of ownership and use of lands in the Eastern Upper Peninsula (EUP), plays a role in sustainable resources. Land ownerships can affect management options, resource demand and fragmentation. The success of sustainable management of Michigan’s resources depends on making connections across disciplines, interest, boundaries and landscapes.

INDICATOR 9.1 Ownership types (the distribution and area of land by owner)

METRIC 9.1.1 Percent of public and private ownership in EUP

METRIC 9.1.2 Changes in ownership by acres

METRIC 9.1.3 Distribution of ownership in the EUP by acres

INDICATOR 9.2 Stewardship

Stewardship is the practice of carefully managing land usage to ensure natural systems are maintained or enhanced for future generations; to preserve the capacity of the land for self-renewal.

METRIC 9.2.1 Number, acres and distribution of private land management plans and percent of private ownership with management plans

METRIC 9.2.2 Miles of Great Lakes shoreline, inland lakes and water courses under special management

METRIC 9.2.3 Number and location of conservation easements in EUP

METRIC 9.2.4 Number of cooperative planning “agreements” across ownerships in EUP

METRIC 9.2.5 Land use patterns across all ownerships

INDICATOR 9.3 Accessibility

The extent to which a parcel or area of land can be reached and used by people.

METRIC 9.3.1 Percent of public and private land in the EUP

METRIC 9.3.2 Number and location of easements across public lands

METRIC 9.3.3 Number and location of easements across private lands

METRIC 9.3.4 Number of acres of public land without access (landlocked by private ownerships)

METRIC 9.3.5 Number of acres of private land enrolled in the Commercial Forest Program (CF)

225 of 244 D R A F T METRIC 9.3.6 Existence of a road maintenance plan and expenditures by agency

METRIC 9.3.7 Miles of road by use class, distribution and density in the EUP

CRITERION 10 Economic Health

A wide range and services are derived from our natural resources that create opportunities for economic stability in the Eastern Upper Peninsula. In addition to traditional forest products sector, the resource base supports mining, commercial fishing and an ever-growing tourist and recreation industry.

INDICATOR 10.1 Local and Community Economic Health and Trends

METRIC 10.1.1 Number of local economic development plans in the EUP Ecoregion

METRIC 10.1.2 Describe job/income /employment / retirement data

METRIC 10.1.3 Contribution of the resource use to gross domestic product (GDP) of all sectors of the economy

METRIC 10.1.4 Diversity of forest economic activity

METRIC 10.1.5 Measure change in the tax base

METRIC 10.1.6 Capital outlay and investment trends

INDICATOR 10.2 Non-timber Economic Benefits

METRIC 10.2.1 Number of jobs/economic activity (e.g. indirect service jobs, recreation/tourism, and rec. equipment) DIFFICULT TO MEASURE BUT MEASURABLE

METRIC 10.2.2 User days/activity DIFFICULT TO MEASURE BUT MEASURABLE

METRIC 10.2.3 Motel occupancy rates DIFFICULT TO MEASURE BUT MEASURABLE

METRIC 10.2.4 Mean and median travel spending per person per day per activity

METRIC 10.2.5 Total expenditures by individuals per activity in EUP

INDICATOR 10.3 Timber and Wood Products

METRIC 10.3.1 Timber volume, growth and mortality

METRIC 10.3.2 Timber harvest by species

METRIC 10.3.3 Legal and physical accessibility. Limit on timber availability for reasons of policy, legality, management decisions and physical access. CANNOT BE DONE

METRIC 10.3.4 Wood product summary

METRIC 10.3.5 Determine ratio of harvest to growth by volume, species and products

226 of 244 D R A F T METRIC 10.3.6 Wood budget – how much wood going out of the area

METRIC 10.3.7 Net difference between growth and harvest by species.

METRIC 10.3.8 Number of jobs/economic activity (e.g. logging, hauling, and mills)

CRITERION 11 Institutional Processes

Institutional processes address the legal and institutional framework for the application of ecosystem management. They address the policies, legislation, regulations and guidelines that drive and direct ecosystem practices, and direct how institutions cooperate with others in the application of ecosystem management. Processes examine the quality and quantity of opportunities for public involvement in ecosystem planning leading to resource decisions.

INDICATOR 11.1 Legal Framework for Ecosystem Management

The framework should include the existence and/or application of laws, regulations, policy and guidelines for land management. Also, the framework should consider and meet legal obligations with respect to duly established Native American treaty rights.

METRIC 11.1.1 Land management laws and regulations.

METRIC 11.1.2 Wildlife management laws and regulations.

METRIC 11.1.3 Recreation laws and regulations.

METRIC 11.1.4 Fisheries management laws and regulations.

METRIC 11.1.5 Native American treaty rights.

