Statewide Analysis and Surveys to Develop an Approach for ...approach for evaluating the landscape and identifying or predicting areas of high ecological value or significance remotely

Statewide Analysis and Surveys to Develop an Approachfor Identifying Priority Conservation Areas in Michigan:

2008 Progress Report

Prepared by:Yu Man Lee, Edward H. Schools, Bradford S. Slaughter, Michael R. Penskar,

Peter J. Badra, Joelle L. Gehring, Amy L. Derosier, Michael A. Kost, and Patrick W. Brown

Michigan Natural Features InventoryP.O. Box 30444

Lansing, MI 48909-7944

For:Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Wildlife DivisionP. O. Box 30444

Lansing, Michigan 48909

February 12, 2009

Report Number 2009-02

Cover photo: Dry-mesic northern forest at Pigeon River Pines in Michigan, photo by Joshua G. Cohen, MNFI

Copyright 2009 MSU Board of Trustees

Michigan State University Extension is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity organization.

Funding for this project was provided by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division.

Statewide Analysis and Surveys to Identify Priority Conservation Areas 2008, Page - i

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

METHODS ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

GIS Analysis/Component..............................................................................................................................2 Terrestrial GIS Analysis/Component ................................................................................................................. 2 Aquatic GIS Analysis/Component ..................................................................................................................... 4

Field Component ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Terrestrial Field Component .............................................................................................................................. 4 Aquatic Field Component ................................................................................................................................ 17

Aerial Photo Interpretation Component ...................................................................................................... 18

Conservation Gazetteer .............................................................................................................................. 18

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 21

GIS Analysis/Component ........................................................................................................................... 21

Field Component ....................................................................................................................................... 25 Terrestrial Field Component ............................................................................................................................ 25 Aquatic Field Component ................................................................................................................................ 26

Aerial Photo Interpretation Component ...................................................................................................... 26

Conservation Gazetteer .............................................................................................................................. 27

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 27

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................... 28

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................................. A-1

List of Tables

Table 1. Thresholds for patch scores for small patch communities for area scoring. ............................................... 3

Table 2. Thresholds for patch scores for large patch communities for area scoring. ............................................... 3

Table 3. Thresholds for patch scores for core area scoring. .................................................................................. 3

Table 4. Summary of variables utilized in GIS stream/river reach disturbance model developed by Wang et al. (inpress) to predict potential quality or condition of stream/river reaches based on predicted impact rankings. ..... 5

Table 5. Crosswalk showing relationships between GIS model land cover types/classes, natural community fieldclasses, and MNFI natural community classifications. ................................................................................... 10

Statewide Analysis and Surveys to Identify Priority Conservation Areas 2008, Page - ii

Table 6. Summary of field metrics utilized to assess the ecological quality or condition of the sample cells in uplandoak and oak-pine forest and upland mesic forestnatural community field classes which are associated withupland forest cover type patches. ................................................................................................................ 11

Table 7. Summary of criteria for field metrics for evaluating the ecological quality or condition of sample cells in theupland mesic forest natural community field class. ........................................................................................ 12

Table 8. Summary of criteria for field metrics for evaluating the ecological quality or condition of sample cells in theupland oak and oak-pine forest natural community field class. ...................................................................... 14

Table 9. Summary of botanical, zoological, and aquatic community field metrics used to assess the quality orcondition of the sample cells in cover type patches across a gradient of quality based on the GIS patch analysismodel. ........................................................................................................................................................ 16

Table 10. Summary of rank factors, key ecological attributes, metrics, and ranking criteria for assessing the ecologi-cal quality or condition of photo-interpreted polygons in general. .................................................................. 19

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map showing general location of study area in Michigan.......... .............................................................. 6

Figure 2. Map showing the names and locations of the sample cells or plots that were surveyed from 2006 to 2008for the terrestrial field component of the project...............................................................................................8

Figure 3. Distribution of quality scores for all cover type patches from GIS patch analysis. .................................. 21

Figure 4. Example of GIS patch analysis results from Newaygo County. ............................................................. 22

Figure 5. Map showing general distribution of high and moderately scoring cover type patches in the Lower Penin-sula based on results from the GIS patch analysis. ........................................................................................ 23

Figure 6. Map showing general distribution of high and moderately scoring cover type patches in the Upper Penin-sula based on results from the GIS patch analysis. ........................................................................................ 24

List of Appendices

Appendix I. Summary of field metrics to assess the ecological quality or condition of the range of natural communityfield classes associated with the GIS/IFMAP land cover types or classes and MNFI natural communities. ........ A-2

Appendix II. Summary of metrics and criteria used to evaluate the quality or condition of photo-interpreted polygons bynatural community type. ......................................................................................................................................... A-7

Statewide Analysis and Surveys to Identify Priority Conservation Areas 2008 Page-1

INTRODUCTION

Land management decisions need to be basedupon a foundation of sound and comprehensiveecological information. Many types of data currentlyexist that can be synthesized into an integratedanalysis of Michigan’s natural features that iscomprehensive and scientifically sound and can informland management decisions. Increased knowledge andanalysis about the natural features on the landscape(e.g. ecological communities that perform importantecosystem services, endangered and threatenedspecies, species of concern, rare ecologicalcommunities) will improve the State’s ability to makewise decisions regarding conservation andmanagement of these resources. The MichiganDepartment of Natural Resources (MDNR) has ledseveral initiatives that have incorporated integratedand comprehensive analyses of the natural features ofMichigan. These include forest certification,development of a wildlife conservation strategy (i.e.,Wildlife Action Plan), the biodiversity/old growthinitiative, and the biodiversity conservation planningprocess.

An important component of these initiatives isthe identification of areas of high ecological value orsignificance for conservation and management. Thesecan include high quality examples of natural features,functional representative native ecosystems, and areaswith concentrations of rare, threatened or endangeredspecies or natural communities. Ideally, identificationof these high ecological value areas as priorities forconservation should be based on information collectedfrom systematic and comprehensive field inventoriesof natural features and other areas of high ecologicalsignificance across the state. However, suchinventories have not been completed to date due tofunding and time constraints. In lieu of havingcomplete information from field surveys, GIS-basedmodels have been developed to help identify potentialareas of high ecological value or significance.However, these models need to be tested, verified, andrefined based on conditions in the field before they canbe applied with confidence to help guide conservationand management decisions.

The goal of this project is to improve theMDNR’s ability to identify terrestrial and aquatic areasof high ecological value. This would be achieved by

developing an effective approach for evaluating andidentifying these areas on the landscape remotely andsystematically surveying these areas to assess theirecological condition and associated plants and animals.Specific objectives of this project include the following:1) develop a GIS model that identifies areas of highecological value statewide using currently availabledata; 2) evaluate air photo interpretation resultscompared to GIS model results; 3) develop and applyfield metrics to assess ecological value; and 4) testGIS model and potentially other existing GIS andremote sensing models with field metrics/data.

This project is envisioned to be the first part of a10 to 20 year effort that will lead to a scientificallysound and comprehensive statewide analysis,identification, and survey of high ecological valueareas (as defined by this project, see below) aspriorities for conservation. This project will addressseveral statewide research needs identified in theMichigan’s Wildlife Action Plan. These includedeveloping and providing tools or approaches forlandscape assessment and identification of high qualityrepresentative occurrences and providing informationto address conservation needs that address statewidepriority threats and issues, and needs to addressecosystem representation and network issues. Theultimate goal of this project is to provide informationthat will inform conservation and land use decisions byfederal, state, and local government agencies and otherentities.

This report provides a summary of projectactivities and progress made on the Statewide Analysisand Survey project during 2008. This project wasinitiated in 2006 and continued in 2007 and 2008. Asubset of the data collected from 2006 through 2008will be summarized and analyzed in 2009. A finalreport summarizing project accomplishments andfindings from 2006 through 2009 will be prepared andcompleted in 2009. A project evaluation also will beconducted in 2009, and results of that evaluation willbe provided in the 2009 final report.


METHODS

This project has two major components. Thefirst component is developing an effective and efficientapproach for evaluating the landscape and identifyingor predicting areas of high ecological value orsignificance remotely. To accomplish this, a GISanalysis of the state was conducted by MNFI toidentify terrestrial areas of high ecological value, asdefined by this project. A GIS model assessing thequality or condition of stream reaches that wasdeveloped by Wang et al. (2006) at the Institute forFisheries Research was utilized to identify potentialaquatic areas of high ecological value. The purpose ofthe GIS analysis or component (“GIS component”) isto provide credible, scientifically sound guidance basedupon currently available ecological information toidentify areas with high ecological value and to providethe information in a short time frame for the entirestate.

Terrestrial GIS Analysis/ComponentTerrestrial areas of high ecological value that

have been identified by the GIS analysis have beendefined as high quality cover type patches. A patchanalysis was conducted to identify high quality covertype patches. A cover type patch is a spatially definedarea of the same land cover class or type delineatedusing GIS, based on the MDNR Integrated ForestMonitoring, Assessment and Prescription (IFMAP)land cover dataset (MDNR 2001). The IFMAPdataset is a raster dataset of 30-m resolution cellsderived from remotely-sensed Landsat ThematicMapper imagery. A total of 35 different land coverclassifications are identified in IFMAP. The IFMAPland cover data were reclassified and aggregated intocover type patches of 16 general land cover typeswhich comprised of the following: Upland DeciduousForest, Upland Coniferous Forest, Upland MixedForest, Lowland Deciduous Forest, LowlandConiferous Forest, Lowland Mixed Forest, Grassland,Shrub, Non-forested Wetland, Pines, Pasture/Parks,Agriculture, Sand/Soil, Bare Soil/Rock, Urban, andWater. The agriculture, bare soil/rock, urban, andwater cover types were excluded from the GISanalysis. Because of file size limitations, the state wasdivided into 13 different regions for the analysis, 10 inthe Lower Peninsula and 3 in the Upper Peninsula.

ARCGIS, FRAGSTATS, and SPSS were usedto complete the GIS analysis or model to identify high

quality cover type patches for this component of theproject. Each cover type patch was scored from 1-4,with 4 indicating highest quality, for each of thefollowing three variables or criteria: area, core area,and proximity to similar patches. We initially hadincluded two additional variables in the GIS analysis,edge contrast and shape. However, subsequent testingshowed that core area and edge adjacency werepositively correlated with each other while area andshape were negatively correlated with each other.Core area and edge adjacency correlated becauseFRAGSTATS uses the adjacent cover types whencalculating the patch core area. The negativecorrelation between area and shape was likely anartifact of the IFMAP dataset and the methodFRAGSTATS uses to calculate shape. When testing araster dataset, FRAGSTATS assigns a perfect shapescore to a square. The greater the deviation from asquare, the lower the shape score. In the IFMAPdatasets, larger areas tend to be convoluted patchesconnected together by narrow strips. This gives largepatches a relatively high edge to area ratio and asubsequent low FRAGSTATS shape score. Anotherproblem scoring patches for shape was the inherentlinear shape of some cover type patches. For example,lowland riparian forests in the southern LowerPeninsula and beach areas tend to naturally occur aslinear patches, which resulted in lower scores for thesecover type patches in the analysis. As a result, edgecontrast and shape were removed from the analysis,and only area, core area, and proximity to similarpatches were used in the final GIS analysis.

Area ScoringSome land cover types occur over much larger

areas than do certain other types in Michigan. Thus,cover types were classified into large patch or smallpatch communities for area scoring. Large patchcommunities were Grassland, Upland DeciduousForest, Upland Coniferous Forest, Upland MixedForest, Lowland Deciduous Forest, LowlandConiferous Forest, Lowland Mixed Forest, Shrub,Pines, and Pasture/Parks. Small patch communitieswere Non-forested Wetland and Sand/Soil. Smallpatch communities were given a score from 2 to 4 forarea or size of the patch using the thresholdssummarized in Table 1. Large patch communities weregiven a score from 1 to 4 for area or size of the patchbased on the thresholds summarized in Table 2.

GIS Analysis/Component


Patch score Threshold

2 0 <= area < 2 hectares

3 2 hectares <= area < 20 hectares

4 20 hectares <= area

Table 1. Thresholds for patch scores for small patch communities for area scoring.


1 0 < area < 20 hectares



4 area => 2000 hectares

Table 2. Thresholds for patch scores for large patch communities for area scoring.

Core area was determined using FRAGSTATS.FRAGSTATS utilizes user determined depth impactsof adjoining cover types to determine the amount ofcore area. Core area scores for each patch weredetermined using the thresholds summarized in Table3.

Core Area ScoringPatches were given a score from 0 to 4 for the

percentage of the patch that is considered core area.

Proximity ScoringPatches were given a score from 0 to 4 for

proximity to similar patches. FRAGSTATS assigns anopen ended proximity value to each patch. Eachpatch was scored using SPSS to do a two-step clusteranalysis of values assigned by FRAGSTATS to thepatch. The cluster analysis was performed individuallyon each cover type. Those patches given a zeroproximity value by FRAGSTATS were given aproximity score of zero.


0 No core area

1 0 < core area <= .1

2 0.1 < core area <= 0.25

3 0.25 < core area <= 0.5

4 0.5 < core area

Table 3. Thresholds for patch scores for core area scoring.


catchment size, catchment surficial geology, catchmentslope, catchment land use, discharge, nutrientconcentration, summer water temperature, valleycharacter, valley width, valley wetlands, channel

Area, core area, and proximity scores were thensummed for each patch, resulting in a total score foreach patch ranging from 3 to 12, with 12 indicating thehighest quality. A score of 12 would indicate a largecover type patch with a high percentage of core areaand in close proximity to other similar cover typepatches. The Pines and Pasture/Parks cover typepatches were scored for each criterion, but theirsummed criteria scores were halved, resulting in totalpatch scores ranging from 1.5 to 6. This was donebecause IFMAP does not differentiate betweennatural pine stands and pine plantations.

