Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations

Prepared by:

Joshua G. Cohen, Michael J. Monfi ls, Jesse M. Lincoln, Yu Man Lee, David L. Cuthrell, Bradford S. Slaughter,

and Helen D. Enander

Michigan Natural Features Inventory

P.O. Box 13036

Lansing, MI 48901-3036

For:

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Wildlife Division

March 31, 2018

Report Number 2018-07

Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for

St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area

Suggested Citation:

Cohen J.G., M.J. Monfi ls, J.M. Lincoln, Y. Lee, D.L. Cuthrell, B.S. Slaughter, and H.D. Enander. 2018.

Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.

Michigan Natural Features Inventory Report Number 2018-07, Lansing, MI. 89 pp.

Cover Photo: Remnant lakeplain wet prairie and lakeplain wet-mesic prairie within St. John’s Marsh State

Wildlife Area. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Copyright 2018 Michigan State University Board of Trustees. Michigan State University Extension programs

and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, natural origin, gender, religion, age, disability, politi-

cal beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, or family status.

Natural Features Inventory of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area Page-iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSt. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area (SWA) is a large block of contiguous land in southeast Lower Michigan

consisting of 3,060 acres of St. Clair County. St. John’s Marsh and the adjacent St. Clair Flats SWA are important ecologically because they provide critical habitat for a myriad of game and non-game species that depend on coastal wetlands. Within St. Clair County, natural cover constitutes 58% of the county. In comparison, natural cover constitutes approximately 97% of St. John’s Marsh SWA. Current land cover in St. John’s Marsh SWA is dominated by non-forested wetlands (68%) and forested wetlands (17%).

In the 2016 fi eld season, the Wildlife Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) commissioned Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) to conduct Michigan Forest Inventory (MiFi) Stage 1 inventory and surveys for high-quality lakeplain prairie in St. John’s Marsh SWA. Stand level mapping and lakeplain prairie surveys in 2016 were followed in 2017 by additional natural community surveys, targeted rare animal surveys, and vernal pool surveys. Over the course of the project, MNFI documented two new element occurrences (EOs) and provided information for updating an additional six EOs within St. John’s Marsh SWA.

Natural community surveys in 2016 were focused on evaluating lakeplain prairie ecosystems and in 2017, surveys targeted wet-mesic fl atwoods. MNFI ecologists documented one new lakeplain wet-mesic prairie, updated a known element occurrence of lakeplain wet prairie, and documented one new wet-mesic fl atwoods. We assessed the current ranking, classifi cation, and delineation of these occurrences and detailed the vegetative structure and composition, ecological boundaries, landscape and abiotic context, threats, management needs, and restoration opportunities. This report provides detailed descriptions of these natural community EOs, as well as a comprehensive discussion of site-specifi c threats and stewardship needs and opportunities.

A total of 64 potential vernal pools were identifi ed and mapped through aerial photograph interpretation and 23 vernal pools were verifi ed in the fi eld. Data compiled on vernal pools was incorporated into the Michigan Vernal Pool Database, a statewide vernal pool geodatabase with locational information as well as ecological data about potential and fi eld-verifi ed vernal pools.

Avian surveys were focused on rare marsh birds because of the abundance of emergent wetland within St. John’s Marsh SWA and the presence of several EOs in or near the wildlife area. Forty-three points were surveyed for marsh birds at St. John’s Marsh SWA in 2017, resulting in the update of four rare bird EOs. Numerous new locations were identifi ed for American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus, state special concern), least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis, state threatened), common gallinule (Gallinula galeata, state threatened), and marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris, state special concern). All four species exhibited widespread usage of the emergent marsh. We detected American bittern at 26% of the survey points, least bittern at 35%, common gallinule at 30%, and marsh wren at 54% of the survey points.

In 2017, MNFI conducted visual encounter, basking, and coverboard surveys for rare herptiles concentrated in emergent wetlands, lakeplain prairie, waterbodies, and upland margins. These surveys targeted eastern fox snake (Pantherophis vulpinus, state threatened), Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii, state special concern), and spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata, state threatened). In 2017, we did not reconfi rm previously documented EOs of eastern fox snake and spotted turtle or document Blanding’s turtles within the St. John’s Marsh SWA.

Rare insect surveys were focused on rare moth species associated with lakeplain prairie. Moth species targeted included the blazing star borer (Papaipema beeriana, state special concern), the Culver’s root borer (P. sciata, state special concern), and the Maritime sunfl ower borer (P. maritima, state special concern). Blazing star borer was relocated within St. John’s Marsh SWA during 2017 blacklighting surveys and the existing EO was updated.

This report provides an overview of the landscape and historical context of St. John’s Marsh SWA, summarizes the fi ndings of MNFI’s two years of surveys for high-quality natural communities, vernal pools, and rare animal species, and discusses stewardship needs, opportunities, and priorities within the wildlife area. Specifi c management recommendations are provided for rare species and groups of rare species and also the natural community EOs found within the wildlife area. In addition to species-based and site-based stewardship discussion, general management recommendations for the area as a whole are provided.

Page-iv Natural Features Inventory of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area

Within St. John’s Marsh SWA, we recommend that stewardship efforts be focused in the areas of high-quality lakeplain prairie. These globally rare wetlands harbor high levels of biodiversity, provide potential habitat for numerous rare species, and are currently threatened by reed and glossy buckthorn. This photo shows a large patch of the invasive reed encroach-ing on lakeplain wet prairie. Photo by Matthew J. Lewis.

Within St. John’s Marsh SWA, we recommend that stewardship efforts be focused in the areas of high-quality lakeplain prairie because these rare wetlands harbor high levels of biodiversity and provide potential habitat for numerous rare species. We recommend using prescribed fi re, mechanical removal, and herbicide application to control populations of invasive reed and glossy buckthorn within the high-quality lakeplain prairie. In addition, we also recommend restoration activity within the degraded Great Lakes marsh. Despite local dominance by invasive reed, the Great Lakes marsh within the wildlife area supports a wide array of species including numerous rare marsh birds. We recommend management to control invasive reed and sustain this emergent wetland habitat. We acknowledge that the treatment of invasive reed within this altered and degraded landscape is challenging but necessary. Potential treatment options include managed fl ooding, herbicide application, prescribed fi re, and combinations of these control mechanisms. Monitoring of stewardship activities is recommended to gauge the success of control of invasive species, evaluate impacts to the ecosystems and the species that depend on them, and facilitate adaptive management.

Natural Features Inventory of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area Page-v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

MNFI ecologists Jesse Lincoln and Joshua Cohen with DNR wildlife biologist Terrence McFadden.

Funding for this project was provided by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Wildlife Division (WD). We express our sincere gratitude to the numerous DNR staff that helped administer and guide this project including Michael Donovan, Patrick Lederle, Ann LeClaire-Mitchell, Steve Beyer, Christine Hanaburgh, Steve Chadwick, Mark MacKay, Mark Sargent, Terrence McFadden, and John Darling. Terrence McFadden facilitated our survey efforts by providin g critical logistical support ranging from supplying MNFI scientists with a canoe and arranging for a helicopter tour of the area. Matthew Lewis with Michian Aerospace Coorporation provided images captured by drone. Numerous MNFI current and former scientists participated in the survey including Mike Penskar, Aaron Korthenhoven, John Paskus, and Dan Earl. Greg Soulliere (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) was a volunteer for the Michigan Marsh Bird Survey and gathered some data summarized in this report. For their support and assistance throughout this project, we thank our MNFI colleagues, especially Rebecca Rogers, Kraig Korroch, Robin Lenkart, Ashley Adkins, Nancy Toben, and Brian Klatt.

Page-vi Natural Features Inventory of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Ecoregions and Subsections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Washtenaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Maumee Lake Plain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Circa 1800 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Current Land Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Natural Community Survey Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Field Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Rare Animal Survey Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Herptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Natural Community Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23SITE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

LAKEPLAIN WET PRAIRIE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261. St. John’s Prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

LAKEPLAIN WET-MESIC PRAIRIE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .312. St. John’s Prairie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

WET-MESIC FLATWOODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .363. St. John’s Flatwoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Rare Animal Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Herptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Natural Community Discussion and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Setting Stewardship Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Lakeplain Prairie Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Invasive Species Control and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Fire as an Ecological Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Rare Animal Discussion and Management Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50Herptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Natural Features Inventory of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area Page-vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figure 1. Ecoregions and surfi cial relief of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Figure 2. Surfi cial geology of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Figure 3. Circa 1800 vegetation of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Figure 4. Current land cover of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Figure 5. MiFI stand data for St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Figure 6. Mosaic of 1938 aerial photographs of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 7. Marsh bird survey points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Figure 8. Locations of herptile surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Figure 9. Locations of insect surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 10. Natural community and rare plant element occurrences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figure 11. Rare tern nesting element occurrences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Figure 12. Rare marsh bird element occurrences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Figure 13. Rare herptile element occurrences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Figure 14. Rare insect element occurrences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Figure 15. Eastern fox snake element occurrences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Figure 16. Potential vernal pools and verifi ed vernal pools within St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. . . . . 72

Table 1. Natural community element occurrence for St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Table 2. Rare species element occurrence for St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Table 3. Conservation status of marsh birds targeted for surveys in St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.. . . 15Table 4. Eastern fox snake element occurrences within and nearby St. John’s Marsh Wildlife Area. . . . . . . . . 53

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF APPENDICES

LIST OF MAPSMap 1. Distribution of lakeplain wet prairie in Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Map 2. Distribution of lakeplain wet-mesic prairie in Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Map 3. Distribution of wet-mesic fl atwoods in Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Appendix 1A. Vernal Pools Survey of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Appendix 1B. Vernal Pool Monitoring Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Appendix 1C. Vernal Pool Types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Appendix 2. Amphibian and reptile species that were targeted for surveys in 2017 and/or have been documented in or have potential to occur in the St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Appendix 3. Rare Herptile Survey Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Appendix 4. Papaipema Moth Survey Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Appendix 5. Global and State Element Ranking Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Appendix 6. Number of marsh bird detections within 200 m of survey points by species and year at St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Appendix 7. List of bird species having special status that were detected at St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area during 2017 surveys and their habitat requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Natural Features Inventory of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area Page-1

INTRODUCTIONSt. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area (SWA) is a large block of contiguous land in southeast Lower Michigan consisting of 3,060 acres of St. Clair County. St. John’s Marsh and the adjacent St. Clair Flats SWA are important ecologically because they provide critical habitat for a myriad of game and non-game species that depend on coastal wetlands. Within St. Clair County, natural cover constitutes 58% of the county. In comparison, natural cover constitutes approximately 97% of St. John’s Marsh SWA (NOAA 2016).

In the 2016 fi eld season, the Wildlife Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) commissioned Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) to conduct Michigan Forest Inventory (MiFi) Stage 1 inventory and surveys for high-quality lakeplain prairie in St. John’s Marsh SWA. Stand level mapping and lakeplain prairie surveys in 2016 were followed in 2017 by additional natural community surveys, targeted rare animal surveys, and vernal pool surveys (see Appendix 1A). This work was conducted through the ongoing Integrated Inventory Project, which is part of a long-term effort by the Wildlife Division to document and sustainably manage areas of high conservation signifi cance on state lands. This report provides an overview of the landscape and historical context of St. John’s Marsh SWA, summarizes the fi ndings of MNFI’s two years of surveys for high-quality natural communities, vernal pools, and rare animal species, and discusses stewardship needs, opportunities, and priorities within the wildlife area. Specifi c management recommendations are provided for rare species and groups of rare species and also the natural community EOs found within the wildlife area. In addition to species-based and site-based stewardship discussion, general management recommendations for the area as a whole are provided.

The focus of this project and report is on native biodiversity with an emphasis on high-quality ecosystems. Biodiversity stewardship considerations are included in the report and we acknowledge that the DNR manages for multiple values including wildlife management, hunting and other wildlife-related recreation, as well as biodiversity, and that the report does not necessarily refl ect the planned management actions of the DNR.

Ecoregions and SubsectionsThe regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan have been classifi ed and mapped based on an integration of climate, physiography, soils, and natural vegetation (Albert 1995) (Figure 1). This classifi cation system can be useful for conservation planning and integrated resource management because it provides a framework for understanding the distribution patterns of species, natural communities,

anthropogenic activities, and natural disturbance regimes. The classifi cation is hierarchically structured with three levels in a nested series, from broad landscape regions called sections, down to smaller subsections and sub-subsections. St. John’s Marsh SWA occurs within the Southern Lower Michigan section (Section VI) and lies within the Washtenaw subsection (Subsection VI.1) and the Maumee Lake Plain sub-subsection (Sub-Subsection VI.1.1).

WashtenawThe Washtenaw subsection is located in southeastern Lower Michigan and is characterized by glacial lakeplain, ground moraine, end moraine, and outwash plain. This subsection is characterized by the longest growing season in the state. The growing season ranges from approximately 130 days inland to 180 days along Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair in the east (Eichenlaub et al. 1990). Total annual precipitation averages between 28 and 36 inches, and total snowfall averages 30 to 50 inches. Surface glacial deposits, which are as thick as 300 feet near the inland margin of the subsection and locally less than 5 feet near the Lake Erie shoreline, are underlain by Pennsylvanian, Mississippian, Devonian, and Silurian marine and nearshore bedrock, including sandstone, shale, coal, marine limestone and dolomite, and gypsum and other evaporites (Dorr and Eschman 1984, Milstein 1987). Prevalent soils include sands, sandy loams, and loamy sands. Loams with clayey soils occur locally in areas of lakeplain. Prevalent vegetation types within this region historically included beech-sugar maple forest, oak savanna, swamp forest, wet prairie, and coastal marshes. The subsection has some of the most intensive urban, industrial, and agricultural land use in the state and much of the prairie, savanna, and coastal marshes have been eliminated or degraded. Remaining natural cover within this subsection is primarily fi re-suppressed oak-dominated forest (Albert 1995).

Maumee Lake PlainThe Maumee Lake Plain (VI.1.1) is a fl at, clay lakeplain dissected by broad glacial drainageways of sandy soil (Figure 2). The southern two-thirds of the sub-subsection is clay lakeplain, with several broad channels of lacustrine sand. The northern third, where St. John’s Marsh SWA occurs, is primarily lakeplain with clay soils. Beach ridges and small sand dunes are common on the sand channels. Lakeplain throughout this area is broad and fl at (Figure 1). Wet loamy and clayey soils are prevalent with sandy soils localized. Soil permeability is generally low and soils are calcareous at shallow depth.

Historically, extensive Great Lakes marsh occurred along the entire coast of Lakes Erie and St. Clair. The marshes,

Page-2 Natural Features Inventory of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area

Figure 1. Ecoregions and surfi cial relief of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area (Albert 1995, USGS 2009).


Figure 2. Surfi cial geology of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area (Farrand and Bell 1982).


which extended into water four to fi ve feet deep, were one to two miles wide in places and extended for miles up major rivers. Upland of the marshes there was typically a broad zone of swamp forest but locally along Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie, one- to three-mile wide expanses of wet prairie occurred. Extensive coastal complexes of Great Lakes marsh, lakeplain prairie, and lakeplain oak openings occurred within the St. Clair River Delta. The upland vegetation varied depending on soil composition with areas of sandy lakeplain supporting lakeplain oak openings and areas of clay lakeplain supporting beech-sugar maple forest in well drained areas and wet-mesic fl atwoods in moderately drained areas. Areas of poorly drained clay lakeplain supported deciduous swamp forest.

Within the Maumee Lake Plain, there is a long history of land use by humans, beginning with Native American farming and likely use of fi re to maintain open conditions in the prairies and savannas. The clay soils of the sub-subsection were among the fi rst areas in Michigan farmed by European settlers. The lake-moderated climate and productive soils resulted in early and intensive agricultural development. Much of the lakeplain has been ditched and tiled for agricultural usage. As a result, many of the coastal ecosystems within this region have been eliminated or degraded (Albert 1995).

Circa 1800s VegetationInterpretations of the General Land Offi ce (GLO) surveyor notes by MNFI ecologists indicated that the St. John’s Marsh SWA and surrounding area were dominated by lakeplain prairie ecosystems (Comer et al. 1995) (Figure 3). Surveyors recorded information on the vegetative cover, tree species composition, tree size, and general condition of the lands within and surrounding the St. John’s Marsh SWA. Circa 1800, the game area was predominantly “Wet Prairie”, with 77% of the area supporting this vegetation type. Within this landscape, “Wet Prairie” likely included lakeplain wet prairie, lakeplain wet-mesic prairie, and wet meadow zones of Great Lakes marsh. A signifi cant portion of the wildlife area (22% of the area) supported “Beech-Sugar Maple Forest”. This type likely included mesic uplands dominated by beech and sugar maple but also likely included wet-mesic fl atwoods, which have a more diverse canopy with both upland and lowland trees due to seasonal inundation caused by clay lenses in the soil profi le. A small proportion of the wildlife area (1%) was classifi ed as “Shrub Swamp/Emergent Marsh”. Compared to the surrounding area, St. John’s Marsh SWA historically supported a high proportion of lakeplain prairie. Within St. Clair County the most common covertypes were “Beech-Sugar Maple Forest” (66% of the county), “Mixed Hardwood Swamp” (16% of the county), “Mixed Conifer Swamp” (6% of the county), and “Wet Prairie” (3% of the

county compared to 77% of the wildlife area). Within the Maumee Lake Plain (Sub-Subsection VI.1.1), the most common covertypes were “Beech-Sugar Maple Forest” (51% of the area), “Mixed Hardwood Swamp” (24% of the area), “Wet Prairie” (8% of the area compared to 77% of the wildlife area), and “Mixed Oak Savanna” (5% of the area).

Current Land CoverThe land cover within the St. John’s Marsh SWA (Figures 4 and 5) has changed signifi cantly since 1800 due to agriculture, hydrologic alteration, fi re suppression, and invasive species encroachment. The mosaic of aerial photographs from 1938 (Figure 6) shows how the expansion of agriculture heavily impacted the St. John’s Marsh SWA and the surrounding area (MNFI 2017). In addition, a golf course was established in the center of the area sometime in the 1930s. However, compared to the surrounding fragmented landscape, St. John’s Marsh SWA is characterized by a signifi cant proportion of natural cover. As noted above, 97% of the game area is natural cover. In comparison, only 22% of the Maumee Lake Plain is natural cover (NOAA 2016). Current land cover in St. John’s Marsh SWA is dominated by non-forested wetlands (68%) and forested wetlands (17%) (Figures 4 and 5).

The non-forested wetlands are primarily composed of emergent wetlands (66%) and lowland shrub (2%). The majority of these wetlands are either degraded Great Lakes marsh dominated by reed (Phragmites australis subsp. australis) or degraded lakeplain prairie dominated by reed and/or glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus). Stands classifi ed in MiFI Stage 1 Inventory as “Phragmites” constituted over 46% of the area. Surveys for high-quality lakeplain prairie identifi ed 77 acres of remnant lakeplain wet prairie and 24 acres of remnant lakeplain wet-mesic prairie constituting just 2.5% and 0.8% of St. John’s Marsh SWA, respectively (Table 1). Forested wetlands remain an important component of the game area with lowland hardwoods accounting for 17% of the area. A majority of these lowland hardwoods are early-successional (< 80 years of age) and most of these forests are wet-mesic fl atwoods, a natural community type that is not an available cover type in the current MiFi system. Additional covertypes within St. John’s Marsh SWA identifi ed during MiFi Stage 1 inventory include herbaceous openland (6%), open water (4%), cultivated crops (2%), upland shrub (<1%), and upland oak (<1%) (Figure 5).


Figure 3. Circa 1800 vegetation of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area (Comer et al. 1995).


Figure 4. Current land cover of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.


Figure 5. MiFI stand data for St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.


Figure 6. Mosaic of 1938 aerial photographs of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area (MNFI 2017).


Oblique images of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. Emergent wetlands constitute 66% of the area. Photos by Joshua G. Cohen


METHODSThroughout this report, all high-quality natural communities and state and federally listed rare species are referred to as elements and their documented occurrence at a specifi c location is referred to as an element occurrence or “EO.”

Natural Community Survey MethodsA natural community is defi ned as an assemblage of interacting plants, animals, and other organisms that repeatedly occurs under similar environmental conditions across the landscape and is predominantly structured by natural processes rather than modern anthropogenic disturbances (Cohen et al. 2015a). Protecting and managing representative natural communities is critical to biodiversity conservation, since native organisms are best adapted to environmental and biotic forces with which they have survived and evolved over the millennia (Kost et al. 2007). According to MNFI’s natural community classifi cation, there are 77 natural community types in Michigan (Kost et al. 2007, Cohen et al. 2015a).

During the 2016 fi eld season, the Wildlife Division commissioned MNFI to conduct natural community surveys for high-quality lakeplain prairie ecosystems within the St. John’s Marsh SWA. Prior to the surveys, a known element occurrence lakeplain wet prairie was known from St. John’s Marsh SWA (Table 1). In 2017, additional surveys for high-quality natural communities occurred within St. John’s Marsh SWA with a focus on forested ecosystems. Surveys assessed the current ranking, classifi cation, and delineation of these occurrences and detailed the vegetative structure and composition, ecological boundaries, landscape and abiotic context, threats, management needs, and restoration opportunities. The primary goal of this survey effort is to provide resource managers and planners with standardized, baseline information on each natural community EO. This baseline information is critical for facilitating site-level decisions about biodiversity stewardship, prioritizing protection, management and restoration, monitoring the success of management and restoration, and informing landscape-level biodiversity planning efforts.

Field SurveysEach natural community was evaluated employing Natural Heritage and MNFI methodology, which considers three factors to assess a natural community’s ecological integrity or quality: size, landscape context, and condition (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2008, Faber-Langendoen et al. 2015). If a site meets defi ned requirements for these three criteria (MNFI 1988), it is categorized as a high-quality example of that specifi c natural community type, entered into MNFI’s database as an element occurrence, and given a rank based

on the consideration of its size, landscape context, and condition. Ecological fi eld surveys were conducted from May 2016 to August 2016 to evaluate the condition and classifi cation of lakeplain prairie sites and in October 2017 to evaluate potential wet-mesic fl atwoods. To assess natural community size and landscape context, a combination of fi eld surveys, aerial photographic interpretation, and Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis was employed.

The ecological fi eld surveys typically involved:

a) compiling comprehensive plant species lists and noting dominant and representative species

b) describing site-specifi c structural attributes and ecological processes

c) measuring tree diameter at breast height (DBH) of representative canopy trees and aging canopy dominants

d) analyzing soils and hydrology

e) noting current and historical anthropogenic disturbances

f) evaluating potential threats

g) ground-truthing aerial photographic interpretation using GPS (Garmin units were utilized)

h) taking digital photos and GPS points at signifi cant locations

i) surveying adjacent lands to assess landscape context

j) evaluating the natural community classifi cation and mapped ecological boundaries

k) assigning or updating element occurrence ranks

l) noting management needs and restoration opportunities or evaluating past and current restoration activities and noting additional management needs and restoration opportunities

Data Analysis Following completion of the fi eld surveys, the collected data were analyzed and transcribed to update and create new EO records in MNFI’s natural heritage database (MNFI 2018a). Natural community boundaries were mapped and re-mapped. Information from these surveys and prior surveys, if available, was used to produce site descriptions, threat assessments, and management recommendations for each natural community EO that was documented in St. John’s Marsh SWA. This information is provided in the following Natural Community Surveys Results section.


Lakeplain wet prairie, St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen

Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie, St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen

Floristic data collected during the surveys was entered into the Universal Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) Calculator (Freyman et al. 2016) with species lists stratifi ed by natural community type (i.e., lakeplain wet prairie, lakeplain wet-mesic prairie, and wet-mesic fl atwoods). Nomenclature for the FQAs follows Reznicek et al. (2014). The FQA is derived from two values, a mean coeffi cient of conservatism (C) and the fl oristic quality index (FQI) (Herman et al. 2001). Each native taxon is assigned a C value on a scale of 0-10 based on the probability of its occurrence in a natural versus degraded habitat. In this manner, a taxon that is restricted to a specialized habitat, such as the federally threatened Pitcher’s thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) that occurs on active sand dunes, is assigned a value of 10, implying that the taxon has extremely strong fi delity to a particular habitat. Native taxa that are not particular to or indicative of natural conditions, such as common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), are assigned low values (in this instance, C= 1) (Herman et al. 2001). Non-native species are not assigned C values because they are not indicative of native habitats. From the total list of vascular plant taxa for an area, a mean C value is calculated (= ΣC /n), and that value is multiplied by the square root of the total number of plants (√n) to calculate the FQI (FQI = √n) (Herman et al. 2001). Herman et al. (2001)

suggest that Michigan sites with an FQI of 35 or greater “possess suffi cient conservatism and richness that they are fl oristically important from a statewide perspective”. Mean C values and FQI values were calculated for the natural community element occurrences and these values are presented in the following Natural Community Surveys Results section.


Rare Animal Survey MethodsWe identifi ed rare animal target species for surveys using historical distribution within Michigan, past occurrences in or near St. John’s Marsh SWA (Table 2), communication with WLD staff, and the presence of potential habitat within the wildlife area. A variety of information sources were used to determine if potential habitat occurred within the wildlife area, including natural community ground surveys and existing element occurrences, prior rare species surveys within the area, aerial photography, MiFI stand descriptions, and communication with WLD staff. Rare species targeted for surveys included secretive marsh birds, rare moths associated with lakeplain prairie, and rare herptiles associated with open and forested wetlands. We conducted surveys for these target animal species in appropriate potential habitats during time periods when targeted elements were expected to be most active and detectable (e.g., breeding season). Surveys were done to identify new occurrences, update and/or expand existing occurrences and revisit historical occurrences of select rare species. In addition to documenting rare species, we also recorded observations of DNR featured species identifi ed in Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (Derosier et al. 2015).