METRIC 11.1.6 Department & Division Policies and Procedures

METRIC 11.1.7 Compliance with land management laws, regulations, policies and guidelines (LRPGs).

INDICATOR 11.2 Institutional Framework

The framework should include the existence of audit or assessment programs, the existence of an integrated planning system and incorporate fair and effective decision making.

METRIC 11.2.1 Public participation in the design of decision-making processes

METRIC 11.2.2 Public participation in decision-making processes

METRIC 11.2.3 Public participation in implementation of decisions and monitoring

INDICATOR 11.3 Balance Between Different Values

This indicator is to ensure that values identified as being important in the Eastern Upper Peninsula Ecoregion are not eliminated and that a dispute resolution policy be established to ensure balance between the values.

METRIC 11.3.1 Amount of management effort/interest put into different values

227 of 244 D R A F T METRIC 11.3.2 Annual evaluation and reporting of the ecosystem management effort in maintaining the values on the landscape and appropriate adjustments made.

METRIC 11.3.3 Application and effectiveness of dispute resolution guidelines/policy

INDICATOR 11.4 Resources Allocated for Ecosystem Management Values.

METRIC 11.4.1 Resources allocated within the Department for ecosystem management planning, implementation and monitoring

METRIC 11.4.2 Participation in external planning efforts (e.g. National Forest Plan revisions)

METRIC 11.4.3 Expenditure of resources and dedicated funds for “on the ground” Projects.

228 of 244 D R A F T Appendix H – 2006 Statewide and EUP Ecoregion Forest Types by Management Unit (in acres) (from DNR Inventory Data)

Statewide Sault Ste Ecoregion Percent of Cover Type Total Newberry Marie Shingleton Total State

Aspen 884,822 22,764 65,435 34,589 122,788 13.90% Balsam Poplar Swamp 71,655 4,515 15,866 2,045 22,426 31.30%

Bedrock 1,065 79 56 135 12.70% Black Spruce Swamp 68,636 11,272 10,003 15,578 36,853 53.70%

Bog or Marsh 35,163 3,438 5,784 2,785 12,007 34.10%

Cedar Swamp 228,397 19,034 51,801 28,675 99,510 43.60%

Emergent Marsh 113,355 23,275 8,809 37,677 69,761 61.50%

Grassland 125,288 4,743 12,486 24,766 41,995 33.50%

Hemlock 17,479 2,249 1,822 3,059 7,130 40.80%

Jack Pine 367,034 59,823 1,750 43,432 105,005 28.60%

Local Name 6,544 253 80 232 565 8.60% Lowland Hardwoods 135,912 7,540 5,724 7,290 20,554 15.10%

Lowland Brush 197,448 20,951 23,727 32,187 76,865 38.90% Mixed Swamp Conifers 261,183 33,291 16,921 19,135 69,347 26.60%

N. Hardwoods 508,302 37,745 43,164 48,345 129,254 25.40%

Non Stocked 22,791 592 995 2,043 3,630 15.90%

Oak 243,691 1,968 1,188 1,704 4,860 2.00%

Paper Birch 35,462 3,915 9,344 4,160 17,419 49.10%

Red Pine 279,973 23,880 16,197 37,699 77,776 27.80%

Sand Dune 1,106 504 137 138 779 70.40%

Spruce Fir 51,504 2,921 8,136 3,339 14,396 28.00% Tamarack Swamp 22,256 1,480 3,495 3,106 8,081 36.30%

Treed Bog 62,692 33,154 7,069 4,291 44,514 71.00%

Upland Brush 53,008 2,896 2,643 708 6,247 11.80%

Water 47,751 6,355 4,506 4,056 14,917 31.20%

White Pine 93,568 17,888 3,674 15,340 36,902 39.40%

Total 3,936,085 346,446 320,835 376,435 1,043,716 26.50%

229 of 244 D R A F T Appendix I – Area by Cover Type and Area Class LSSF (DNR 2006 OI)

Cover Commercial Non Timber Timber Prod Non Timbered Type Forest Producing Reserved Land Water Total Upland Hdwds 127478 488 1288 129254 Aspen 118293 2315 2180 122788 Jack Pine 104178 188 639 105005 Cedar 78600 19134 1749 27 99510 Red Pine 77249 527 77776 Mx Swmp Cnfr 58122 10015 1210 69347 White Pine 36582 25 295 36902 Black Spruce 33679 2809 365 36853 Lowlnd Poplr 21022 1328 76 22426 Swamp Hrdwds 16302 3321 931 20554 Paper Birch 16049 783 587 17419 Spruce Fir 14031 74 291 14396 Hemlock 6970 15 145 7130 Tamarack 5885 2028 168 8081 Oak 4252 507 101 4860 Total 718692 43030 10552 27 0 772301