Aquatic GIS Analysis/ComponentTo develop an approach for identifying potential

aquatic areas of high ecological value, a GIS modelthat predicts stream/river reach quality or conditionthat was developed by Wang et al. ( in press) at theMDNR’s Institute of Fisheries Research was used forthis component of the study. A reach is generally astretch of stream from confluence to confluence. Thisanalysis or model assessed the quality or condition ofstream/river reaches based on a number of variablesincluding number of active mines, percentage ofnetwork watershed in agricultural and urban land use,number of point source facilities and toxic releasesites, number of road crossings, road density, damdensity, nitrogen loading, and watershed area treatedwith manure (Table 4).

Each stream/river reach in the model also isassociated with a valley segment (i.e., VSEC) and ariver type. Valley segments are aggregates of reachesbased on a number of variables. Variables used in theclassification of VSECs include the following:

character, channel sinuosity, and key fish species.Valley segment boundaries were determined byapplying the following priority criteria: 1) junctions ofsimilar order tributaries, 2) corresponding breaks inland surface form, 3) changes in local groundwatersource, 4) abrupt changes in major land uses, and 5)observed or expected changes in key fish species.River types are MNFI’s draft river naturalcommunities which are based on catchment size,water temperature, and gradient. Four size classes aredefined using drainage areas of VSECs, followingdefinitions outlined in Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan:1) headwaters and small tributaries are less than 40mi2; 2) medium rivers are between 40-179 mi2; 3)large rivers are between 180-620 mi2; and 4) verylarge rivers are greater than 620 mi2 (Eagle et al.2005). Three classes of water temperatures aredefined as follows: cold (<19�C), cool (19-22�C),and warm (>22�C). Three classes of gradient aredefined as follows: low (<0.001), moderate (0.001-0.006), and high (>0.006). Gradient classes weredefined using the 25th and 75th percentiles of allstream reach gradients across Michigan. All of thesevalues were pulled from the latest VSEC data(VSECxEDUxHUC8_noshoreline.shp).

Based on the variables assessed in the GISmodel, each stream/river reach in the model has beenassigned one of the following six rankings of expectedimpact: reference, no impact, detectable, moderate,heavy, and severe. These rankings can be comparedand combined with field metrics to evaluate anddetermine if this GIS model can be used to accuratelyassess the quality or condition of stream/river reachesin Michigan. For example, a no impact ranking mightindicate higher site quality or higher ecological value asdefined by this project whereas a moderate, heavy orsevere impact ranking might indicate lower site qualityor lower ecological value as defined by this project.

Field Component

The second major component of this projectinvolved developing and applying field metrics toassess the ecological value or condition of the covertype patches and stream/river reaches identified by theGIS models to test and verify the models. The fieldmetrics or data will be used to test the GIS modeldeveloped by MNFI as part of this project. Thesemetrics also could potentially be used to test otherexisting GIS and remote sensing models that identifyareas of high ecological value or conservation priority.

The purpose of the field component (“fieldcomponent”) of this project is to verify and improvethe scientific foundation of the GIS models and provideinformation to enhance future analyses or models thatidentify areas of high ecological value andconservation priority.

Terrestrial Field ComponentTerrestrial areas of high ecological value as

identified by the field metrics for this project are


Variables for all streams

Active mining (#/10000 km2)

Network watershed agricultural land use (%)

Network watershed urban land use (%)

MDEQ’s permitted point source facilities (#/100 km2)

MDEQ’s permitted point source facilities having direct connection with stream (#/100 km2)

USEPA’s toxic release inventory sites (#/10000 km2)

Population density (#/km2)

Road crossing (#/km2)

Road density (km/km2)

Total nitrogen plus (phosphorus*10) loading (kg/l/yr)

Watershed area treated with manure from barn yards (m/km)

Additional variables for coldwater streams

Total nitrogen plus (phosphorus*10) yield (kg/l/year)

Additional variables for warmwater streams

Dam density (#/100 km2)

USEPA’s toxic release inventory sites discharging into

surface water (#/10000 km2)

Table 4. Summary of variables utilized in GIS stream/river reach disturbance model developed by Wanget al. (in press) to predict potential quality or condition of stream/river reaches based on predicted impactrankings.

referred to as high quality natural community fieldclasses. Natural community field classes are groups ofnatural communities derived from MNFI naturalcommunity types that were evaluated for quality in thefield based on various field metrics (Table 5). Fieldmetrics were developed and applied to assess theecological condition or quality of the natural communityas well as the quality or condition of the plant andanimal communities. Assessment of the animalcommunity focused on breeding bird communities forthis first phase of the project.

To adequately evaluate the efficacy of the GISmodel, the goal of the terrestrial field component wasto sample and collect field metrics from at least 30cover type patches in each land cover type or classacross a gradient of quality, as indicated by the patchscore. Of the 30 total, the goal was to collect fieldmetrics from approximately 10 cover type patchesfrom the low end of the quality spectrum, 10 from thehigh end, and 10 in the middle (exact definitions of low,medium, and high are not important at this time) tocapture a gradient of quality. Sampling in 2006 and2007 was conducted in upland forest, lowland forest,grassland/shrubland, and non-forested wetland landcover type patches. The number of samples in eachland cover type varied. To ensure sufficient sample

size from at least one land cover type to draw somemeaningful conclusions at the end of this year,sampling in 2008 focused only on one land cover typeor class.

To identify sites for field sampling in 2008, thecover type patches that were surveyed in 2006 and2007 were analyzed to address changes in thesampling scheme. Based on this analysis, it wasdetermined that most of the cover type patches thatwere surveyed in 2006 and 2007 consisted of uplandforest patches, primarily upland deciduous forestpatches, that were ranked as high to moderate qualitybased on the GIS patch analysis scores. In 2006 and2007, a total of 25 sample cells or plots were located inupland deciduous forest cover type patches that wereranked as high to moderate quality. Thus, surveyefforts in 2008 focused on surveying upland deciduousforest cover type patches ranked as low to moderatequality in order to collect field metrics from a sufficientnumber of patches in this cover type across a gradientof quality.

As in previous years of the project, theterrestrial field component in 2008 was conductedprimarily in the Newaygo County area (Figure 1).Some sampling occurred outside of Newaygo County


Figure 1. Map showing general location of study area in Michigan (counties highlighted in red).


in adjacent counties (i.e., Oceana, Muskegon, Kent,and Mecosta) and multiple ecological subsections in2008 to obtain sufficient numbers of samples of uplanddeciduous forest cover type patches ranked as low tomoderate quality (Figures 1 and 2). As in 2006 and2007, field sampling in 2008 was conducted on stateand federal public lands managed by the MDNR andthe U. S. Forest Service.

Based on project meetings and discussions in2008, several changes in the sampling scheme for theterrestrial field component of the project wereidentified and implemented in 2008. In 2006, fieldmetrics were collected in randomly selected 10-ha(24.7 ac) sample cells or plots within upland forestcover type patches. A grid of 10-ha sample cells wasintersected with the IFMAP land cover dataset. Thesample cells were further stratified in that only samplecells that contained at least 85% of the targeted covertype (i.e., upland forest, lowland forest, grassland/shrub, non-forested wetland) and were on public land(state or federal) were included in the pool of potentialsample cells for field surveys. Sample cells were thenrandomly selected from this pool for field surveys. Forthe forested cover type patches, a random set of morethan 30 sample cells was chosen from the set stratifiedby public ownership. This random set was thenrandomly ordered. If field visits determined that a cellwas not usable for some reason (e.g., incorrect landcover classification, recent management action), thatcell was removed from sampling and the next cell onthe list was sampled. In 2007, a similar method forselecting sample cells was used except that the 10-hasample cells were first located within photo-interpretedpolygons (see section on Aerial Photo InterpretationComponent) in specific cover type patches. Thesampling scheme applied in 2006 and 2007 resulted insome sample cells containing portions of multiple covertype patches, with different patch analysis scores insome cases. The sampling scheme was changed in2008 so that cover type patches were randomlyselected for field sampling instead of sample cells, andsample cells were then randomly placed within covertype patches that were selected for sampling. Thisensured that each sample cell was located within andconsisted of only one cover type patch and not multiplepatches.

Prior to field surveys, upland deciduous forestcover type patches that were ranked as low tomoderate quality, based on the GIS patch analysisscores, were identified and randomly selected for fieldsampling. Sample cells were delineated in the covertype patches selected for field sampling. The sampling

scheme in 2008 also was modified in that if a covertype patch was <10 ha in size, we conducted fieldmeasurements or metrics on the entire patch. If acover type patch was >10 ha in size, we randomlyselected or placed a 10-ha sample cell within thatpatch and conducted field metrics within the samplecell. If the patch was >10 ha but the shape of thepatch did not provide sufficient area for a square orrectangular 10-ha sample cell, we randomly selectedan irregularly shaped 10-ha sample cell for fieldmeasurements.

An aerial photo review of the randomly selectedcover type patches and sample cells was conducted toidentify and prioritize a minimum of 20 sample cells inupland deciduous forest patches with moderate to highquality scores (UDM) and low quality scores (UDL).All UDM sample cells consisted of square, 10-hasample cells, whereas all UDL sample cells consistedof irregular polygons. A minimum of 10 qualifyingUDM sample cells and 10 UDL sample cells wereidentified following aerial photo review and rejection ofapparent non-qualifying plots (e.g. plots with no visibleor reasonable access, or those lacking a sufficientextent of contiguous forest vegetation, etc.). It wasnoted that subsequent rejections could occur duringinitial field visits, and thus a list of at least 15 sites foreach category were reviewed for initial approval andfield reconnaissance.

Following the selection of sites, a folder or sitepackage was prepared and printed for Botany,Ecology, and Zoology project staff. Each site folder orpackage contained two sets of labeled aerial photos foreach of the plots (i.e., 1998 CIR and the 2005 colorimagery) in addition to a representative topographicmap layer. No plat maps were printed, as all plots fellwithin public land boundaries.

Ecological field surveys/samplingEcological field sampling was conducted from 16

June to 8 August 2008. Sample cells or plots in 10UDM and 10 UDL cover type patches were surveyedin 2008. The ecological quality or condition of thenatural community within the sample cell was assessedbased on up to 11 field metrics/criteria, with eachmetric having a score from 1-4 (4 indicating excellentcondition and 1 indicating poor condition). Field metricswere developed in 2006 were for each naturalcommunity field class (Appendix 1). These metricswere developed to score indicators of structural andfunctional biodiversity within a variety of landscapes(Noss 1990, 1999, McElhinny et al. 2005, Lindenmayeret al. 2000, 2006). These metrics can be divided into


Figure 2. Map showing the names and locations of the sample cells or plots that were surveyed from2006 to 2008 for the terrestrial field component of the project. Ecological, botanical, and zoological(breeding bird) surveys were conducted in these sample cells. Sample cells were primarily located inNewaygo County and subsection VII.3, but some sample cells also were located in surrounding countiesand subsections.

VII.4

VII.3

VII.2.1

VI.3.2VI.4.2

MECOSTA

NEWAYGO

MUSKEGON

OCEANA

KENT

#

18476

#

16408

#

16303#

16179#

14651#

14527

#

9333

#

9464

#

17393#

17646#

18783#

18388

#

23215

#

21399#

21627

#

20360

#21753#

21246#

20231# 20490

#

19413

#

17644

#

9461

#

8705

#

17851

#UDL12

#

UDL11

#

UDL5

#

UDL8

#

UDL4

#

UDL14

#

UDL7

#

UDL3

#

UDL6#

UDL9

#

UDM5

#

UDM4#

UDM3

#

UDM7

#

UDM11

#

UDM2

#

UDM10

#

UDM9#

UDM8

#UDM1


three categories evaluating the landscape context,present condition, and threats facing of the naturalcommunity.

The upland forest land cover type/class in theGIS patch analysis model includes two naturalcommunity field classes, upland oak and oak-pineforest and upland mesic forest, which, in turn, relate toseveral MNFI natural community types (Table 5).Thus, the field metrics that were utilized for evaluatingthe condition of the natural community in the UDMand UDL sample cells consisted of the field metricsthat have been developed for the upland mesic forestand upland oak and oak-pine natural community fieldclasses (Table 6). The specific set of metrics thatwere used depended upon the natural community classthat occurred in the field in the sample cell. Thecriteria that were used to evaluate and score the fieldmetrics for these natural community field classes aresummarized in Tables 7 and 8. The same ecologicalmetrics were utilized in 2006 and 2007. Scores forthese field metrics were derived by walking throughand assessing the field metrics for the entire samplecell in the targeted cover type patch.