BirdsWe focused our survey effort on rare marsh birds, because of the abundance of emergent wetland within St. John’s Marsh SWA and the presence of several EOs in or near the wildlife area. Information was gathered on all species surveyed under the Michigan Marsh Bird Survey (MMBS) protocol (Michigan Bird Conservation Initiative 2015). Primary target species were pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus, state special concern), least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis, state threatened), king rail (Rallus elegans, state endangered), Virginia rail (Rallus limicola), sora (Porzana carolina), common gallinule (Gallinula galeata, state threatened), American coot (Fulica americana), and Wilson’s snipe (Gallinago delicata). Secondary target species were sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), black tern (Chlidonias niger, state special concern), Forster’s tern (Sterna forsteri, state threatened), sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris, state special concern), swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana), and yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus, state special concern). Target species were selected based on concern about apparent long-term declines, special status they have within the region and/or State, and/or because they serve as indicators of particular habitat types (Table 3).

We conducted marsh bird surveys using the Standardized North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocol described by Conway (2011) and further refi ned for Michigan (Michigan Bird Conservation Initiative 2015). Survey points were placed randomly within emergent wetlands at

least 400 m apart. Seven survey points have been surveyed annually at St. John’s Marsh by a volunteer since 2013 as part of the MMBS. MNFI surveyed an additional 36 points within the wildlife area in 2017 (Figure 7). Point count locations were uploaded to a tablet computer used for navigation in the fi eld. Because of variation in the breeding phenology for marsh bird species and low detectability of some species, three visits to each point are recommended between early May and mid-June, with two visits being considered acceptable (Michigan Bird Conservation Initiative 2015). Marsh birds were surveyed between 0.5 hour before to three hours after sunrise. We conducted ten minute point counts consisting of a fi ve minute passive listening period followed by one minute broadcast periods for American bittern, least bittern, king rail, Virginia rail, and sora. The locations of target species were recorded using GPS or estimated distances and azimuths from point count stations.

HerptilesThe following rare species of amphibians and reptiles (i.e., herptiles) were targeted for surveys in the St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area (SWA) in 2017: eastern fox snake (Pantherophis vulpinus, state threatened), Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii, state special concern), and spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata, state threatened) (Appendix 2). These species also have been identifi ed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in Michigan’s updated Wildlife Action Plan (Derosier et al. 2015). These species were targeted for surveys because they had been previously documented in or near the wildlife area, or they had potential to occur within the wildlife area because of the species’ range within the state and presence of suitable or potential habitat for the species. The eastern fox snake inhabits emergent wetlands and wet prairies along Great Lakes shorelines and associated large rivers and impoundments. Potential habitat include Great Lakes marsh, emergent marsh, southern wet meadow, lakeplain wet-mesic prairie, and lakeplain wet prairie (Evers 1994, Harding 1997). The spotted and Blanding’s turtles are semi-aquatic species that inhabit a diversity of shallow wetlands including small ponds, wet meadows and prairies, forested and shrub swamps, bogs, fens, shallow cattail marshes, vernal pools, slow-moving streams, and even roadside ditches (Van Dam 1993, Ernst et al. 1994, Harding 1997, Lee 1999). Blanding’s turtles also occur in river backwaters, embayments, sloughs, slow-moving rivers, and lake shallows and inlets (Van Dam 1993, Harding 1997). Both turtle species require clean, shallow, slow-moving bodies of water with a soft substrate, aquatic or emergent vegetation, and at least a partially open canopy (Ernst et al. 1994, Harding 1997). Eastern fox snakes, spotted turtles, and Blanding’s turtles also require drier, upland habitats for parts of their life cycle (e.g., basking, nesting, foraging) (Harding 1997, Lee, 1999, Lee 2000a, Lee 2000b, Compton


Site Name Community Type EO ID EO RankYear First Observed

Year Last Observed Global Rank State Rank

St. John's Prairie Lakeplain Wet Prairie 8228 C 1981 2016 G2 S1St. John's Prairie* Lakeplain Wet-Mesic Prairie 20638 C 2016 2016 G1? S1St. John's Flatwoods* Wet-Mesic Flatwoods 21536 D 2016 2017 G2G3 S2

Common Name Scientific NameState Status (Federal Status) EO ID EO Rank

Year First Observed

Year Last Observed

BIRDSAmerican bittern* Botaurus lentiginosus SC 13527 B 2003 2017Marsh wren* Cistothorus palustris SC 17389 B 2005 2017Least bittern* Ixobrychus exilis T 13530 BC 2003 2017Common gallinule* Gallinula galeata T 13531 CD 2003 2017King rail Rallus elegans E 20135 CD 2014 2014Forster's tern Sterna forsteri T 12439 CD 1980 2007Common tern Sterna hirundo T 10348 H 1960 1985INSECTSLeafhopper Dorydiella kansana SC 14421 H 1994 1994Leafhopper Flexamia reflexa SC 14418 H 1994 1994Blazing star borer* Papaipema beeriana SC 12592 BC 1999 2017HERPTILESEastern fox snake Pantherophis vulpinus T 14076 BC 2002 2010Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata T 3845 C 1970 1991PLANTSSullivant's milkweed Asclepias sullivantii T 4696 C 1981 1994White lady slipper Cypripedium candidum T 5854 C? 1982 1991

Table 2. Rare species element occurrences at St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. State status abbreviation of “E” signifi es state endangered, “T” signifi es state threatened, and “SC” signifi es state special concern. EO rank abbreviations are as follows: B good estimated viability; BC, good or fair estimated viability; C, fair estimated viability; C?, possibly fair estimated viability; CD, fair or poor estimated viability; and H, historical. * indicates the EO was documented during 2017 surveys and updated.

Table 1. Natural community element occurrence for St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. EO rank abbreviations are as follows: C, fair estimated viability; and D, poor estimated viability. * indicates that the site was newly documented in 2016.

Given the prevalence of emergent wetland in St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area, avian surveys focused on rare marsh birds. American bittern pictured above. Photo by Michael J. Monfi ls.

Rare herptile surveys were concentrated in emergent wetland and lakeplain prairie, and targeted eastern fox snake (above), spotted turtle (below), and Blanding’s turtle. Photos by James H. Harding.


Figure 7. Marsh bird survey points visited in 2017 at St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.


Table 3. Conservation status of marsh bird species targeted during surveys conducted at St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area in 2017.

Region 3 State of Michigan Status4

PrioritySpecies3 E T SC SGCN

American bittern X X X XLeast bittern X X XKing rail X X X X XVirginia railSora XCommon gallinule X XAmerican cootSandhill craneWilson’s snipe XBlack tern X X X XForster’s tern X XMarsh wren XSedge wren XSwamp sparrowYellow-headed blackbird X X

SpeciesNABCIWatchList1

JV Focal Species2

1 North American Bird Conservation Initiative Watch List (NABCI 2016).2 Focal species of the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture (Potter et al. 2007, Soulliere et al. 2018).3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Resource Conservation Priority.4 “E” signifi es state endangered, “T” signifi es state threatened, “SC” signifi es state special concern, and “SGCN” signifi es species of greatest conservation need (Derosier et al. 2015).

Survey points were placed randomly within emergent wetlands. MNFI surveyed 36 points within the St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. Photo by Aaron P. Kortenhoven.


2007). These species utilize grasslands, prairies, old fi elds, and open woodlands, as well as disturbed areas such as pastures, vacant urban lots, rock riprap, dikes, and/or residential properties (Harding 1997), although eastern fox snakes have been found to avoid agricultural fi elds (Row et al. 2012). Spotted and Blanding’s turtles generally nest in open, sunny, unvegetated or sparsely vegetated areas, typically with moist but well-drained, sandy, loamy, or mixed gravel and sand substrates (Harding 1997, Compton 2007).

Surveys in 2017 also had potential for detecting several additional amphibian and reptile rare species and/or SGCN in Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (Derosier et al. 2015, Appendix 2). These included the pickerel frog (Lithobates palustris, state special concern), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina, state special concern), gray ratsnake (Pantherophis spiloides), Kirtland’s snake (Clonophis kirtlandii), blue racer (Coluber constrictor foxii), northern ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus septentrionalis), smooth green snake (Opheodrys vernalis), and Butler’s garter snake (Thamnophis butleri) (Derosier et al. 2015). Pickerel frogs and northern ribbon snakes occur in or along aquatic and wetland habitats including bogs, fens, marshes, streams, ponds, impoundments, and ditches (Harding 1997, NatureServe 2017). Smooth green snakes occur in moist, grassy habitats such as remnant prairies and savannas, meadows, old fi elds, pastures, and marsh and lake edges (Harding 1997). Butler’s garter snakes occur in wet, grassy habitats including wet meadows and prairies, fens, marshy edges of ponds and lakes, forested swamps, often near streams, ditches, marshes or ponds, and disturbed habitats such as old fi elds, railroad embankments, vacant lots, and cemeteries (Harding 1997). Kirtland’s snakes occur in wet, grassy habitats including wet prairies, wet meadows, fens, and forested swamps. In addition, they have also been found in suburban areas, vacant urban lots, cemeteries, pastures, and old fi elds (Harding 1997). Kirtland’s snakes also are primarily associated with crayfi sh burrows (Harding 1997). Eastern box turtles and gray ratsnakes are generally associated with upland deciduous or mixed forests, but they also will utilize adjacent open or shrubby habitats including old fi elds, prairies, pastures, shrub thickets, and edges of swamps, marshes, and bogs (Fitch 1963, Tinkle et al. 1979, McAllister 1995, Harding 1997, Hyde 1999, Ernst and Ernst 2003, Lee 2008, NatureServe 2017). Eastern box turtles also need access to water (e.g., ponds, lakes, springs, streams, marshes) and open, sunny, sandy areas for nesting (Harding 1997, Hyde 1999). Blue racers primarily occur in dry, sunny habitats with access to cover, including old fi elds, shrubby thickets, and open woodlands, but they also will use wetter habitats including fens and the edges of lakes and marshes (Harding 1997).

Visual encounter surveys, basking surveys, and coverboard surveys were conducted for the target species. Surveys focused on identifying new occurrences and updating and/or adding new locations to existing occurrences. Visual encounter surveys were conducted from May 17th and October 21st, 2017 using a standard method for surveying amphibians and reptiles (Campbell and Christman 1982, Corn and Bury 1990, Crump and Scott 1994). Visual encounter surveys were conducted in eleven areas with suitable habitats for target species within the wildlife area (Figure 8). Visual encounter surveys were conducted within and/or along the edge of open wetlands and waterbodies, adjacent open uplands, upland and lowland forest stands, and along the dikes and ditches in St. John’s Marsh SWA. Wetlands and waterbodies that were surveyed included lakeplain wet prairie, lakeplain wet-mesic prairie, Great Lakes marsh, hardwood swamp, wet-mesic fl atwoods, ditches, and permanent ponds. Survey sites were visited one to four times during the fi eld season. Visual encounter surveys were conducted during daylight hours and under appropriate weather conditions when target species were expected to be active and/or visible [i.e., between 60-80°F (16-27oC), wind less than 15 mph, and no or light precipitation]. Surveys consisted of one or two surveyors walking slowly through areas with suitable habitat for survey targets, overturning cover (e.g., logs, rocks, etc.), inspecting retreats, and looking for basking, resting, and/or active individuals on the surface or under cover object.

Basking surveys were conducted between May 17th and October 21st, 2017 to search for Blanding’s turtles, spotted turtles, eastern fox snakes, and other turtles and snakes. These surveys were conducted at three areas that contain open water and/or emergent marsh (Figure 8). Basking surveys were conducted during visual encounter surveys, during daylight hours, and under appropriate weather conditions when target species were expected to be active and/or visible [i.e., between 60-80°F (16-27oC), wind less than 15 mph, and no or light precipitation]. Basking surveys consisted of slowly walking around the edge or shore of fl ooded wetlands and waterbodies and scanning the habitat with binoculars to look for turtles and snakes partially submerged in the water or basking on logs, woody debris, vegetation mats, or other structures.

Coverboard surveys were conducted from October 12th to 21st, 2017 in one area of the St. John’s Prairie lakeplain wet prairie (EO ID 8228) at the southern end of the St. John’s Marsh SWA (Figure 8). These surveys were added in the fall of 2017 to supplement visual encounter surveys to try to document eastern fox snake, Kirtland’s snake, and other snake SGCN. Surveys consisted of placing coverboards in areas with suitable habitat for target species, and checking the coverboards to look for species hiding or resting under them. Coverboards were set on September 16th and were


Figure 8. Locations of herptile surveys conducted in 2017 in St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.


Coverboard surveys were conducted in lakeplain wet prairie to supplement visual encounter surveys. Because Kirtland’s snakes primarily live in crayfi sh burrows, we placed coverboards over openings of crayfi sh burrows, and distributed the coverboards throughout the survey area. Photos by Yu Man Lee.


checked twice a week during the survey period. Because Kirtland’s snakes primarily live in crayfi sh burrows, we placed the coverboards over openings of crayfi sh burrows, and distributed the coverboards throughout the survey area. The coverboards consisted of pieces of carpet approximately 0.5 m to 1 m wide x 1 m long. We set 10 coverboards at least 20 m apart.

Survey data forms (Appendix 3) were completed for all herptile surveys, and survey locations were recorded with a Garmin GPS unit or using the Backcountry Navigator application on a Samsung tablet. We documented all reptiles and amphibians and other animals encountered during surveys. The species, number of individuals, age class, location, general habitat, behavior, and time of observation were noted. Weather conditions and start and end times of surveys also were recorded. Whenever possible, we took photos of observed species for supporting documentation.

InsectsWe identifi ed rare insect target species using historical distribution within Michigan, past occurrences in or near St. John’s Marsh SWA (Table 2), and the presence of potential remaining habitat within the wildlife area determined by natural community element occurrences, MiFi descriptions, aerial photography, and on-the-ground knowledge of the wildlife area from past surveys. Rare insect surveys were focused on rare moth species associated with lakeplain prairie. Moth species targeted included the blazing star borer (Papaipema beeriana, state special concern), the Culver’s root borer (P. sciata, state special concern), and the Maritime sunfl ower borer (P. maritima, state special concern). Areas that received attention for rare moth surveys included those sites that supported remnant lakeplain wet-mesic prairie and lakeplain wet prairie. Within the lakeplain prairie, surveys were further focused on areas containing large patches of marsh blazing-star (Liatris spicata), Culver’s root (Veronicastrum virginicum), and/or tall sunfl ower (Helianthus giganteus). These plants function as larval host plants for the rare moth species identifi ed as priority survey targets.

Three areas within the wildlife area were selected for surveys based on the presence of lakeplain prairie habitat and/or the presence of larval host plants. (Figure 9). Moth surveys utilized the technique known as blacklighting. This consisted of a standard 125-W mercury-vapor light and a 15-Wt UV light powered by a portable generator. The lights are visible upwards of a kilometer away and likely attracts moths from within 100 to 200 meters in any direction (Robinson and Robinson 1950, Plaut 1971). A two meter X two meter metal conduit frame supporting a large white sheet was used as a collecting surface. Moths that were attracted to the lights were collected directly off the sheet

or off the ground near the sheet. For Sites 1 and 2, the setup was placed in the lakeplain prairie in a central location with larval host plants on all sides to maximize the likelihood of collecting adults (Figure 9). Survey locations were recorded using a hand-held GPS unit and Papaipema moth survey forms were completed for each site (Appendix 4).

Site 1 was located in an area of lakeplain wet-mesic prairie vegetation 0.58 miles north of the parking lot off M-29 and just east of the main dike/hiking trial (Figure 9). This site contained a population of between 75 to 100 fruiting marsh blazing-star plants and at least 12 fruiting Culver’s root plants. Sampling occurred from 7:40 PM to 12:00 AM on September 26th, 2017. Temperatures ranged from 69°F to 65.5°F. Skies contained 0% cloud cover throughout the sampling period.

Site 2 was located in lakeplain wet prairie 0.25 miles north of the parking lot off M-29 and just east of the main dike/hiking trail (Figure 9). This site contained a population with approximately 25 to 30 fruiting marsh blazing-star, and over 10 fruiting Culver’s root plants. A total of four hours of sampling occurred from 8:00 PM to 12:00 AM on October 3rd, 2017. Temperatures ranged from 70.1°F to 71.5°F. Skies were clear with 0% cloud cover throughout the entire sampling period.

Site 3 was located on the dike just east of a small pocket of lakeplain wet-mesic prairie. The site was accessed by the gated two-track off of Phelps Road. (Figure 9). No host plants were identifi ed within this site. Sampling was limited to a four hour window from 8:00 PM to 12:00 AM on October 9th, 2017. Temperatures ranged from 58.4°F to 62.1°F. Winds were light and cloud cover was at 0% throughout the sampling period.

Rare insect surveys focused on rare moths associated with lakeplain prairie. Survey targets included Culver’s root borer (above), blazing star borer, and Maritime sunfl ower borer. Photo by David L. Cuthrell.


Figure 9. Locations of insect surveys conducted in 2017 in St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.


Blacklighting surveys for rare moths were conducted within St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area in lakeplain prairie. Surveys were focused in areas of prairie with concentrations of marsh blazing-star (Liatris spicata) (below left) and Culver’s root (Veronicastrum virginicum) (below right), the larval host plants for blazing star borer and Culver’s root borer, respectively. Above photo by David L. Cuthrell and below photos by Joshua G. Cohen.


RESULTSDuring the course of two years of surveys at St. John’s Marsh SWA, MNFI documented two new EOs and provided information for updating an additional six EOs (Tables 1 and 2). Data compiled on these EOs was entered into MNFI’s natural heritage database (MNFI 2018a). A total of 64 potential vernal pools were identifi ed and mapped through aerial photograph interpretation and 23 vernal pools were verifi ed in the fi eld (see Appendix 1A). Data compiled on vernal pools was incorporated into the Michigan Vernal Pool Database (MNFI 2018b), a statewide vernal pool geodatabase with locational information as well as ecological data about potential and fi eld-verifi ed vernal pools.

The locations in St. John’s Marsh SWA of the natural community and rare species element occurrences (both new and prior occurrences) are illustrated in Figures 10 through 15. The Results section is divided into two sections, a Natural Community Survey Results section and a Rare Animal Survey Results section. The Natural Community Survey Results section provides in depth description of the natural community EOs documented at St. John’s Marsh SWA as well as a site-specifi c threat assessment and management recommendations. The Rare Animal Survey Results section describes survey results for rare marsh birds, herptiles, and insect species.

Natural community surveys resulted in the documentation of a new element occurrence of lakeplain wet-mesic prairie. The largest block of lakeplain wet-mesic prairie is concentrated in the northeast portion of Compartment 1, Stand 1 along the upland margin. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.


Natural Community Survey Results Over the course of two years of surveys at St. John’s Marsh SWA, MNFI ecologists documented one new lakeplain wet-mesic prairie, updated a known element occurrence of lakeplain wet prairie, and documented one new wet-mesic fl atwoods. Data compiled on these EOs was entered into MNFI’s natural heritage database (MNFI 2018a). The locations in St. John’s Marsh SWA of these natural community occurrences are illustrated in Figure 10.

In 2016, natural community surveys were focused on evaluating lakeplain prairie habitat and in 2017 surveys targeted wet-mesic fl atwoods. These natural community surveys consisted of classifying wetland types, evaluating soils and hydrology, cataloging fl oristic composition, describing vegetative and community structure, and documenting threats. In 2016, MNFI ecologists and botanists conducted fi eld surveys over the course of nine days (May 12th, May 13th, May 19th, May 20th, May 24th, May 25th, June 3rd, July 28th, and August 3rd 2016). The 2016 surveys focused on lakeplain wet prairie element occurrence 8228 and potential lakeplain prairie habitat to the north of this element occurrence within a proposed DNR project area. Prior to the surveys, this lakeplain prairie element occurrence consisted of one large polygon of 265 acres and had an element occurrence rank of BC. Following the ecological surveys, we have signifi cantly modifi ed the lakeplain wet prairie element occurrence, which now consists of 12 distinct polygons constituting 77 acres. In addition, the element occurrence has been downgraded to a C rank. This reduction of size and quality ranking is due in part to the encroachment of invasive reed (Phragmites australis subsp. australis) and shrubs, including the invasive glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus). In addition, we identifi ed suffi cient lakeplain wet-mesic prairie to add a distinct occurrence of this natural community type. This lakeplain wet-mesic prairie (EO ID 20638) is 24 acres, is composed of six distinct polygons, and was assigned a C rank. Prior to this effort, pockets of lakeplain wet-mesic prairie within this game area were lumped in with the original lakeplain wet prairie as inclusions. This lakeplain wet-mesic prairie faces the same threats from invasive species (i.e., reed and glossy buckthorn) and shrub encroachment. Both lakeplain wet prairie and lakeplain wet-mesic prairie were identifi ed within the proposed project area. Within this project area, two polygons of lakeplain wet-mesic prairie constituting approximately 1.2 acres were identifi ed and three polygons of lakeplain wet prairie constituting approximately 4.7 acres were identifi ed.

2017 natural community surveys were focused on identifying remnant wet-mesic fl atwoods. Field surveys were conducted on October 2nd, 2017. A new element

occurrence for wet-mesic fl atwoods was documented within the St. John’s Marsh SWA. This wet-mesic fl atwoods (Element Occurrence 21536) is 68 acres, is composed of four distinct polygons, and was assigned a D rank. This remnant fl atwoods has been severely impacted by altered hydrology, decades of fi re suppression, and invasive species encroachment.

The subsequent Site Summaries section provides in-depth description of each natural community EO as well as site-specifi c threat assessments and management recommendations. The following site summaries contain a detailed discussion for the natural communities organized alphabetically by community type. The beginning of each grouping of communities contains an overview of the natural community type, which was adapted from MNFI’s natural community classifi cation (Kost et al. 2007, Cohen et al. 2015a). In addition, an ecoregional distribution map is provided for each natural community type (Albert et al. 2008). For each site summary, the following information is provided:

a) site name

b) natural community type

c) state and global rank (see Appendix 5 for ranking criteria)

d) current element occurrence rank

e) size

f) locational information

g) digital photographs

h) detailed description

i) threat assessment

j) management recommendations

Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) in the foreground of lakeplain wet-mesic prairie. Photo by Yu Man Lee


Glossy buckthorn invading lakeplain wet-mesic prairie. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen

Reed invading lakeplain wet prairie. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen


Figure 10. Natural community and rare plant element occurrences within St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.


Map 1. Distribution of lakeplain wet prairie in Michigan (Albert et al. 2008).

VI.4.1

VI.6

VII.2.2

VI.5.1VII.3

VII.2.1

VI.1.1VI.2.1

VI.1.3

IX.3.2

VII.6.1

VII.4

IX.2

VI.1.2

VIII.3.1

VIII.2.2

VII.2.3

VIII.2.1

VI.3.2

IX.1

VII.1.1

VIII.1.1

IX.6.1

IX.8

VI.3.1

VI.2.2

VII.6.3

VII.5.2

IX.6.3

VI.3.3

VIII.1.2

IX.6.2

VI.5.2

IX.3.1

VI.4.2

VIII.1.3

IX.7.2

IX.7.1

VIII.3.2

IX.7.3

VII.6.2

VIII.3.3

VII.1.2

VII.5.1

IX.5VIII.1.1

VII.6.3

VII.4

VI.2.1

N0 20 40 60 80 100 Miles

Landscape Ecosystems of MichiganSection

LegendCounties

Community range (primarily historical)

Absent or likely absent

Prevalent or likely prevalent

0 20 40 60 80 100 Kilometers

Sub-subsectionSubsection

Infrequent or likely infrequent

SITE SUMMARIES

LAKEPLAIN WET PRAIRIE

OverviewLakeplain wet prairie is a native lowland grassland that occurs on level, seasonally inundated glacial lakeplains in the southern Lower Peninsula. Lakeplain wet prairie is found along and near the shoreline of Lake Huron in Saginaw Bay, within the St. Clair River Delta, and near Lake Erie. The community develops on slightly acidic to moderately alkaline sands, sandy loams, or silty clays. Natural processes that infl uence species composition and community structure include seasonal fl ooding, cyclic changes in Great Lakes water levels, fl ooding by beaver, and fi re. Lakeplain wet prairie is dominated by grasses, sedges, rushes, and a diversity of forbs. Dominant grasses, sedges, and rushes typically include blue-joint (Calamagrostis canadensis), cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), sedges (Carex aquatilis, C. pellita, C. stricta, C. prairea, C. buxbaumii, and C. tetanica), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), twig-rush (Cladium mariscoides), and switch grass (Panicum virgatum). Today, lakeplain wet prairie is nearly extirpated from Michigan due to changes in land use, colonization by shrubs and trees, and competition from invasive plants. Lakeplain wet prairie is globally imperiled and critically imperiled in Michigan. Less than 1% of the original natural community remains in Michigan (Albert and Kost 1998a, Kost et al. 2007, Cohen et al. 2015a).


1. St. John’s PrairieNatural Community Type: Lakeplain Wet PrairieRank: G2 S1, imperiled globally and critically imperiled within the stateElement Occurrence Rank: CSize: 77 acresLocation: Compartment 1, St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife AreaElement Occurrence Identifi cation Number: 8228 (EO Update)

Site Description: Lakeplain wet prairie and lakeplain wet-mesic prairie remnants occur on fl at lakeplain within the Saint Clair River Delta along the shore of Lake St. Clair and just north of the North Channel. A total of twelve distinct polygons of lakeplain wet prairie were identifi ed and mapped as part of this element occurrence. Historically, frequent fi res and a seasonally fl uctuating water table maintained the open prairie conditions. The soils of the lakeplain wet prairie are characterized by sandy loam and sandy clay loam (pH 7.3-7.8) of variable depth (2-30 cm but typically 5-20 cm) over sandy clay and sandy clay loam (pH 7.0-8.0). Clay lenses underlying the sandy loams allow for the seasonal fl uctuation of the water table, which contributes to the open prairie conditions by preventing or limiting shrub and tree encroachment. Lakeplain wet prairie and lakeplain wet-mesic prairie intergrade within this complex with ecosystem patterning determined by very subtle differences in the depth to the clay layer and the resulting hydrologic regime. Shallower depth to the clay lens in lakeplain wet prairie compared to lakeplain wet-mesic prairie results in more prolonged inundated soils conditions in lakeplain wet prairie. As a result, the lakeplain wet prairie is characterized by more wetland species and a simpler fl oristic composition, and the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie is characterized by a diverse fl ora with wetland, woodland, and prairie species. Scattered ant mounds, sedge tussocks, and animal trails contribute to the micro-heterogeneity of the lakeplain prairie complex. Ants mix and aerate the soil, and their mounds provide unique establishment sites for plants. Crayfi sh burrows were also observed throughout the lakeplain wet prairie.