Marsh 46 24341 45374 69761 Local Name 476 24 65 565 Water 14917 14917 Lowlnd Brush 1354 57903 245 17363 76865 Treed Bog 38814 5700 44514 Bog or Marsh 1 4487 7519 12007 Upland Brush 2511 2129 1458 149 6247 Grass 3534 1214 37070 177 41995 Non Stocked 103 401 763 2363 3630 Rock 86 49 135 Sand Dune 41 70 668 779 Total 8066 129445 39560 79427 14574 271415 Total 726758 172475 50112 79454 14917 1043716 Percent 70% 16% 5% 8% 1% 100%

230 of 244 D R A F T

Appendix J – Area by Influence Zone LSSF (DNR 2006 OI)

Influence Zone Acres Percent GENERAL FOREST INFLUENCE 706690 67.70% DEERYARD INFLUENCE 119792 11.50% WATER INFLUENCE 110301 10.60% TRAVEL INFLUENCE 59748 5.70% OTHER WILDLIFE HABITAT 15574 1.50% RECREATION INFLUENCE 14982 1.40% WILD OR NATURAL AREAS 11114 1.10% LEASE OR LONG TERM AGREEMENT 5469 0.50% UNDEDICATED 46 0.00% 1043716 100%

231 of 244 D R A F T

Appendix K – Area by Forest Type and Stand Condition (DNR 2006 OI)

Cover High In Process Low Non Two Uneven Type Risk Immature of Regen. Quality Mature Stocked SCA's Sparse Aged Aged Total Aspen 1730 81584 4770 985 21045 1976 3333 2445 4068 852 122788 Black Spruce 124 22361 523 2333 6691 1108 2430 583 313 387 36853 Cedar 100 51722 111 9145 20943 746 12785 1760 972 1226 99510 Hemlock 30 1895 1170 3 1239 267 2526 7130 Jack Pine 847 60952 12425 752 20870 1633 3420 1187 2595 324 105005 Lowlnd Poplr 655 10948 973 1321 6101 80 590 1154 350 254 22426 Mx Swmp Cnfr 307 36850 442 4714 9392 382 9606 3311 1184 3159 69347 Oak 1525 22 298 490 552 282 458 1233 4860 Paper Birch 262 4698 637 401 7629 45 2491 231 609 416 17419 Red Pine 157 47488 1887 443 9242 571 4532 1638 5952 5866 77776 Spruce Fir 144 7677 206 418 2650 352 1124 400 554 871 14396 Swamp Hrdwds 176 5396 98 1916 1917 173 3773 647 169 6289 20554 UplandTamarack 322 2415 50 963 1569 55 1419 1168 45 75 8081 Hdwds 185 14319 293 2000 2051 507 4975 995 1352 102577 129254 White Pine 85 13449 177 298 4051 154 3580 676 4441 9991 36902 Total 5124 363279 22592 25711 115619 8275 55849 16477 23329 136046 772301 Percent 1% 47% 3% 3% 15% 1% 7% 2% 3% 18% 100%

232 of 244 D R A F T

Appendix L – Treatment Limiting Factors

EUP Limiting Factor Acres YOE 2000-2006

Neighbor Harvesting technology inadequate Utilization technology inadequate Military use/easement/lease/long-term agreement Historical and archeological sites Interest group (name in comments) Delayed to take advantage of exceptional site quality or growth Regeneration technology inadequate Existing bridge out or unsafe Easement/lease/long-term agreement (non-military) Other Agency concerns (name in comments) State law or policy (identify in comments) Quiet area/natural area/wilderness No market for species/product Threatened, endangered, and special concern species/communities Rare or unique land forms Recreational site Other Dept./Div. procedures or practices (describe in comment) Inadequate volume due to small acreage Cedar or Hemlock cutting restraints Too steep Bridge needed (portable bridge not available or inadequate) Other special wildlife habitat consideration (desc. In comments) Retention of stand for regeneration purposes (ie. shelterwood) Adjacent landowner denies access Scenic values/visual values Influence zones Water quality/bmps Road needed (resources not presently available) Land survey needed Blocked by other physical obstacle Deer yards Inferior quality Inadequate volume due to low stocking/small diameter/etc. Too wet Delayed treatment for age/size class diversity Potential or designated old growth

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

233 of 244 D R A F T

Appendix M – Special Management Potential by Stand Cover (DNR 2006 OI)