Botanical field surveys/floristic samplingEarly season floristic sampling ensued on June

16, and early surveys were conducted on 20 samplecells or plots (10 UDLs and 10 UDMs) through thefirst week of July. A handheld Ipaq computer wasused for all field surveys to ensure thorough coverageof the sample cell and in many cases simply to locateboundaries. A comprehensive flora list was compiledduring meander-searches of all sample cells.Specimens were collected and pressed for all speciesthat could not be identified in the field and which weresufficiently fertile or in a condition suitable for keyingand subsequent identification. The time upon enteringand leaving each sample cell was recorded, and inaddition, five representative photos were recorded foreach sample cell. One sample cell was subsequentlyrejected as a sample site when examined in the field,and avoidance of this sample cell as a suitable samplesite was immediately communicated to the Zoologyand Ecology Section staff. When this sample cell wasrejected, the next available sample cell on the list wasqueued up for sampling.

Late season floristic sampling took place fromearly to mid-September. Prior to sampling, all samplecell or plot data, with the exception of the collectedspecimens, were entered into the Michigan FQAprogram to prepare printed plant lists for each samplecell, such that an alphabetized list could be carried in

the field for each sample cell. When encountered,new species were appended to the list, and anyadditional unknowns were collected for subsequentkeying and verification. All 20 sample cells wererevisited for the late summer inventory, with eachsample cell producing a significant number ofadditional species.

All pressed specimens were dried and placed incollection folders. Once identification of thesespecimens is confirmed after consultation withspecialists at The University of Michigan, thesespecies will be added to the sample cell or plot data asappropriate, and all related FQA-measures (e.g. FQI)will be recalculated and summarized. Approximately50-100 individual species collections were made fordetermination.

Plant information collected during the early andlate season floristic sampling was used to assess thequality or condition of the plant community in thesample cells. The quality or condition of the plantcommunity was determined primarily using the FloristicQuality Assessment (FQA) system or program(Herman et al. 2001). This program or approachassesses quality based on the following metrics: 1)plant species presence/composition, 2) speciesrichness (i.e., total number of species present), 3) theFloristic Quality Index (FQI) (i.e., for each speciesand sample cell), 4) mean coefficient of conservatism,5) mean coefficient of wetness, and 6) summary ofphysiognomic classes for both native and non-nativeplant species (Table 9).

Zoological field samplingBirds have been considered good indicators of

ecosystem integrity due to their relatively low birthrates and long life spans which make them sensitive tochanges in the environment (Maurer 1993). Inaddition, the diversity of avifauna is strongly correlatedwith habitat type and quality making habitatspecialization common (MacArthur and MacArthur1961). This strong association with habitat and theprevalence of habitat loss and alteration in recenthistory has been frequently linked together to explainthe population declines of many Nearctic migrant birdsthat winter in the tropics (Rappole and McDonald1994). These characteristics make avifauna a usefulfocal group to examine the relationships among habitatcharacteristics, habitat quality, conservation, andspecies presence or absence.

Breeding bird surveys were conducted in Mayand June of 2008. These surveys were conducted in


GIS Model Land Cover Type/Class

Natural Community Field Class MNFI Natural Community M

NF

I Map

pin

g C

od

e(s)

Up

lan

d F

ore

st

Lo

wla

nd

Fo

rest

No

n-f

ore

sted

Wet

lan

d

Gra

ssla

nd

/Sh

rub

Acidic peatlands

Bog 6121 xPoor fen 6223 xPoor conifer swamp 4234 xMuskeg 6125 x

Intermittent wetlandsCoastal plain marsh 62253 xIntermittent wetland 62251 x

Upland prairies and savanna

Dry sand prairie 31111 xMesic sand prairie 31112 xOak barrens 332 xOak openings 336 xOak-pine barrens 334 xPine barrens 333 x

Upland oak and oak-pine forests

Dry southern forest 4123 xDry-mesic northern forest 4311 xDry-mesic southern forest 4122 x

Upland mesic forestsMesic northern forest 4112 xMesic southern forest 4111 x

Lowland mixed and coniferous forests

Hardwood-conifer swamp 432 xRich tamarack swamp 4232, 4321 xRich conifer swamp 4231, 4242 x

Lowland deciduous forests

Southern hardwood swamp 414 xNorthern hardwood swamp 414 x

Floodplain forest Floodplain forest 415 x

Shrub-dominated wetlands

Inundated shrub swamp 6123 xNorthern shrub thicket 6122 xSouthern shrub-carr 6126 x

Emergent and submergent marshes

Emergent marsh 6221 xInland salt marsh 6224 xSubmergent marsh 621 x

Wet meadows, wet and wet-mesic prairies, and

calcareous fen

Wet-mesic sand prairie 625 xNorthern fen 6262 xNorthern wet meadow 6223 xSouthern wet meadow 6223 xWet prairie 625 xWet-mesic prairie 625 x

* Aspen was typed as 413, then assigned to upland mesic or upland oak and oak-pine forest class.

Table 5. Crosswalk showing relationships between GIS model land cover types/classes, natural commu-nity field classes, and MNFI natural community classifications.


Upland forest

Dry

so

uth

ern

fo

rest

Dry

-mes

ic n

ort

her

n f

ore

st

Dry

-mes

ic s

ou

ther

n f

ore

st

Mes

ic n

ort

her

n f

ore

st

Mes

ic s

ou

ther

n f

ore

st

Metrics

Upland oak and oak-pine

forests

Upland mesic

forests

Landscape context**

Buffer width X X X X X

Broader land use X X X X X

Site intactness

Presence of roads, RR tracks, or other

(residential, industrial, commercial)

development X X X X X

Hydrology

Presence of drains, ditches, channelization X X X X X

Soil erosion X X X X X

ORV damage

Stream morphology

Community structure and function

Vegetative structure and composition X X X X X

Evidence of logging X X X X X

Evidence of plowing

Evidence of fire X X X

Presence of invasive non-native vascular

plant spp. X X X X X

Presence of rotting logs and snags X X X X X

Tree regeneration (oak, conifer, etc. as

appropriate) X X X

Evidence of deer browse X X X X X

Species-specific die-offs X X X X X

Condition of sphagnum peat

Cat-tail invasion (indicator of nutrient

enrichment)

Presence of red maple (Acer rubrum ) X X X

Pit-and-mound topography X X

Dominance by native grasses and/or sedges

Table 6. Summary of field metrics utilized to assess the ecological quality or condition of the sample cellsin upland oak and oak-pine forest and upland mesic forestnatural community field classes which areassociated with upland forest cover type patches.


4 =

Ex

cell

ent

3 =

Go

od

2 =

Fa

ir1

= P

oo

r

Bu

ffer

wid

thO

ccu

rren

ce i

s b

uff

ered

by

+/-

nat

ura

l

lan

d >

10

0m

on

en

tire

per

iph

ery

.

Occ

urr

ence

is

wel

l-b

uff

ered

(5

0-1

00

m)

on

>7

5%

of

per

iph

ery

.

Occ

urr

ence

is

wel

l-b

uff

ered

on

>5

0%

of

per

iph

ery

or

nar

row

ly b

uff

ered

(2

5 t

o

50

m)

on

>7

5%

of

per

iph

ery

.

Occ

urr

ence

po

orl

y b

uff

ered

(<

25

m o

n

enti

re p

erip

her

y),

or

no

t b

uff

ered

.

Bro

ad

er l

an

d u

seN

atu

ral

(mat

rix

) la

nd

cov

er d

om

inat

es

(>7

5%

of

lan

dsc

ape)

.

Lan

dsc

ape

is p

arti

ally

nat

ura

l (5

0-7

5%

),

rem

ain

der

ag

ricu

ltu

ral.

A

gri

cult

ura

l

area

s ar

e is

ola

ted

by

nat

ura

l co

ver

.

Lan

dsc

ape

pre

do

min

antl

y a

gri

cult

ura

l,

wit

h s

om

e n

atu

ral

cov

er (

33

-50

%).

Nat

ura

l la

nd

s ar

e is

ola

ted

by

agri

cult

ura

l fi

eld

s.

Lan

dsc

ape

urb

an o

r su

bu

rban

, o

r al

mo

st

com

ple

tely

ag

ricu

ltu

ral

(<3

3%

nat

ura

l,

nat

ura

l la

nd

s b

ein

g i

sola

ted

, sm

all

po

cket

s).

Pre

sen

ce o

f ro

ad

s, R

R t

rack

s, o

r

oth

er (

resi

den

tia

l, i

nd

ust

ria

l,

com

mer

cia

l) d

evel

op

men

t

Occ

urr

ence

is

un

frag

men

ted

by

ro

ads

or

oth

er d

evel

op

men

t.

Occ

urr

ence

is

ver

y l

oca

lly

im

pac

ted

by

dev

elo

pm

ent

(est

. <

10

% a

rea

imp

acte

d).

Occ

urr

ence

mo

der

atel

y i

mp

acte

d b

y

dev

elo

pm

ent

(est

. <

25

% o

f ar

ea

imp

acte

d).

R

oad

(s)

bu

ilt

thro

ug

h

wet

lan

d.

Occ

urr

ence

is

sig

nif

ican

tly

im

pac

ted

by

road

s an

d/o

r o

ther

dev

elo

pm

ent

(est

.

>2

5%

of

area

im

pac

ted

).

Ro

ads,

tra

ils,

pip

elin

es,

etc.

sig

nif

ican

tly

alt

er

wet

lan

d h

yd

rolo

gy

.

So

il c

om

pa

ctio

n/

ero

sio

n

So

il e

ssen

tial

ly u

nd

istu

rbed

, ex

cep

t

alo

ng

tra

ils

or

nea

rby

ro

ads.

So

il l

oca

lly

dis

turb

ed,

bu

t th

at p

ort

ion

occ

up

yin

g <

10

% o

f ar

ea.

So

il m

od

erat

ely

dis

turb

ed,

bu

t

un

plo

wed

.

So

il p

low

ed,

or

sig

nif

ican

tly

co

mp

acte

d

by

lo

gg

ing

eq

uip

men

t, o

r le

af l

itte

r

rem

ov

ed.

Veg

eta

tiv

e st

ruct

ure

V

eget

ativ

e st

ruct

ure

wit

hin

ex

pec

ted

ran

ge

of

var

iati

on

. C

ano

py

, u

nd

erst

ory

and

gro

un

dla

yer

veg

etat

ion

ty

pic

al f

or

par

ticu

lar

com

mu

nit

y t

yp

e.

Go

od

pat

chin

ess,

can

op

y g

aps

pre

sen

t.

On

e (b

ut

no

t m

ore

) o

f th

e fo

llo

win

g i

s

tru

e: c

ano

py

tre

es a

re o

f th

e sa

me

size

clas

s, u

nd

erst

ory

is

abse

nt

or

aty

pic

al,

gro

un

dla

yer

is

dep

aup

erat

e o

r at

yp

ical

,

or

site

lac

ks

can

op

y g

aps

and

pat

chin

ess.

Tw

o o

f th

e at

trib

ute

s d

escr

ibed

fo

r

Gra

de

2 s

ites

are

tru

e.

May

dis

pla

y

po

or

pat

chin

ess

or

low

pre

sen

ce o

f

can

op

y g

aps.

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctu

re s

ign

ific

antl

y

alte

red

at

all

thre

e le

vel

s.

Tre

es

imm

atu

re o

r o

f a

sin

gle

siz

e cl

ass.

Un

der

sto

ry p

oo

rly

dev

elo

ped

.

Gro

un

dla

yer

veg

etat

ion

sig

nif

ican

tly

red

uce

d o

r ab

sen

t.

Pre

sen

ce o

f ro

ttin

g l

og

s a

nd

sn

ag

sH

igh

ly d

eco

mp

ose

d r

ott

ing

lo

gs

com

mo

n o

n f

ore

st f

loo

r.

Man

y l

og

s

mo

ss-c

ov

ered

, m

ois

t.

Sn

ags

com

mo

n.

Hig

hly

dec

om

po

sed

ro

ttin

g l

og

s

com

mo

n o

n f

ore

st f

loo

r.

Man

y l

og

s

mo

ss-c

ov

ered

, m

ois

t.

Sn

ags

rare

.

Ro

ttin

g l

og

s in

ad

van

ced

sta

ges

of

dec

om

po

siti

on

rar

e.

Lo

gs

in l

ess

adv

ance

d s

tag

es o

f d

eco

mp

osi

tio

n (

litt

le

to n

o m

oss

co

ver

, et

c.)

occ

asio

nal

to

com

mo

n.

Fo

rest

flo

or

lack

s d

eco

mp

osi

ng

wo

od

.

Ro

ttin

g l

og

s ab

sen

t o

r ra

re.

Wo

od

y

sub

stra

te i

s re

stri

cted

to

sm

all

fall

en

bra

nch

es,

if p

rese

nt.

Pit

-an

d-m

ou

nd

to

po

gra

ph

yF

ore

st f

loo

r is

ch

arac

teri

zed

by

div

erse

pit

-an

d-m

ou

nd

to

po

gra

ph

y,

wit

h p

its

and

mo

un

ds

of

var

iou

s si

zes.

Maj

ori

ty (

>7

5%

) o

f fo

rest

flo

or

is

char

acte

rize

d b

y d

iver

se p

it-a

nd

-mo

un

d

top

og

rap

hy

, w

ith

pit

s an

d m

ou

nd

s o

f

var

iou

s si

zes.

Pit

-an

d-m

ou

nd

to

po

gra

ph

y p

rese

nt,

bu

t

no

t co

mm

on

, an

d l

ikel

y o

f re

cen

t o

rig

in.

Lac

k o

f p

its

and

mo

un

ds

ind

icat

e

form

er s

avan

na

con

dit

ion

s o

r p

low

ing

.

Pit

-an

d-m

ou

nd

to

po

gra

ph

y a

bse

nt.