The lakeplain wet prairie is dominated by graminoids with blue-joint (Calamagrostis canadensis) and tussock sedge (Carex stricta) dominant throughout and prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) locally dominant. Common forbs within the lakeplain wet prairie include Canada anemone (Anemone canadensis), common mountain mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum), swamp thistle (Cirsium muticum), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), marsh bellfl ower (Campanula aparinoides), boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), grass-leaved goldenrod (Euthamia graminifolia), southern blue fl ag (Iris virginica), golden ragwort (Packera aurea), silverweed (Potentilla anserina), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), Ohio goldenrod (S. ohioensis), marsh pea (Lathyrus palustris), Culver’s root (Veronicastrum virginicum), and sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale). Marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris) is common throughout. Additional common graminoids include golden-seeded spike rush (Eleocharis elliptica) and rush (Juncus balticus). Prairie grasses, including big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) and switch grass (Panicum virgatum), occur locally within the lakeplain wet prairie on scattered ant mounds. Invasive reed (Phragmites australis subsp. australis) is locally common within the lakeplain wet prairie and is an overwhelming dominant in adjacent degraded lakeplain wet prairie and Great Lakes marsh. In addition, purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) occurs locally within the lakeplain wet prairie.

Scattered trees and shrubs include pin oak (Quercus palustris), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), cottonwood (P. deltoides), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), gray dogwood (C. foemina), silky dogwood (C. amomum), cockspur thorn (Crataegus crus-galli), slender willow (Salix petiolaris), prickly-ash (Zanthoxylum americanum), and glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus). Shrubs occur as scattered individuals and also in scattered clumps. Areas along the margin of the lakeplain wet prairie and lakeplain wet-mesic prairie have a higher density of shrubs. Low shrubs include meadowsweet (Spiraea alba), Kalm’s St. Johns-wort (Hypericum kalmianum), and swamp rose (Rosa palustris). Compared to the adjacent lakeplain wet-mesic prairie, shrubs are less prevalent in the lakeplain wet prairie remnants. In addition, the lakeplain wet prairie is not as fl oristically diverse as the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie.

MNFI ecologists and botanists visited this site nine times over the 2016 fi eld season. The fl oristic data was compiled into the Michigan Floristic Quality Assessment (Reznicek et al. 2014, Freyman et al. 2016). A total of 103 plant species were documented with 93 native species and 10 non-native species. The mean coeffi cient of conservatism (C) for this lakeplain wet prairie is 3.8 and the total fl oristic quality index (FQI) is 38.6.


Lakeplain wet prairie, St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. Photos by Joshua G. Cohen.


2010 aerial photograph of St. John’s Marsh lakeplain wet prairie.


Control of invasive reed and glossy buckthorn is a critical stewardship need for the lakeplain wet prairie. Photos by Joshua G. Cohen.

Threats: The lakeplain wet prairie at St. John’s SWA has been impacted by altered hydrology, fi re suppression, and invasive species encroachment. The construction of roads, the railroad grade, dikes, and ditches within and around the wildlife area have altered the hydrology of the coastal ecosystems within St. John’s Marsh SWA. Altered hydrology and fi re suppression have likely led to the establishment and spread of invasive species. Invasive reed is locally dominant within the area and within the lakeplain wet prairie EO, reed is scattered to locally common. Signifi cant portions of the wildlife area that are inundated to seasonally inundated are completely dominated by dense thickets of > 4 meter (13 ft) tall reed. Glossy buckthorn is also locally dominant within the area and is concentrated along the upland margin and where there are saturated soils. Glossy buckthorn is locally common to scattered within the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie and occurs infrequently within the lakeplain wet prairie. Within St. John’s Marsh SWA, many acres of lakeplain wet prairie have been degraded by reed invasion and many acres of lakeplain wet-mesic prairie have been lost to shrub encroachment with glossy buckthorn as one of the most prevalent shrub invaders. When these invasive species become established and dominate a system, in addition to outcompeting native vegetation, they also locally alter the hydrology and soil properties. Additional invasives found within the lakeplain wet prairie include purple loosestrife and reed canary grass, which occur locally within the element occurrence.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to reintroduce fi re as a critical disturbance factor and control invasive species within the lakeplain prairie remnants and in the surrounding landscape through fi re, mechanical removal, and herbicide application. Portions of the St. John’s Marsh SWA have been burned in the past to maintain the open conditions of the prairie and control invasive species. In addition, portions of the area have been treated with herbicide to control reed. A sustained and concentrated effort to implement fi re and control invasive species in the highest quality prairie remnants is recommended. We encourage the use of targeted herbicide treatment of reed, particularly in patches within the lakeplain wet prairie and along the perimeter of the lakeplain wet prairie. We discourage the use of broadcast spraying within the lakeplain wet prairie because of the collateral damage broadcast spraying can cause to fl oristic and faunal diversity. Mechanical control of glossy buckthorn and other woody shrubs should be followed by herbicide application to the cut stumps (e.g., glyphosate at 35%) from June through February. In addition, we recommend varying the seasonality of prescribed fi re in order to set back the woody encroachment of glossy buckthorn, as well as native shrubs that are increasing due to fi re suppression. Conducting burns in late spring after leafout or during the growing season is recommended in areas with heavy shrub encroachment. During the late spring and throughout the growing season, energy reserves of shrub species are already partially or completely depleted, and resprouting vigor is low, particularly for clonal species. Late season fi res should be used cautiously in areas with rare species, and impacts of these burns should be monitored. Repeated burns will likely be necessary to control woody seedlings (i.e., glossy buckthorn). The DNR WLD is proposing to treat the invasive reed by fl ooding signifi cant portions of the wildlife area currently dominated by the species. If fl ooding is implemented, resource managers should design the proposed hydrologic alteration so that the hydrology and soil moisture regime of the lakeplain prairies are not impacted by the fl ooding. We recommend that remnants of high-quality lakeplain prairie are not semi-permanently or permanently inundated and that their hydroperiods remain intact. Lakeplain prairies are characterized by spring fl ooding and drought conditions during the growing season (Minc 1995, Albert et al. 1996). Further research is needed, but we recommend avoiding fl ooding the lakeplain prairies during the growing season.


VI.4.1

VI.6

VII.2.2

VI.5.1VII.3

VII.2.1

VI.1.1VI.2.1

VI.1.3

IX.3.2

VII.6.1

VII.4

IX.2

VI.1.2

VIII.3.1

VIII.2.2

VII.2.3

VIII.2.1

VI.3.2

IX.1

VII.1.1

VIII.1.1

IX.6.1

IX.8

VI.3.1

VI.2.2

VII.6.3

VII.5.2

IX.6.3

VI.3.3

VIII.1.2

IX.6.2

VI.5.2

IX.3.1

VI.4.2

VIII.1.3

IX.7.2

IX.7.1

VIII.3.2

IX.7.3

VII.6.2

VIII.3.3

VII.1.2

VII.5.1

IX.5VIII.1.1

VII.6.3

VII.4

VI.2.1

N0 20 40 60 80 100 Miles


LegendCounties




0 20 40 60 80 100 Kilometers



Map 2. Distribution of lakeplain wet-mesic prairie in Michigan (Albert et al. 2008).

LAKEPLAIN WET-MESIC PRAIRIE

Overview: Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie is a native lowland grassland that occurs on moist, level, seasonally inundated glacial lakeplains in the southern Lower Peninsula. The community develops on slightly acidic to moderately alkaline sands, sandy loams, or silty clays. Natural processes that infl uence species composition and community structure include seasonal fl ooding, cyclic changes in Great Lakes water levels, fl ooding by beaver, and fi re. Prairie grasses, sedges, and a diversity of forbs dominate the community. Dominant species typically include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), common mountain mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum), tall coreopsis (Coreopsis tripteris), and marsh blazing-star (Liatris spicata). Today, lakeplain wet-mesic prairie is nearly extirpated from Michigan due to changes in land use, alteration in hydrology, fi re suppression, and subsequent colonization by shrubs and trees, and competition from invasive plants. Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie is globally imperiled and critically imperiled in Michigan. Less than 1% of the original natural community remains in Michigan (Albert and Kost 1998b, Kost et al. 2007, Cohen et al. 2015a).


2. St. John’s PrairieNatural Community Type: Lakeplain Wet-Mesic Prairie Rank: G1? S1, Likely critically imperiled globally and critically imperiled within the stateElement Occurrence Rank: CSize: 24 acresLocation: Compartment 1, St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife AreaElement Occurrence Identifi cation Number: 20638 (New EO)

Site Description: Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie and lakeplain wet prairie remnants occur on fl at lakeplain within the Saint Clair River Delta along the shore of Lake St. Clair and just north of the North Channel. Historically, frequent fi res and a seasonally fl uctuating water table maintained the open prairie conditions. The soils are characterized by sandy loam and sandy clay loam (pH 7.3-8.0) of variable depth (10-40 cm but typically 30-40 cm) over sandy clay (pH 7.4-8.0 but typically pH 7.7-8.0). Clay lenses underlying the sandy loams allow for the seasonal fl uctuation of the water table, which contributes to the open prairie conditions by preventing or limiting shrub and tree encroachment. Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie and lakeplain wet prairie intergrade within this complex with ecosystem patterning determined by very subtle differences in the depth to the clay layer and the resulting hydrologic regime. Greater depth to the clay lens in lakeplain wet-mesic prairie compared to lakeplain wet prairie results in less prolonged inundated soil conditions in lakeplain wet-mesic prairie. As a result, the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie is characterized by greater fl oristic diversity with a mixture of wetland, woodland, and prairie plants and the lakeplain wet prairie is characterized by more wetland species and a simpler fl oristic composition. Scattered ant mounds and animal trails contribute to the micro-heterogeneity of the prairie. Ants mix and aerate the soil, and their mounds provide unique establishment sites for plants. Crayfi sh burrows were also observed in wetter areas of the prairie.

The lakeplain wet-mesic prairie is dominated by graminoids and forbs with prevalent graminoids including big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), and switch grass (Panicum virgatum). Tall prairie grasses reach over two meters, and many forbs are over one meter tall. Prevalent forbs include marsh blazing-star (Liatris spicata), common mountain mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum), tall coreopsis (Coreopsis tripteris), wild-bergamot (Monarda fi stulosa), balsam ragwort (Packera paupercula), whorled loosestrife (Lysimachia quadrifl ora), Missouri ironweed (Vernonia missurica), Culver’s root (Veronicastrum virginicum), northern bog violet (Viola nephrophylla), swamp-betony (Pedicularis lanceolata), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), common milkweed (A. syriaca), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), Canada anemone (Anemone canadensis), showy tick-trefoil (Desmodium canadense), star-grass (Hypoxis hirsuta), black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta), and golden alexanders (Zizia aurea). In addition, sedges (Carex stricta, C. buxbaumii, and C. granularis), goldenrods (Solidago altissima, S. canadensis, and S. juncea), marsh wild-timothy (Muhlenbergia glomerata), and golden-seeded spike rush (Eleocharis elliptica) are common throughout the prairie, and prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) is locally abundant. Invasive reed (Phragmites australis subsp. australis) occurs scattered throughout the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie.

Scattered trees and shrubs include pin oak (Quercus palustris), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), cottonwood (P. deltoides), gray dogwood (Cornus foemina), red-osier dogwood (C. sericea), willows (Salix spp.), prickly-ash (Zanthoxylum americanum), and glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus). Shrubs occur as scattered individuals and also in scattered clumps. Glossy buckthorn occurs both scattered within the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie and as a dominant in localized shrub thickets. Areas along the margin of the prairie especially bordering the adjacent uplands have a higher density of shrubs. Low shrubs include meadowsweet (Spiraea alba), Kalm’s St. Johns-wort (Hypericum kalmianum), and blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis). Additional invasive shrubs within the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie include autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), and honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.). Compared to the adjacent lakeplain wet prairie, shrubs are more prevalent in the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie remnants.

MNFI ecologists and botanists visited this site nine times over the 2016 fi eld season. The fl oristic data was compiled into the Michigan Floristic Quality Assessment (Reznicek et al. 2014, Freyman et al. 2016). A total of 136 plant species were documented with 117 native species and 19 non-native species. The mean coeffi cient of conservatism (C) for this lakeplain wet-mesic prairie is 3.6 and the total fl oristic quality index (FQI) is 42.


Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie, St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. Photos by Joshua G. Cohen.


2010 aerial photograph of St. John’s Marsh lakeplain wet-mesic prairie.


Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie is concentrated along the upland margin in the eastern portion of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. Control of shrub encroachment along this upland margin is a critical stewardship need. Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.

Threats: The lakeplain wet-mesic prairie has been impacted by altered hydrology, fi re suppression, and invasive species encroachment. The construction of roads, the railroad grade, dikes, and ditches within and around the wildlife area have altered the hydrology of the coastal ecosystems within St. John’s Marsh SWA. Altered hydrology and fi re suppression have likely led to the establishment and spread of invasive species. Glossy buckthorn is locally dominant within the area and is concentrated along the upland margin and where there are saturated soils. Glossy buckthorn is locally common to scattered within the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie and occurs infrequently within the lakeplain wet prairie. Within St. John’s Marsh SWA, many acres of lakeplain wet-mesic prairie have been lost to shrub encroachment with glossy buckthorn as one of the most prevalent shrub invaders. Native shrubs including dogwoods are also locally common within the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie due to fi re suppression. In addition, invasive reed is locally dominant within St. John’s Marsh SWA and within the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie EO, reed is scattered to locally common. When these invasive species become established and dominate a system, in addition to outcompeting native vegetation, they also locally alter the hydrology and soil properties. Additional invasives found within the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie include autumn olive, Japanese barberry, and honeysuckles, which occur locally within the element occurrence.

Management Recommendations: The main management recommendations are to reintroduce fi re as a critical disturbance factor and control invasive species within the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie remnants and in the surrounding landscape through fi re, mechanical removal, and herbicide application. Portions of the St. John’s Marsh SWA have been burned in the past to maintain the open conditions of the prairie and control invasive species. In addition, portions of the area have been treated with herbicide to control reed. A sustained and concentrated effort to implement fi re and control invasive species in the highest quality prairie remnants is recommended. We encourage the use of targeted herbicide treatment of reed, particularly in patches within the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie and along the perimeter of the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie. We discourage the use of broadcast spraying within the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie because of the collateral damage broadcast spraying can cause to fl oristic and faunal diversity. Mechanical control of glossy buckthorn and other woody shrubs should be followed by herbicide application to the cut stumps (e.g., glyphosate at 35%) from June through February. In addition, we recommend varying the seasonality of prescribed fi re in order to set back the woody encroachment of glossy buckthorn and native shrubs that are increasing due to fi re suppression. Conducting burns in late spring after leafout or during the growing season is recommended in areas with heavy shrub encroachment. During the late spring and throughout the growing season, energy reserves of shrub species are already partially or completely depleted, and resprouting vigor is low, particularly for clonal species. Late season fi res should be used cautiously in areas with rare species, and impacts of these burns should be monitored. Controlling shrub encroachment is the highest priority management objective within the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie. The DNR WLD is proposing to treat the invasive reed by fl ooding signifi cant portions of the wildlife area currently dominated by the species. If fl ooding is implemented, resource managers should design the proposed hydrologic alteration so that the hydrology and soil moisture regime of the lakeplain prairies are not impacted by the fl ooding. We recommend that remnants of high-quality lakeplain prairie are not semi-permanently or permanently inundated and that their hydroperiods remain intact. Lakeplain prairies are characterized by spring fl ooding and drought conditions during the growing season (Minc 1995, Albert et al. 1996). Further research is needed, but we recommend avoiding fl ooding the lakeplain prairies during the growing season.


VI.4.1

VI.6

VII.2.2

VI.5.1VII.3

VII.2.1

VI.1.1VI.2.1

VI.1.3

IX.3.2

VII.6.1

VII.4

IX.2

VI.1.2

VIII.3.1

VIII.2.2

VII.2.3

VIII.2.1

VI.3.2

IX.1

VII.1.1

VIII.1.1

IX.6.1

IX.8

VI.3.1

VI.2.2

VII.6.3

VII.5.2

IX.6.3

VI.3.3

VIII.1.2

IX.6.2

VI.5.2

IX.3.1

VI.4.2

VIII.1.3

IX.7.2

IX.7.1

VIII.3.2

IX.7.3

VII.6.2

VIII.3.3

VII.1.2

VII.5.1

IX.5VIII.1.1

VII.6.3

VII.4

VI.2.1

N0 20 40 60 80 100 Miles


LegendCounties




0 20 40 60 80 100 Kilometers



Map 3. Distribution of wet-mesic fl atwoods in Michigan (Albert et al. 2008).

WET-MESIC FLATWOODS

Overview: Wet-mesic fl atwoods is a wet to mesic forest on mineral soils dominated by a highly diverse mixture of upland and lowland hardwoods. The community occurs almost exclusively on poorly drained glacial lakeplain in southeastern Lower Michigan and is typically characterized by the presence of an impervious clay layer. Seasonal inundation is the primary natural disturbance factor infl uencing wet-mesic fl atwoods. Dominant trees may include oaks, hickories, maples, ashes, and basswood (Kost et al. 2007, Slaughter et al. 2010, Cohen et al. 2015a).


3. St. John’s FlatwoodsNatural Community Type: Wet-Mesic FlatwoodsRank: G2G3 S3, vulnerable to imperiled globally and imperiled within the stateElement Occurrence Rank: D1

Size: 43 acresLocation: Compartment 1, Stands 21, 56, 62, and 63, St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife AreaElement Occurrence Identifi cation Number: 21536 (New EO)

Site Description: The Saint John’s Marsh wet-mesic fl atwoods occurs on fl at, poorly drained glacial clay lakeplain. Seasonal inundation from precipitation due to low relief and the presence of an impervious clay layer leads to the development of a patchy, sparse ground layer. Water levels are typically highest in the late winter and spring, creating many vernal pools. Strong water level fl uctuations over the growing season favor species otherwise typical of river and stream fl oodplains. Soil moisture and subsequently canopy composition shift across the site responding to slight changes in surface topography and mineral soil composition. Seasonally dry mineral soils allow for greater tree-rooting depth than in wetlands on organic soils, reducing the prevalence of windthrow. The volume of coarse woody debris within this fl atwoods is low to moderate, with the recent death of canopy green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) signifi cantly increasing the number of snags and locally opening the canopy. The role of fi re in wet-mesic fl atwoods on the lakeplain is not well understood. Historically, where wet-mesic fl atwoods bordered lakeplain prairies and lakeplain oak openings, surface fi re likely spread through portions of the community when standing water was absent. Some of the oaks appear to have open grown canopies, suggesting that a minor portion of the wet-mesic fl atwoods was historically more open and may have graded to lakeplain oak openings in places (this is especially the case in the southern portion of Stand 21). A 75 cm swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) was estimated to be over 125 years old.

This wet-mesic fl atwoods is characterized by a diverse tree canopy that refl ects variations in soil moisture as a response to slight changes in surface topography and mineral soil composition across the site. Both mesic and wetland species are present in the canopy, including swamp white oak, pin oak (Quercus palustris), bur oak (Q. macrocarpa), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), shellbark hickory (C. laciniosa), green ash, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), cottonwood (Populus deltoids), and silver maple (Acer saccharinum). Canopy green ash have been killed by Emerald Ash Borer. Canopy closure ranges from 60 to 85% with areas of more open canopy typically being open due to the die-back of canopy ash. Canopy trees are large and range in diameter from 60 to 110 cm (24-43 in). Prevalent understory species include spicebush (Lindera benzoin), prickly ash (Zanthoxylum americanum), and American elm (Ulmus americana). In addition, invasives are locally common in the understory and include Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii), glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus), and multifl ora rose (Rosa multifl ora). Density of understory and ground cover species increases with drier soils. Oak regeneration in the understory and low shrub layer is sparse to absent and has likely been impacted by the interaction of fi re suppression, competition from invasive species, and deer browse pressure. The low shrub layer is sparse to patchy (10-15%) and includes wild red raspberry (Rubus strigosus), wild gooseberry (Ribes cyonsbati), and green ash saplings. The ground layer is locally sparse due to frequent inundation. Species typical of both mesic forests and wetlands are present, including poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), sedges (Carex muskingumensis, C. lupulina, and C. sparganioides), fowl manna grass (Glyceria striata), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), common polypody (Polypodium virginianum), marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris), clear weed (Pilea pumila), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), wood nettle (Laportea canadensis), and Virginia wild-rye (Elymus virginicus).

The wet-mesic fl atwoods was surveyed October 2nd, 2017. The fl oristic data was compiled into the Michigan Floristic Quality Assessment (Reznicek et al. 2014, Freyman et al. 2016). A total of 25 plant species were documented with 22 native species and 3 non-native species. The mean coeffi cient of conservatism (C) for this wet-mesic fl atwoods is 3.8 and the total fl oristic quality index (FQI) is 19.

1 MNFI ecologists rarely include D-ranked element occurrences into MNFI’s database. One of the exceptions that is made is when a site represents an example of a rare natural community type that is poorly represented in the landscape and occurs primarily as degraded remnants. Very few examples of wet-mesic fl atwoods remain in Michigan. The few remnants that persist are degraded by invasives, fi re suppression, and altered hydrology. Within Michigan, MNFI has only documented eleven remnants, and of these eleven EOs, nine are C-ranked or lower.


Wet-mesic fl atwoods, St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. Photos by Jesse M. Lincoln.


2010 aerial photograph of St. John’s Marsh wet-mesic fl atwoods.


Threats: The wet-mesic fl atwoods has been impacted by altered hydrology, fi re suppression, and invasive species encroachment. The construction of roads, dikes, and ditches within and around the wildlife area have altered the hydrology of the coastal ecosystems within the wildlife area. A three foot deep drainage ditch surrounds the forest block that contains the southernmost fl atwoods (Stands 62 and 63). The northernmost polygon (Stand 56) is surrounded by a drainage ditch and is artifi cially fl ooded in the fall. Interpretation of aerial photography from the 1930s suggests that much of the southern three polygons (Stands 21, 62, and 63) were formerly dominated by lakeplain oak openings (likely the wet variant). Decades of fi re suppression have likely led to the conversion to wet-mesic fl atwoods. In addition, altered hydrology and fi re suppression have likely led to the establishment and spread of invasive species within the fl atwoods. Japanese barberry and glossy buckthorn are common in the understory. Multifl ora rose occurs occasionally in the understory. Japanese barberry becomes more prevalent where the soils are drier. Glossy buckthorn is concentrated along the raised areas associated with canopy tree buttresses. Canopy green ash within the fl atwoods is dead from infestation by Emerald Ash Borer. Logging and grazing likely also impacted the fl atwoods. Several roads intersect the central polygon (Stand 21), which also includes some pockets of younger swamp forest.

Management Recommendations: Invasive species monitoring and removal efforts should be implemented within the fl atwoods. The hydrology of the site should be evaluated to determine if there are any measures that could be taken to restore the site’s hydrology. Monitoring for oak regeneration is recommended to ascertain if suitable recruitment is present. Prescribed surface fi re should be evaluated as a stewardship tool to promote oak regeneration and reduce invasive shrub cover.

Wet-mesic fl atwoods, St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. Photo by Jesse M. Lincoln.


Rare Animal Survey ResultsBirdsForty-three points were surveyed for marsh birds at St. John’s Marsh SWA in 2017, with seven being done as part of the MMBS and the remaining 36 visited specifi cally for this project by MNFI (Figure 7). Seven of the points were surveyed three times, 26 were visited twice, and 10 were surveyed once during the 2017 breeding season between May 9th and June 16th, 2017. Prior to these surveys, element occurrences for seven marsh bird species were known from the natural heritage database (Table 2). Although the polygons for the common tern and Forster’s tern occurrences cover western portions of the wildlife area, these records are based on nesting colonies observed outside of St. John’s Marsh SWA on other parts of the St. Clair Flats SWA (Figure 11). We are not aware of documented nesting colonies occurring within St. John’s Marsh SWA. During 2017 surveys, we observed Forster’s terns foraging within the wildlife area near four (9%) of the survey points (see Appendix 6), and common tern were observed foraging along the main dike. Because we only observed foraging Forster’s and common terns, we did not update the existing EOs. In the natural heritage database, we typically limit tern EOs to confi rmed observations of nesting activity.

We updated four of the other the fi ve EOs documented within the wildlife area using the results of the intensive 2017 survey effort, as well as information gathered since 2013 on the MMBS route located at St. John’s Marsh SWA (Figure 12). Appendix 6 provides detailed results of surveys occurring at St. John’s Marsh SWA from 2013 to 2017 by individual survey point. Numerous new locations were identifi ed for American bittern, least bittern, common gallinule, and marsh wren in 2017, with widespread use of the marsh being observed for all four species (Figure 12). We detected American bittern at 26% of the survey points, least bittern at 35%, common gallinule at 30%, and marsh wren at 54% of the survey points. We did not detect king rail during 2017 surveys. Black tern was also not observed during surveys, but is known to nest in similar habitats as the Forster’s tern in the St. Clair Flats SWA.

In addition to the rare species noted above, we documented several other bird species using St. John’s Marsh SWA in 2017. Swamp sparrow is a common species in a variety of wetland types and was detected at 43% of the survey points. Pied-billed grebe, sora, and Virginia rail were regularly observed during surveys, being recorded at 37%, 26%, and 19% of the survey points, respectively. Less commonly detected species were sedge wren (11% of points), American coot (9% of points), mallard (9% of points), wood duck (5% of points), and sandhill crane (5% of points). Although not recorded during marsh bird surveys, several other species were commonly observed incidentally, including tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus).