Cover Devlp of Endagered Free Flow Unusual Unusual Unusual Type None Beaver Adja. Area Species Stream History Other Botanical Geology Scenic Total % Aspen 118410 124 20 685 268 0 2033 1042 9 197 122788 4% Black Spruce 36383 42 7 311 4 106 36853 1% Bog or Marsh 11202 54 693 58 12007 7% Cedar 90290 14 198 1913 15 6678 300 62 40 99510 9% Grass 38800 596 83 290 660 449 7 1110 41995 8% Hemlock 6564 13 468 85 7130 8% Jack Pine 102559 6 7 2172 116 145 105005 2% Local Name 508 23 8 26 565 10% Lowlnd Brush 71978 768 40 1907 2091 81 76865 6% Lowlnd Poplr 21686 17 6 15 187 8 485 22 22426 3% Marsh 60378 412 128 51 7854 893 31 14 69761 13% Mix Swamp Confer 67321 2 16 838 842 172 123 33 69347 3% Non Stocked 3500 3 108 19 3630 4% Oak 4537 289 26 8 4860 7% Paper Birch 16386 9 52 600 54 38 280 17419 6% Red Pine 70451 27 114 250 49 6840 4 41 77776 9% Rock 135 135 0% Sand Dune 602 148 29 779 23% Spruce Fir 13294 57 958 73 14 14396 8% Swamp Hrdwds 19604 16 271 333 330 20554 5% Tamarack 7693 377 11 8081 5% Treed Bog 43812 62 11 70 558 1 44514 2% Upland Brush 6058 59 130 6247 3% Upland Hdwds 116125 40 186 200 66 12074 268 204 91 129254 10% Water 13873 374 8 188 66 358 30 20 14917 7% White Pine 34639 54 2 115 812 135 185 960 36902 6% Total 976788 1881 123 2249 6344 435 47384 4727 667 3118 1043716 Percent 94% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100%

234 of 244 D R A F T Appendix N – Forest Health (DNR 2006 OI)

Dead/Flagged Deformed Other Stunted/Dead Stem Un- Weather % Cover Type Healthy Conks Branches Deflo. Trees Animal Pests Missing Trees Cankers Known Related Total Healthy Aspen 116130 1469 595 345 804 193 587 2515 26 124 122788 95% Black Spruce 35500 13 471 181 187 63 383 55 36853 96% Bog or Marsh 11955 52 12007 100% Cedar 91954 159 1421 70 2679 360 954 259 1525 129 99510 92% Grass 41950 12 33 41995 100% Hemlock 6813 78 20 25 115 79 7130 96% Jack Pine 100006 7 1886 454 365 125 1908 207 47 105005 95% Local Name 565 565 100% Lowlnd Brush 76425 51 217 16 156 76865 99% Lowlnd Poplr 19848 115 706 186 308 13 270 912 56 12 22426 89% Marsh 69688 2 58 13 69761 100% Mx Swmp Cnfr 64271 8 1179 200 1177 183 1057 1034 125 113 69347 93% Non Stocked 3612 18 3630 100% Oak 4771 17 25 28 5 14 4860 98% Paper Birch 15304 54 739 114 186 8 158 741 6 109 17419 88% Red Pine 75749 41 307 141 496 379 567 17 28 51 77776 97% Rock 127 8 135 94% Sand Dune 664 115 779 85% Spruce Fir 12556 251 543 235 231 44 343 142 51 14396 87% Swamp Hrdwds 19072 29 175 154 138 323 603 60 20554 93% Tamarack 6484 424 253 455 383 82 8081 80% Treed Bog 44372 2 72 58 10 44514 100% Upland Brush 6247 6247 100% Upland Hdwds 121121 212 786 64 1767 1368 817 2442 620 57 129254 94% Water 14876 41 14917 100% White Pine 34303 15 628 1374 500 54 18 10 36902 93% Total 994363 2797 9952 2107 9867 3098 8457 8870 3298 907 1043716 94.00% Percent 95% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 100%

235 of 244 D R A F T Appendix O – Featured Wildlife Species (DNR 2006 OI)