S

ite

was

lik

ely

pre

-set

tlem

ent

sav

ann

a, o

r

was

plo

wed

.

Co

mm

un

ity

stru

ctu

re a

nd

fu

nct

ion

Fie

ld M

etri

c

Met

ric

rati

ng

cri

teri

a

La

nd

sca

pe

con

tex

t**

Sit

e in

tact

nes

s

Tabl

e 7. S

umm

ary

of cr

iteri

a fo

r fie

ld m

etri

cs fo

r eva

luat

ing

the e

colo

gica

l qua

lity

or co

nditi

on o

f sam

ple c

ells

in th

e upl

and

mes

ic fo

rest

natu

ral c

omm

unity

fiel

d cl

ass.


4 =

Exce

llen

t3 =

Good

2 =

Fair

1 =

Poor

Fie

ld M

etri

c

Met

ric

rati

ng c

rite

ria

Ev

iden

ce o

f lo

gg

ing

No

ev

iden

ce o

f lo

gg

ing

, o

r o

nly

ver

y

min

or

cutt

ing

wit

ho

ut

spec

ies

elim

inat

ion

.

Sel

ecti

ve

cutt

ing

, b

ut

larg

e, o

ld t

rees

of

all

typ

ical

sp

ecie

s re

mai

n.

Wid

esp

read

cu

ttin

g >

50

yea

rs b

efo

re

pre

sen

t.

Can

op

y t

rees

mat

ure

.

Wid

esp

read

cu

ttin

g <

50

yea

rs b

efo

re

pre

sen

t.

Can

op

y t

rees

im

mat

ure

an

d/o

r

of

smal

l d

iam

eter

.

Her

biv

ore

im

pa

cts:

dee

r a

nd

oth

er

larg

e m

am

ma

lia

n h

erb

ivo

res

Sig

ns

of

dee

r p

rese

nce

(b

row

sin

g,

trai

ls,

scat

) ra

re.

Occ

asio

nal

bro

wsi

ng

—fe

wer

th

an 1

0%

of

stem

s o

f p

refe

rred

sp

ecie

s (b

ud

s o

n

wo

od

y p

lan

ts o

r an

yth

ing

lil

iace

ou

s)

clip

ped

, an

d p

refe

rred

sp

ecie

s st

ill

abu

nd

ant.

Dee

r tr

ails

an

d s

cat

no

tice

able

.

Mo

der

ate

lev

el o

f b

row

sin

g—

10

to

25

% o

f st

ems

of

pre

ferr

ed s

pec

ies

clip

ped

. D

eer

trai

ls a

nd

sca

t co

mm

on

.

Sev

ere

bro

wsi

ng

. B

row

se l

ines

vis

ible

on

sh

rub

s an

d t

rees

(th

at t

op

iary

lo

ok

on

Jun

iper

us)

; p

refe

rred

sp

ecie

s

pro

min

entl

y b

row

sed

an

d/o

r ra

re o

r

abse

nt

fro

m s

ite,

an

d l

ess

pre

ferr

ed

spec

ies

also

bro

wse

d.

Dee

r tr

ails

an

d

scat

ab

un

dan

t.

Sp

ecie

s-sp

ecif

ic t

ree

mo

rta

lity

(d

ue

to

inse

cts

or

dis

ease

ra

ther

th

an

sh

ad

e

sup

pre

ssio

n,

win

dth

row

, et

c.)

No

ev

iden

ce o

f co

nif

er o

r h

ard

wo

od

die

-

off

du

e to

pes

ts (

hem

lock

wo

oll

y

adel

gid

, e

mer

ald

ash

bo

rer,

bee

ch b

ark

dis

ease

, an

thra

cno

se,

etc.

).

Pas

t d

ie-o

ff

of

larg

e A

mer

ican

elm

is

exp

ecte

d a

nd

no

t sc

ore

d.

Ver

y l

ittl

e d

ie-o

ff n

ote

d.

Les

s th

an 1

0%

of

ind

ivid

ual

s o

f an

y t

ree

spp

. af

fect

ed

by

in

sect

or

fun

gal

pes

ts.

Th

ese

tree

s

wid

ely

sca

tter

ed o

r in

iso

late

d p

atch

es.

Tre

e d

ie-o

ff s

ign

ific

ant.

U

p t

o 2

5%

of

the

can

op

y a

ffec

ted

by

pes

ts o

r

pat

ho

gen

s.

Ex

ten

siv

e d

ie-o

ff o

f ca

no

py

tre

es n

ote

d.

Gre

ater

th

an 2

5%

of

can

op

y t

rees

are

affe

cted

by

pes

ts o

r p

ath

og

ens.

Pre

sen

ce o

f in

va

siv

e n

on

-na

tiv

e

an

d/o

r n

ati

ve

va

scu

lar

pla

nt

spp

.

Inv

asiv

e sp

ecie

s o

f si

gn

ific

ant

imp

act

abse

nt.

O

ther

no

n-n

ativ

e sp

p.

may

be

pre

sen

t, i

n l

ow

nu

mb

ers.

Inv

asiv

e sp

p.

of

sig

nif

ican

t im

pac

t

pre

sen

t, b

ut

hig

hly

lo

cali

zed

(li

mit

ed t

o

edg

es o

r sm

all,

wid

ely

sp

aced

co

lon

ies)

.

Inv

asiv

e sp

p.

of

sig

nif

ican

t im

pac

t

pre

sen

t, o

ccas

ion

al.

May

lo

call

y

do

min

ate

com

mu

nit

y (

<2

5%

).

Inv

asiv

e sp

p.

of

sig

nif

ican

t im

pac

t

com

mo

n o

r d

om

inat

ing

>2

5%

of

occ

urr

ence

.

* I

ncl

ud

es m

esic

no

rth

ern

fo

rest

, m

esic

so

uth

ern

fo

rest

** M

ET

RIC

AS

SE

SS

ED

OU

TS

IDE

TH

E B

OU

ND

AR

IES

OF

TH

E 1

0 H

A S

AM

PL

E C

EL

L.

Co

mm

un

ity

stru

ctu

re a

nd

fu

nct

ion

(co

nti

nu

ed)

Tabl

e 7. C

ontin

ued.


4 =

Exce

llen

t3 =

Good

2 =

Fair

1 =

Poor

Bu

ffer

wid

thO

ccu

rren

ce i

s b

uff

ered

by

+/-

nat

ura

l la

nd

>1

00

m o

n e

nti

re

per

iph

ery

.

Occ

urr

ence

is

wel

l-b

uff

ered

(5

0-

10

0m

) o

n >

75

% o

f p

erip

her

y.

Occ

urr

ence

is

wel

l-b

uff

ered

on

>5

0%

of

per

iph

ery

or

nar

row

ly

bu

ffer

ed (

25

to

50

m)

on

>7

5%

of

per

iph

ery

.

Occ

urr

ence

po

orl

y b

uff

ered

(<2

5m

on

en

tire

per

iph

ery

), o

r n

ot

bu

ffer

ed.

Bro

ad

er l

an

d u

seN

atu

ral

(mat

rix

) la

nd

cov

er

do

min

ates

(>

75

% o

f la

nd

scap

e).

Lan

dsc

ape

is p

arti

ally

nat

ura

l (5

0-

75

%),

rem

ain

der

ag

ricu

ltu

ral.

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral

area

s ar

e is

ola

ted

by

nat

ura

l co

ver

.

Lan

dsc

ape

pre

do

min

antl

y

agri

cult

ura

l, w

ith

so

me

nat

ura

l

cov

er (

33

-50

%).

N

atu

ral

lan

ds

are

iso

late

d b

y a

gri

cult

ura

l fi

eld

s.

Lan

dsc

ape

urb

an o

r su

bu

rban

, o

r

alm

ost

co

mp

lete

ly a

gri

cult

ura

l

(<3

3%

nat

ura

l, n

atu

ral

lan

ds

bei

ng

iso

late

d,

smal

l p

ock

ets)

.

Pre

sen

ce o

f ro

ad

s, R

R

tra

cks,

or

oth

er

(res

iden

tia

l, i

nd

ust

ria

l,

com

mer

cia

l) d

evel

op

men

t

Occ

urr

ence

is

un

frag

men

ted

by

road

s o

r o

ther

dev

elo

pm

ent.

Occ

urr

ence

is

ver

y l

oca

lly

imp

acte

d b

y d

evel

op

men

t (e

st.

<1

0%

are

a im

pac

ted

).

Occ

urr

ence

mo

der

atel

y i

mp

acte

d

by

dev

elo

pm

ent

(est

. <

25

% o

f

area

im

pac

ted

).

Ro

ad(s

) b

uil

t

thro

ug

h w

etla

nd

.

Occ

urr

ence

is

sig

nif

ican

tly

imp

acte

d b

y r

oad

s an

d/o

r o

ther

dev

elo

pm

ent

(est

. >

25

% o

f ar

ea

imp

acte

d).

R

oad

s, t

rail

s,

pip

elin

es,

etc.

sig

nif

ican

tly

alt

er

wet

lan

d h

yd

rolo

gy

.

So

il c

om

pa

ctio

n/e

rosi

on

S

oil

ess

enti

ally

un

dis

turb

ed,

exce

pt

alo

ng

tra

ils

or

nea

rby

road

s.

So

il l

oca

lly

dis

turb

ed,

bu

t th

at

po

rtio

n o

ccu

py

ing

<1

0%

of

area

.

So

il m

od

erat

ely

dis

turb

ed,

bu

t

un

plo

wed

.

So

il p

low

ed,

or

sig

nif

ican

tly

com

pac

ted

by

lo

gg

ing

eq

uip

men

t,

or

leaf

lit

ter

rem

ov

ed.

Veg

eta

tiv

e st

ruct

ure

(esp

ecia

lly

pre

sen

ce o

f

oa

k a

nd

pin

e

reg

ener

ati

on

as

seed

lin

gs,

sap

lin

gs,

an

d u

nd

erst

ory

tree

s)

Can

op

y,

un

der

sto

ry a

nd

gro

un

dla

yer

veg

etat

ion

ty

pic

al f

or

par

ticu

lar

com

mu

nit

y t

yp

e.

Go

od

het

ero

gen

eity

. O

aks

and

/or

pin

es

sho

w a

mp

le r

egen

erat

ion

in

all

size

cla

sses

.

On

e (b

ut

no

t m

ore

) o

f th

e

foll

ow

ing

is

tru

e: c

ano

py

tre

es a

re

of

the

sam

e si

ze c

lass

, u

nd

erst

ory

is a

bse

nt

or

aty

pic

al,

gro

un

dla

yer

is d

epau

per

ate

or

aty

pic

al,

or

site

is h

om

og

eneo

us.

Tw

o o

f th

e fo

llo

win

g a

re t

rue:

can

op

y t

rees

are

of

the

sam

e si

ze

clas

s, u

nd

erst

ory

is

abse

nt

or

aty

pic

al,

gro

un

dla

yer

is

dep

aup

erat

e o

r at

yp

ical

. P

oo

r

het

ero

gen

eity

.

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctu

re s

ign

ific

antl

y

alte

red

at

all

thre

e le

vel

s.

Tre

es

imm

atu

re o

r o

f a

sin

gle

siz

e cl

ass.

Un

der

sto

ry p

oo

rly

dev

elo

ped

.

Gro

un

dla

yer

veg

etat

ion

sig

nif

ican

tly

red

uce

d o

r ab

sen

t.

Pre

sen

ce o

f re

d m

ap

le

(Ace

r ru

bru

m)

Red

map

le u

nco

mm

on

or

occ

asio

nal

, n

ot

a si

gn

ific

ant

com

po

nen

t (c

ov

er >

25

%)

in a

ny

stra

tum

. A

ll s

ize

clas

ses

rep

rese

nte

d.

Mo

no

do

min

ant

stan

ds

abse

nt.

Red

map

le o

ccas

ion

al.

May

be

a

sig

nif

ican

t co

mp

on

ent

(co

ver

>2

5%

) o

f o

ne

stra

tum

.

Red

map

le o

ccas

ion

al t

o c

om

mo

n,

com

pri

sin

g >

25

% c

ov

er i

n t

wo

stra

ta.

Red

map

le c

om

mo

n t

o a

bu

nd

ant,

com

pri

sin

g >

25

% c

ov

er i

n t

he

can

op

y,

sub

can

op

y,

and

sh

rub

lay

ers.

Fie

ld M

etri

c

Met

ric

rati

ng c

rite

ria

Com

mu

nit

y st

ruct

ure

an

d f

un

ctio

n

Lan

dsc

ape

con

text*

*

Sit

e in

tact

nes

s

Tabl

e 8. S

umm

ary

of cr

iteri

a fo

r fie

ld m

etri

cs fo

r eva

luat

ing

the e

colo

gica

l qua

lity

or co

nditi

on o

f sam

ple c

ells

in th

e upl

and

oak

and

oak-

pine

fore

st n

atur

al co

mm

unity

fiel

d cl

ass.


4 =

Ex

cell

ent

3 =

Go

od

2 =

Fa

ir1

= P

oo

r F

ield

Met

ric

Met

ric

rati

ng

cri

teri

a

Co

ars

e w

oo

dy

deb

ris

Co

arse

wo

od

y d

ebri

s p

rese

nt

and

abu

nd

ant

in a

ll e

xp

ecte

d s

ize

and

dec

om

po

siti

on

cla

sses

. S

nag

s an

d

cav

ity

tre

es c

om

mo

n.