Figure 11. Rare tern occurrences within and in the vicinity of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.

Nesting colonies for common tern (Sterna hirunda, pictured above) and Forster’s tern (S. forsteri) have been documented in the nearby St. Clair Flats State Wildlife Area and terns utilize St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area for foraging. Photo by Aaron P. Kortenhoven.


Figure 12. Rare marsh bird occurrences within St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. EOs for American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), common gallinule (Gallinula galeata), and marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) were updated following 2017 surveys.

Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) was observed at 54% of the points surveyed in 2017 in St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. Photo by Aaron P. Kortenhoven.


HerptilesAmphibian and reptile surveys in the St. John’s Marsh SWA in 2017 documented the following six amphibian and three reptile species (Appendix 2): northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), green frog (Lithobates clamitans), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus), American toad (Anaxyrus americanus americanus), eastern gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon), and painted turtle (Chrysemys picta). Northern leopard frogs were particularly common on the dikes and in the wetlands that were surveyed. No rare amphibian or reptile species or SGCN were found during the targeted surveys or incidentally during other MNFI surveys in the wildlife area in 2017. Surveys were not able to reconfi rm previously documented EOs of eastern fox snake and spotted turtle or document Blanding’s turtles within the St. John’s Marsh SWA (Figure 13, Table 2).

Although eastern fox snakes, spotted turtles, and Blanding’s turtles were not observed during surveys in 2017, suitable wetland and aquatic habitats for these species is available within the wildlife area. Suitable habitat for these species occurs within the St. John’s Prairie lakeplain wet prairie (EO ID 8228) and lakeplain wet-mesic prairie (EO ID 20638), especially within the wetter and more open areas of lakeplain prairie. The small ponds (i.e., potholes) at the north end of the wildlife area, diked impoundments, ditches, and coastal/emergent marshes also provide suitable habitat for these species, although many of the marsh areas are now dominated by invasive reed.

Suitable upland habitat for these three species also is available throughout and adjacent to the wildlife area. The grassy dikes throughout the wildlife area and several open upland stands near the north end of the wildlife area west of Macomb, Starville, and Swartout Roads provide suitable basking and/or nesting habitat for these species. Suitable nesting habitat for turtles, in general, appeared to be limited within the St. John’s Marsh SWA, although residential lawns and yards adjacent to the wildlife area may provide additional nesting habitat.

Suitable habitat for other rare and/or SGCN herptile species is available within St. John’s Marsh SWA, especially for the pickerel frog, northern ribbon snake, smooth green snake, and Butler’s garter snake. The lakeplain wet prairie and wet-mesic prairie EOs, grassy dikes, and edges of the impoundments, ditches, and marshy areas provide suitable or potential habitat for these species. The lakeplain wet prairie and wet-mesic prairie EOs also provide suitable habitat for Kirtland’s snakes. These snakes are primarily associated with crayfi sh burrows (Harding 1997), and a number of crayfi sh burrows were observed in the lakeplain

wet prairie and wet-mesic prairie EOs. The forests within the wildlife area may provide suitable or potential habitat for eastern box turtles and gray ratsnakes, but these habitats were limited within the St. John’s Marsh SWA (although they did extend onto adjacent private lands). In addition, some of the forests may be too wet and closed-canopied for these species. Suitable nesting habitat for eastern box turtles also appeared to be limited.

Several other wildlife species were observed incidentally during the amphibian and reptile surveys. These included: several monarch butterfl ies (Danaus plexippus) in the lakeplain prairie at the southern end of the wildlife area east of the dike; a great blue heron (Ardea herodias), an American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus, state special concern), and two ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) on the dike at the south end of the wildlife area by one of the lakeplain prairies; and an American mink (Neovison vison) crossing the dike. These were all observed during surveys in September and October 2017.

InsectsWe relocated blazing star borer within St. John’s Marsh SWA during 2017 blacklighting surveys. Blazing star borer was fi rst discovered in the area in September of 1999 (Table 2). Two locations contained the moth during 2017 surveys, and both are slightly west and north of the original discovery (Figure 14). Within Site 1, a total of fi ve adult blazing star borers (three males, two females) were collected. Within Site 2, two adult blazing star borers were collected. These two specimens had worn scales on their wings, indicating that these moths had been fl ying for a few days to a week before capture. The element occurrence polygon for blazing star borer was updated to incorporate this information. No Culver’s root borers or Maritime sunfl ower borers were observed during the 2017 survey, although host plants for both species still exist here in the lakeplain prairies, and with further surveys, both species have a high likelihood of being observed.

Blazing star borer (Papaipema beeriana, state special concern). Photo by David Cuthrell.


Figure 13. Rare herptile occurrences within St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.


Figure 14. Rare insect occurrences within St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.


Natural Community Discussion and RecommendationsSetting Stewardship PrioritiesThreats such as invasive species, fi re suppression, and altered hydrology are common across St. John’s Marsh SWA. Because the list of stewardship needs for the wildlife area may outweigh available resources, prioritizing activities is a pragmatic necessity. In general, prioritization of stewardship should focus on the highest quality examples of the rarest natural community types and the largest sites. Biodiversity is most easily and effectively protected by preventing high-quality sites from degrading, and invasive plants are much easier to eradicate when they are not yet well established, and their local population size is small. Within St. John’s Marsh SWA, we recommend that stewardship efforts be focused in the areas of high-quality lakeplain prairie since these rare wetlands harbor high levels of biodiversity and provide potential habitat for numerous rare plant and animal species.

Lakeplain Prairie Restoration Within Michigan, both lakeplain wet prairie and lakeplain wet-mesic prairie are classifi ed as critically imperiled. Statewide, there are only 15 documented occurrences of lakeplain wet prairie and 25 occurrences of lakeplain wet-mesic prairie. Globally, lakeplain wet prairie is imperiled and lakeplain wet-mesic prairie is likely critically imperiled. In addition, lakeplain prairie ecosystems provide habitat for both game and non-game species. Numerous rare species that depend on lakeplain ecosystems have been documented within the lakeplain prairie within St. John’s Marsh SWA. Element occurrence records are known from within the wildlife area for the following rare species that are associated with lakeplain prairie: blazing star borer (Papaipema beeriana, state special concern), leafhopper (Flexamia refl exa, state special concern), leafhopper (Dorydiella kansana, state special concern), eastern fox snake (Pantherophis gloydi, state threatened), white lady slipper (Cypripedium candidum, state threatened), and Sullivant’s milkweed (Asclepias sullivantii, state threatened). In addition to harboring numerous rare species, lakeplain prairie ecosystems support high fl oristic diversity. The FQI for both lakeplain prairie element occurrences was over 35 (38.6 for the lakeplain wet prairie and 42 for the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie). Herman et al. (2001) suggest that Michigan sites with an FQI of 35 or greater “possess suffi cient conservatism and richness that they are fl oristically important from a statewide perspective”. In a report summarizing statewide biodiversity stewardship priorities along the coastal zone of Michigan, MNFI scientists determined that lakeplain prairie ecosystems were among the highest ranking stewardship priorities in the state (Cohen and Slaughter 2015).

DISCUSSIONGiven the rarity of these ecosystems and the critical habitat they provide for both plants and animals, the management of these occurrences of lakeplain wet prairie and lakeplain wet-mesic prairie is a biodiversity stewardship priority. With the rapid spread of reed and glossy buckthorn, the pockets of remnant lakeplain wet prairie and lakeplain wet-mesic prairie are shrinking. A biodiversity management priority for St. John’s Marsh SWA is to control the spread of invasive species and eliminate clusters of invasive species from the highest quality lakeplain prairie remnants. We recommend using prescribed fi re, mechanical removal, and herbicide application to achieve this outcome. As noted above, if the DNR fl oods portions of the wildlife area, they should design the proposed hydrologic alteration so that the hydrology and soil moisture regime of the lakeplain prairies are not negatively impacted by the fl ooding and to make sure that remnants of high-quality lakeplain prairie are not semi-permanently or permanently inundated. In addition, care should be taken to ensure that the hydroperiod of the lakeplain prairies is not altered. Lakeplain prairies are characterized by spring fl ooding and drought conditions during the growing season (Minc 1995, Albert et al. 1996). Although further research is needed, we suggest that fl ooding of lakeplain prairie be avoided during the growing season. Caution is warranted given that fl ooding management on nearby Harsens Island has likely contributed to the loss and degradation of lakeplain prairie ecosystems. Inundated areas of former lakeplain prairie on Harsens Island are now dominated by reed. Finally, monitoring of all management activities is recommended to facilitate adaptive management. Monitoring can help inform adaptive management by gauging the success of lakeplain prairie restoration at meeting the goals of reducing invasive species populations.

Invasive Species Control and MonitoringInvasive species pose a major threat to species diversity and habitat heterogeneity within St. John’s Marsh SWA. By out-competing and replacing native species, invasive species can change fl oristic composition of natural communities, alter vegetative structure, and reduce native species diversity, often causing local or even complete extinction of native species (Harty 1986). Invasive species can also upset delicately balanced ecological processes such as trophic relationships, interspecifi c competition, nutrient cycling, soil erosion, hydrologic balance, and solar insolation (Bratton 1982). Non-native invasive species often have no natural predators and spread aggressively through rapid sexual and asexual reproduction. As noted above, invasive reed and glossy buckthorn are encroaching on the lakeplain prairie,


invasive reed is dominant throughout the degraded Great Lakes marsh, and advanced regeneration in the understory of the forested stands in St. John’s Marsh SWA is infl uenced by the interaction of competition from invasive shrubs, fi re suppression, and altered hydrology.

We recommend that invasive species management at St. John’s Marsh SWA should focus on controlling populations of pernicious invasive species within the high-quality lakeplain prairie. As noted above, we recommend using prescribed fi re, mechanical removal, and herbicide application to achieve this outcome. Lower stewardship priorities within St. John’s Marsh SWA are the management of the degraded wet-mesic fl atwoods and degraded Great Lakes marsh, with the marsh being a higher priority because of the wide array of species relying on this emergent wetland, including numerous rare marsh birds.

Very few examples of wet-mesic fl atwoods remain in Michigan. The few remnants that persist are degraded by invasives, fi re suppression, and altered hydrology. Within Michigan, MNFI has only documented eleven remnants, and of these eleven EOs, nine are C-ranked or lower. Within areas of wet-mesic fl atwoods in St. John’s Marsh SWA, invasive species management should rely

on the multi-faceted approach of using prescribed surface fi re, mechanical removal, and herbicide application to control invasive shrubs in the understory and foster oak recruitment.

The treatment of invasive reed within the areas of degraded Great Lakes marsh is more complicated (see below discussion about management for marsh birds and invasive reed). Without a management intervention, it is likely that reed will continue to become ever more dominant. Potential treatment options include managed fl ooding, herbicide application, prescribed fi re, and combinations of these control mechanisms. What technique is optimal for controlling the invasive reed while improving the ecological integrity of the marsh and the population viability of the rare species that depend on it is unknown. Whatever management strategy is implemented needs to be monitored to gauge the success of control, impacts to the ecosystem and species that depend on it, and facilitate adaptive management. Finally, across the wildlife area, we recommend periodic early-detection surveys to allow for the identifi cation of invasive species that have yet to establish a stronghold within St. John’s Marsh SWA.

Within St. John’s Marsh SWA, we recommend that stewardship efforts be focused in areas of high-quality lakeplain prairie. These globally rare wetlands harbor high levels of biodiversity, provide potential habitat for numerous rare species, and are currently threatened by encroaching reed (foreground) and glossy buckthorn (background). Photo by Joshua G. Cohen.


Invasive reed encroaching on lakeplain wet prairie. In the above photo, reed is the scattered pale green plant. Where reed is dominant (below), it can outcompete native vegetation and alter the local hydrology and soils. Photo above by Matthew J. Lewis and photo below by Joshua G. Cohen.


Fire as an Ecological ProcessMuch of the land within St. John’s Marsh SWA historically supported fi re-dependent ecosystems, including lakeplain prairie and lakeplain oak openings. In the past, lightning- and human-set fi res frequently spread over large areas of southern Michigan and other Midwestern states, helping to reduce colonization by trees and shrubs, fostering regeneration of fi re-dependent species, and maintaining the open physiognomy or structure of many ecosystems (Curtis 1959, Dorney 1981, Grimm 1984). In the absence of frequent fi res, prairie and open oak systems have converted to closed-canopy forests dominated by shade-tolerant native and invasive species (Cohen 2001, Lee and Kost 2008). The conversion of oak savanna and prairie ecosystems to closed-canopy forest typically results in signifi cant reductions in species and habitat diversity (Curtis 1959, McCune and Cottam 1985, McClain et al. 1993, Wilhelm 1991). Efforts to restore lakeplain prairie within St. John’s SWA will depend in part on the implementation of frequent prescribed fi re.

Closed-canopy wet-mesic fl atwoods within St. John’s Marsh SWA are also negatively impacted by fi re suppression and are experiencing strong regeneration of thin-barked, shade-tolerant or mesophytic invasive shrubs such as Japanese barberry, multifl ora rose, and glossy buckthorn. These invasive mesophytic species compete with oaks and contribute to the regeneration failure of oaks. Within these wet-mesic fl atwoods, application of prescribed surface fi res would reduce the density of shade-tolerant invasive shrubs and help facilitate increased recruitment of fi re-adapted and fi re-dependent shrubs, oaks, and herbaceous species.

Plant communities benefi t from prescribed fi re in several ways. Depending on the season and intensity of a burn, prescribed fi re may be used to decrease the cover of invasive woody species, and increase the cover of native grasses and forbs (White 1983, Abrams and Hulbert 1987, Tester 1989, Collins and Gibson 1990, Glenn-Lewin et al. 1990, Anderson and Schwegman 1991). Prescribed fi re helps reduce litter levels, allowing sunlight to reach the soil surface and stimulate seed germination and enhance seedling establishment (Daubenmire 1968, Hulbert 1969, Knapp 1984, Tester 1989, Anderson and Schwegman 1991, Warners 1997). Important plant nutrients (e.g., N, P, K, Ca, and Mg) are elevated following prescribed fi re (Daubenmire 1968, Viro 1974, Reich et al. 1990, Schmalzer and Hinkle 1992). Burning has been shown to result in increased plant biomass, fl owering, and seed production (Abrams et al. 1986, Laubhan 1995, Warners 1997, Kost and De Steven 2000). Prescribed fi re can also help express and rejuvenate seed banks, which may be especially important for maintaining species diversity (Leach and

Givnish 1996, Kost and De Steven 2000). Many host plants for rare insect species are fi re-dependent plant species.

Although prescribed fi re typically improves the overall quality of habitat for many animal species, its impact on rare animals should be considered when planning a burn. Larger, more mobile, and subterranean animals can temporarily move out of an area being burned. Smaller and less mobile species can die in fi res; this includes some rare insects (Panzer 1998) and reptiles. Where rare invertebrates and herptiles are a management concern, burning strategies should allow for ample refugia to facilitate effective post-burn recolonization (Siemann et al. 1997). When burning relatively large areas, it may be desirable to strive for patchy burns by burning either when fuels are somewhat patchy or when weather conditions will not support hot, unbroken fi re lines (such as can occur under atypically warm, dry weather and steady winds). These unburned patches may then serve as refugia, which can facilitate recolonization of burned patches by fi re-sensitive species. In addition, burning under overcast skies and when air temperatures are cool (< 13 °C or 55 °F) can help protect reptiles, because they are less likely to be found basking above the surface when conditions are cloudy and cool. Conducting burns during the dormant season (late October through March) may also help minimize impacts to reptiles. Insects and herptiles, characterized by fl uctuating population densities, poor dispersal ability, and patchy distribution, rely heavily on unburned sanctuaries from which they can reinvade burned areas (Panzer 1998). Dividing large contiguous areas into two or more separate burn units or non-fi re refugia that can be burned in alternate years or seasons can protect populations of many species. This allows unburned units to serve as refugia for immobile invertebrates and slow-moving herptile species, such as eastern box turtle. Panzer (2002) found that as long as a year or more of recovery time exists between fi res, prescribed fi re can be used successfully in small, isolated remnants that contain fi re-sensitive invertebrates.

We recommend that the seasonality of burns be varied across the wildlife area. Prescribed fi re is often seasonally restricted to spring. Fires have the greatest impact on those plants that are actively growing at the time of the burn. Repeated fi res at the same time of year impact the same species year after year, and over time, can lower fl oristic diversity (Howe 1994, Copeland et al. 2002). For example, forbs that fl ower in early spring often overwinter as a green rosette or may have buds very close to the soil surface and in the litter layer. Repeated burns in early spring can be detrimental to these species. Historically, fi res burned in a variety of seasons, including spring, during the growing season, and fall (Howe 1994, Copeland et al. 2002, Petersen and Drewa 2006). The natural communities


historically found at St. John’s Marsh SWA, including lakeplain prairie, lakeplain oak openings, and wet-mesic fl atwoods, likely burned primarily in late summer and early fall. Varying the seasonality of prescribed burns to match the full range of historical variability better mimics the natural disturbance regime and can lead to higher biodiversity (Howe 1994, Copeland et al. 2002). In other words, pyrodiversity (that is, a diversity of burn seasons and fi re intensity) leads to biodiversity.

Repeated early spring burns are of particular concern in lakeplain prairie and degraded wet-mesic fl atwoods where a goal for prescribed burning is control of invasive woody species. Prior to bud break and leaf fl ushing, the vast majority of energy in a woody plant is stored in roots as carbohydrate reserves (Richburg 2005). As plants expend energy to make leaves, fl owers and fruits, these carbohydrate reserves diminish, reaching a seasonal low during fl owering and fruiting. As fall approaches, energy root reserves are replenished. Thus, when woody species are top-killed by early spring fi res, they are able to resprout vigorously using large energy stores (Cohen et al. 2009). However, if burns are conducted later in the spring after leafout, or during the growing season, energy reserves are already partially depleted, and resprouting vigor is lower, particularly for clonal species (Axelrod and Irving 1978, Reich et al. 1990, Sparks et al. 1998).

Resource managers restrict prescribed fi re to the early spring for numerous reasons including ease of controlling burns, greater windows of opportunity for conducting burns because suitable burning conditions are often most prevalent this time of year, and to reduce the probability of detrimentally impacting fi re-sensitive animal species, such as herptiles (e.g., eastern box turtle). Although these are all legitimate reasons, we feel that the long-term benefi ts of diversifying burn seasonality across the wildlife area outweigh the costs and that ultimately, successful restoration of fi re-dependent ecosystems at St. John’s Marsh SWA will depend on expansion of the burn season beyond early spring. Several techniques for reducing the risk to fi re-sensitive species can be employed during burns in the summer and fall. For example, burn specialists can establish rotating refugia within large burn units and avoid burning within and around rotted logs, vernal pools, and seepage areas. In addition, slow-burning fi res can be utilized to allow species time to move out of the path of the fi re and/or into refugia. Finally, we recommend conducting surveys of the treatment area for rare herptiles prior to burning, temporarily removing any rare herptiles from the treatment area, and returning them to the area where they were found after the treatment.

Rare Animal Discussion and Management RecommendationsBirdsDespite degradation by invasive reed, the Great Lakes marsh in St. John’s Marsh SWA is providing habitat for a variety of rare and common marsh bird species. Appendix 7 provides general habitat requirements for the bird species of conservation concern (i.e., state listed, DNR featured species, SGCN, and Joint Venture focal species) that were detected during 2017 surveys. Because of the large area of emergent wetland present within the wildlife area, as well as its position within the larger St. Clair Flats wetland complex, St. John’s Marsh SWA attracts and supports species requiring large home ranges (e.g., American bittern), while also providing habitat for those species with smaller territories (e.g., rails, songbirds). The assemblage of marsh bird species using the wildlife area benefi ts from having multiple wetland types in close proximity, including Great Lakes marsh, lakeplain prairie, aquatic bed wetland, and open water areas. American bittern, king rail, sora, black tern, and Wilson’s snipe are focal species of the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture, so detailed information about habitat requirements, limiting factors, and recommended habitat actions are provided in the focal species accounts of the recently revised Waterbird Habitat Conservation Strategy (Soulliere et al. 2018) and the Shorebird Habitat Conservation Strategy (Potter et al. 2007).

Priority actions identifi ed in the regional Waterbird Strategy for American bittern, king rail, and sora include retaining existing wetlands that support high population abundance of focal species, restoring wetlands within the breeding range, and managing marshes degraded by invasive plant species (Soulliere et al. 2018). Recommendations for Wilson’s snipe are similar, including the protection of existing habitat area, restoration/enhancement of breeding habitat, and management of wetlands that sets back vegetation too dense or tall for breeding (Potter et al. 2007). King rail and black tern are also focal species for the conservation of Great Lakes and inland emergent wetlands in Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) (Derosier et al. 2015), which summarizes the needs and recommendations for these species and ecosystems. High priority conservation actions listed for black tern in the WAP are to identify limiting factors and determine key habitat components for black tern colony site selection and causes of colony abandonment (Derosier et al. 2015). Derosier et al. (2015) highlighted the need to identify the factors limiting king rail populations and describe the current habitat use across the Great Lakes region. We recommend continuing marsh bird surveys at St. John’s Marsh annually on a small scale as part of the MMBS and periodically (e.g., every 5-10 years) on a larger scale similar to the 2017 survey effort. These surveys would


allow use by rare and common marsh bird species to be tracked over time and would provide an opportunity to evaluate the effects of management actions. The need for secretive marsh bird monitoring to inform conservation decision-making was emphasized by both the WAP and regional Waterbird Habitat Conservation Strategy (Derosier et al. 2015, Souilliere et al. 2018).

Continuing management to limit the degradation caused by invasive reed would benefi t the birds using the wildlife area. A framework for managing reed was developed by experienced practitioners and presented in A Guide to the Control and Management of Invasive Phragmites (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 2014). For large, dense reed stands, such as those in St. John’s Marsh SWA, a multi-year approach consisting of both herbicide application and prescribed fi re is recommended. Follow-up monitoring to assess the success of management efforts is critical, and the Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative (https://www.greatlakesphragmites.net/) has been developing the Phragmites Adaptive Management Framework (PAMF) in an effort to create management approaches that maximize effectiveness and effi ciency. Partners managing reed are encouraged to participate in the PAMF and use its monitoring protocol and centralized database to facilitate the adaptive management process.

For wetland units with existing water level management control at St. John’s Marsh, we recommend fl uctuating water levels to mimic natural coastal wetland hydrology. However, managing water levels in Great Lakes coastal wetland complexes is complicated given the presence of multiple invasive plant species. Further, recent research in the region on the effectiveness of wetland management in maintaining native plant diversity has been mixed. Galloway et al. (2006) and Thiet (2002) found greater wetland plant diversity in diked wetlands compared to nearby undiked sites, whereas Herrick and Wolf (2005) observed greater overall levels of invasive plant species in diked wetlands. Invasive cattail (Typha angustifolia, T. x glauca) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) were favored in the diked sites, but invasive reed was most abundant in undiked wetlands (Herrick and Wolf 2005). During investigations of diked and undiked wetlands of the St. Clair Flats and Saginaw Bay, researchers similarly found invasive reed more abundant in undiked wetlands and invasive cattails more common in diked sites (Albert and Brown 2008, Monfi ls et al. 2014). Although Albert and Brown (2008) observed similar overall native plant diversity in diked and undiked Saginaw Bay wetlands, native plant diversity was greater in diked sites of the St. Clair Flats due to the dominance of invasive reed in undiked wetlands. Much of the recent research conducted on this subject occurred during a prolonged period of low

Great Lakes water levels. More study is needed during average to high water levels to determine how invasive plant species in undiked wetlands respond to hydrological changes and if the vegetation patterns previously observed persist. Periodic drawdowns could help encourage/maintain diverse plant communities of the diked units at St. John’s Marsh SWA and limit the spread of invasive narrow-leaved and hybrid cattail, which are often associated with nutrient-rich wetlands and stabilized hydroperiods (Wilson and Keddy 1986, Wisheu and Keddy 1992, Herrick and Wolf 2005). However, drawdowns could also encourage the germination of seeds of invasive plant species located within the seed bank, including invasive reed. Conducting late-season (e.g., late July) drawdowns may reduce the germination of invasive reed seeds compared to earlier drawdowns (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 2014). Given past research fi ndings, any water level management should be accompanied by careful monitoring of the vegetative response, so that appropriate invasive species control can be quickly implemented if needed. In addition, as noted above, care should be taken to ensure that the hydrology of the adjacent lakeplain prairies is not negatively impacted by any managed fl ooding and to make sure that remnants of high-quality lakeplain prairie are not inundated for a signifi cant portion of the growing season (i.e., hydroperiods should remain within the natural range of variation).

Water levels within the small forested unit with water level management control (i.e., greentree reservoir) should similarly mimic natural hydroperiods and variability. Fredrickson and Batema (1993) presented guidelines for the management of impounded forested wetlands for wildlife and suggested the best approach is to duplicate the natural hydrological regime at a site. The hydrology of wet-mesic fl atwoods needs more study. These systems likely are inundated in the spring, with occassional fl ooding in the fall, and drying during the growing season. Fredrickson and Batema (1993) stressed the dynamic, fl uctuating nature of the hydroperiods within forested wetlands and suggested that managed fl ooding initiation, duration, and depth should not be the same in two consecutive years. They also recommended that water depths not exceed 45 cm (18 in). Prolonged fl ooding (e.g., every year and/or beyond the typical dormant season) can be detrimental to forest health and lead to reduced mast production, increased tree mortality, reduced tree diversity, and reduced herbaceous plant diversity and cover (Fredrickson and Batema 1993).


Despite degradation by invasive reed, emergent wetlands within St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area support populations of numerous marsh birds, including several rare species. Forty-three points were surveyed for marsh birds in 2017, resulting in the update of four rare bird EOs. Numerous new locations were identifi ed for American bittern, least bittern (pictured above), common gallinule (pictured below), and marsh wren, with widespread use of the marsh being observed for all four species. Above photo by Clay M. Wilton and below photo by Rebecca Loiselle.