Wildlife Compartment Species Acres Count

OTHER 170334 73

DEER 142008 71 DEER, RUFFED GROUSE, RABBITS 88498 41

DEER & RUFFED GROUSE 57413 28

SHARPTAIL GROUSE 37878 17

RUFFED GROUSE 20746 11

RABBITS 3910 2

Compartments With Record 520787 243

Total for EUP 1043716 495

236 of 244 D R A F T 8 - Glossary

Abiotic: nonliving; usually referring to the physical and chemical components of the environment such as water, rocks and mineral soil. Adaptive administration: methodology which extends the principles of adaptive management to the institutional framework necessary to achieve adaptive management. It includes analysis, review and modification of organizational structure and function to strive to best implement ecosystem management. It further includes analysis, review and modification of underlying laws, missions and policies that direct the administration of ecosystem management. Adaptive management: methodology which incorporates as part of the process to manage a system, an experimental approach to management. This provides the ability to learn or adapt over time to new information, discoveries, concepts and system changes. A process of implementing policy decisions as scientifically driven management experiments that test predictions and assumptions in management plans, using the resulting information to improve the plans. A process that combines democratic principles, scientific analysis and educational and institutional learning to manage resources sustainably in an environment of uncertainty. A formal structured approach to dealing with uncertainty in natural resource management, using the experience of management as an ongoing and continually improving process. Advisory committee (Depolarizing Interests): communication technique which uses a committee to depolarize interests who are at each other’s throats and to build consensus among them. Advisory committee (Content-Type Advice): communication technique which allows a project committee to listen, evaluate and apply information from the public to the problem solving effort. Aesthetics: the description and explanation of artistic phenomena and aesthetic experience by means of other sciences (as psychology, sociology, ethnology or history). Anthroprogenic: of, relating to, or involving the impact of man on nature. Aquifer: a water bearing stratum of permeable rock, sand or gravel. Basin/Watershed: geographic areas from which all water (i.e. precipitation runoff, irrigation channels, groundwater, ditches, rivers, lakes, etc.) flows toward and drains through a single common outlet. As water travels over land and through various water channels in a watershed, the quality and quantity of that water is affected by local environmental conditions; therefore management of aquatic ecosystems must consider watershed characteristics. The river or body of water that serves as the outlet or receiver of the water often identifies basins and watersheds. Benthic: of, relating to, or occurring at the bottom of a body of water.

237 of 244 D R A F T Biological diversity: spectrum of life forms and the ecological processes that support and sustain them. Biological diversity occurs at four interacting levels: genetic, species, community and ecosystem. The variety of living organisms considered at all levels of organization, from genetics through species, to higher taxonomic levels. The term also encompasses the variety of habitats and ecosystems supporting the organisms as well as the processes occurring within those systems. Biotic: pertaining to life or living organisms; caused or produced by or comprising living organisms. Community: assemblage of species living together in a particular area, at a particular time, in a prescribed habitat. Communities usually bear the name of their dominant plant species, but include all the microbes, plants and animals living in association with the dominant plant species at a given time. A grouping of organisms which exist in the same general place and have mutual interactions. Conflict mediation: communication technique to mediate a conflict between opposing interests where Informed Consent is jeopardized. Consumptive recreation: Continuum: range of understanding and/or practice of ecosystem management that exists between people who manage natural resources and those who want to influence natural resource management. Corridor: defined tract of land connecting two or more areas of similar management or habitat type that allows movement of species to facilitate reproduction and other life sustaining needs. Small reserves of natural habitat that link larger reserves so that species can move from one area to another. Criteria: category of conditions, processes or values that assess sustainable resource management. Criteria should be without direction. They should provide a sense of the relative importance society places on resource values or uses. They should capture a wide range of values, including ecological, social and economic values. Cultural shift: change needed in employee’s views of values, processes and procedures to effectively implement ecosystem management. Department Management Team: team composed of all the MDNR Division Chiefs who meet periodically to plan and discuss policy, coordination, cooperation and implementation of Department programs. Dialogue: exchange of ideas or opinions. Disturbance: the disruption in growth of an individual, population or community of species due to natural or anthropogenic (human) factors such as herbivory, forest fires, road building, disease infestation and tree harvesting. Dispersed recreation: recreation taking place outside of developed sites. Drumlin: an elongate or oval hill of glacial drift. Dynamic: the ever changing nature of ecosystems and ecosystem components in time and space. Dynamism: process or mechanism responsible for the development or motion of a system. Ecology: study of organisms or groups of organisms to their environment, both biotic and abiotic. A study of their linkages. Ecoregion: areas of relatively homogeneous ecological systems. Ecoregions are usually based on patterns of land use, topography, present and potential natural vegetation and soils. Ecoregion designations are used by resource managers to develop logical, regional strategies for land acquisition and management. Ecosystem: dynamic and natural complex of living organisms interacting with each other and with their associated nonliving elements in the environment.