See

ex

cell

ent

rati

ng

, b

ut

lack

ing

snag

s an

d/o

r ca

vit

y t

rees

.

Co

arse

wo

od

y d

ebri

s ab

sen

t o

ver

a si

gn

ific

ant

po

rtio

n o

f th

e fo

rest

(>2

5%

).

Siz

e cl

ass

and

dec

om

po

siti

on

cla

sses

po

orl

y

rep

rese

nte

d.

Sn

ags

and

cav

ity

tree

s , i

f p

rese

nt,

are

rar

e.

Co

arse

wo

od

y d

ebri

s n

earl

y

abse

nt.

O

nly

sm

all

bra

nch

es a

nd

rece

nt

tree

fall

pre

sen

t.

Dec

om

po

siti

on

min

imal

. S

nag

s

and

cav

ity

tre

es a

bse

nt.

Ev

iden

ce o

f lo

gg

ing

No

ev

iden

ce o

f lo

gg

ing

, o

r o

nly

ver

y m

ino

r cu

ttin

g w

ith

ou

t sp

ecie

s

elim

inat

ion

.

Sel

ecti

ve

cutt

ing

, b

ut

larg

e, o

ld

tree

s o

f al

l ty

pic

al s

pec

ies

rem

ain

.

Wid

esp

read

cu

ttin

g >

50

yea

rs

bef

ore

pre

sen

t.

Can

op

y t

rees

mat

ure

.

Wid

esp

read

cu

ttin

g <

50

yea

rs

bef

ore

pre

sen

t.

Can

op

y t

rees

imm

atu

re a

nd

/or

of

smal

l

dia

met

er.

Her

biv

ore

im

pa

cts:

dee

r

an

d o

ther

la

rge

ma

mm

ali

an

her

biv

ore

s

Sig

ns

of

dee

r p

rese

nce

(b

row

sin

g,

trai

ls,

scat

) ra

re.

Occ

asio

nal

bro

wsi

ng

—fe

wer

th

an

10

% o

f st

ems

of

pre

ferr

ed s

pec

ies

(bu

ds

on

wo

od

y p

lan

ts o

r an

yth

ing

lili

aceo

us)

cli

pp

ed,

and

pre

ferr

ed

spec

ies

stil

l ab

un

dan

t. D

eer

trai

ls

and

sca

t n

oti

ceab

le.

Mo

der

ate

lev

el o

f b

row

sin

g—

10

to 2

5%

of

stem

s o

f p

refe

rred

spec

ies

clip

ped

. D

eer

trai

ls a

nd

scat

co

mm

on

.

Sev

ere

bro

wsi

ng

. B

row

se l

ines

vis

ible

on

sh

rub

s an

d t

rees

(th

at

top

iary

lo

ok

on

Ju

nip

eru

s);

pre

ferr

ed s

pec

ies

pro

min

entl

y

bro

wse

d a

nd

/or

rare

or

abse

nt

fro

m s

ite,

an

d l

ess

pre

ferr

ed

spec

ies

also

bro

wse

d.

Dee

r tr

ails

and

sca

t ab

un

dan

t.

Sp

ecie

s-sp

ecif

ic t

ree

mo

rta

lity

(d

ue

to i

nse

ct

pes

ts,

fun

gu

s, o

r d

isea

se)

No

ev

iden

ce o

f tr

ee d

ie-o

ff d

ue

to

pes

ts (

gy

psy

mo

th,

oak

wil

t, p

ine

rust

, et

c.).

Ver

y l

ittl

e d

ie-o

ff n

ote

d.

Les

s

than

10

% o

f in

div

idu

als

of

any

tree

sp

p.

affe

cted

by

in

sect

or

fun

gal

pes

ts.

Th

ese

tree

s w

idel

y

scat

tere

d o

r in

iso

late

d p

atch

es.

Tre

e d

ie-o

ff s

ign

ific

ant.

U

p t

o

25

% o

f th

e ca

no

py

aff

ecte

d b

y

pes

ts o

r p

ath

og

ens.

Ex

ten

siv

e d

ie-o

ff o

f ca

no

py

tre

es

no

ted

. G

reat

er t

han

25

% o

f

can

op

y t

rees

are

aff

ecte

d b

y p

ests

or

pat

ho

gen

s.

Pre

sen

ce o

f in

va

siv

e n

on

-

na

tiv

e a

nd

/or

na

tiv

e

va

scu

lar

pla

nt

spp

.

Inv

asiv

e sp

ecie

s o

f si

gn

ific

ant

imp

act

abse

nt.

O

ther

no

n-n

ativ

e

spec

ies

may

be

pre

sen

t in

lo

w

nu

mb

ers.

Inv

asiv

e sp

p.

of

sig

nif

ican

t im

pac

t

pre

sen

t, b

ut

hig

hly

lo

cali

zed

(lim

ited

to

ed

ges

or

smal

l, w

idel

y

s pac

ed c

olo

nie

s).

Inv

asiv

e sp

p.

of

sig

nif

ican

t im

pac

t

pre

sen

t, o

ccas

ion

al.

May

lo

call

y

do

min

ate

com

mu

nit

y (

<2

5%

).

Inv

asiv

e sp

p.

of

sig

nif

ican

t im

pac

t

com

mo

n o

r d

om

inat

ing

>2

5%

of

occ

urr

ence

.

* I

ncl

ud

es d

ry s

ou

ther

n f

ore

st,

dry

-mes

ic s

ou

ther

n f

ore

st,

dry

-mes

ic n

ort

her

n f

ore

st

**

ME

TR

IC A

SS

ES

SE

D O

UT

SID

E T

HE

BO

UN

DA

RIE

S O

F T

HE

10

HA

SA

MP

LE

CE

LL

.

Co

mm

un

ity

stru

ctu

re a

nd

fu

nct

ion

(co

nti

nu

ed)

Tabl

e 8. C

ontin

ued.


Botanical Field Metrics

Species presence/composition

Species richness (total number of species)

Floristic Quality Index (FQI) - for each species and sample cell

Mean coefficient of conservatism

Mean coefficient of wetness

Summary of physiognomic classes for native and non-native species

Zoological Field Metrics

Bird species presence/composition

Number of birds

Density of birds

Species diversity

Partners in Flight conservation score - for each species and sample cell

Species guilds*

Aquatic Community Field Metrics

Mussel species presence/composition

Mussel species richness

Mussel species diversity (i.e., Shannon-Wiener score)

Mussel abundance

Presence/absence of exotic bivalves

Intensity of zebra mussel infestation on native mussels

Macroinvertebrate taxa composition - for each sample and sum for site

Macroinvertebrate taxa richness - for each sample and sum for site

Macroinvertebrate biotic indices (e.g., Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI))

Mean tolerance value (MTV)

Relative abundance of benthic intolerant taxa

*Potential field metric

Table 9. Summary of botanical, zoological, and aquatic community field metrics used to assess thequality or condition of the sample cells in cover type patches across a gradient of quality based on theGIS patch analysis model.


the same sample cells or plots in which botanical andecological surveys were conducted in 2008. Breedingbirds were surveyed in the sample cells using pointcounts. In 2006, nine 10-minute point count surveyswere conducted in each sample cell. In 2007 and 2008,a different sampling protocol was used in that only one20-minute point count was conducted in each samplecell. The point count was randomly placed within thesample cell. Point counts began 15 minutes beforesunrise and continued until 1030 hours. No data werecollected during periods of inclement weather such asrain, fog, or a wind speed greater 20 km per hour.After arriving at the point count site, observersallowed a one-minute acclimation period beforeconducting a 20-minute point count. Although manyother studies have used a 5 – 10 minute point count,the 20-minute point count allowed us to observe moreavian diversity with the most efficiency given thedifficulties of traveling to each point count site (Huff etal. 2000). All birds observed (aurally and visually)were recorded within the 50-m fixed radius pointcount, however birds beyond this distance wererecorded as well with detailed information recorded ontheir distance from the observer (variable circular plotmethod). Gender of the birds was recorded wheneverpossible. Birds flying over the site were noted as suchand may not be used in further analysis. No playbacksor sounds were used to attract birds into the pointcount location.

The field metrics that were collected to assessthe quality or condition of the breeding bird communityinclude bird species composition, number of birds,density of birds, and species diversity (Table 9).Species guilds, indicator species, and/or conservationvalue of individual bird species also may be used toevaluate the bird community in the sample cells (Table9). We also can compare the quality of the cover typepatches based on the conservation value of theindividual species and the bird communities using thePartner’s in Flight (PIF) ranking system (Nuttle et al.2003). This classification allows bird species to beranked by their demography in many categories andthe level of conservation concern (Carter et al. 2000).Each bird species has been assigned PIF scoresincluding a population trend score, threats to breedingregional score, and regional combined score.Considering that a simple measure of the aviandiversity index of a site does not consider theconservation ranking of each species, the use of PIFranking system will add a component of conservationpriority.

Aquatic Field ComponentThe aquatic areas of high ecological value or

high site quality as identified by the field metrics willbe referred to as high quality aquatic sites or stream/river natural community classes. The aquatic fieldcomponent from 2006-2008 was conducted in theRogue River and Flat River in Kent, Montcalm, Ionia,and Newaygo counties. Aquatic field sampling from2006 to 2008 was conducted at 50 sites. To adequatelytest the GIS model developed by Wang et al. (in press)and the efficacy of the stream impact rankingsidentified in the model for accurately assessing thequality or condition of aquatic sites, the goal was toobtain field metrics from a sufficient number ofstream/river reaches across a gradient of impactrankings. The aquatic field sites that were sampledfrom 2006 to 2008 were fairly evenly distributedacross stream/river reaches of only three of the sixexpected impact rankings assigned by the GIS model,with 19 sites in stream reaches with the moderateimpact ranking category, 15 in the detectable impactranking, and 16 in the no impact ranking.

The field metrics to assess the quality of theaquatic site or stream/river natural community havefocused on the macroinvertebrate and musselcommunities found at the sample sites. Specific fieldmetrics that were examined and used to assess thequality or condition of aquatic sites have includedmussel species composition, mussel species richnessand diversity (i.e., Shannon-Wiener score), musselabundance, presence/absence of exotic bivalves,intensity of zebra mussel infestation on native mussels,macroinvertebrate taxa composition and diversity (i.e.,Shannon-Wiener score), macroinvertebrate taxarichness, macroinvertebrate biotic indices (e.g.,Hilsenhoff Biotic Index), macroinvertebrate meantolerance value (MTV), and relative abundance ofbenthic intolerant taxa (Table 9).

Survey sites were primarily determined byaccess (i.e., accessible road and/or bridge crossing).Survey sites in first order stream/river reaches wereomitted from the field portion of the study. A pool ofpotential survey sites was generated by identifyingpoints 100 m upstream and 100 m downstream of allroad-stream crossings. Survey sites were randomlyselected from this pool of potential sites, and werelocated either 100-m upstream or downstream fromselect road/stream intersections in the targeted


watershed. Some randomly selected sites were notsurveyed because of access problems (i.e., when wewere unable to contact the landowner for permission).At each sample site, we collected four Surber samplesand one D-net sample for a total of five samples forinvertebrates. D-net sweeps were made inmicrohabitats not covered by Surber samples,

especially near the water’s edge and emergent/submergent vegetation. We also surveyed for musselsin a 128-m2 area at each sample site. Freshwatermussel communities were sampled using glass bottombuckets and tactile searches. Substrate compositionalso was described by estimating the proportion ofeach particle size classes.

Aerial Photo Interpretation Component

In 2007, an aerial photo interpretation componentwas added to the project to improve our ability toaccurately identify areas to a particular land cover ornatural community type on the landscape and evaluatetheir quality remotely. The aerial photo interpretationcomponent delineated photo-interpreted (PI) polygonswhich are spatially defined areas of a single land covertype or class, as defined by the terrestrial GIS analysis,based on aerial photo interpretation of 1998 air photos.Polygons were delineated based on cover type,condition, roads, and other barriers or gaps in thevegetation. These polygons were delineatedindependently of the cover type patches identified bythe GIS model although significant overlap with thepatches likely occurred. Polygons comprised an entirecover type patch if it was small and contiguous. As aresult, each cover type patch identified in the GISmodel that was photo-interpreted could include a singlePI polygon or multiple PI polygons.

Each PI polygon was typed as one of twobroadly-defined MNFI natural community types:upland deciduous or mixed forest (e.g., dry-mesic and

mesic northern forest) and lowland mixed orconiferous forest (e.g., hardwood-conifer swamp andrich conifer swamp). Two additional naturalcommunity types, bog and intermittent wetland, alsowere used to classify PI polygons in 2007. Thesedesignations are based on a modified Anderson level 3or level 4 land cover type which are used for landcover mapping at MNFI. The modified Anderson levelclassifications are generally similar to MNFI naturalcommunity classifications but not exactly the same.Each PI polygon was evaluated for ecological qualitybased on a number of criteria related to size/area,landscape context, and ecological condition using theair photos (Table 10). Specific aerial photointerpretation metrics or criteria were developed fordifferent natural communities (Appendix 2). Based onthis analysis, this component identified high qualityphoto-interpreted polygons. These results can be usedto evaluate the GIS model results, and depending onthe results, this component may be used tocomplement or enhance the GIS model. The fieldmetrics also can be used to test and evaluate theaccuracy of the PI polygons.