HerptilesAlthough we did not document rare amphibian and reptile species in 2017, good potential exists for some of these species to occur in the St. John’s Marsh SWA based on known occurrences and/or available habitat within and around the wildlife area. These species include the eastern fox snake, spotted turtle, and Blanding’s turtle. Eastern fox snakes were last documented in the St. John’s Marsh SWA in 2010 (Table 2, MNFI 2018a). An adjacent landowner encountered in the fi eld during MNFI’s surveys in 2017 reported seeing an eastern fox snake on his property adjacent to the lakeplain wet prairie at the south end of the wildlife area. Numerous observations of eastern fox snakes also have been documented recently (i.e., last observed between 2008 and 2013) in the surrounding area (e.g., Algonac State Park, Harsen’s Island, and Dickinson Island) (MNFI 2018a). Spotted turtles have not been documented in St. John’s Marsh SWA since 1991 (Table 2), but they were found in coastal and diked wetlands on Dickinson Island and Harsen’s Island in the St. Clair Flats SWA in 2007 and 2009 (MNFI 2018a). Blanding’s turtles have not been documented in St. John’s Marsh SWA, but multiple adults and a juvenile of this species have been found in the surrounding area on Dickinson and Harsen’s Islands in the St. Clair Flats SWA and Algonac State Park between 2005 and 2014 (MNFI 2018a).

The eastern fox snake EO within the St. John’s Marsh SWA (i.e., Anchor Bay EO, EO ID 14076) is a sub-EO and part of a larger eastern fox snake population that encompasses several EOs in the surrounding area (Figure 15). NatureServe’s element occurrence specifi cations for medium and large colubrid snakes, which include the eastern fox snake, specify that sites separated by less than 10 km (6 mi) of suitable habitat, less than 1 km (0.6 mi) of unsuitable habitat, and no barriers (i.e., busy highway or highway with obstructions such that snakes rarely if ever cross successfully; major river, lake, pond, or deep marsh for upland species, does not apply to aquatic or wetland snakes; or densely urbanized area dominated by buildings and pavement), should be part of the same EO (Hammerson 2013). The separation distances are based on available information on movements and home range sizes of several medium or large colubrid snakes which indicate several species make extensive movements of up to several kilometers (Lougheed et al. 1999, Blouin-Demers and Weatherhead 2002, Row et al. 2012, Hammerson 2013). Eastern fox snakes also frequently move along shorelines through various habitat types, including disturbed habitats, and can swim considerable distances in open water (e.g., up to 10 km to offshore islands in the Georgian Bay area) (MacKinnon 2005, MacKinnon et al. 2006, Eastern Foxsnake Recovery Team 2010). As a result, the Anchor Bay EO (EO ID 14076) within the St. John’s Marsh SWA,


the Harsen’s Island EO (EO ID 7280) and Gull Island EO (EO ID 19501) to the south, the Algonac State Park/Jankow Road/Blazing Star Prairie EO (EO ID 4535) to the east, and the Fair Haven EO (EO ID 19684) to the northwest were combined to form one large eastern fox snake EO comprised of a parent EO (Algonac State Park/Jankow Road/Blazing Star Prairie EO) and four sub-EOs (Table 4, Figure 15) (MNFI 2018a).

the sub-EOs that comprise this population, and the long history of eastern fox snake occurrence in this area (i.e., the eastern fox snake sub-EO at Algonac State Park was fi rst documented in 1901) (Table 4). Collectively, this eastern fox snake population represents one of the largest known populations of this species in the state in terms of the extent and number of eastern fox snake locations and available habitat (Figure 15).

Eastern fox snake is a focal species for the conservation of Great Lakes and inland emergent wetlands in Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) (Derosier et al. 2015), which summarizes the needs and recommendations for this species and these ecosystems. High priority conservation actions listed for eastern fox snake in the WAP are to identify limiting factors for the eastern fox snake to aid management and identify hibernacula and nesting areas (Derosier et al. 2015). Additional surveys and monitoring for eastern fox snakes should be conducted to determine the status, size, distribution, and extent of the Anchor Bay EO within St. John’s Marsh SWA. Surveys should focus on the lakeplain prairie EOs, coastal marsh habitats, and the small ponds or potholes and adjacent habitat at the north end of the game area. Surveys also should be conducted along the dikes and in other open upland habitats and forest edges to look for individuals that may be basking, nesting, or foraging. Eastern fox snakes are cryptic and can be challenging to fi nd, particularly during the summer when the vegetation is thicker and snakes are spending more time under cover because of warmer ambient temperatures.

Coverboard surveys used in conjunction with visual encounter surveys, particularly in the summer and fall, may help increase one’s ability to detect eastern fox snakes. Additional research on eastern fox snake movement, habitat use, and population ecology and demographics also would help inform management and conservation of this population.

Table 4. Eastern fox snake (Pantherophis vulpinus, state threatened) element occurrences within and in the vicinity of St. John’s Marsh Wildlife Area. EO rank abbreviations are as follows: B – good estimated viability; BC – good to fair estimated viability; C – fair estimated viability; CD – fair to poor estimated viability; and D? = possibly poor estimated viability. “P” refers to parent EO, and “S” refers to sub-EO. * denotes the estimated viability rank for the parent EO and the overall EO/population.

1 Sub-EO within St. John’s Marsh SWA. 2 Parent EO and sub-EOs outside of St. John’s Marsh SWA.

EO ID EO Rank Year First Observed Year Last Observed

14076 (S)1 BC 2002 20104535 (P)2 B* 1901 20087280 (S)2 BC 1907 2009

19684 (S)2 D? 2013 201319501 (S)2 CD 2009 2009

The eastern fox snake Anchor Bay EO (EO ID 14076) within the St. John’s Marsh SWA was ranked as having good to fair estimated viability or probability of persisting into the foreseeable future (i.e., at least 20-30 years) because extensive habitat still appears to be available at this site, and the EO is protected as a state wildlife area and is connected to other eastern fox snake EOs. However, the limited number of eastern fox snake observations and the level of habitat disturbance and degradation within this EO due to invasive species (i.e., reed), woody encroachment, and hydrological alterations, led to uncertainty regarding the persistence of this EO into the foreseeable future under current conditions. This EO likely requires active management and may persist but potentially not at current or historical population sizes. Additional information on eastern fox snake population size at this site is needed to estimate viability of this EO more precisely.

Although several sub-EOs that comprise this eastern fox snake population have been ranked as having fair or poor estimated viability, this population as a whole may have good estimated viability or probability of persisting into the foreseeable future (i.e., 20-30 years) (Table 4). This is based on extensive suitable habitat, the large number of eastern fox snakes that have been observed across all Eastern fox snake. Photo by Yu Man Lee.


Figure 15. Eastern fox snake (Pantherophis vulpinus, state threatened) element occurrences within and in the vicinity of St. John’s Marsh Wildlife Area.


The spotted turtle population or St. John’s Marsh EO (EO ID 3845) within the St. John’s Marsh SWA was ranked as having fair estimated viability or probability of persisting into the foreseeable future (i.e., 20-30 years), based on NatureServe’s generic guidelines for ranking EOs (Hammerson et al. 2008). Only a small number of turtles have been documented at this site, and the species was last documented at the site over 20 years ago (MNFI 2018a). However, the species still has potential to occur in the wildlife area based on available habitat, their typical life span, and history of occurrence at this site. Spotted turtles were fi rst observed in the St. John’s Marsh SWA in the early 1970s, and last documented in the area in 1991 (MNFI 2018a). Given that spotted turtles can live up to 65 to 110 years (Litzgus 2006) and there is still suitable habitat within the wildlife area, it seems probable that spotted turtles still occur within the wildlife area. Additionally, a spotted turtle population has been documented on Harsen’s and Dickinson Islands (EO ID 120). The species was fi rst documented at this site in 1962, and last documented in 2009 (MNFI 2018a). Several spotted turtles have been documented within the St. Clair Flats SWA, and the habitat in which the turtles were found also has been invaded by

invasive reed (MNFI 2018a). If spotted turtles can continue to persist on Harsen’s and Dickinson Island within the St. Clair Flats SWA, it seems plausible for them to still occur within the St. John’s Marsh SWA.

Additional surveys for spotted turtles should be conducted within the wildlife area in shallow ponds and wetlands, including the lakeplain prairie EOs, shallow margins of coastal marshes, and vernal pools. Surveys also should be conducted in areas with suitable upland or terrestrial habitats, such as along the grassy dikes and in other open fi elds and woodlands near suitable wetland habitats, particularly during the mating and nesting seasons in late spring and summer (Ward et al. 1976, Lee 2000b). In addition to visual encounter surveys, trapping using aquatic funnel traps also could be conducted in shallow aquatic or wetland habitats to increase the potential for detection of this species. Additional surveys, monitoring, and research are needed to determine the size, distribution and extent of this population; habitat use, including nesting and overwintering sites; and threats facing this population to help inform management and conservation efforts.

Spotted turtle. Photo by Kile Kucher.


Management and protection of the eastern fox snake and spotted turtle populations in the St. John’s Marsh SWA are crucial given the rare and declining status and vulnerable life history of these species and the wildlife area’s goal of protecting natural and cultural resources. The eastern fox snake population at St. John’s Marsh SWA is particularly important because it is part of one of only fi ve populations (i.e., fi ve parent EOs) in the state ranked as having good or good to fair estimated viability (i.e., B or BC viability rank), and part of one of the largest eastern fox snake populations remaining in Michigan (MNFI 2018a). Maintaining populations of these species also would contribute to conservation of these species rangewide. The eastern fox snake is listed as a species of special concern in Ohio and there are both endangered and threatened populations in Ontario. The spotted turtle is listed as threatened or endangered in several states within its range, and has been petitioned for federal listing. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has determined federal listing may be warranted and is currently assessing the rangewide status of this species (USFWS 2015).

The most critical conservation needs for the eastern fox snake and spotted turtle are protection and management of landscape complexes of suitable wetland and adjacent upland habitats (Lee 2000a, Lee 2000b, NatureServe 2017). Many of the wetland habitats (e.g., coastal marshes, lakeplain prairies) in St. John’s Marsh SWA have been invaded and/or dominated by reed. Although specifi c impacts of reed on eastern fox snakes and spotted turtles are unknown, studies have found signifi cantly lower amphibian and reptile species richness and reduced habitat suitability in areas dominated by reed or other densely growing invasive plants (Meyer 2003, Bolton and Brooks 2010, Mifsud 2014a). Tall, dense stands of reed restrict the movement of amphibians and reptiles, increase shade, and reduce basking opportunities for herptiles, which can affect nesting success and development of turtles (Bolton and Brooks 2010), growth and survival of amphibian larvae (Mifsud 2014a), and potentially growth, survival, and reproduction of other herptiles as well. Efforts to control or remove reed would likely benefi t the eastern fox snake, spotted turtle, and other amphibian and reptile species in the wildlife area as well. Controlling woody encroachment and maintaining open conditions in the lakeplain prairies and other non-forested wetlands in the wildlife area also would sustain suitable habitat for eastern fox snakes and spotted turtles. Spotted turtles require clean, shallow (<1 m deep), slow-moving bodies of water with soft bottoms and aquatic vegetation (NatureServe 2017) so ensuring access to these types of wetlands is essential. Maintaining good water quality in wetland habitats would be benefi cial to both species. This can be accomplished by maintaining natural buffers around wetlands, minimizing roads near wetlands, restricting use of pesticides in or near wetlands,

and using only herbicides approved for use in open water when working in and adjacent to wetlands. Reduced water quality can cause spotted turtles to emigrate in search of better habitat (NatureServe 2017), which can increase risk of predation or mortality.

Eastern fox snakes and spotted turtles frequently use multiple wetland and upland habitats throughout the year to forage, mate, thermoregulate, nest, aestivate, and/or overwinter (Harding 1997, Row et al. 2012, NatureServe 2017). Maintaining suitable wetland and upland habitats, particularly nesting and overwintering areas, and connectivity between these habitats is critical for sustaining populations of these species. Spotted turtles generally nest in open, sunny, unvegetated or sparsely vegetated areas with moist but well-drained, sandy or loamy soil, but also will use lawns, gardens, plowed fi elds, or road edges for nesting if suitable natural nesting habitat is not available (Harding 1997, Compton 2007). Nest sites include grassy tussocks, hummocks of grass, sedge or sphagnum moss, marshy pastures, and edges of roads (Hunter et al. 1992, Ernst et al. 1994). Eastern fox snakes deposit their eggs in the soil, hollow logs, rotting stumps, root wads, mammal burrows, and rock crevices, as well as decaying leaf piles, compost piles, and sawdust or wood chip piles (Ernst and Barbour 1989, Harding 1997, Eastern Foxsnake Recovery Team 2010). Spotted turtles have been documented overwintering in shallow water in the mud or in muskrat burrows or lodges in waterways, swamps, bogs, and fens (Ernst et al. 1994, Graham 1995, Lewis and Ritzenthaler 1997, Haxton and Berrill 1999, Litzgus and Brooks 2000). Spotted turtle hibernacula have had water depths of 55 to 95 cm (22 to 37 in) with a slow but steady fl ow through densely vegetated wetlands with a deep, soft, mucky substrate (NatureServe 2017). Eastern fox snakes hibernate in abandoned mammal burrows, muskrat lodges, old wells, dikes, septic tile beds, building foundations, and people’s homes (Ernst and Barbour 1989, Watson 1994, Harding 1997, Eastern Foxsnake Recovery Team 2010). Identifying nesting areas, oviposition sites, and/or hibernacula for spotted turtles and eastern fox snakes within and around St. John’s Marsh SWA will inform management and protection of these habitats, particularly if these areas occur on or along the dikes or in areas that are actively managed. Suitable natural nesting, oviposition, or overwintering sites for spotted turtles and eastern fox snakes may be limited or degraded in the wildlife area. Maintaining, restoring and/or providing additional nesting, oviposition, and/or overwintering habitats or features (e.g., downed logs, stumps, or brush piles) would benefi t these and other herptile species in the wildlife area.

Spotted turtles, eastern fox snakes, and other amphibians and reptiles may be vulnerable to certain habitat management activities, such as prescribed burning,


mechanical vegetation control or removal, and water level manipulation. These management practices are important for maintaining and restoring suitable wetland and upland habitats for these and other herptile species. Adjusting the timing and/or manner in which these management practices are conducted can reduce the potential for adversely impacting herptiles. Conducting these management practices in early spring before amphibian and reptile species emerge (e.g., March – early/mid-April), in the fall after species have entered their hibernacula (e.g., late October/early November), or after the species have left a particular area or habitat would minimize the potential for adversely impacting these species. For example, conducting management activities, such as prescribed burning, in open upland habitats in early spring (April – early May) or late summer (late July – early August) prior to or after the turtle nesting season (late May –June) and before turtle hatchlings emerge (late August – early October) would minimize the potential for harming spotted turtles and other turtles. If prescribed burning needs to occur during the active season, burning later in the spring when snakes and turtles are more active may reduce the potential for adversely impacting them. Burning upland habitats during late summer could potentially impact female eastern fox snakes that are ovipositing and/or developing eggs. If burning has to occur during this time period, we recommend conducting surveys of the treatment area prior to conducting treatment, temporarily removing any snakes from the treatment area, protecting oviposition sites, and returning snakes to the area where they were found after the treatment. Extending the management interval (e.g., burning every 5 years instead of every 1-2 years), and/or conducting management on only a portion of the available habitat at a site and leaving some refugia (i.e., unburned habitat) can help reduce adverse impacts to eastern fox snakes, spotted turtles, and other herptiles. Similarly, avoiding or limiting mowing, hydro-axing, and cultivation practices that involve the use of motorized vehicles or heavy equipment in occupied habitats during the active season (April-October) or in nesting/oviposition habitats during nesting and emergence (late May-early October) would minimize potential for adversely impacting eastern fox snakes, spotted turtles, and other herptile species. Raising mower decks to 15 to 20 cm (6-8 in) and keeping grass mowed to less than 15 cm (6 in) tall also can help minimize potential for adversely impacting snakes. Dramatic and sudden alterations to the hydrology of wetland and aquatic habitats occupied by eastern fox snakes and spotted turtles should be avoided, especially lowering the water table during winter hibernation. However, intermittent and gradual fl ooding during the active season could help restore wetland habitats and minimize adverse impacts to these species. Kingsbury and Gibson (2012) and Mifsud (2014b) provide additional general habitat management guidelines and recommendations for amphibians and reptiles.

Minimizing mortality or loss of adult and juvenile spotted turtles is important for maintaining viable populations of this species. Long-lived vertebrates, such as spotted turtles, have life histories that are characterized by delayed sexual maturity, low annual recruitment rates, and high adult survival rates (Congdon et al. 1993 and 1994). Populations of these species require high annual adult and juvenile survivorship to maintain stable populations due to these life history characteristics (Congdon et al. 1993). Long-term demographic studies of turtle species have reported that even small increases in adult and subadult or juvenile mortality (e.g., <10% increase in annual mortality of mature females or only 2-3% increase in annual mortality overall) could lead to population declines (Brooks et al. 1991, Congdon et al. 1993 and 1994). Habitat loss and fragmentation, nest predation, road mortality, and illegal collection can impact adult and/or juvenile survival and threaten the viability of spotted turtle populations. Habitat fragmentation can lead to increased populations of mesopredators, such as raccoons, skunks, opossums, and foxes, which can result in increased turtle nest predation and reduced or minimal population recruitment (Temple 1987). Predator control and protecting nest sites are potential management strategies that could help increase turtle recruitment. Road mortality can pose a substantial threat to spotted turtles, particularly females moving to nesting areas. Fencing (e.g., silt fencing) could be installed along roads where turtle road mortality is an issue. Spotted turtles also are vulnerable to collection for commercial pet trade, personal collection, and/or consumption (e.g., Asian turtle markets) (Harding 1997). Spotted turtles are highly valued by reptile hobbyists because of their small size and bright coloration. Collectors have severely reduced or eliminated populations throughout the species’ range (Harding 1997). The St. John’s Marsh population may be particularly vulnerable to collection because it is on readily accessible public land. Research and monitoring are needed to determine whether these threats are facing the spotted turtle and other turtle populations in St. John’s Marsh SWA. Additional management and monitoring may be needed to address these threats and monitor the impact and effectiveness of management efforts. These management activities also would benefi t Blanding’s turtles if they occur in the wildlife area.

Persecution is an additional potential threat that the eastern fox snake population within the St. John’s Marsh SWA may face. Eastern fox snakes are often mistaken for venomous species such as the eastern massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus) and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix, which is not found in Michigan) and are killed as a result. In addition to habitat management and protection, public education is needed to inform the general public on the protected status of this species, help facilitate proper identifi cation of the eastern fox snake, demonstrate the


Amphibians, such as northern leopard frog, can be used as bioindicators of ecosystem health. Photo by Yu Man Lee.

value and benefi ts of maintaining this species (e.g., its consumption of rodents makes it useful in agricultural areas), and discourage illegal persecution and harassment.

In Michigan, the eastern fox snake and spotted turtle are protected by the Michigan Endangered Species Act and the Director’s Order No. DFI-166.98, Regulations on the Take of Reptiles and Amphibians, which is administered by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ Bureau of Fisheries. It is unlawful to take eastern fox snakes and spotted turtles from the wild except as authorized under a permit from the Director (legislated by Act 165 of the Public Acts of 1929, as amended, Sec.302.1c (1) and 302.1c (2) of the Michigan Compiled Laws). The general public should be informed that these species are protected and should not be collected or harmed. Any suspected illegal collection or persecution of eastern fox snakes or spotted turtles should be reported to local authorities, conservation offi cers, or wildlife biologists.

A number of frogs were found in the wildlife area during herptile surveys in 2017 (Appendix 2). Frogs are important components of forest and wetland ecosystems. These species can represent signifi cant biomass and important components of food chains. Frogs also can serve as important bioindicators of ecosystem health because of their amphibious life cycles, permeable skin and eggs, and roles as predator and prey. Northern leopard frogs were particularly abundant in the wetland and upland areas that were surveyed in 2017. This species was probably the most abundant frog in the Great Lakes region prior to the late 1960s, but has declined in parts of its range in the Great Lakes region and globally (Harding 1997). Northern leopard frog may be a good bioindicator species because it requires different habitats and connectivity between those habitats to fulfi ll its life history. Populations may be extremely vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation (Pope et al. 2000). Northern leopard frogs also are more sensitive than other frogs to acidic conditions (Harding 1997, Vatnick et al. 1999). They also are sensitive to road mortality (Merrell 1977, Mazerolle et al. 2005), diseases that can result in high mortality rates (e.g., Ranavirus, Chytridiomycosis) (Daszak et al. 1999, Greer et al. 2005, Adama and Beaucher 2006), and environmental contaminants such as pesticides [e.g., Malathion (Relyea and Diecks 2008), atrazine (Howe et al. 1998), and DDT (Vatnick et al. 1999, McDaniel et al. 2008)]. The abundance of northern leopard frogs in the wildlife area suggests these threats may not be signifi cantly impacting this population and associated wetland and upland ecosystems, but additional research and monitoring of the northern leopard frog and other frog or amphibian populations in the wildlife area are needed to verify this.

Finally, because many herptile species are cryptic and diffi cult to detect in the fi eld, particularly if they are rare, additional surveys and monitoring are needed to determine the status and distribution of rare herptile species and other SGCN that have been documented or have potential to occur in the St. John’s Marsh SWA. In addition to the eastern fox snake and spotted turtle, additional surveys for the Blanding’s turtle, pickerel frog, Kirtland’s snake, northern ribbon snake, smooth green snake, gray ratsnake, and Butler’s garter snake should be conducted. Herptile surveys in 2017 did not target the mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus maculosus, state special concern) and queen snake (Regina septemvittata, state special concern) due to the cryptic nature of these species and limited time and resources. The general habitats with which these species are associated are provided in Appendix 2. Future inventory and research efforts in the St. John’s Marsh SWA should consider surveying for these species and also involve compiling reports of these species from external sources and the general public.


InsectsThree rare moth species, blazing star borer, Culver’s root borer, and Maritime sunfl ower borer were targeted for surveys within the lakeplain prairie of the St. John’s Marsh SWA. Only the blazing star borer moth was documented during the 2017 surveys. However, ample habitat and larval host plants occur in the area and there is a good likelihood that the Culver’s root borer may occur here. Culver’s root borer has been documented to the east of the wildlife area in nearby Algonac State Park. Both blazing star borer and Culver’s root borer occur in lakeplain prairie ecosystems that contain populations of their larval host plants. Any management that benefi ts the lakeplain prairie community and host plants would be appropriate for these species. Control of invasive species is needed to maintain the open physiognomy of the lakeplain prairie habitat, which will benefi t the native host plants. Two primary invasives, reed and glossy buckthorn, threaten the Papaipema habitat. Control of reed is most needed in the lakeplain wet prairie where this invasive is becoming a local dominant. Control of glossy buckthorn is most needed within the lakeplain wet-mesic prairie. We also recommend that additional surveys and monitoring efforts be conducted to further document the extent and viability of the rare moths within the area and also gauge the response of the rare moth populations to any prescribed management.

This may include surveys and monitoring for the moths, their larval host plants, their habitat, or ideally all of the above. For more information, including links to abstracts, see the MNFI Rare Species Explorer summary on blazing star borer at: http://mnfi .anr.msu.edu/explorer/species.cfm?id=11991 and culver’s root borer at: http://mnfi .anr.msu.edu/explorer/species.cfm?id=11989.

In addition to the rare moth species documented within St. Johns’ Marsh SWA, two rare leafhoppers have been documented within the lakeplain prairie: Flexamia refl exa (state special concern), and Dorydiella kansana (state special concern). Flexamia refl exa depends on Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans) as a nymphal host plant and Dorydiella kansana feed on nut rushes (Scleria spp.). These leafhoppers would also benefi t from efforts to maintain the open conditions of the lakeplain prairie. Prescribed fi re implementation within lakeplain prairie and rare insect habitat should include the use of multiple subunits managed on a rotational basis to allow for ample refugia to facilitate effective post-burn recolonization. In addition, any invasive species control utilizing herbicide should rely on targeted herbicide application techniques and avoid broadcast application.

Lakeplain prairie restoration will benefi t rare insects documented in St. John’s Marsh State Wilfl ife Area. In addition to blazing star borer, two rare leafhoppers are also known from within the lakeplain prairie; Flexamia refl exa (above left) and Dorydiella kansana (above right). Photo of Flexamia refl exa by Centre for Biodiversity Genomics and Dorydiella kansana by John Schneider.


Over the course of the project, MNFI documented two new element occurrences (EOs) and provided information for updating an additional six EOs within St. John’s Marsh SWA. Natural community surveys were focused on rare ecosystems associated with the coastal lakeplain and included surveys for lakeplain prairie and wet-mesic fl atwoods. Rare animal surveys were focused on rare birds associated with marsh, rare herptiles associated with coastal emergent wetlands, and rare moths associated with lakeplain prairie.

Surveys for exemplary natural communities resulted in one new lakeplain wet-mesic prairie EO, an updated lakeplain wet prairie EO, and a new wet-mesic fl atwoods EO. We assessed the current ranking, classifi cation, and delineation of these occurrences and detailed the vegetative structure and composition, ecological boundaries, landscape and abiotic context, threats, management needs, and restoration opportunities. This report provides a detailed description of these natural community EOs, as well as a comprehensive discussion of site-specifi c threats and stewardship needs and opportunities.

A total of 64 potential vernal pools were identifi ed and mapped through aerial photograph interpretation and 23 vernal pools were verifi ed in the fi eld (see Appendix 1A). Data compiled on vernal pools was incorporated into the Michigan Vernal Pool Database (MNFI 2018b), a statewide vernal pool geodatabase with locational information as well as ecological data about potential and fi eld-verifi ed vernal pools.