238 of 244 D R A F T Ecosystem management: process that integrates physical, chemical, biological and ecological principles along with economic and social factors, into a comprehensive strategy aimed at protecting and enhancing sustainability, diversity and productivity of a system. Ecounit: geographic area containing similar ecological patterns and processes whose boundaries closely align with Michigan’s Ecoregions. They were established by the MDNR for organizing and administering assessment, planning, facilitating and updating of regional ecosystem management activities. Four ecounits were established: Western Upper Peninsula. Eastern Upper Peninsula, Northern Lower Peninsula and Southern Lower Peninsula. These four ecounits apply to all divisions. Representatives from each division will contribute to regional ecosystem planning, assessment and monitoring at the ecounit level. Ecounit Team: team of MDNR employees composed primarily of “District Supervisors” from each division along with additional support personnel who are mandated to plan and coordinate management of an ecounit, utilizing ecosystem management principles. Endangered species: any plant or animal species defined through the Endangered Species Act of 1976 as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and published in the Federal Register. A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation. Endemic: native to a particular plane and found only there. Esker: a long narrow ridge or mound of sand, gravel and boulders deposited by a stream flowing on, within, or beneath a stagnant glacier. Evenness: number of species and distribution (richness). Exotic: nonnative plant or animal species that occur in an areas as a result of deliberate or accidental introductions. Extirpation: local extinction of a species from an area. Loss of some, but not all, populations of a species. Extinct: species that no longer occurs anywhere on earth. Forest: ecosystem characterized by a more or less dense and extensive tree cover, often consisting of stands varying in characteristics such as species composition, structure, age class and associated processes, and commonly including meadows, streams, fish and wildlife. A plant community of predominantly trees and other woody vegetation, growing more or less closely together, its related flora and fauna and the values attributed to it. Forest dependent species: species that depends on a forested ecosystem (or forested ecosystems) for some portion of its life cycle (such as dispersal, migration, breeding, nesting, foraging or hibernation). Forest Values: principal standards or qualities of the forest considered worthwhile or desirable. Forum: technique designed to air certain issues, to hear different points of view expressed, to shed light on a subject, to make sure everyone has a chance to be heard – but not to make any decisions. Fragmentation: breaking up of large and continuous ecosystems, communities and habitats into smaller areas surrounded by altered or disturbed land or aquatic substrate. The disruption of extensive habitats into isolated and small patches. Fragmentation has two negative components of biota: loss of total habitat area and smaller, more isolated remaining habitat patches. The breakdown of once continuous habitats, ecosystems or landscapes into discontinuous units. May result from human or natural disturbances. Gauges: indicators that can only be monitored. In contrast, levers can be managed directly. Genotype: genetic constitution. Geographic Information System (GIS): system of computer hardware and software that can input, manipulate and analyze large amounts of geographically referenced data to support the decision-making process of an organization. A computer–based information system that uses a spatial database to provide answers to questions of a geographic nature. Information is

239 of 244 D R A F T retrieved via manipulations such as layering, sorting, selective retrieval calculation, spatial analysis and modeling. Geographically referenced data: information that is spatially keyed to a coordinate system for the earth so that different data layers (or maps) can be overlaid or integrated. Geophysical: the physical properties of the earth including, meteorology, seismology, etc. Glacial erratic: irregular or uneven movement of a glacier. Glacial land forms: land formations derived from a glacier. Habitat: place where an organism lives and its surrounding environment including its biotic and abiotic components. Habitat includes everything an organism needs to survive. Herpetiles: amphibians or reptiles Heterogenous: made up of people or things that are unlike each other. Holistic management: approach to managing natural resources that acknowledges and incorporates management plans and actions jointly between diverse groups responsible for specific components of ecosystems. This approach allows maintenance of ecosystem structure and process on a variety of geographical and/or temporal scales. Public involvement and human needs are integral to this approach. Homogeneous: of the same kind as the others, formed of parts that are all of the same kind. Hot Line: communication technique which establishes one specific telephone number as a direct link between the team and the public. Indicators: measurable or describable characteristics of a criteria that provide a means for tracking changes in environmental, social or economic conditions affecting natural resources. Well-chosen indicators are without direction, offering the opportunity to identify the present state, past trajectory and future trends for a criteria. These characteristics allow resource managers and citizens to follow the course of an indicator over time and make value judgments about whether the course is positive, neutral or negative from a societal perspective. A good indicator should have the following characteristics: Ø Measurable Ø Understandable Ø Feasible Ø Appropriate scale to the planning effort Ø Relevant Ø Compatible with state, regional, and national efforts Ø Sensitive to change Ø Affordable. A qualitative or quantitative measure that is capable of showing the status and/or direction of change. Indicator species: species that when monitored can provide useful information regarding the status and/or direction of change of the ecosystem in which it occurs. Informed consent: grudging willingness of opponents to (grudgingly) go along with a course of action that they actually are still opposed to. Institutional processes: those policies, directives, guidelines and practices that define and guide how an institution operates internally and externally. Introduced species: species that is established within an area by anthropogenic means. Invasive exotic: exotic species that supplants native species. Species of those plants, animals and microbes not native to a region which, when introduced either accidentally or intentionally, out-compete native species for available resources, reproduce prolifically and dominate regions and ecosystems.