Conservation Gazetteer

This project also will develop a “conservationgazetteer” which will identify high ecological valueareas as priorities for conservation in an ecoregionaland statewide framework based on currently availabledata for the state. This product will provideinformation and analysis that will enable informeddecisionmaking by federal, state, and localgovernments, non-governmental organizations, andother entities in management, land use andconservation planning decisions. The conservationgazetteer was initially proposed to be a printeddocument or book comprised of a series of mapsdepicting priority conservation areas by county. Thedata layers used in the analysis to identify the priorityconservation areas also would be provided withassociated background information or descriptions ofthe data layers including the data sources, limitations,and continuing needs. However, upon consultation withthe MDNR this year, it was decided that the

conservation gazetteer would consist of a web-basedproduct instead of a printed document. Theconservation gazetteer at this time will primarilyprovide the results of the GIS patch analysis andassociated data layers that were developed as part ofthe GIS component of this project. Additional datalayers that can be used to help identify and prioritizeareas of high ecological value for conservation alsomay be provided as part of the conservation gazetteer.These may include important areas for rare speciesand high quality natural communities based onMichigan’s Natural Heritage Database, areas thathave been designated as important for birds, otherwildlife, and biodiversity in general (e.g., important birdareas, old growth forests, GAP analysis, etc.), areasimportant for watershed function or watershedprotection areas, proximity to public lands, and landsunder threat (i.e., threat analysis).


Ran

k fa

cto

rK

ey E

colo

gic

al

Att

rib

ute

Met

ric

Ran

kin

g c

rite

ria

LANDSCAPE CONTEXT

Land

scap

e P

atte

rn [a

sses

sed

@ 1

:24,

000

scal

e ce

nter

ed o

n po

lygo

n of

inte

rest

]B

road

er la

nd u

se

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

Land

scap

e ch

arac

teriz

ed b

y >9

0% n

atur

al c

over

(i.e

., cl

assi

fiabl

e to

nat

ural

com

mun

ity ty

pe),

with

the

sum

tota

l of

bui

lt ar

eas,

act

ive

agric

ultu

re, o

ld fi

elds

, and

pin

e pl

anta

tions

com

pris

ing

<10%

of a

rea.

3 =

Go

od

Land

scap

e ch

arac

teriz

ed b

y >6

0% n

atur

al c

over

, with

str

ong

conn

ectiv

ity a

mon

g pa

tche

s. A

ctiv

e ag

ricul

tura

l fie

lds,

old

fiel

ds, a

nd/o

r pi

ne p

lant

atio

ns c

ompr

ise

0-40

% o

f lan

dsca

pe.

Bui

lt ar

eas

cann

ot e

xcee

d 25

%.

2 =

Fai

rLa

ndsc

ape

char

acte

rized

by

30-6

0% n

atur

al c

over

, eith

er a

s re

lativ

ely

few

isol

ated

blo

cks

or a

s sc

atte

red

patc

hes

with

poo

r co

nnec

tivity

. T

he r

emai

nder

of v

ario

us ty

pes

(see

abo

ve).

Bui

lt ar

eas

cann

ot e

xcee

d 50

%.

1 =

Po

or

Land

scap

e ur

ban

or s

ubur

ban,

or

dom

inat

ed b

y ac

tive

agric

ultu

re.

<30%

of l

ands

cape

cha

ract

eriz

ed b

y na

tura

l co

ver.

Land

scap

e C

ompo

sitio

nB

uffe

r w

idth

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

Occ

urre

nce

is b

uffe

red

by +

/- n

atur

al c

over

of >

100

m w

idth

on

entir

e pe

riphe

ry.

3 =

Go

od

Occ

urre

nce

is b

uffe

red

by +

/- n

atur

al c

over

of >

100

m w

idth

on

>75%

of p

erip

hery

. U

nbuf

fere

d po

rtio

n no

t in

activ

e ag

ricul

ture

or

built

.

2 =

Fai

rO

ccur

renc

e is

buf

fere

d by

+/-

nat

ural

cov

er o

f >10

0 m

wid

th o

n >5

0% o

f per

iphe

ry o

r by

>50

m w

idth

on

>75%

of

perip

hery

. U

nbuf

fere

d po

rtio

n ca

n be

in a

ctiv

e ag

ricul

ture

or

built

. Inc

lude

s si

tes

buffe

red

by p

ine

plan

tatio

n.

1 =

Po

or

Occ

urre

nce

buffe

red

by +

/- n

atur

al c

over

of <

50 m

wid

th o

n en

tire

perip

hery

, or

not b

uffe

red.

ABIOTIC CONDITION

Hyd

rolo

gy

Pre

senc

e of

dr

ains

, ditc

hes,

ch

anne

lizat

ion,

ro

ads

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

Hyd

rolo

gy u

nim

pact

ed b

y dr

ains

, ditc

hes,

roa

ds, o

r ch

anne

ls.

No

anth

ropo

geni

c hy

drol

ogic

man

ipul

atio

n no

ted.

3 =

Go

od

Min

or d

isru

ptio

n of

hyd

rolo

gic

regi

me.

Dra

ins,

ditc

hes,

cha

nnel

s, o

r ro

ads,

if p

rese

nt, i

mpa

ct <

10%

of w

etla

nd.

Or,

for

larg

e w

etla

nd c

ompl

exes

, hyd

rolo

gy is

impa

cted

>10

0 m

from

per

iphe

ry o

f are

a id

entif

ied

as b

eing

of

pote

ntia

l nat

ural

qua

lity.

Incl

udes

are

as a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith o

ther

wis

e in

tact

str

eam

s cr

osse

d by

roa

ds.

2 =

Fai

r

Mod

erat

e di

srup

tion

of h

ydro

logi

c re

gim

e. D

rain

s, d

itche

s, c

hann

els,

or

road

s im

pact

<25

% o

f occ

urre

nce.

Or,

fo

r la

rge

wet

land

com

plex

es, h

ydro

logy

is im

pact

ed <

100

m fr

om p

erip

hery

of a

rea

iden

tifie

d as

bei

ng o

f pot

entia

l na

tura

l qua

lity.

1 =

Po

or

Hyd

rolo

gic

regi

me

sign

ifica

ntly

alte

red.

Dra

ins,

ditc

hes,

cha

nnel

s, o

r ro

ads

impa

ct >

25%

of o

ccur

renc

e.

Site

Inta

ctne

ss

With

in-p

atch

fr

agm

enta

tion

and

dist

urba

nce,

ca

used

by

logg

ing,

plo

win

g,

hum

an

deve

lopm

ent,

etc.

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

<10%

of p

atch

impa

cted

by

frag

men

tatio

n an

d/or

hum

an d

istu

rban

ce.

Logg

ing

road

s, tw

o-tr

acks

, and

trai

ls

visi

ble

on a

eria

l pho

togr

aphs

are

loca

lized

. R

ecen

t cut

ting,

oil

pad

deve

lopm

ent,

hum

an-c

reat

ed s

oil d

istu

rban

ce,

etc.

loca

l.

3 =

Go

od

<25%

of p

atch

impa

cted

by

frag

men

tatio

n an

d/or

hum

an d

istu

rban

ce.

Logg

ing

road

s, tw

o-tr

acks

, and

trai

ls

visi

ble

on a

eria

l pho

togr

aphs

loca

l to

occa

sion

al.

Rec

ent c

uttin

g, o

il pa

d de

velo

pmen

t, hu

man

-cre

ated

soi

l di

stur

banc

e, e

tc. l

ocal

to o

ccas

iona

l.

2 =

Fai

r

<40%

of p

atch

impa

cted

by

frag

men

tatio

n an

d/or

hum

an d

istu

rban

ce.

Logg

ing

road

s, tw

o-tr

acks

, and

trai

ls

visi

ble

on a

eria

l pho

togr

aphs

occ

asio

nal t

o co

mm

on.

Rec

ent c

uttin

g, o

il pa

d de

velo

pmen

t, hu

man

-cre

ated

soi

l di

stur

banc

e, e

tc. o

ccas

iona

l to

com

mon

.

1 =

Po

or

Occ

urre

nce

is s

igni

fican

tly im

pact

ed b

y fr

agm

enta

tion

and/

or h

uman

dis

turb

ance

(es

t. >4

0% o

f are

a im

pact

ed).

R

ecen

t cut

ting,

oil

pad

deve

lopm

ent,

hum

an-c

reat

ed s

oil d

istu

rban

ce, e

tc. c

omm

on to

wid

espr

ead.

Tabl

e 10.

Sum

mar

y of

rank

fact

ors,

key

ecol

ogic

al a

ttrib

utes

, met

rics

, and

rank

ing

crite

ria

for a

sses

sing

the e

colo

gica

l qua

lity

orco

nditi

on of

pho

to-in

terp

rete

d po

lygo

ns in

gene

ral.


BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

Spe

cific

to n

atur

al c

omm

unity

type

3 =

Go

od

Spe

cific

to n

atur

al c

omm

unity

type

2 =

Fai

rS

peci

fic to

nat

ural

com

mun

ity ty

pe

1 =

Po

or

Spe

cific

to n

atur

al c

omm

unity

type

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

Spe

cific

to n

atur

al c

omm

unity

type

, bas

ed o

n ex

istin

g M

NF

I EO

spe

cific

atio

ns.

3 =

Go

od

Spe

cific

to n

atur

al c

omm

unity

type

, bas

ed o

n ex

istin

g M

NF

I EO

spe

cific

atio

ns.

2 =

Fai

rS

peci

fic to

nat

ural

com

mun

ity ty

pe, b

ased

on

exis

ting

MN

FI E

O s

peci

ficat

ions

.

1 =

Po

or

Spe

cific

to n

atur

al c

omm

unity

type

, bas

ed o

n ex

istin

g M

NF

I EO

spe

cific

atio

ns.

Tabl

e 10.

Con

tinue

d.


The GIS patch analysis modeling has beencompleted except for testing the model against thefield metrics and aerial photo interpretation results. Atotal of 2,181,975 patches of land cover was delineatedand included in the analysis. When scores for all 13regions of the state were summed together, less than5% of the patches were assigned a score of seven orhigher. Only 5,751 patches of the total 2,181,975patches included in the analysis scored ten or higher(i.e., 0.3%) (Figure 3). Figure 4 provides an example

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

GIS Analysis/Component

of the patch analysis results. Generally, both thenumber of high scoring patches and the size of highscoring patches increased with latitude (Figures 5 and6). Also, the cover type patches, especially the patcheshaving high quality scores, were generally very large.Sampling only one 10-ha sample cell or plot in verylarge cover type patches may need to be examined forthe analysis. The data analysis will test whether theGIS patch scores correlate with the field metricscores.

Figure 3. Distribution of quality scores for all cover type patches from GIS patch analysis.


Highest ecological value

Lowest ecological value

Figure 4. Example of GIS patch analysis results from Newaygo County.


High value patches

Moderate value patches

Figure 5. Map showing general distribution of high and moderately scoring cover type patches inthe Lower Peninsula based on results from the GIS patch analysis.


High value patches

Moderate value patches

Figure 6. Map showing general distribution of high and moderately scoring cover type patches inthe Upper Peninsula based on results from the GIS patch analysis.


Field Component

Terrestrial Field ComponentIn 2008, ecological, botanical, and zoological field

metrics or sampling were conducted in 10 sample cellsin upland deciduous forest cover type patches rankedas moderate to high quality (UDM) and 10 samplecells in upland deciduous forest cover type patchesranked as low to moderate quality (UDL) based on theGIS patch analysis scores. The same sample cellswere surveyed by all three disciplines. Data fromthese sample cells will result in field metrics data from2006 to 2008 from at least 30 upland deciduous forestcover type patches across a gradient of quality, with atleast 10 sample cells/cover type patches in each of thethree quality rankings (i.e., high, moderate, and lowquality).

Also, the field sampling scheme was revised in2008 so that cover type patches were randomlyselected for field sampling instead of randomlyselecting sample cells, and that each sample cell waslocated within a single cover type patch instead ofmultiple cover type patches potentially as in 2006 and2007. For data collected in 2006 and 2007, if thesample cells fall within a single cover type patch, thedata will be used in the current analysis. If the samplecell crosses multiple patch boundaries, the data will becensored and not included in the current analysis atthis time. We should be able to keep field data from anumber of upland forest sample cells from 2006 and2007, but this needs to be verified. This will result in aGIS score and a field metric score or scores for eachsample cell and cover type patch, rather than onesample cell/field metric score to multiple GIS patches/patch scores.

Ecological field surveys/samplingThe majority of sample cells or plots that were

surveyed in 2008 were characterized by dry-mesicnorthern forest, dominated by white oak (Quercusalba) and black oak (Q. velutina), often associatedwith white pine (Pinus strobus). Additional plots werecharacterized by aspen (Populus grandidentata andP. tremuloides), mesic northern forest, and oak-pinebarrens. Several field metrics assessing landscapecontext, present condition, and threats were scored inthe field based on meander surveys of the entire plot.GPS waypoints were taken to record locations ofsignificant features, disturbances, changes in covertype, and soil samples. All but one plot fell within coverpatches exhibiting significantly altered vegetativestructure associated with timber removal and otherhabitat management. High deer browse and an

abundance of red maple were identified as significantthreats to the majority of sampled forest patches.Invasive species were uncommon and concentrated onroadsides, along well-used paths, and in clearings.Field scores were similar for habitat patches predictedas being of medium or low quality in the GIS-basedpatch analysis. Further data analysis will be conductedin winter/spring 2009. Part of the data analysis will bedetermining if any of the field metrics or variablescorrelate with one another and how to aggregate thefield metric scores to develop a cumulative score foreach sample cell.