Avian surveys were focused on rare marsh birds, because of the abundance of emergent wetland within St. John’s Marsh SWA and the presence of several EOs in or near the wildlife area. Forty-three points were surveyed for marsh birds at St. John’s Marsh SWA in 2017, resulting in the update of four rare bird EOs. Numerous new locations were identifi ed for American bittern, least bittern, common gallinule, and marsh wren, with widespread use of the marsh being observed for all four species. We detected American bittern at 26% of the survey points, least bittern at 35%, common gallinule at 30%, and marsh wren at 54% of the survey points.

Rare herptile surveys were focused on eastern fox snake (Pantherophis vulpinus, state threatened), Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii, state special concern), and spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata, state threatened). We were unable to reconfi rm previously documented EOs of eastern fox snake and spotted turtle or document Blanding’s turtles within the St. John’s Marsh SWA during 2017 surveys.

CONCLUSIONRare insects surveys were focused on rare moth species associated with lakeplain prairie. Moth species targeted included the blazing star borer (Papaipema beeriana, state special concern), the Culver’s root borer (P. sciata, state special concern), and the Maritime sunfl ower borer (P. maritima, state special concern). During 2017 surveys, we reconfi rmed the presence of blazing star borer within St. John’s Marsh SWA and updated the existing EO; however, Culver’s root borer and Maritime sunfl ower borer were not detected.

Within St. John’s Marsh SWA, we recommend that stewardship efforts be focused in the areas of high-quality lakeplain prairie because these rare wetlands harbor high levels of biodiversity and provide potential habitat for numerous rare species. Biodiversity is most easily and effectively protected by preventing high-quality sites from degrading, and invasive plants are much easier to eradicate when they are not yet well established, and their local population size is small. We recommend using prescribed fi re, mechanical removal, and herbicide application to control populations of invasive reed and glossy buckthorn within the high-quality lakeplain prairie. In addition, we also recommend restoration activity within the degraded Great Lakes marsh. Despite local dominance by invasive reed, the Great Lakes marsh within the wildlife area supports a wide array of species including numerous rare marsh birds. We recommend management to control invasive reed and sustain this emergent habitat. We acknowledge that the treatment of invasive reed within this landscape is challenging but necessary. Potential treatment options include managed fl ooding, herbicide application, prescribed fi re, and combinations of these control mechanisms. Monitoring of stewardship activities is recommended to gauge the success of control of invasive species, evaluate impacts to the ecosystems and the species that depend on them, and facilitate adaptive management.


LITERATURE CITEDAbrams, M.D., and L.C. Hulbert. 1987. Effect of

topographic position and fi re on species composition in tall grass prairie in northeast Kansas. American Midland Naturalist 117: 442–445.

Abrams, M.D., A.K. Knapp and L.C. Hulbert. 1986. A ten year record of aboveground biomass in a Kansas tallgrass prairie: Effects of fi re and topographic position. American Journal of Botany 73: 1509–1515.

Adama, D.B., and M.A. Beaucher. 2006. Population monitoring and recovery of the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) in southeast British Columbia. Report to the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, B.C. Draft. 41 pp.

Albert, D.A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: A working map and classifi cation. USDA, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN.

Albert, D.A., and P.W. Brown. 2008. Analysis of vegetation in adjacent diked-undiked coastal wetlands. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report 2008-14, Lansing, MI. 61 pp.

Albert, D.A., D.L. Cuthrell, D.A. Hyde, J.T. Legge, M.R. Penskar, and M.L. Rabe. 1996. Sampling and management of lakeplain prairies in southern Lower Michigan. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 93 pp.

Albert, D.A., and M.A. Kost. 1998a. Natural community abstract for lakeplain wet prairie. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 5 pp.

Albert, D.A., and M.A. Kost. 1998b. Natural community abstract for lakeplain wet-mesic prairie. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 5 pp.

Albert, D.A., J.G. Cohen, M.A. Kost, B.S. Slaughter, and H.D. Enander. 2008. Distribution Maps of Michigan’s Natural Communities. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report No. 2008-01, Lansing, MI. 314 pp.

Anderson, R.C., and J.E. Schwegman. 1991. Twenty years of vegetational change on a southern Illinois Barren. Natural Areas Journal 11(1): 100–107.

Axelrod, A.N., and F.D. Irving. 1978. Some effects of prescribed fi re at Cedar Creek Natural History Area. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 44: 9–11.

Babbitt, K.J. 2005. The relative importance of wetland size and hydroperiod for amphibians in southern New Hampshire, USA. Wetlands Ecology and Management (2005) 13: 269–279.

Baldwin, R.F., A.J.K. Calhoun, and P.G. deMaynadier. 2006. The signifi cance of hydroperiod and stand maturity for pool-breeding amphibians in forested landscapes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84: 1604–1615.

Blackwell, E.A., G.E. Cline, and K.R. Marion. 2004. Annual variation in population estimators for a southern population of Ambystoma maculatum. Herpetologica 60: 304–311.

Blouin-Demers, G., and P.J. Weatherhead. 2002. Habitat-specifi c behavioural thermoregulation by black rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta). Oikos 97(1): 59–68.

Bolton, R.M., and R.J. Brooks. 2010. Impact of the seasonal invasion of Phragmites australis (common reed) on turtle reproductive success. Chelonian Conservation Biology 9: 238–243.

Bratton, S.P. 1982. The effects of exotic plant and animal species on nature preserves. Natural Areas Journal 2(3): 3–13.

Brodman, R. 2010. The importance of natural history, landscape factors, and management practices in conserving pond-breeding salamander diversity. Herpetological Conservation and Biology Symposium at the 6th World Congress of Herpetology. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 5(3): 501–514.

Brooks, R.J., G.P. Brown, and D.A. Galbraith. 1991. Effects of a sudden increase in natural mortality of adults on a population of the common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Canadian Journal of Zoology 69: 1314–1320.

Calhoun, A.J.K., and P. deMaynadier. 2004. Forestry habitat management guidelines for vernal pool wildlife. MCA Technical Paper No. 6, Metropolitan Conservation Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York.

Calhoun, A.J.K., and P.G. deMaynadier. 2008. Science and Conservation of Vernal Pools in Northeastern North America. CRC Press, New York, NY. 363 pp.

Calhoun, A.J.K., T.E. Walls, S.S. Stockwell, and M.M. McCollough. 2003. Evaluating vernal pools as a basis for conservation strategies: A Maine case study. Wetlands 23: 70–81.

Campbell, H.W., and S.P. Christman. 1982. Field techniques for herpetofaunal community analyses. Pages 193-200 in N.J. Scott, Jr. (ed.), Herpetological Communities, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research Report 13, Washington, D.C. 239 pp.

Cohen, J.G. 2001. Natural community abstract for oak barrens. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 8 pp.

Cohen J.G., P.J. Badra, H.D. Enander, Y. Lee, J.M. Lincoln, and M.J. Monfi ls. 2015b. Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for Lost Nation State Game Area. Michigan Natural Features Inventory Report Number 2015-05, Lansing, MI. 118 pp.


Cohen, J.G., M.A. Kost, B.S. Slaughter, and D.A. Albert. 2015a. A Field Guide to the Natural Communities of Michigan. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, MI. 362 pp.

Cohen J.G., J.M. Lincoln, Y. Lee, P.J. Badra, M.J. Monfi ls, D.L. Cuthrell, A.P Kortenhoven, and H.D. Enander. 2016. Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for Flat River State Game Area. Michigan Natural Features Inventory Report Number 2016-08, Lansing, MI. 133 pp.

Cohen J.G., J.M. Lincoln, Y. Lee, M.J. Monfi ls, and H.D. Enander. 2015c. Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations for Middleville State Game Area. Michigan Natural Features Inventory Report Number 2015-06, Lansing, MI. 83 pp.

Cohen, J.G., R.P. O’Connor, B.J. Barton, D.L. Cuthrell, P.J. Higman, and H.D. Enander. 2009. Fort Custer Vegetation and Natural Features Survey 2007-2008 Report. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Report Number 2009-04, Lansing, MI. 46 pp plus 2 appendices.

Cohen J.G., and B.S. Slaughter. 2015. Natural Community Surveys and Stewardship Prioritization of Michigan’s Coastal Zone. Michigan Natural Features Inventory Report Number 2015-27, Lansing, MI. 244 pp.

Colburn, E.A. 2004. Vernal Pools: Natural History and Conservation. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Granville, OH. 426 pp.

Collins, S.L., and D.J. Gibson. 1990. Effects of fi re on community structure in tallgrass and mixed grass prairie. Pp. 81–98 in S. L. Collins and L. L. Wallace (eds.), Fire in North American Tallgrass Prairies, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Comer, P.J., D.A. Albert, H.A. Wells, B.L. Hart, J.B. Raab, D.L. Price, D.M. Kashian, R.A. Corner, and D.W. Schuen. 1995. Michigan’s presettlement vegetation, as interpreted from the General Land Offi ce Surveys 1816-1856. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. Digital map.

Compton, B.W. 2007. Status Assessment for the Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in the Northeast. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 118 pp.

Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham, and R.C. Van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and demographics of Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): Implications for conservation and management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7: 826–833.

Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham, and R.C. Van Loben Sels. 1994. Demographics of common snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina): Implications for conservation and management of long-lived organisms. American Zoologist 34: 397–408.

Conway, C.J. 2011. Standardized North American marsh bird monitoring protocol. Waterbirds 34: 319–346.

Copeland, T.E., W. Sluis, and H.F. Howe. 2002. Fire season and dominance in an Illinois tallgrass prairie restoration. Restoration Ecology 10: 315–323.

Corn, P.S., and R.B. Bury. 1990. Sampling methods for terrestrial amphibians and reptiles. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-256. 34 pp.

Crother, B.I. (ed.). 2017. Scientifi c and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confi dence in Our Understanding. pp. 1–102. SSAR Herpetological Circular 43.

Crump, M.L., and N.J. Scott. 1994. Visual encounter surveys. Pages 84–92 in W.R. Heyer, M.A. Donnelly, R.W. McDiarmid, L.C. Hayek, and M.S. Foster (eds.), Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity. Standard Methods for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Curtis, J.T. 1959. Vegetation of Wisconsin: An Ordination of Plant Communities. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. 657 pp.

Daszak, P., L. Berger, A.A. Cunningham, A.D. Hyatt, D.E. Green, and L. Speare. 1999. Emerging infectious diseases and amphibian population declines. Emerging Infectious Disease 5: 735–748.

Daubenmire, R. 1968. Ecology of fi re in grasslands. Advances in Ecological Research 5: 209–66.

Derosier, A.L., S.K. Hanshue, K.E. Wehrly, J.K. Farkas, and M.J. Nichols. 2015. Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. http://www.michigan.gov/dnrwildlifeaction

deMaynadier, P.G., and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1995. The relationship between forest management and amphibian ecology: A review of the North American literature. Environmental Review 3: 230– 261.

deMaynadier, P.G., and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1998. Effects of silvicultural edges on the distribution and abundance of amphibians in Maine. Conservation Biology 12: 340–352.

deMaynadier, P.G., and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1999. Forest canopy closure and juvenile emigration by pool-breeding amphibians in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 441-450.

Dorney, J.R. 1981. The impact of Native Americans on presettlement vegetation in Southeastern Wisconsin. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters. 69: 26–36.

Dorr, J.A., Jr., and D.F. Eschman. 1970. Geology of Michigan. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 470 pp.


Eastern Foxsnake Recovery Team. 2010. Recovery strategy for the Eastern Foxsnake (Pantherophis gloydi) – Carolinian and Georgian Bay populations in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. vi + 39 pp.

Egan, R.S., and P.W.C. Paton. 2004. Within-pond parameters affecting oviposition by Wood Frogs and Spotted Salamanders. Wetlands 24: 1–13.

Eichenlaub, V.L., J.R. Harman, F.V. Nurnberger, and H.J. Stolle. 1990. The climatic atlas of Michigan. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN. 165 pp.

Ernst, C.H., and R.W. Barbour. 1989. Snakes of Eastern North America. George Mason University Press, Fairfax, VA. 282 pp.

Ernst, C.H., and E.M. Ernst. 2003. Snakes of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 668 pp.

Ernst, C.H., J.E. Lovich, and R.W. Barbour. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C. 578 pp.

Evers, D.C., ed. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of Michigan. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 412 pp.

Faber-Langendoen, D., J. Rocchio, P. Comer, G. Kudray, L. Vance, E. Byers, M. Schafale, C. Nordman, E. Muldavin, G. Kittel, L. Sneddon, M. Pyne, and S. Menard. 2008. Overview of Natural Heritage Methodology for Ecological Element Occurrence Ranking based on Ecological Integrity Assessment Methods [Draft for Network Review]. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.

Faber-Langendoen, D., W. Nichols, J. Rocchio, J. Cohen, J. Lemly, and K. Walz. 2015. Ecological Integrity Assessments and the Conservation Value of Ecosystem Occurrences: General Guidance on Core Heritage Methodology for Element Occurrence Ranking. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.

Faccio, S.D. 2003. Postbreeding emigration and habitat use by Jefferson and spotted salamanders in Vermont. Journal of Herpetology 37(3): 479–489.

Farrand, W.R., and D.L. Bell. 1982. Quaternary Geology of Southern Michigan. 1:500,000 scale. Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Division, Lansing, MI.

Fitch, H.S. 1963. Natural history of the Black Rat Snake (Elaphe o. obsoleta) in Kansas. Copeia 4: 649–658.

Forest Stewardship Council. 2010. FSC-US Forest Management Standard (v1.0) (w/o FF Indicators and Guidance). Recommended by FSC-US Board, May 25, 2010. Approved by FSC-IC, July 8, 2010. 109 pp.

Formanowicz, D.R., Jr. and E.D. Brodie, Jr. 1982. Relative palatabilities of members of a larval amphibian community. Copeia 1982: 91–97.

Fredrickson, L.H., and D.L. Batema. 1993. Greentree reservoir management handbook. Gaylord Memorial Laboratory, Wetland Management Series, Number 1, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 88 pp.

Freyman, W.A., L.A. Masters, and S. Packard. 2016. The Universal Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) Calculator: an online tool for ecological assessment and monitoring. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7(3): 380–383

Galloway, M., L. Bouvier, S. Meyer, J. Ingram, S. Doka, G. Grabas, K. Holmes, and N. Mandrak. 2006. Evaluation of current wetland dyking effects on coastal wetlands and biota. Pp. 187–229 in L. Mortsch J. Ingram A. Hebb, and S. Doka (eds.), Great Lakes coastal wetland communities: Vulnerability to climate change and response to adaptation strategies. Environment Canada and the Department of, Fisheries and Oceans, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Gibbs, J.P. 1993. Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local populations of wetland associated animals. Wetlands 13: 25–31.

Gibbs, J.P. 1998. Distribution of woodland amphibians along a forest fragmentation gradient. Landscape Ecology 13: 263–268.

Gibbs, J.P. 2000. Wetland loss and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 14: 314–317.

Glenn-Lewin, D.C., L.A. Johnson, T.W. Jurik, A. Akey, M. Leoschke, and T. Rosberg. 1990. Fire in central North American grasslands: Vegetative reproduction, seed germination, and seedling establishment. Pp. 28–45 in S.L. Collins and L.L. Wallace, (eds.), Fire in North American Tallgrass Prairies, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Graham, T.E. 1995. Habitat use and population parameters of the Spotted Turtle, Clemmys guttata, a species of special concern in Massachusetts. Chelonian Conservation Biology 1: 207–214.

Green, A.W., M.B. Hooten, E.H. Campbell Grant, and L.L. Bailey. 2013. Evaluating breeding and metamorph occupancy and vernal pool management effects for wood frogs using a hierarchical model. Journal of Applied Ecology 2013 (50): 1116–1123.

Greer, A.L., M. Berrill, and P.J. Wilson. 2005. Five amphibian mortality events associated with ranavirus infection in south central Ontario, Canada. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 67: 9–14.

Grimm, E.C. 1984. Fire and other factors controlling the Big Woods vegetation of Minnesota in the mid-nineteenth century. Ecological Monographs 54 (3): 291–311.

Grubb, J.C. 1972. Differential predation by Gammarus affi nis on the eggs of seven species of anuran amphibians. American Midland Naturalist 88: 102–108.


Guerry, A.D., and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 2002. Amphibian distributions in a landscape of forests and agriculture: An examination of landscape composition and confi guration. Conservation Biology 16(3): 745–754.

Hammerson, G.A. 2013. Element occurrence specifi cations for medium and large colubrid snakes. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.

Hammerson, G.A., D. Schweitzer, L. Master, and J. Cordeiro. 2008. Ranking species occurrences – A generic approach and Generic guidelines for the application of occurrence ranks. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Harding, J.H. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 378 pp.

Harding, J.H., and J.A. Holman. 1992. Michigan Frogs, Toads, and Salamanders. Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension Service, East Lansing, MI. 144 pp.

Harper, E.B., T.A. Rittenhouse, and R.D. Semlitsch. 2008. Demographic consequences of terrestrial habitat loss for pool-breeding amphibians: Predicting extinction risks associated with inadequate size of buffer zones. Conservation Biology 22(5): 1205–1215.

Harty, F.M. 1986. Exotics and their ecological ramifi cations. Natural Areas Journal. 6(4): 20–26.

Haxton, T., and M. Berrill. 1999. Habitat selectivity of Clemmys guttata in central Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77: 593–599.

Herman, K.D., L.A. Master, M.R. Penskar, A.A. Reznicek., G.S. Wilhelm, W.W. Brodowicz, and K.P. Gardiner. 2001. Floristic quality assessment with wetland categories and examples of computer applications for the state of Michigan. revised, 2nd edition. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife, Natural Heritage program. Lansing, MI. 19pp + Appendices.

Herrick, B.M., and A.T. Wolf. 2005. Invasive plant species in diked vs. undiked Great Lakes wetlands. Journal of Great Lakes Research 31: 277–287.

Homan, R.N., B.S. Windmiller, and J.M. Reed. 2004. Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss for two vernal pool-breeding amphibians. Ecological Applications 14(5): 1547–1553.

Hopey, M.E., and J.W. Petranka. 1994. Restriction of wood frogs to fi sh-free habitats: How important is adult choice? Copeia 1994(4): 1023–25.

Howe, G.E., L. Gillis, and L.C. Mowbray. 1998. Effect of chemical synergy and larval stage on the toxicity of atrazine and alachlor to amphibian larvae. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17(3): 519–525.

Howe, H.F. 1994. Managing species diversity in tallgrass prairie: Assumptions and implications. Conservation Biology 8: 691–704.

Hulbert, L.C. 1969. Fire and litter effects in undisturbed bluestem prairie in Kansas. Ecology 50: 874–877.

Hunter, M.L., J. Albright, and J. Arbuckle (eds.). 1992. The amphibians and reptiles of Maine. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 838. 188 pp.

Hyde, D.A. 1999. Special animal abstract for Terrapene c. carolina (eastern box turtle). Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 3 pp.

Kats, L.B., J.W. Petranka, and A. Sih. 1988. Antipredator defenses and the persistence of amphibian larvae with fi shes. Ecology 69(6): 1865–1870.

Kingsbury, B.A., and J. Gibson (editors). 2012. Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles of the Midwestern United States. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Technical Publication HMG-1, 2nd edition. 155 pp.

Knapp, A.K. 1984. Post-burn differences in solar radiation, leaf temperature and water stress infl uencing production in a lowland tallgrass prairie. American Journal of Botany 71: 220–227.

Kost, M.A., D.A. Albert, J.G. Cohen, B.S. Slaughter, R.K. Schillo, C.R. Weber, and K.A. Chapman. 2007. Natural Communities of Michigan: Classifi cation and Description. Michigan Natural Features Inventory Report Number 2007-21, Lansing, MI. 314 pp.

Kost, M.A., and D. De Steven. 2000. Plant community responses to prescribed burning in Wisconsin sedge meadows. Natural Areas Journal 20: 36–45.

Kruse, K.C., and M.G. Francis. 1977. A predation deterrent in larvae of the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106: 248–252.

Lathrop, R.G., P. Montesano, J. Tesauro, and B. Zarate. 2005. Statewide mapping and assessment of vernal pools: A New Jersey case study. Journal of Environmental Management 76: 230–238.

Laubhan, M.K. 1995. Effects of prescribed fi re on moist-soil vegetation and macronutrients. Wetlands 15: 159–166.

Leach, M.K., and T.J. Givnish. 1996. Ecological determinants of species loss in remnant prairies. Science 273: 1555–1558

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

Lee, Y. 1998. Special animal abstract for Pantherophis spiloides (gray ratsnake). Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 6 pp.


Lee, Y. 1999. Special animal abstract for Emydoidea blandingii (Blanding’s turtle). Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 4 pp.

Lee, Y. 2000a. Special animal abstract for Pantherophis gloydi (eastern fox snake). Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 3 pp.

Lee, Y. 2000b. Special animal abstract for Clemmys guttata (spotted turtle). Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Lansing, MI. 4 pp.

Lee, Y., P.J. Badra, M. Battaglia, L.L. Bourgeau-Chavez, H.D. Enander, D.A. Hyde, B.J. Klatt, Z. Laubach, M.J. Monfi ls, M.R. Penskar, K. Scarbrough, and E.H. Schools. 2014. Developing an approach for identifying, mapping, and assessing vernal pools in Michigan. Michigan Natural Features Inventory Report No. 2014-07, Lansing, MI.

Lewis, T.L., and J. Ritzenthaler. 1997. Characteristics of hibernacula use by spotted turtles, Clemmys guttata, in Ohio. Chelonian Conservation Biology 2: 611–615.

Litzgus, J.D. 2006. Sex Differences in Longevity in the Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata). Copeia 2006(2): 281–288.

Litzgus, J.D., and R.J. Brooks. 2000. Habitat and temperature selection of Clemmys guttata in a northern population. Journal of Herpetology 34: 178–185.

Lougheed, S.C., H.L. Gibbs, K.A. Prior, and P.J. Weatherhead. 1999. Hierarchical patterns of genetic population structure in black rat snakes (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta) as revealed by microsatellite DNA analysis. Evolution 53(6): 1995–2001.

MacKinnon, C.A. 2005. Spatial ecology, habitat use and mortality of the eastern foxsnake (Elaphe gloydi) in the Georgian Bay area. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Guelph. 66 pp.

MacKinnon, C.A., A. Lawson, E.D. Stevens, and R.J. Brooks. 2006. Body temperature fl uctuations in free-ranging eastern foxsnakes (Elaphe gloydi) during cold water swimming. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84: 9–19.

Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. 2007. Massachusetts Forestry Conservation Management Practices for MESA-listed mole salamanders. Version 2007.1. Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts, USA.

Mazerolle, M.J., M. Huot, and M. Grave. 2005. Behavior of amphibians on the road in response to car traffi c. Herpetologica 61: 380–388.

McAllister, C.T. 1995. Wetland use by the black rat snake, Elaphe obsoleta, in eastern Ontario. Canadian Field Naturalist 109: 449–451.

McClain, W.E., M.A. Jenkins, S.E. Jenkins, and J.E. Ebinger. 1993. Changes in the woody vegetation of a bur oak savanna remnant in central Illinois. Natural Areas Journal 13: 108–114.

McCune, B., and G. Cottam. 1985. The successional status of a southern Wisconsin oak woods. Ecology 66: 1270–1278.

McDaniel, T.V., P.A. Martin, J. Struger, J. Sherry, C.H. Marvin, M.E. McMaster, S. Clarence, and G. Tetreault. 2008. Potential endocrine disruption of sexual development in free ranging male Northern Leopard Frogs (Rana pipiens) and green frogs (Rana clamitans) from areas of intensive row crop agriculture. Aquatic Toxicology 88: 230–242.

Means, D.B., J.G. Palis, and M. Baggett. 1996. Effects of slash pine silviculture on a Florida population of fl atwoods salamander. Conservation Biology 10: 426–437.

Merrell, D.J. 1977. Life History of the Leopard Frog, Rana pipiens, in Minnesota. Bell Museum of Natural History, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Meyer, S.W. 2003. Comparative use of Phragmites australis and other habitats by birds, amphibians, and small mammals at Long Point, Ontario. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Zoology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. 128 pp.

Michigan Bird Conservation Initiative. 2015. Michigan marsh bird survey protocol. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2014. A guide to the control and management of invasive Phragmites, 3rd ed. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Offi ce of the Great Lakes, Coastal Zone Management Program, Lansing, Michigan. 46 pp.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Michigan DNR) and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (Michigan DEQ). 2009. Sustainable Soil and Water Quality Practices on Forest Land. Revised Feb. 24, 2009. Lansing, MI. 79 pp.

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

Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI). 2017. 1938 Aerial Photo Mosaic. Time period of content circa 1938. From aerial photos scanned at 600 d.p.i. by Michigan State University Aerial Imagery Archive. Photo Scale 1:20,000.

Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI). 2018a. Natural Heritage Database. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.

Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI). 2018b. Michigan Vernal Pool Database. Lansing, MI.


Mifsud, D.A. 2014a. A status assessment and review of the herpetofauna within the Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron. Journal of Great Lakes Research Supplement 40: 183–191.

Mifsud, D.A. 2014b. Michigan Amphibian and Reptile Best Management Practices. Herpetological Resource and Management Technical Publication 2014.

Milstein, R.L. 1987. Bedrock geology of southern Michigan. Lansing, MI: State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey Division. 1 map (1:500,000).

Minc, L.D. 1995. Seasonal hydrology and species relationships in Lower Michigan’s lakeplain prairies. An analysis and report submitted to Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 89 pp.

Mitchell, J.C., P.W.C. Paton, and C.J. Raithel. 2008. The importance of vernal pools to reptiles, birds, and mammals. Pages 169–192 in Calhoun, A.J.K. and P.G. deMaynadier (eds.), Science and Conservation of Vernal Pools in Northeastern North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Monfi ls, M.J., P.W. Brown, D.B. Hayes, G.J. Soulliere, and E.N. Kafcas. 2014. Breeding bird use and wetland characteristics of diked and undiked coastal marshes in Michigan. Journal of Wildlife Management 78: 79–92.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center. 2016. NOAA’s Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) 2016 Regional Land Cover Data – Michigan. https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/lca [Accessed 11-10-2016]

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2016. The State of North America’s Birds 2016. Environment and Climate Change Canada: Ottawa, Ontario. https://www.stateofthebirds.org

Panzer, R. 2002. Compatibility of prescribed burning with the conservation of insects in small, isolate prairie reserves. Conservation Biology 16(5): 1296-1307.