240 of 244 D R A F T Issue: matter of controversy or dispute over resource management activities or plans. Karst: An area of irregular limestone in which erosion has produced fissures, sinkholes, underground streams, and caverns. Landscape: area composed of adjacent and interacting ecosystems that are related because of geology, land forms, soils climate, biota and human influences. Landscape scale: appropriate spatial or temporal scale for planning, analysis and improvement of management activities to achieve ecosystem management objectives. Levers: indicators that can be managed directly. In contrast, gauges can only be monitored. Mammalian Herbivory: The consumption of plant material by mammals. Mesic: a habitat or environment midway on the moisture gradient scale. Monitoring: daily, seasonal, annual or longer-term collection and analysis of environmental and social data. Native species: species that occurs naturally in an ecosystem without having been introduced by humans. Null-alternative: sequence of events that most likely will come to pass if no workable solution is implemented. Open a channel of communication with each PAI (Potentially Affected Interest): technique designed to communicate with PAIs who may eventually be affected, who believe they have something at stake or who may at some later date chose to become involved in a project. Open house: technique designed to allow PAIs the opportunity to ask questions, express concerns, react to what is being proposed and even make suggestions to the technical experts who are responsible for developing a plan or program, in a semi-informal setting which allows for one to one exchanges. Paradigm: acquired way of thinking about something that shapes thoughts and actions in ways both conscious and unconscious. Participant observer: communication technique in which team members understand the affected interests and their values and which allows team members to see the project and its anticipated effects through the eyes of those affected. Passive recreation: Perturbation: disturbance. Potentially Affected Interests (PAI): individuals or groups who may be affected, have something at stake or choose to become involved in a project. Practices: on-the-ground management activities designed to achieve the targets set for indicators. Presettlement: period before the arrival and extended presence of non-native American people. Public: group of people sharing a common interest or common characteristic, e.g. snowmobilers or residents of a county. Rare species: species that have a limited range or a limited number of individuals. This could include species found in very low numbers throughout their range or species that may have rather large local populations but only a handful of populations total. Resource assessment: determination of the significance, importance or value of a resource or a set of resources. Riparian: pertaining to or occupying river banks. Seral: a vegetative community at a given point in time in succession. Social systems: organized communities of people or classes. Spatial scale: geographical size of a community, ecosystem or study. Spatial scale can range from a micro-site, such as an underside of a leaf on the forest floor, to a forest, to a larger landscape. Operationally, spatial scale refers to the geographic extent at which certain

241 of 244 D R A F T processes operate within the environment. This could be the scale at which nutrients recycle in a wetland to the patterns of deer migration in the Upper Peninsula. Species: group of individuals that can interbreed successfully with one another but not with members of other groups. Plants and animals are identified as belonging to a given species based on similar morphological, genetic and biochemical characteristics. Species diversity: the variety of species in an area. It includes not only the number of species in the area but also their relative abundance and spatial distribution. Species richness is one component of species diversity but not the only determinant. Species richness: number of species within a defined area or community. For biodiversity purposes, it is the number of native species that is significant. Spring ephemerals: flora that lasts only through spring. Stakeholder: individuals or groups impacted by and/or having an interest in the management of Michigan’s natural resources and MDNR programs such as state, tribal and local government agencies, academic institutions, the scientific community, non-governmental entities including environmental, agricultural and conservation organizations, trade groups, commercial interests and private landowners and citizens. Statewide Council: team composed of all the MDNR Division chiefs who meet periodically to plan and discuss policy, coordination, cooperation and implementation of Department programs. Stressor: anything that causes pressure, tension or strain. Successional: the natural, sequential change of species composition of a community in a given area. Sustainable/Sustainability: maintenance of healthy, functioning ecosystems capable of providing goods, services and processes upon which human welfare ultimately depends. Also implied is the idea that the actions of the current generation will not diminish the resources and opportunities available to future generations. Target: the desired level to be achieved by an indicator. Taxa: a classification system. Taxonomy: theory, principles and process of classifying organisms in established categories. Temporal scale: time required to complete a study, a life history event or ecological process. Temporal scale can vary from a few seconds for biochemical reactions to thousands of years for ecosystem development Operationally, temporal scale refers to the time extent certain processes operate in the environment. (The apparent spatial-operational scale of an ecological process will often change as the temporal observational scale changes in the same process). Threatened species: plant or animal species likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. Ungulates: Having hoofs Unique features: natural features that are associated with a particular set of environmental/ecological conditions that don't occur widely. Values: principles, standards or qualities considered worthwhile or desirable from a particular viewpoint. Unanimity: condition of being in complete agreement or accord.

242 of 244 D R A F T 9 - References

Albert, Dennis A. 1994 Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: A Working Map and Classification. USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, General Technical Report NC-178. pp. 157 – 173.