Botanical field surveys/floristic samplingPlant species presence/composition was

recorded during meander/timed-meander surveys in alltargeted sample cells or plots in 2008. No listed plantspecies were encountered during plot inventories.Several sites noted during aerial photo review aspotential coastal plain marshes (in proximity to samplecells/plots) were subsequently visited in the field enroute to sample cells/plots (and in one case, during arainy day when it was not possible to use the handheldcomputer for plot sampling). Several high qualitycoastal plain marshes were thus identified, includingseveral rare plant species, although there was notsufficient time to conduct thorough surveys or collectdata adequate for formal processing. One statethreatened species, Eleocharis tricostata, wasidentified and collected in coastal plain marsh habitatwithin a powerline right-of-way between UDM 8 andUDM 9 in northern Newaygo County, constituting asignificant record (data were obtained for this site). Atotal of 103 plant specimens were collected during thefield sampling. These specimens have been identifiedand verified. Data entry and analysis will be conductedin the winter/spring of 2009. As with the ecologicaldata, part of the data analysis will be determining howto aggregate the field metric scores to generate acumulative score for the plant community for eachsample cell.

Zoological field samplingBreeding bird point count surveys were

conducted in May and June of 2008. These surveyswere conducted in the same sample cells or plots inwhich botanical and ecological surveys wereconducted in 2008. Several rare or noteworthy birdspecies that were detected during breeding birdsurveys in 2008 include the state special concernCerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea), statethreatened Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus),


Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera),and Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii). The Cerulean Warbler,Red-shouldered Hawk, and Golden-winged Warbleralso have been identified as species of greatestconservation need by Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan(Eagle et al. 2005). The breeding bird data will beentered and analyzed during the winter/spring of 2009.Part of the data analysis will need to determine how todeal with the different bird sampling methodologyemployed in 2007 and 2008 compared to that used in2006. The exact field metrics that will be utilized in theanalysis and how to aggregate or combine the fieldmetric scores into a cumulative score for the birdcommunity for each sample cell also will need to bedetermined.

Aquatic Field ComponentAquatic field sampling was conducted primarily

in 2006 and 2007. Limited aquatic field sampling wasconducted in 2008. The aquatic component of theproject in 2008 focused primarily on processing thenumerous macroinvertebrate samples that werecollected during field sampling from 2006 to 2008. Five

macroinvertebrate samples were collected in the fieldfrom each site, but only a subset of the samples will beprocessed, identified and included in the data analysisat this time due to time and funding constraints. Foursamples from 16 sites (i.e., 64 samples) have beenprocessed and identified. Two samples from anadditional 14 sites (i.e., 28 samples) also have beenprocessed and identified to date. This will result in 2-4samples from 30 sites total, with 10 sites in each of thethree predicted impact rankings, that will be processed,identified, and included in the data analysis at this time.Aquatic data processing/entry and analysis will beconducted in 2009. As with the terrestrial field metrics,part of the aquatic data analysis will be determininghow to aggregate or combine field metrics into acumulative score for each site to compare with thepredicted stream impact rankings for each site fromthe GIS model. The field metric data will be used tosee if they can be correlated to the predicted stream/river impact levels or rankings to test whether theseimpact rankings and the GIS model can be used toinfer or assess the ecological quality or condition ofstream/river reaches remotely.

Aerial Photo Interpretation Component

In 2007, all upland forests 10 ha or greater in 8of the 24 townships in Newaygo County were photointerpreted. Only upland forest and lowland mixedforest polygons meeting C-rank size criteria in theseeight townships were identified and photo interpreted.In addition, potential high quality occurrences of theseand other natural communities were identified anddelineated in the remaining 16 townships in NewaygoCounty to provide a more complete conservation layerof the county. A total of 833 sites were identified anddelineated throughout the county. In 2008, no additionalaerial photo interpretation or identification of additionalphoto-interpreted polygons was conducted other thanan aerial photo review of the sample cells that wereselected for sampling.

In 2007, all upland forest sample cells or plotswere located in photo-interpreted polygons. In 2008,two of the 20 sampled cells or plots were located inphoto-interpreted polygons. Results from the aerial

photo interpretation and evaluation of polygon qualityconducted in 2007 will be compiled and potentiallyanalyzed during winter/spring of 2009. Each polygonhas a score for each criterion, but we still need todetermine the specific criteria that would be includedin the analysis and develop an algorithm or formula forcombining or aggregating the criteria into one score/ranking indicating the quality or condition of eachphoto-interpreted polygon. Also, additional photointerpretation would need to be conducted to delineateand evaluate the polygons in which 18 of the 20 cellssampled in 2008 were located if the PI polygons aregoing to be included in the data analysis. The photo-interpreted polygon scores can be compared with theGIS patch analysis scores and field metric scores toevaluate the efficacy and contribution of this approachto assessing the ecological quality of these areasremotely. The photo-interpreted polygons couldpotentially be used to enhance or complement the GISmodels.


Conservation GazetteerDevelopment of the web-based conservation

gazetteer continued in 2008. The overall architectureof the gazetteer has been established. After substantialexperimentation with displaying different data types,the format that will be used to present the data hasbeen determined. This will entail converting the patchanalysis models from the ESRI raster format to avector format from which the models will be converted

to a different raster format. We are currentlyinvestigating different ways for displaying the GISmodels and resulting data layers in a user-friendlyformat. Development of the web-based conservationgazetteer will be completed in 2009. The web-basedconservation gazetteer also will be updated and revisedbased on feedback from initial users.

REFERENCESCarter, M., W. Hunter, D. Pashley, and K. Rosenberg.

2000. Setting conservation priorities forlandbirds in the United States: The Partners inFlight Approach. Auk 117:541-548.

Eagle, A. C., E. M. Hay-Chmielewski, K. T.Cleveland, A. L. Derosier, M. E. Herbert, andR. A. Rustem, eds. 2005. Michigan’s WildlifeAction Plan. Michigan Department of NaturalResources. Lansing, Michigan. 1592 pp. http://www.michigan.gov/dnrwildlifeactionplan

Herman, K. D., L. A. Masters, M. R. Penskar, A. A.Reznicek, G. S. Wilhelm, W. W. Brodovich, andK. P. Gardiner. 2001. Floristic QualityAssessment with Wetland Categories andExamples of Computer Applications for theState of Michigan – Revised, 2nd Edition.Michigan Department of Natural Resources,Wildlife, Natural Heritage Program. Lansing,MI. 19 pp. + Appendicies.

Huff, M., K. Bettinger, H. Ferguson, M. Brown, andB. Altman. 2000. A habitat-based point-countprotocol for terrestrial birds, emphasizingWashington and Oregon. U. S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service General TechnicalReport PNW-GTR-501.

Lindenmayer, D. B., C. R. Margules, and D. B.Botkin. 2000. Indicators of biodiversity forecologically sustainable forest management.Conservation Biology 14: 941-950.

Lindenmayer, D. B., J. F. Franklin, and J. Fischer.2006. General management principles and achecklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversityconservation. Biological Conservation 131: 433-445.

MacArthur, R. and J. MacArthur. 1961. On birdspecies diversity. Ecology 42:594-598.

Maurer, B. 1993. Biological diversity, ecologicalintegrity, and neotropical migrants: Newperspectives for wildlife management. Pages24-31 in Status and Management of NeotropicalMigratory Birds (D. Finch and P. Stangel, Eds.).U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceGeneral Technical Report RM-229.

McElhinny, C., Gibbons, P., Brack, C. and J. Bauhus.2005. Forest and woodland stand structuralcomplexity: Its definition and management.Forest Ecology and Management 218: 1-24.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).2001. Integrated forest monitoring assessmentand prescription (IFMAP) / GAP LowerPeninsula and Upper Peninsula land cover.Remote sensing image. Content 1997-2001.

Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoringbiodiversity: A hierarchical approach.Conservation Biology 4: 355-364.

Noss, R. F. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forestbiodiversity: A suggested framework andindicators. Forest Ecology and Management 115:135-146.

Nuttle, T., A. Leidolf, and L. Burger. Jr. 2003.Assessing conservation value of birdcommunities with partners in flight-based ranks.Auk 120:541-549.

Rappole, J. and M. McDonald. 1994. Cause andeffect in population declines of migratory birds.Auk 111:652-660.

Wang, L., T. Brenden, P. W. Seelbach, A. Cooper, D.Allan, R. Clark, Jr., and M. Wiley. In press.Landscape based identification of humandisturbance gradients and references forstreams in Michigan. Environmental Monitoringand Assessment.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to gratefully acknowledge theMichigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)Wildlife Division for providing the funding for thisproject. We would like to especially acknowledge Dr.Patrick Lederle, Michael Donovan, and SarahMayhew with the MDNR Wildlife Division for theirguidance and assistance with this project. We alsowould like to thank Dr. Gary Roloff with the MSUDepartment of Fisheries and Wildlife for providingassistance with the study design. We also would like toacknowledge Dr. Patrick Brown, former MNFIDirector, for his efforts initiating and leading thisproject from 2006 to 2007. Several MNFI staff alsoprovided assistance with this project. Kraig Korroch,

MNFI Information Technologist, provided invaluableassistance with the development of the web-basedconservation gazetteer. Beverly Walters, former MNFIBotanist, conducted the botanical sampling in 2006 and2007. Helen Enander, MNFI GIS Analyst, providedtechnical assistance with the GIS components of thestudy. We would especially like to acknowledgeRebecca Rogers, MNFI Information Technologist,Kraig Korroch, and David Cuthrell, MNFI Zoologist,for their invaluable assistance with the processing,sorting, picking and identification of the aquaticmacroinvertebrate samples. Finally, Nancy Toben, SueRidge, and Connie Brinson with MNFI providedadministrative assistance on this project.

A-1

APPENDICES

A-2

Appendix I. Summary of field metrics to assess the ecological quality or condition of the range of naturalcommunity field classes associated with the GIS/IFMAP land cover types or classes and MNFI natural commu-nities.

Bo

g

Po

or

fen

Po

or

con

ifer

sw

amp

Mu

skeg

Co

asta

l p

lain

mar

sh

Inte

rmit

ten

t w

etla

nd

Metrics

Landscape context**

Buffer width X X X X X X

Broader land use X X X X X X

Site intactness

Presence of roads, RR tracks, or other (residential,

industrial, commercial) development

X X X X X X

Hydrology

Presence of drains, ditches, channelization X X X X X X

Soil erosion

ORV damage X X X X X X

Stream morphology


Vegetative structure and composition X X X X X X

Evidence of logging

Evidence of plowing

Evidence of fire

Presence of invasive non-native vascular plant spp. X X X X X X

Presence of rotting logs and snags

Tree regeneration (oak, conifer, etc. as appropriate)

Evidence of deer browse

Species-specific die-offs

Condition of sphagnum peat X X X X

Cat-tail invasion (indicator of nutrient enrichment) X X X X X X

Presence of red maple (Acer rubrum )

Pit-and-mound topography


Non-forested wetland Lowland forest Non-forested wetland

Acidic peatlands Intermittent wetlands

A-3

Appendix I (continued). Summary of field metrics to assess the ecological quality or condition of the rangeof natural community field classes associated with the GIS/IFMAP land cover types or classes and MNFInatural communities.

Metrics

Landscape context**

Buffer width

Broader land use

Site intactness



Hydrology

Presence of drains, ditches, channelization

Soil erosion

ORV damage

Stream morphology


Vegetative structure and composition

Evidence of logging

Evidence of plowing

Evidence of fire

Presence of invasive non-native vascular plant spp.






Cat-tail invasion (indicator of nutrient enrichment)




Dry

San

d P

rair

ie

Mes

ic s

and

pra

irie

Oak

bar

ren

s

Oak

op

enin

gs

Oak

-pin

e b

arre

ns

Pin

e b

arre

ns

X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

Grassland/shrub

Upland prairies and savanna

A-4

Appendix I (continued). Summary of field metrics to assess the ecological quality or condition of the range ofnatural community field classes associated with the GIS/IFMAP land cover types or classes and MNFI naturalcommunities.

Metrics

Landscape context**

Buffer width

Broader land use

Site intactness



Hydrology


Soil erosion

ORV damage

Stream morphology



Evidence of logging

Evidence of plowing

Evidence of fire











Dry

so

uth

ern

fo

rest

Dry

-mes

ic n

ort

her

n f

ore

st

Dry

-mes

ic s

ou

ther

n f

ore

st

Mes

ic n

ort

her

n f

ore

st

Mes

ic s

ou

ther

n f

ore

st

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X

Upland forest

Upland oak and oak-pine

forests

Upland mesic

forests

A-5


Metrics

Landscape context**

Buffer width

Broader land use

Site intactness



Hydrology


Soil erosion

ORV damage

Stream morphology



Evidence of logging

Evidence of plowing

Evidence of fire











Har

dw

oo

d-c

on

ifer

sw

amp

Rel

ict

con

ifer

sw

amp

Ric

h c

on

ifer

sw

amp

So

uth

ern

sw

amp

No

rth

ern

sw

amp

So

uth

ern

flo

od

pla

in f

ore

st

Floodplain

forest

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X

Lowland forest

Lowland mixed and

coniferous forests

Lowland

deciduous forests

A-6


Met

rics

La

nd

sca

pe

con

tex

t**

Bu

ffer

wid

th

Bro

ader

lan

d u

se

Sit

e in

tact

nes

s

Pre

sen

ce o

f ro

ads,

RR

tra

cks,

or

oth

er (

resi

den

tial

,

ind

ust

rial

, co

mm

erci

al)

dev

elo

pm

ent

Hyd

rolo

gy

Pre

sen

ce o

f d

rain

s, d

itch

es,

chan

nel

izat

ion

So

il e

rosi

on

OR

V d

amag

e

Str

eam

mo

rph

olo

gy

Co

mm

un

ity

stru

ctu

re a

nd

fu

nct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctu

re a

nd

co

mp

osi

tio

n

Ev

iden

ce o

f lo

gg

ing

Ev

iden

ce o

f p

low

ing

Ev

iden

ce o

f fi

re

Pre

sen

ce o

f in

vas

ive

no

n-n

ativ

e v

ascu

lar

pla

nt

spp

.