Panzer, R. 1998. Insect conservation within the severely fragmented eastern tallgrass prairie landscape. PhD thesis, University of Illinois, Champaign Urbana, IL.

Petersen, S.M., and P.B. Drewa. 2006. Did lightning initiated growing season fi res characterize oak-dominated ecosystems of southern Ohio? Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 133: 217–224.

Plaut, H.N. 1971. Distance of attraction of moths of Spodoptera littoralis to BL radiation, and recapture of moths released at different distances of an ESA blacklight standard trap. Journal of Economic Entomology. 64: 1402–1404.

Pope, S.E., L. Fahrig, and H.G. Merriam. 2000. Landscape complementation and metapopulation effects on leopard frog populations. Ecology 81: 2498–2508.

Porej, D., M. Micacchion, and T.E. Hetherington. 2004. Core terrestrial habitat for conservation of local populations of salamanders and wood frogs in agricultural landscapes. Biological Conservation 120: 399–409.

Potter, B.A., R.J. Gates, G.J. Soulliere, R.P. Russell, D.A. Granfors, and D.N. Ewert. 2007. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Shorebird Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, MN.

Reich, P.B., M.D. Abrams, D.S. Ellsworth, E.L. Kruger, and T.J. Tabone. 1990. Fire affects ecophysiology and community dynamics of Central Wisconsin oak forest regeneration. Ecology 71: 2179–2190.

Relyea, R.A., and N. Diecks. 2008. An unforeseen chain of events: Lethal effects of pesticides on frogs at sublethal concentrations. Ecological Applications 18: 1728–1742.

Reznicek, A.A., M.R. Penskar, B.S. Walters, and B.S. Slaughter. 2014. Michigan Floristic Quality Assessment Database. Herbarium, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI and Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University, Lansing, MI. http://michiganfl ora.net

Richburg, J.A. 2005. Timing Treatments to the Phenology of Root Carbohydrate Reserves to Control Woody Invasive Plants. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 54 pp.

Robinson, H.S., and P.J.M. Robinson. 1950. Some notes on the observed behaviour of Lepidoptera in fl ight in the vicinity of light sources, together with a description of a light-trap designed to take entomological samples. Entomologist’s Gazette. 1: 3–20.

Row, J.R., G. Blouin-Demers, and S. Lougheed. 2012. Movements and habitat use of Eastern Foxsnakes (Pantherophis gloydi) in two areas varying in size and fragmentation. Journal of Herpetology 46(1): 94–99.

Schmalzer, P.A., and C.R. Hinkle. 1992. Soil dynamics following fi re in Juncus and Spartina marshes. Wetlands 12: 8–21.

Semlitsch, R.D. 1998. Biological delineation of terrestrial buffer zones for pond-breeding amphibians. Conservation Biology 12: 1113–1119.

Semlitsch, R.D., and J.R. Bodie. 1998. Are small, isolated wetlands expendable? Conservation Biology 12: 1129–1133.

Semlitsch, R.D., D.E. Scott, and J.H.K. Pechmann. 1988. Time and size at metamorphosis related to adult fi tness in Ambystoma talpoideum. Ecology 69: 184–192.

Siemann, E., J. Haarstad, and D. Tilman. 1997. Short-term and long-term effects of burning on oak savanna arthropods. American Midland Naturalist 137(2): 349–361.


Skelly, D.K., E.E. Werner, and S.A. Cortwright. 1999. Long-term distributional dynamics of a Michigan amphibian assemblage. Ecology 80: 2326–2337.

Skidds, D.E., and F.C. Goulet. 2005. Estimating hydroperiod suitability for breeding amphibians in southern Rhode Island seasonal forest ponds. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13: 349–366.

Slaughter, B.S., J.G. Cohen, and M.A. Kost. 2010. Natural community abstract for wet-mesic fl atwoods. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 14 pp.

Soulliere, G.J., M.A. Al-Saffar, R.L. Peirce, M.J. Monfi ls, L.R. Wires, B.W. Loges, B.T. Shirkey, N.S. Miller, R.D. Schultheis, F.A. Nelson, A.M. Sidie-Slettedahl, and D.J. Holm. 2018. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterbird Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2018 Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, MN.

Sparks, J.C., R.E. Masters, D.M. Engle, M.W. Palmer, and G.A. Bukenhofer. 1998. Effects of late growing-season and late dormant-season prescribed fi re on herbaceous vegetation in restored pine-grassland communities. Journal of Vegetation Science 9: 133–142.

Sustainable Forestry Initiative. 2010. Requirements for the SFI 2010-2014 Program Standards, Rules for Label Use, Procedures and Guidance. 123 pp.

Temple, S.A. 1987. Predation on turtle nests increases near ecological edges. Copeia 1987(1): 250–252.

Tester, J.R. 1989. Effects of fi re frequency on oak savanna in east-central Minnesota. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 116(2): 134–144.

Thiet, R.K. 2002. Diversity comparisons between diked and undiked coastal freshwater marshes on Lake Erie during a high-water year. Journal of Great Lakes Research 28: 285–298.

Thomas, S.A., Y. Lee, M.A. Kost, and D.A. Albert. 2010. Abstract for vernal pool. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 23 pp.

Tinkle, D.W., P.E. Feaver, R.W. Van Devender, and L.J. Vitt. 1979. A survey of the status, distribution and abundance of threatened and endangered species of reptiles and amphibians. Report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (USDA-FSA) Aerial Photography Field Offi ce (APFO). 2005. Imagery Programs: National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/aerial-photography/imagery-programs/naip-imagery/index



U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 31 Petitions. Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 126 / Wednesday, July 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules.

U.S. Geological Society (USGS). 1998. National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP).

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. National Map 3D Elevation program. 1/3 arc-second seamless digital elevation model (10 m raster). http://nationalmap.gov/3DEP/3dep_prodserv.html [Accessed 2009].

Van Dam, B. 1993. Element stewardship abstract for Emydoidea blandingii (Holbrook) Blanding’s turtle. Michigan Natural Features Inventory. Lansing, MI. 25 pp.

Vatnick, I., MA. Brodkin, M.P. Brodkin, M.P. Simon, B.W. Grant, C.L. Conte, M. Gleave, L. Myers, and M.M. Sadoff. 1999. The effects of exposure to mild acidic condition on adult frogs (Rana pipiens and Rana clamitans): Mortality rates and pH preferences. Journal of Herpetology 33(3): 370–374.

Viro, P.J. 1974. Effects of forest fi re on soil. Pp. 7–45 in T.T. Kozlowski and C.E. Ahlgren (eds.), Fire and Ecosystems, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Waldick, R.C., B. Freedman, and R.J. Wassersug. 1999. The consequences for amphibians of the conversion of natural, mixed-species forests to conifer plantations in southern New Brunswick. The Canadian Field Naturalist 113: 408–418.

Ward, F.P., C.J. Hohmann, J.F. Ulrich, and S.E. Hill. 1976. Seasonal microhabitat selections of spotted turtles (Clemmys guttata) in Maryland elucidated by radioisotope tracking. Herpetologica 32: 60–64.

Warners, D. P. 1997. Plant diversity in sedge meadows: Effects of groundwater and fi re. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 231 pp.

Watson (Barrett), C.M. 1994. Habitat use and movement patterns of the eastern fox snake (Elaphe vulpina gloydi) at Point Pelee National Park, Ontario. M.A. Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Windsor. 141 pp.

White, A.S. 1983. The effects of thirteen years of annual prescribed burning on a Quercus ellipsoidalis community in Minnesota. Ecology 64(5): 1081–108.

Wilhelm, G.S. 1991. Implications of change in fl oristic composition of the Morton Arboretum’s East Woods. Proceedings of the Oak Woods Management Workshop. Eastern Illinois University. Charleston, IL.


Wilson, S.D., and P.A. Keddy. 1986. Species competitive ability and position along a natural stress/disturbance gradient. Ecology 67: 1236–1242.

Wisheu, I.C., and P.A. Keddy. 1992. Competition and centrifugal organization of plant communities: Theory and tests. Journal of Vegetation Science 3: 147–156.

Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie (above) and lakeplain wet prairie (below) intergrade within St. John’s Marsh State WildlifeArea. Ecosystem patterning is determined by very subtle differences in the depth to the clay layer and the resultinghydrologic regime. Photos by Matthew J. Lewis.

Woodward, B.D. 1983. Predatory-prey interactions and breeding pond use of temporary pond species in a desert anuran community. Ecology 64: 1549–1555.


Appendix 1A. Vernal Pools Survey of St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.

INTRODUCTION

Vernal pools are small, generally isolated, temporary pools of water or wetlands that form in shallow depressions in forested areas throughout Michigan (Thomas et al. 2010). These wetlands fi ll with water from rainfall, snowmelt, and/or groundwater between late fall and spring, and usually dry up by mid to late summer. The periodic drying of vernal pools prevents fi sh from establishing populations in these wetlands. Because vernal pools lack predatory fi sh populations, these wetlands provide critical breeding habitats for a host of forest-dwelling amphibians and invertebrates, including some species that are specialized for life in vernal pools and depend on these unique habitats for their survival. These are considered vernal pool obligate or indicator species, and include the blue-spotted salamander (Ambystoma laterale), spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), wood frog (Rana sylvatica), and fairy shrimp (Eubranchipus spp.) (Colburn 2004, Calhoun and deMaynadier 2008). Although wood frogs, spotted salamanders, and blue-spotted salamanders can reproduce in wetlands other than vernal pools, successful production of juveniles may be much higher in vernal pools than in other wetlands that have permanent populations of fi sh or other predators. The eggs and/or larvae of these species appear to be more palatable to fi sh and other predators because they lack defensive mechanisms (e.g., toxic compounds, mechanical or physiological barriers, and behavioral responses) that protect them from predators (Grubb 1972, Kruse and Francis 1977, Formanowicz and Brodie 1982, Woodward 1983, Kats et al. 1988). Some species, such as wood frogs, will actually avoid breeding in habitats with fi sh (Hopey and Petranka 1994). Fairy shrimp occur only in waters that are free of fi sh populations, and spend their entire lives in a single vernal pool (Colburn 2004). Their eggs may require drying, fl ooding, and freezing to successfully hatch, and can survive in the sediment for several years (Colburn 2004).

Vernal pools also provide habitat for a number of other animal species, including snakes, turtles, waterfowl, wetland birds, woodland birds, and mammals. Over 550 animal species have been found in vernal pools in the northeastern U.S. (Colburn 2004). Many animal species use vernal pools for food and water throughout the growing season, as breeding and nursery areas for development of their young, and as resting areas and stepping stones to travel to other areas with suitable habitat (Gibbs 1993, Semlitsch and Bodie 1998, Gibbs 2000, Mitchell et al. 2008). Vernal pools have high species richness due to their structural complexity and ability to provide both aquatic and terrestrial habitats (Calhoun and deMaynadier 2008). Species that use vernal pools include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), black bear (Ursus americanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), great blue heron

(Area herodias), wood duck (Aix sponsa), American black duck (Anas rubripes), barred owl (Strix varia), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), American woodcock (Scolopax minor), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), eastern gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), northern ribbonsnake (Thamnophis sauritus septentrionalis), and northern watersnake (Nerodia sipedon) (Colburn 2004, Calhoun and deMaynadier 2008). Several endangered, threatened, or rare species in Michigan use vernal pools extensively, such as the Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii, state special concern), spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata, state threatened), wood turtle (Glypemys insculpta, state special concern), small-mouthed salamander (Ambystoma texanum, state endangered), copperbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta, federally threatened and state endangered), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus, state threatened), and little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus, state special concern). Vernal pools also contribute other important ecosystem services including nutrient cycling, water storage and infi ltration, groundwater recharge, and fl ood control (Colburn 2004, Calhoun and deMaynadier 2008). The large numbers of invertebrates and amphibians that occur in and emerge from vernal pools provide signifi cant biomass, nutrients, and energy to the surrounding wildlife and forest ecosystems (Colburn 2004, Calhoun and deMaynadier 2008).

Due to increased awareness of the ecological signifi cance of vernal pools, there has been growing interest in identifying, mapping, monitoring, and protecting these small but valuable wetlands in Michigan. Because vernal pools are small, isolated, and dry for part of the year, they can be diffi cult to identify in the fi eld, and can be easily overlooked and unintentionally damaged or destroyed during forest management and other land-use activities. Vernal pools also are not well-protected under current federal and state wetland regulations, although they have been afforded some protection under several voluntary guidelines such as the State of Michigan’s Sustainable Soil and Water Quality Practices on Forest Land manual and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and Forest Stewardship Council’s (FSC) forest certifi cation standards (Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 2009, Sustainable Forestry Initiative 2010, Forest Stewardship Council 2010). Additionally, limited information is available on their status, distribution, and ecology in the state. This information is critical for management and conservation of Michigan’s vernal pools and the diverse array of species that depend on them.


METHODS


Potential and verifi ed vernal pools were identifi ed and mapped in the St. John’s Marsh SWA in 2017 using aerial photograph interpretation and fi eld sampling. The primary goal of this mapping and survey effort is to provide resource managers and planners with baseline information on vernal pool status and distribution within the wildlife area. Knowing where vernal pools are located in the wildlife area and the species and habitats found in and around them will help managers plan and implement appropriate management and protection of these wetlands. Vernal pools also were identifi ed and mapped to pinpoint potential sites for amphibian and reptile surveys in the wildlife area since these wetlands provide habitat for amphibian and reptile species targeted for surveys in 2017.

Potential vernal pools (PVPs) were identifi ed and mapped across the wildlife area using aerial photograph interpretation. Aerial photograph interpretation consisted of using ESRI ArcGIS software to visually examine available aerial imagery and data layers of the wildlife area on a computer screen. Aerial imagery that were examined to identify and map PVPs included color infrared, leaf-off aerial imagery from the spring of 1998 (USGS 1998), and natural color aerial imagery from the summer of 2005, 2010, and/or 2012 (USDA-FSA 2005, 2010, and 2012). Topographic maps of the wildlife area also were examined. Aerial imagery and other data layers were available through Michigan State University’s Remote Sensing and GIS (RSGIS) Center and the State of Michigan. We used a map scale of 1:5000 for spatial extent of the aerial imagery displayed on the computer screen to detect PVPs. PVPs were digitized and mapped as polygons using ESRI ArcGIS software. PVPs were added to a statewide vernal pool geodatabase developed by MNFI to record and track data on the locations and characteristics of potential and verifi ed vernal pools in the state (MNFI 2018b). Each PVP polygon was assigned a unique identifi cation number for reference, and preliminary information about these polygons was included in the geodatabase.

Limited surveys of PVPs mapped in the wildlife area were conducted between May 17th and October 21st, 2017. These surveys involved verifying, mapping, and collecting data on vernal pools in the fi eld. PVPs were surveyed only once during the sampling period. Surveyors verifi ed if PVPs represented actual vernal pools in the fi eld, or if the PVPs were other types of wetlands or other habitats. PVPs visited in the fi eld were assigned one of the following fi ve designations: 1) verifi ed as a vernal pool and is active/present; 2) verifi ed as a vernal pool and is no longer active/has been destroyed; 3) visited in the fi eld but status still uncertain/insuffi cient information; 4) visited in the fi eld and is not a vernal pool/some other wetland type; and 5) visited

in the fi eld and is not a vernal pool/no water present. Vernal pools verifi ed in the fi eld were mapped using a GPS unit or tablet. Additional vernal pools that were encountered opportunistically during fi eld sampling and had not been mapped as PVPs were recorded and mapped.

For each vernal pool surveyed, basic information about the physical characteristics, general condition, surrounding habitat, vegetative structure, and presence of vernal pool indicator species (i.e., fairy shrimp, wood frog egg masses and tadpoles, and/or blue-spotted and spotted salamander egg masses and larvae) and other animals in the pools were recorded in the fi eld using a standardized vernal pool monitoring data form (Appendix 1B). Vernal pools verifi ed in the fi eld were classifi ed into the following six general vernal pool types based on vegetative characteristics of the pools: 1) open pools; 2) sparsely vegetated pools; 3) shrubby pools; 4) forested pools; 5) marsh pools; and 6) other (e.g., half open and half shrubby). Defi nitions of vernal pool types are provided in Appendix 1C. Vernal pools and other wetlands and habitats identifi ed in the fi eld were photographed for documentation and verifi cation. Field sampling results and data were incorporated into the Michigan Vernal Pool Database (MNFI 2018b), a statewide vernal pool geodatabase with locational information as well as ecological data about potential and fi eld-verifi ed vernal pools.

Forested vernal pool from St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. Photo by Yu Man Lee.



RESULTS

A total of 64 potential vernal pools (PVPs) were initially identifi ed and mapped in St. John’s Marsh SWA through aerial photograph interpretation (Figure 16, MNFI 2018b). These PVPs are located primarily in the northeast portion of the wildlife area. Ten of these PVPs were visited in the fi eld, and were verifi ed as vernal pools in 2017 (Figure 16). An additional 15 potential vernal pools were encountered in the fi eld but were not mapped as PVPs through aerial photo interpretation. Of these, 13 were verifi ed as vernal pools, and two were uncertain. As a result, 23 vernal pools were verifi ed in the fi eld in the wildlife area in 2017 (Figure 16).

We collected basic information about the physical and ecological characteristics of vernal pools verifi ed in the fi eld. Most (19 of 23) of the vernal pools verifi ed in the fi eld were surrounded by young upland aspen forest and old fi eld habitat. The other fi ve vernal pools were surrounded

by mature lowland and upland deciduous forest. Most of the PVPs that were mapped in the wildlife area through aerial photo interpretation appear to be located in lowland forest, lowland shrub, or wet-mesic fl atwood. All of the verifi ed vernal pools were classifi ed in the fi eld as forested pools with trees covering over 30% of the pool basin.

Visual encounter surveys and dipnetting surveys of vernal pools were not able to document vernal pool indicator species in any of the vernal pools verifi ed in St. John’s Marsh SWA in 2017. Three Eastern American toads (Anaxyrus americanus americanus) and a number of northern leopard frogs (Lithobates pipiens) were observed in and around four of the vernal pools that were surveyed in 2017. Tadpoles also were observed in two vernal pools but we were not able to identify them to species. Water boatmen (Corixidae) also were observed in one of the pools.

Twenty-three vernal pools were verifi ed during surveys in 2017 in St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. Photo by Yu Man Lee.



Figure 16. Potential vernal pools and verifi ed vernal pools within St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.


DISCUSSION


Despite their small size and temporary nature, vernal pools can be incredibly diverse and productive wetlands, and are important for maintaining healthy forest ecosystems. Vernal pools could be considered “keystone ecosystems” in some cases because of the important ecological role they play in forest ecosystems, especially given their small sizes (Calhoun and deMaynadier 2008). The mapping and survey of potential and actual vernal pools in the St. John’s Marsh SWA provide baseline information on the status, distribution, and ecology of vernal pools in the wildlife area. This information will enhance our knowledge of vernal pools and help inform management and protection of these critical wetlands in the wildlife area and statewide.

Given that vernal pools in Michigan occur in forested landscapes and only a small percentage of St. John’s Marsh SWA is forested, a small number of potential vernal pools were identifi ed and mapped in the wildlife area through aerial photo interpretation. However, the potential vernal pools/vernal pools may occur in high densities in some parts of the wildlife area, such as in the wet-mesic fl atwoods (Figure 16). The spring, leaf-off, color infrared aerial imagery (NAPP 1998) that was used for mapping PVPs in the wildlife area was not very good resolution, and made it challenging to map PVPs. As a result, it is likely some of the PVPs that were mapped will not be vernal pools in the fi eld, especially since we tended to be conservative and erred on the side of overmapping PVP s. We also encountered a number of vernal pools in the fi eld that were not mapped as PVPs through aerial photo interpretation. After the initial mapping of PVPs in the wildlife area, we found historical aerial imagery of the wildlife area from late winter/early spring (e.g., late March 1999 and 2005) through Google Earth. We used this aerial imagery to identify and map additional PVPs and corroborate vernal pools encountered in the fi eld. Additional surveys are warranted to verify and map vernal pools in the fi eld to obtain more accurate information on the status and distribution of vernal pools in the wildlife area.

The vernal pools within St. John’s Marsh SWA have likely been altered hydrologically. The construction of roads, dikes, and ditches within and around the wet-mesic fl atwoods and other forested habitats in the wildlife area have altered the hydrology of these forest ecosystems and likely the vernal pools within them. Additionally, the wet-mesic fl atwoods stand at the northern end of the wildlife area (i.e., Stand 56) is surrounded by a drainage ditch and is artifi cially fl ooded in the fall. These activities have potentially changed the number, density, timing, and/or hydroperiod (i.e., duration of fl ooding) of vernal pools in these areas, which can signifi cantly impact the animal and plant species composition, diversity, and life cycles

in these wetlands (Colburn 2004). For example, wood frogs and spotted salamanders require vernal pools to remain fl ooded through early to mid-July for their larvae to successfully transform into adults and for their populations to persist. Some vernal pool species, such as fairy shrimp, require vernal pools to dry and freeze before their eggs will hatch when the pools fi ll with water the following spring. If the hydrology of vernal pools is altered so that they remain fl ooded for shorter or longer periods of time or during different times of the year, these species could be dramatically impacted.

Additional surveys to document vernal pool indicator species and other wildlife in and around the vernal pools in the wildlife area also should be conducted. The limited nature and timing of the vernal pool surveys and small sample size may have contributed to the lack of vernal pool indicator species documented in the pools that were surveyed in 2017. Variability in species’ occupancy and breeding among pools and years (i.e., species may breed in some pools/years and not others) also may have contributed to the lack of vernal pool indicator species documented in 2017. Vernal pool indicator species such as fairy shrimp, wood frogs, blue-spotted salamanders, and spotted salamanders may not breed every year in a given pool (Colburn 2004, Calhoun and deMaynadier 2008). Breeding in vernal pools may vary from year to year due to weather conditions (e.g., low rainfall and water levels), resource availability, and local amphibian population swings (Blackwell et al. 2004, Lathrop et al. 2005). Additional surveys (ideally, multiple surveys within a breeding season over multiple years) are needed to determine the occurrence and distribution of vernal pool indicator species in the wildlife area to obtain more complete and accurate information on the ecology of vernal pools, and to increase our knowledge of the statewide status and distribution of these species. This is particularly crucial for fairy shrimp since we have so little information on their status and distribution in Michigan, including how many and which species occur in the state.

Vernal pool indicator species also do not occur in all vernal pools. For example, wood frogs and blue-spotted salamanders were found breeding and reproducing in about half of the vernal pools verifi ed in the Flat River State Game Area in 2015 (Cohen et al. 2016). Wood frog, blue-spotted salamander, and/or spotted salamander adults, larvae, and/or metamorphs were documented in 20% to 55% of vernal pools surveyed in several study areas in southern Michigan (Lee et al. 2014, Cohen et al. 2015b and 2015c). Lathrop et al. (2005) found either a single vernal pool obligate species or multiple vernal pool facultative species in about 22% of the documented vernal pools in their study. However, some studies in the northeastern and



midwestern U.S. have documented higher occupancy rates for wood frogs (70-90%) and blue-spotted salamanders (62%) (Calhoun et al. 2003, Egan and Paton 2004, Skidds and Golet 2005, Baldwin et al. 2006, Brodman 2010).

Wood frogs, blue-spotted salamanders, and spotted salamanders can use a variety of vernal pools, but several factors can strongly infl uence occupancy and successful reproduction in vernal pools by these species. These include pool hydroperiod (i.e., length of time a pool holds water and seasonal pattern of water levels), canopy closure, and landscape composition and structure surrounding vernal pools. These species generally require vernal pools that hold water from March or early April to at least early July so that their larvae can complete metamorphosis before the pool dries (Harding 1997, Colburn 2004). Several studies have found that wood frog and spotted salamander breeding populations in vernal pools are positively correlated with longer hydroperiods (e.g., >16 or 18 weeks) (Calhoun et al. 2003, Babbitt 2005, Baldwin et al. 2006, Green et al. 2013). These species also are more prevalent in densely shaded, closed-canopy pools (Skelly et al. 1999, Colburn 2004, Calhoun and deMaynadier 2008). Because these species spend most of their life cycle outside of the breeding season in forested terrestrial habitats, these species are associated with vernal pools that are primarily surrounded by forests, and are unlikely to utilize vernal pools surrounded by large areas of open habitat (Calhoun and deMaynadier 2008). Wood frog, spotted salamander, and blue-spotted salamander occupancy in vernal pools has been positively associated with forest cover or amount of forest within a 1-km radius around the pools (Guerry and Hunter 2002). Additionally, critical thresholds in forest cover or amount of forest around vernal pools have been documented for these species. Studies have reported spotted salamanders only occurring in vernal pools that had forest cover/forested habitat in at least 20 to 35% of the surrounding area within 100 to 300 m of the pool (Porej et al. 2004, Homan et al. 2004). For wood frogs, thresholds of about 10 to 30% forest cover within 100 to 300 m, and 15% forest cover within 200 m to 1 km of vernal pools have been reported (Porej et al. 2004, Homan et al. 2004). Gibbs (1998) also reported critical thresholds of about 30% forest cover around vernal pools for both these species. For some of the vernal pools that were surveyed in the wildlife area in 2017, the amount of forested habitat surrounding the vernal pools may have been at or under the forest cover thresholds for wood frogs and spotted salamanders. Additional surveys and research are needed to verify this.