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers: www.ccfm.org

Cleland, D.T.; Avers, P.E.; McNab, W.H.; Jensen, M.E.; Bailey, R.G.; King, T.; Russell, W.E. 1997. National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units. Published in, Boyce, M.S.; Haney, A., ed. 1997. Ecosystem Management Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. pp. 181-200.

Conway, Thor & Julie. 1990. “Spirits on Stone: The Agawa Pictographs”; Heritage Discoveries, Inc.

Creque, S. M., E. S. Rutherford, and T. G. Zorn. 2005. Use of GIS-derived landscape-scale habitat features to explain spatial patterns of fish density in Michigan rivers. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 25:1411- 1425.

DeGraaf, Richard M., Virgil E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, Liz Ernst, and Stanley H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the United States natural history and habitat use. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 688. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/forest/forest.htm

Doepker, Robert V. and John J. Ozoga. “Wildlife Values of Northern White-Cedar.” Northern White Cedar Workshop Proceedings, February 1990. Michigan State University Research Report 512.

Halsey, John. 1999. “retrieving Michigan’s Buried Past”.

Hendrickson, G. E., R. L. Knutilla, and C. J. Doonan. 1973. Hydrology and recreation on the cold-water rivers of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. U. S. Geological Survey, Water Inf. Ser. Rep. No. 4, 39 p.

Howe, Robert and Michael Mossman. “The Significance of Hemlock for Breeding Birds in the Western Great Lakes Region”. Published in the Hemlock Ecology and Management Conference Proceedings, September 1995 by the University of Wisconsin- Madison.

Jerome, Dwight S. 2005; The Landforms of Major Land Resource Area 94B – Eastern Upper Peninsula Sandy Drift. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Kakoyannis, Christina; Peterson, Georgia; Steffens, Karen. 1999. Population profile. In: McDonough, Maureen H. The Role of Natural Resources in Community and Regional Economic Stability in the Eastern Upper Peninsula, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 568.

MI WILD Michigan Wildlife Habitats. MIWildHab Version 1.0

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. “Forest Silvics Guides”. In Draft, April 2006.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. “Wildlife Action Plan”. June, 2005.

Michigan Land Use Council; Final Report of The Michigan Land Use Leadership Council; August 15, 2003; Land Use Initiatives: Issues Identified and Solutions Recommended, 1990-2003, pp. 1-7.

243 of 244 D R A F T Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University Extension. “Ecological Jewels of the Straits.” Extension Bulletin E-2885, July 2203.

Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University Extension. “Natural Community Abstracts”. http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mnfi/data/

Montreal Process – Criteria & Indicators: www.mpci.org

National Association of State Forests. 1968. “Forests and Forestry in the American States”.

Nature Serve . “Ecological Communities and Systems”. www.natureserve.org/explorer

Noss, R.F. 1999. Assessing and Monitoring Forest Biodiversity: A Suggested Framework and Indicators. Forest Ecology and Management 115, pp.135-146.

Rickenbach, M.; Steele, T.W.; Schira, M.; Status of the Logging Industry Sector in Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, 2003 p.p. 2-3.

Sampson, Neil; DeCoster, Lester; Remuzzi, James; (The Sampson Group, Inc.) Changes in Forest Industry Timberland Ownership 1979 – 2000; September 1, 2000 pp. 2.

Smyth, David. 2005. Michigan Tourism Facts, a cooperative publication between the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and Michigan State University Extension. November 2, 2005. http://www.michigan.org.

Social and Economic assessment for the Michigan National Forests, 2003. http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/Hiawatha/social.assesment.revision .

The Michigan Department of Career Development, Office of Labor Market Information, 2001.

The Nature Conservancy, Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: A Second Iteration; The Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program 2000; pp 1-11.

U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 American Fact Finder. http://www.census.gov .

Verme, Louis J. “Hiawatha’s Brothers, A Wildlife Retrospective”. Avanti Publishing, 1996.

Wood Products Directory, Michigan Department of Natural Resources; www.michigan.gov/dnr, 2006

Wydeven, Adrian P. and Robert W. Hay. “Mammals, Amphibians and Reptiles of Hemlock Forests in the Lake Superior Region.” Published in the Hemlock Ecology and Management Conference Proceedings, September 1995 by the University of Wisconsin- Madison.

Zhang, Quanfa; Pregitzer, Kurt S.; and Reed, David D. “Historical Changes in the Forests of the Luce District of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan”; The American Midland Naturalist, 143 (1):94-109.

Zhang, Quanfa; Pregitzer, Kurt S; and Reed, David D. “Catastrophic Disturbances in the Presettlement Forests of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan”; Canadian Journal of Forest Research; 29: 106-114.

244 of 244