Forest structure and age also can infl uence the presence and/or abundance of wood frogs, spotted salamanders, and blue-spotted salamanders in and around vernal pools. deMaynadier and Hunter (1999) found the abundance of wood frogs and spotted salamanders were signifi cantly higher in mature closed-canopy forests compared to

recently clearcut forests. Faccio (2003) found that spotted salamander locations were associated with microhabitat features typical of mature, deciduous forest stands including a well-developed layer of deciduous leaf litter, closed forest canopy, abundant coarse woody debris > 10 cm (4 in) diameter, a dense understory/low shrub layer, pit and mound topography, and relatively high soil moisture content. Blue-spotted salamander presence also has been positively correlated with percent cover of woody debris (Faccio 2003).

The number or density of vernal pools and/or other wetlands as well as the diversity of these wetlands (e.g., different hydroperiods) also can impact the presence and abundance of these species (Gibbs 1993, Calhoun and deMaynadier 2008, Brodman 2010). Brodman (2010) found that sites with greater number of wetlands and hydroperiod classes had higher species richness, abundance, and occupancy of pond-breeding salamanders including spotted and blue-spotted salamanders. Wetland clusters with 14 or more wetlands had signifi cantly greater species richness and percentage occupancy than wetland clusters with 2 to 13 wetlands (Brodman 2010). Isolated wetlands had signifi cantly lower species richness, occupancy, and abundance than sites with two or more wetlands (Brodman 2010). Additionally, wetland clusters with three hydroperiod classes had signifi cantly greater species richness, abundance, and occupancy of salamanders than sites with one or two hydroperiod classes (Brodman 2010). In general, species composition and richness can vary dramatically among pools, even between individual pools located close to one another, and clusters of pools typically support more taxa overall than any one pool within the cluster (Colburn 2004). This indicates that managing for vernal pool complexes and connectivity between pools would enhance amphibian and reptile diversity and overall biodiversity. However, isolated or partially isolated pools also can be very important in some areas, as some studies have found that species may disproportionally use partially isolated pools in some areas because of fewer available options, and may also use them as stepping stones for dispersal between wetland clusters (Gibbs 2000, Calhoun et al. 2003, Baldwin et al. 2006).

Identifying and mapping vernal pools and understanding their ecological values are critical for effective planning, management, and conservation of these important wetlands and surrounding forests. Management of vernal pools should focus on protecting the pool basin, hydroperiod, water quality, and the surrounding forest to maintain habitat for associated species, particularly pond-breeding amphibians (Calhoun and deMaynadier 2008). Activities that disturb soils or tree canopies within and immediately adjacent to vernal pools should be avoided or minimized, particularly during critical time periods for amphibians (i.e., March/April through July/August) (Thomas et al.



2010). Using heavy equipment and altering the canopy around vernal pools can impact water quality and quantity and shift vegetation, resulting in habitat changes that can pose serious problems for many amphibians (Semlitsch et al. 1988; deMaynadier and Hunter 1995, 1998, 1999; Waldick et al. 1999). The State of Michigan’s sustainable soil and water quality practices for forest lands recommend the following; avoiding disturbance within the vernal pool depression; limiting the use of heavy equipment within 30 m (100 ft) or at least one tree length of the pool to avoid creating deep ruts; and maintaining at least 70% canopy closure within the 30-meter (100 ft or 1.4 ac) buffer (Michigan DNR and Michigan DEQ 2009). However, a 30-m buffer may not be suffi cient to maintain viable populations of pool-breeding amphibians (Harper et al. 2008). Because many of the pool-breeding salamanders and frogs travel 125 meters (400 ft) or more from the breeding pools into the surrounding forest (Semlitsch 1998), maintaining an additional buffer from 31 to 125 m (100-400 ft or 13 ac) or greater [e.g., 140 to 180 meters (450-600 ft)] around the pools with at least 50% canopy cover around vernal pools and abundant cover on the forest fl oor (i.e., leaf litter and coarse woody debris) is recommended to provide adequate terrestrial habitat for vernal pool–dependent amphibians and invertebrates (Semlitsch 1998, Calhoun and deMaynadier 2004 and 2008, Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program 2007). This would be especially benefi cial around vernal pools that are utilized for breeding by vernal pool–obligate species. Construction of roads and landings and applications of chemicals should be avoided within the 30-meter buffer around a vernal pool, and minimized within the larger buffer (Calhoun and deMaynadier 2008).

Maintaining or restoring forest cover, wetland density and diversity, and drainage connections between individual vernal pools and clusters of vernal pools across the landscape would facilitate species dispersal among vernal pools and other wetlands, and likely lead to greater species richness in areas with vernal pool complexes (Calhoun and deMaynadier 2008). Rutting and scarifi cation of the forest fl oor may create barriers and prevent salamanders from travelling to breeding pools (Means et al. 1996), and should be avoided around vernal pools.

Additional surveys and monitoring of vernal pools in the St. John’s Marsh SWA should be conducted to help inform and ensure effective management of these wetlands and associated wildlife. The best time to survey for vernal pools and associated indicator species is in the spring when the pools are fl ooded. However, vernal pools also can be detected during other times of the year as well, including when the pools are dry. Signs that indicate presence of a vernal pool in the fi eld include the presence of a small, isolated basin or depression with no permanent inlets/outlets or persistent surface water connections to permanent water; abrupt change in vegetation from surrounding forest; presence of obligate and/or facultative wetland plant species in upland forests; presence of hydric soils (e.g., saturated or mucky soils); water lines/marks at the base of tree trunks; exposed, lateral tree roots; matted, dark-stained leaves; and/or presence of fi ngernail clams and freshwater snails under leaf litter when the pool is dry. Ideally, surveys should consist of multiple visits to each pool within a year and across several years because vernal pool hydrology and ecology can vary signifi cantly within a year and between years.

Vernal pools provide critical habitat for numerous amphibians and invertebrates. Photo by Yu Man Lee.


Appendix 1B. Vernal Pool Monitoring Form.


Appendix 1B. Vernal Pool Monitoring Form.


Appendix 1C. Vernal Pool Types.


Appendix 1C. Vernal Pool Types.


Appendix 2. Amphibian and reptile species that were targeted for surveys in 2017 and/or have been documented in or have potential to occur in the St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.

Amphibian/Reptile Common Name1,3 Scientific Name1

StateStatus

WAPSGCN2

RareSpecies

Targetedfor 2017 Surveys

SpeciesFoundDuring2017

Surveys

SpeciesFound Prior

to 2017 Surveys General Habitats3,4

Amphibian Eastern Newt Notophthalmus viridescens Small, permanent ponds, temporary ponds, and shallows of large lakes, river sloughs and backwaters with abundant aquatic vegetation

Amphibian Blue-spotted Salamander ** Ambystoma lateraleDeciduous and coniferous forests from moist bottomlands to dry uplands; ponds that retain water into midsummer essential

Amphibian Spotted Salamander ** Ambystoma maculatumMoist closed canopy deciduous or mixed forests, temporary/semi-permanent ponds within or adjacent to woods. Avoid cutover forests and those subject to flooding

Amphibian Eastern Red-backed Salamander Plethodon cinereus Deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forests

Amphibian Mudpuppy * Necturus maculosus maculosus SC XPermanent waters, including rivers, reservoirs, inland lakes, and Great Lakes bays and shallows.

Amphibian Eastern American ToadAnaxyrus [Bufo] americanus americanus X Open forests, forest edges, prairies, marshes, and meadows

Amphibian Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer XTemporary and permanent ponds, marshes, floodings, and ditches, as well as forests, old fields, shrubby areas.

Amphibian Western Chorus Frog ** Pseudacris triseriata Marshes, wet meadows, swales, and other open habitats, also mesic forests and swamp forests.

Amphibian Gray TreefrogHyla versicolor /Hyla chrysoscelis X

Temporary ponds, swamps, floodings, shallow edges of permanent lakes, and sloughs, surrounded by forested or open habitats

Amphibian American Bullfrog Lithobates [Rana] catesbeianus XPermanent waterbodies - river backwaters, sloughs, lakes, farm ponds, impoundments, marshes, shallow Great Lakes bays; abundant emergent and submergent vegetation

Amphibian Green Frog Lithobates [Rana] clamitans X Ponds, lakes, swamps, sloughs, impoundments, and slow streams

Amphibian Pickerel Frog Lithobates [Rana] palustris SC X XBogs, fens, ponds, streams, springs, sloughs, and lake coves; cool clear waters, grassy stream banks.

Amphibian Northern Leopard Frog ** Lithobates [Rana] pipiens X

Open wetland habitats including marshes, bogs, lake and stream edges, and sedge meadows, and adjacent open uplands including hay fields, lawns; breed in shallow temporary ponds, stream backwaters, and marsh pools

Amphibian Wood Frog Lithobates [Rana] sylvaticusMoist, forested habitats (deciduous, coniferous, and mixed); breeding - vernal ponds, floodings, forested swamps, and quiet stream backwaters.

Reptile Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina Permanent waterbodies including shallow, weedy Great Lakes inlets and bays; muddy ponds, lakes, sloughs and slow streams with dense aquatic vegetation

Reptile Eastern Musk Turtle Sternotherus odoratus X X Permanent waterbodies - ponds, lakes, marshes, sloughs, rivers; highly aquatic

Reptile Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata T X X X

Shallow ponds, wet meadows, tamarack swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, sphagnum seepages, slow streams; require clear shallow water with mud/muck bottom and ample aquatic and emergent vegetation

Reptile Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene carolina carolina SC X XDeciduous or mixed forests, esp. with sandy soils, also adjacent old fields, pastures, dunes, marshes, and bog edges

Reptile Blanding's Turtle Emydoidea blandingii SC X XShallow, weedy waters - ponds, marshes, forested and shrub swamps, wet meadows, lake inlets and coves, rivers backwaters, embayments, sloughs, vernal pools

Reptile Northern Map Turtle Graptemys geographicaLarger lakes, rivers, reservoirs, oxbow sloughs, open marshes, Great Lakes bays and inlets; also smaller lakes and streams and ponds.

Key:State Status: E = State Endangered; T = State Threatened; SC = State Special ConcernWAP SGCN - Wildlife Action Plan Species of Greatest Conservation Need* - Rare species not targeted for surveys in 2017 due to low likelihood or probability of detecting the species given available methods and resources for surveys.** - Species was a SGCN prior to 2015 but was removed as a SGCN by the Michigan DNR in 2015. + Species is not native to Michigan, and was introduced through the pet trade and release of pet animals. The species is known from localized

populations in the Lower Peninsula, including St. Clair County.Listed/rare reptile species and/or SGCN that were not documented in St. John's Marsh SWA during MNFI's surveys in 2017 but were documented prior to 2017.Amphibian and reptile species that were documented in St. John's Marsh SWA during MNFI's or other surveys in 2017 and/or prior to 2017.

Sources:1Crother, B.I. (ed.). 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding pp. 1–102. SSAR Herpetological Circular 43.2Derosier, A.L., S.K. Hanshue, K.E. Wehrly, J.K. Farkas, and M.J. Nichols. 2015. Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. http://www.michigan.gov/dnrwildlifeaction3Harding, J.H. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 378 pp.4Harding, J.H., and J.A. Holman. 1992. Michigan Frogs, Toads, and Salamanders. Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension Service, East Lansing, MI. 144 pp.


Appendix 2. Amphibian and reptile species that were targeted for surveys in 2017 and/or have been documented in or have potential to occur in the St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area.

Amphibian/Reptile Common Name1,3 Scientific Name1

StateStatus

WAPSGCN2

RareSpecies

Targetedfor 2017 Surveys

SpeciesFoundDuring2017

Surveys

SpeciesFound Prior

to 2017 Surveys General Habitats3,4

Reptile Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta X

Quiet, slow-moving permanent water bodies with soft bottom substrates, abundant aquatic vegetation, and basking sites; temporarily occupy vernal ponds, imoundments, ditches and faster streams and rivers.

Reptile Eastern Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera spinifera

Rivers and larger streams, inland lakes, reservoirs, protected bays and river mouths; can tolerate fairly swift currents; prefer sandy or muddy substrates and open habitats with little aquatic vegetation; rarely leave vicinity of water

Reptile Red-Eared Slider+ Trachemys scripta elegans

Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, ditches, sloughs, swamps, and backwater sections of streams and river, basically almost any permanent waterbody with ample aquatic vegetation and suitable basking sites. Known range of species from West Virginia west to northern Indiana and Illinois, south to Gulf coastal states from western Georgia through Texas to northern Mexico and eastern New Mexico. Disjunct populations in California, Maryland, southern Ohio, southern Michigan, southern Ontario and elsewhere due to human introduction (Harding 1997)

Reptile Common Five-lined Skink Plestiodon [Eumeces] fasciatus

Moist but not wet, forested or partially forested habitats with ample cover and basking sites - stumps, logs, rock outcrops, wood or brush piles, sawdust piles, fallen bark; moist not wet habitats.

Reptile Northern Watersnake Nerodia sipedon sipedon X

Permanent water bodies - rivers, streams sloughs, lakes, ponds, bogs, marshes, swamps, wet meadows, impoundments; also utilize shallow, small temporary ponds and wetlands including vernal pools and shrub swamps

Reptile Queen Snake * Regina septemvittata SC X

Warm, shallow, rocky-bottomed streams with abundance of crayfish; also edges of ponds, lakes, marshes, ditches and canals, open to mostly forested but totally shaded sites are avoided; often bask at water's edge or in overhanging shrubbery or tree branches.

Reptile Kirtland's Snake Clonophis kirtlandii E X X

Open, grassy, damp habitats, often in the vicinity of streams, ditches, marshes, or pondssuch as wet prairies, wet meadows, fens, swales, and pastures, also forested swamps; and anthropogenic habitats such as vacant urban lots, cemeteries, residential yards, and developed parks.

Reptile Dekay's Brownsnake Storeria dekayi

Variety of habitats from dense forests and shrubby habitats to open prairies, meadows, and marshes; prefer areas with moist soils but also found on dry hillsides, pine forests, and railroad embankments

Reptile Northern Red-bellied Snake Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata

Deciduous or mixed forests, and adjacent fields, pastures, road embankments, marshes and sphagnum bogs.

Reptile Eastern Gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis XAlmost any natural habitats - open and forested habitats and moist grassy places - edgesof ponds, lakes, streams, and ditches.

Reptile Butler's Gartersnake Thamnophis butleri SC X X Wet meadows and prairies, marshy pond and lake borders, and other moist habitats

Reptile Northern Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritus septentrionalis X XEdges of lakes, ponds, streams, marshes, especially with grasses, sedges and low shrubsopen sunny areas/habitats.

Reptile Northern Ring-necked Snake Diadophis punctatus edwardsii X XMoist, shady forests and adjacent open habitats including old fields, grassy dunes; often found under leaf litter or cover or in burrows

Reptile Eastern Hog-nosed Snake ** Heterodon platirhinosAll types of terrestrial habitats - from open pine or deciduous forests to old fields, meadows, and pastures. Prefer sandy, well-drained soils

Reptile Gray Ratsnake Pantherophis spiloides SC X XIn or near forests, and adjacent open habitats - shrubby fields, pastures, marsh and bog edges.

Reptile Eastern Fox Snake Pantherophis vulpinus T X X X

Emergent wetlands and wet prairies along the Great Lakes shoreline and associated rivers and impoundments, including Great Lakes marshes, lakeplain wet prairies, lakeplain wet-mesic prairies, southern wet meadows, and emergent marshes; also vegetated dunes and beaches, old fields, pastures, woodlots, open woodlands, rocky areas/rock riprap, raised dikes, muskrat houses, and road embankments

Reptile Eastern Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum Open forests, bogs, swamps, forest edges, marshes, lakeshores, old fields, and pastures

Reptile Smooth Greensnake Opheodrys vernalis SC X XMoist grassy places including prairie remnants and savannahs, meadows, old fields, pastures, roadsides, marsh and lake edges, also open deciduous and pine forests.

Key:State Status: E = State Endangered; T = State Threatened; SC = State Special ConcernWAP SGCN - Wildlife Action Plan Species of Greatest Conservation Need* - Rare species not targeted for surveys in 2017 due to low likelihood or probability of detecting the species given available methods and resources for surveys.** - Species was a SGCN prior to 2015 but was removed as a SGCN by the Michigan DNR in 2015. + Species is not native to Michigan, and was introduced through the pet trade and release of pet animals. The species is known from localized

populations in the Lower Peninsula, including St. Clair County.Listed/rare reptile species and/or SGCN that were not documented in St. John's Marsh SWA during MNFI's surveys in 2017 but were documented prior to 2017.Amphibian and reptile species that were documented in St. John's Marsh SWA during MNFI's or other surveys in 2017 and/or prior to 2017.

Sources:1Crother, B.I. (ed.). 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding pp. 1–102. SSAR Herpetological Circular 43.2Derosier, A.L., S.K. Hanshue, K.E. Wehrly, J.K. Farkas, and M.J. Nichols. 2015. Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. http://www.michigan.gov/dnrwildlifeaction3Harding, J.H. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 378 pp.4Harding, J.H., and J.A. Holman. 1992. Michigan Frogs, Toads, and Salamanders. Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension Service, East Lansing, MI. 144 pp.


01/05/2016

STATE LANDS INVENTORY SPECIAL ANIMAL SURVEY FORM - HERPS

I. LOCATION INFORMATION

Site Name ______________________________ Stand Number(s)____________________________ Date__________________

Observer(s)______________________________________________ Stand classifications________________________________

Quad____________________________County__________________________ Town, Range, Sec________________________

Directions/access __________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

GPS Unit Type & #: ______________ GPS Waypoint(s): ___________________ GPS Track(s): ________________________

II. SURVEY INFORMATION

Time Start __________ Time End __________ Weather: Air Temp – Start______End _______ RH – Start______ End_______

Sky Code – Start _______ End _______ Wind Code - Start ________ End ________ Precip Code - Start________ End ________

Target species/group & survey method_________________________________________________________________________

Target/rare species found? Yes No Comments: ______________________________________________________________

Habitat for target species/group found? Yes No Comments: ____________________________________________________

Species found (common or rare) Number Location (GPS, landmarks) Notes (habitat, behavior, condition, etc.)

Survey comments (area surveyed, potential for other rare species, revisit warranted, photos taken? etc.)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

III. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION (describe in relation to species surveyed for – presence, quantity, and quality of appropriate habitat, crayfish burrows, hostplants/nectar sources, dominant vegetation, natural communities, habitat structure, etc. )_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

IV. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Threats (e.g., ORV’s, excessive mt. bike use, grazing, structures, past logging, plantations, development, erosion, ag, runoff,

hydrologic alteration, etc.) ___________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Exotic species (plants or animals)______________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stewardship Comments _____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix 3. Rare Herptile Survey Form.


Appendix 3. Rare Herptile Survey Form.

01/05/2016

V. LISTED ANIMAL OR PLANT SPECIES or COMMUNITY EOS ____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

VI. ADDITIONAL ASSOCIATED SPECIES FOUND

Species found (common or rare) Number Location (GPS, landmarks) Notes (habitat, behavior, condition, etc.)

VII. Map/drawing of general area surveyed and approximate locations of suitable habitat and/or rare species found

Wind Codes (Beaufort wind scale): Precipitation Codes: Sky Codes:0 = Calm (< 1 mph) smoke rises vertically 0 = None 0 = Sunny/clear to few clouds (0-5%)

1 = Light air (1-3 mph) smoke drifts, weather vane inactive 1 = Mist 1 = Mostly sunny (5-25% cloud cover)

2 = Light breeze (4-7 mph) leaves rustle, can feel wind on face 2 = Light rain or drizzle2 = Partly cloudy, mixed variable sky (25-50%)

3 = Gentle breeze (8-12 mph) leaves and twigs move, small flag extends 3 = Heavy rain 3 = Mostly cloudy (50-75%)

4 = Moderate breeze (13-18 mph) moves small tree branches, twigs & leaves, raises loose paper 4 = Snow/hail 4 = Overcast (75-100%)

5 = Strong breeze (19-24 mph) small trees sway, branches move, dust blows 5 = Fog or haze

6 = Windy (> 24 mph) larger tree branches move, whistling


Appendix 4. Papaipema Moth Survey Form.


Appendix 4. Papaipema Moth Survey Form.


Appendix 5. Global and State Element Ranking Criteria.

GLOBAL RANKS G1 = critically imperiled: at very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer

occurrences), very steep declines, or other factors. G2 = imperiled: at high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few occurrences (often 20

or fewer), steep declines, or other factors. G3 = vulnerable: at moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few occurrences

(often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. G4 = apparently secure: uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or

other factors.G5 = secure: common; widespread. GU = currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting

information about status or trends. GX = eliminated: eliminated throughout its range, with no restoration potential due to extinction of

dominant or characteristic species. G? = incomplete data.

STATE RANKS S1 = critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or

because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state.

S2 = imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few occurrences (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state.

S3 = vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few occurrences (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation.

S4 = uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.S5 = common and widespread in the state. SX = community is presumed to be extirpated from the state. Not located despite intensive searches of

historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered.

S? = incomplete data.


Appendix 6. Number of marsh bird detections within 200 m of survey points by species and year at St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. The percent of points having detections for species is provided by year. Species for which surveys were not conducted are indicated by “---.”

YearPoint Number

Am

eric

an b

itter

n

Am

eric

an c

oot

Bla

ck te

rn

Com

mon

gal

linul

e

Fors

ter’

s ter

n

Kin

g ra

il

Lea

st b

itter

n

Mar

sh w

ren

Pied

-bill

ed g

rebe

Sand

hill

cran

e

Sedg

e w

ren

Sora

Swam

p sp

arro

w

Vir

gini

a ra

il

Wils

on’s

snip

e

2013694 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0709 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0718 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0

693N 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 --- 2 0 --- 0 --- 0 0702N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0703N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0715N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 3 --- 0 --- 0 0

% ofpoints2014

694 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 1 --- 0 --- 2 0709 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 7 --- 0 --- 0 0718 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0

693N 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 --- 1 0 --- 2 --- 1 0702N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0703N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0715N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 1 --- 0 --- 0 1

% ofpoints2015

694 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 2 --- 1 0708 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 --- 1 0 --- 0 --- 0 0709 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 --- 1 21 --- 0 --- 0 0

693N 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 --- 1 1 --- 1 --- 1 0702N 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 1 0703N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0715N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0

% ofpoints2016

694 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 1 1 --- 3 --- 0 0708 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 --- 1 0 --- 1 --- 0 0709 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 --- 2 0 --- 2 --- 0 0

693N 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 --- 1 0 --- 3 --- 2 0702N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0703N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 1 --- 0 0715N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 1 0 --- 0 --- 1 0

% ofPoints

14 --- 86 --- 29 0

0

57 14 0 0 0 0 29 --- 71

43 29 --- 29 --- 43

29 14

86 14 0 14 14 0 29 ---

--- 14 43 --- 14 ---

--- 0 0

29 14 0 0 0 14 0

0 --- 0 14 --- 029 14 0 0 0 0


Appendix 6. Number of marsh bird detections within 200 m of survey points by species and year at St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area. The percent of points having detections for species is provided by year. Species for which surveys were not conducted are indicated by “---”.

YearPoint Number

Am

eric

an b

itter

n

Am

eric

an c

oot

Bla

ck te

rn

Com

mon

gal

linul

e

Fors

ter’

s ter

n

Kin

g ra

il

Lea

st b

itter

n

Mar

sh w

ren

Pied

-bill

ed g

rebe

Sand

hill

cran

e

Sedg

e w

ren

Sora

Swam

p sp

arro

w

Vir

gini

a ra

il

Wils

on’s

snip

e

2017694 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 --- 3 0 --- 2 --- 0 0695 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0696 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0697 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0698 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0699 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 1 0700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0701 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0704 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0705 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0706 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0707 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0708 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0709 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 --- 2 0 --- 2 --- 0 0710 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0711 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0712 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0713 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0716 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0717 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0719 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0720 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 0721 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0722 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0723 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0724 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 0725 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0727 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0728 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0729 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0731 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0732 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0733 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0734 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0736 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0737 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0738 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0

693N 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 --- 2 1 --- 2 --- 0 0702N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 1 0703N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0715N 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 0

% ofpoints

26 43 19 026 9 0 30 9 0 35 54 37 5 11


Appendix 7. List of bird species having special status that were detected at St. John’s Marsh State Wildlife Area during 2017 surveys and their habitat requirements.

Mallard Shallow marshes and ponds, lakes, rivers, and streams. Nests in grasslands, wetlands, hayfields, and shrublands. X

Wood duckVariety of swamps, marshes, streams, beaver ponds, and lakes. Nests in tree cavities of mature forests near wetlands or water bodies.

X

Americanbittern

Usually large marshes with dense cover of cattails, sedges, or bulrushes. Also occurs in shrubby marshes, bogs, wet meadows, and sometimes hayfields.

SC X X

Least bittern Occurs in deeper water marshes compared to the American bittern, especially those will dense cattails and/or bulrushes. T X

King railIn the Great Lakes region, wetlands dominated by cattails and sedges are described as preferred. Most recent observations have occurred in large coastal wetland complexes.

E X X

SoraUses shallow wetlands of a variety of types and sizes, including marshes dominated by cattails, sedges, grasses, and bulrushes, and bogs, fens, and wet meadows.

X

Commongallinule

Typically found in deep-water marshes with dense vegetation and nearby areas of open water. T X

Wilson’ssnipe

Usually occurs in peatlands, such as fens/wet meadows, bogs, and muskegs, containing sedges, grasses, and scattered low shrubs. X

Forster’stern

In the Great Lakes region, the species is primarily found in coastal marshes, where it usually nests on floating dead vegetation (i.e., wrack), especially bulrushes.

T X

Marsh wrenUses a variety of emergent wetlands with dense vegetation, but typically prefers deeper-water marshes compared to the sedge wren. In Michigan, it most often nests in cattail and bulrushes marshes.

SC

Species General Habitat RequirementsState

Status1FeaturedSpecies2

JV Focal Species4

WAPSGCN3

1 Michigan listing status (E = endangered; T = threatened; and SC = special concern).2 Identifi ed as featured species for habitat management by MDNR Wildlife Division.3 Species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) in the Michigan Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) (Derosier et al. 2015).4 Focal species in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterbird Habitat Conservation Strategy (Soulliere et al. 2018).

Documents

Natural Features Inventory and Management Recommendations