Pre

sen

ce o

f ro

ttin

g l

og

s an

d s

nag

s

Tre

e re

gen

erat

ion

(o

ak,

con

ifer

, et

c. a

s ap

pro

pri

ate)

Ev

iden

ce o

f d

eer

bro

wse

Sp

ecie

s-sp

ecif

ic d

ie-o

ffs

Co

nd

itio

n o

f sp

hag

nu

m p

eat

Cat

-tai

l in

vas

ion

(in

dic

ato

r o

f n

utr

ien

t en

rich

men

t)

Pre

sen

ce o

f re

d m

aple

(Ace

r ru

bru

m)

Pit

-an

d-m

ou

nd

to

po

gra

ph

y

Do

min

ance

by

nat

ive

gra

sses

an

d/o

r se

dg

es

Inundated Shrub Swamp

Northern Shrub Thicket

Southern shrub-carr

Emergent marsh

Inland salt marsh

Submergent marsh

Lakeplain wet-mesic prairie

Northern fen

Northern wet meadow

Northern Wet-Mesic Prairie

Southern wet meadow

Wet prairie

Wet-mesic prairie

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

XX

XNo

n-f

ore

sted

wet

lan

d

Wet

mea

do

ws,

wet

an

d w

et-m

esic

pra

irie

s, a

nd

ca

lca

reo

us

fen

Sh

rub

-do

min

ate

d w

etla

nd

sE

mer

gen

t a

nd

su

bm

erg

ent

ma

rsh

es

A-7

Appendix II. Summary of metrics and criteria used to evaluate the quality or condition of photo-inter-preted polygons by natural community type.

CO

MM

UN

ITY

TY

PE

Ran

k fa

cto

rK

ey E

colo

gic

al

Att

rib

ute

Met

ric

Ran

kin

g c

rite

ria

BOG

BIOTIC CONDITIONC

omm

unity

Str

uctu

re a

nd

Fun

ctio

n

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey.

3 =

Go

od

Veg

etat

ion

with

in e

xpec

ted

rang

e of

var

iatio

n. S

phag

num

mat

inta

ct.

Zon

atio

n va

rious

de

pend

ing

on m

atur

ity.

2 =

Fai

rP

artia

lly d

egra

ded

bog

mat

(i.e

., a

port

ion

of th

e sy

stem

is in

tact

, ano

ther

por

tion

is

degr

aded

).

1 =

Po

or

Veg

etat

ion

outs

ide

expe

cted

ran

ge o

f var

iatio

n. O

R S

phag

num

mat

deg

rade

d. O

R fl

oode

d (in

clud

ing

beav

er fl

oodi

ng)

form

er b

og n

ow la

ckin

g ty

pica

l str

uctu

re.

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

70+

acre

s

3 =

Go

od

40-6

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r10

-39

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<10

acre

s

POOR CONIFER SWAMP

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey.

3 =

Go

od

Veg

etat

ion

with

in e

xpec

ted

rang

e of

var

iatio

n. S

phag

num

mat

inta

ct.

Zon

atio

n va

rious

de

pend

ing

on m

atur

ity.

2 =

Fai

rN

/A.

Req

uire

s fie

ld s

urve

y.

1 =

Po

or

Veg

etat

ion

outs

ide

expe

cted

ran

ge o

f var

iatio

n. O

R S

phag

num

mat

deg

rade

d. O

R fl

oode

d (in

clud

ing

beav

er fl

oodi

ng),

now

lack

ing

typi

cal s

truc

ture

.

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

120+

acr

es

3 =

Go

od

60-1

19 a

cres

2 =

Fai

r30

-59

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<30

acre

s

A-8

Appendix II (continued). Summary of metrics and criteria used to evaluate the quality or condition ofphoto-interpreted polygons by natural community type.

RICH CONIFER SWAMP

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. Old

-gro

wth

site

s ap

pear

to h

ave

rela

tivel

y la

rge

crow

n di

amet

ers.

May

be

scor

ed if

we

use

circ

a 19

38 a

eria

l pho

tos.

3 =

Go

od

Con

ifers

dom

inan

t (>6

6% c

over

). S

houl

d be

mat

ure,

but

pla

ce h

ere

if un

cert

ain.

2 =

Fai

rC

onife

rs >

50%

cov

er, o

r ce

dars

imm

atur

e, if

dis

cern

ible

on

aeria

l pho

tos.

1 =

Po

or

Har

dwoo

ds d

omin

ant (

>50%

cov

er).

Typ

ical

ly h

eavi

ly d

istu

rbed

sta

nds

that

hav

e co

nver

ted

to r

ed m

aple

dom

inan

ce.

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

120+

acr

es

3 =

Go

od

60-1

19 a

cres

2 =

Fai

r30

-59

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<30

acre

s

RELICT CONIFER SWAMP

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey.

3 =

Go

od

Con

ifers

(ta

mar

ack

and

othe

rs o

ccas

iona

lly)

>60%

cov

er.

Dec

iduo

us tr

ees

<33%

cov

er.

Zon

atio

n va

rious

.

2 =

Fai

rC

onife

rs 3

3-60

% c

over

. Z

onat

ion

vario

us.

Rep

rese

nts

site

s w

ith s

ome

degr

ee o

f co

nver

sion

to h

ardw

ood

(typ

ical

ly r

ed m

aple

) do

min

ance

.

1 =

Po

or

Con

ifers

<33

% c

over

. T

ypic

ally

hea

vily

dis

turb

ed s

tand

s th

at h

ave

conv

erte

d to

red

map

le

dom

inan

ce.

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

70+

acre

s

3 =

Go

od

45-6

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r15

-45

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<15

acre

s

A-9


HARDWOOD-CONIFER SWAMP

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. Old

-gro

wth

site

s ap

pear

to h

ave

rela

tivel

y la

rge

crow

n di

amet

ers.

May

be

scor

ed if

we

use

circ

a 19

38 a

eria

l pho

tos.

3 =

Go

od

Con

ifers

>33

% c

over

, or

dist

ribut

ed th

roug

hout

site

but

com

pris

ing

<33%

cov

er. S

houl

d be

m

atur

e, b

ut p

lace

her

e if

unce

rtai

n.

2 =

Fai

rC

onife

rs p

rese

nt, b

ut lo

caliz

ed o

r co

mpr

isin

g <3

3% c

over

. OR

, con

ifers

hav

e gr

eate

r co

ver,

but

are

imm

atur

e (if

dis

cern

ible

on

aeria

l pho

tos)

.

1 =

Po

or

Con

ifers

rar

e. T

ypic

ally

hea

vily

dis

turb

ed s

tand

s th

at h

ave

conv

erte

d to

red

map

le

dom

inan

ce. S

tand

s on

ly m

appe

d if

coni

fer

com

pone

nt id

entif

iabl

e.

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

100+

acr

es

3 =

Go

od

50-9

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r25

-49

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<25

acre

s

SOUTHERN SWAMP

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. Old

-gro

wth

site

s ap

pear

to h

ave

rela

tivel

y la

rge

crow

n di

amet

ers.

May

be

scor

ed if

we

use

circ

a 19

38 a

eria

l pho

tos.

3 =

Go

od

Sta

nd d

omin

ated

by

wet

land

har

dwoo

ds.

Exc

lude

site

s co

nver

ted

from

con

ifer

dom

inan

ce.

<30%

asp

en o

r sh

rub

cove

r (s

ee IF

MA

P lu

_200

0 G

IS la

yer)

.

N/A

. Req

uire

s fie

ld s

urve

y.2

= F

air

1 =

Po

or

Site

con

tain

s >3

0% a

spen

or

shru

b co

ver

(see

IFM

AP

lu_2

000

GIS

laye

r).

Exc

lude

site

s co

nver

ted

from

con

ifer

dom

inan

ce.

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

80+

acre

s

3 =

Go

od

50-7

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r

1 =

Po

or

25-4

9 ac

res

<25

acre

s

A-10


SOUTHERN FLOODPLAIN FOREST

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

N/A

. Old

-gro

wth

site

s ap

pear

to h

ave

rela

tivel

y la

rge

crow

n di

amet

ers.

May

be

scor

ed if

we

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

use

circ

a 19

38 a

eria

l pho

tos.

3 =

Go

od

Inta

ct s

truc

ture

. Sho

uld

be m

atur

e, b

ut p

lace

her

e if

unce

rtai

n.

N/A

. P

lace

hold

er fo

r im

mat

ure

stan

ds. P

lace

her

e if

mat

urity

dis

cern

ible

on

aeria

l 2

= F

air

phot

ogra

phs.

Sig

nific

antly

deg

rade

d st

ruct

ure;

site

bar

ely

reco

gniz

able

as

flood

plai

n fo

rest

. Poo

r 1

= P

oo

rco

nditi

on ty

pica

lly in

dica

ted

by a

ltere

d hy

drol

ogy

(see

Abi

otic

Con

ditio

n).

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

60+

acre

s

3 =

Go

od

30-5

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r15

-29

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<15

acre

s

NORTHERN SHRUB THICKET

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey.

3 =

Go

od

Veg

etat

ion

with

in e

xpec

ted

rang

e of

var

iatio

n. Z

onat

ion

vario

us d

epen

ding

on

mat

urity

.

2 =

Fai

rN

/A.

Req

uire

s fie

ld s

urve

y.

Veg

etat

ion

outs

ide

expe

cted

ran

ge o

f var

iatio

n. P

oor

cond

ition

typi

cally

indi

cate

d by

1

= P

oo

ral

tere

d hy

drol

ogy

(see

Abi

otic

Con

ditio

n).

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

60+

acre

s

3 =

Go

od

35-5

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r15

-34

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<15

acre

s

A-11

Appendix II (continued). Summary of metrics and criteria used to evaluate the quality or condition of photo-interpreted polygons by natural community type.

SOUTHERN SHRUB-CARR

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey.

3 =

Go

od

Veg

etat

ion

with

in e

xpec

ted

rang

e of

var

iatio

n. Z

onat

ion

vario

us d

epen

ding

on

mat

urity

.

2 =

Fai

rN

/A.

Req

uire

s fie

ld s

urve

y.

Veg

etat

ion

outs

ide

expe

cted

ran

ge o

f var

iatio

n. P

oor

cond

ition

typi

cally

indi

cate

d by

1

= P

oo

ral

tere

d hy

drol

ogy

(see

Abi

otic

Con

ditio

n).

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

60+

acre

s

3 =

Go

od

35-5

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r15

-34

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<15

acre

s

INUNDATED SHRUB SWAMP

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey.

3 =

Go

od

Veg

etat

ion

with

in e

xpec

ted

rang

e of

var

iatio

n. Z

onat

ion

vario

us d

epen

ding

on

mat

urity

.

2 =

Fai

rN

/A.

Req

uire

s fie

ld s

urve

y.

Veg

etat

ion

outs

ide

expe

cted

ran

ge o

f var

iatio

n. P

oor

cond

ition

typi

cally

indi

cate

d by

1

= P

oo

ral

tere

d hy

drol

ogy

(see

Abi

otic

Con

ditio

n).

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

60+

acre

s

3 =

Go

od

35-5

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r15

-34

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<15

acre

s

A-12


MESIC SOUTHERN FOREST

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

N/A

. Old

-gro

wth

site

s ap

pear

to h

ave

rela

tivel

y la

rge

crow

n di

amet

ers.

May

be

scor

ed if

we

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

use

circ

a 19

38 a

eria

l pho

tos.

Sta

nd d

omin

ated

by

nort

hern

har

dwoo

ds (

beec

h, s

ugar

map

le, e

tc.)

. Sho

uld

be m

atur

e,

3 =

Go

od

but p

lace

her

e if

unce

rtai

n. <

30%

asp

en (

see

IFM

AP

lu_2

000

GIS

laye

r).

Imm

atur

e st

ands

, or

stan

ds w

ith m

ixed

har

dwoo

d an

d as

pen

dom

inan

ce. I

nclu

des

thin

ned

2 =

Fai

rha

rdw

ood

fore

sts.

1 =

Po

or

>60%

asp

en-d

omin

ated

. O

r, y

oung

, suc

cess

iona

l sta

nd, a

s de

term

ined

on

aeria

l pho

tos.

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

80+

acre

s

3 =

Go

od

40-7

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r15

-39

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<15

acre

s

MESIC NORTHERN FOREST

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

N/A

. Old

-gro

wth

site

s ap

pear

to h

ave

rela

tivel

y la

rge

crow

n di

amet

ers.

May

be

scor

ed if

we

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

use

circ

a 19

38 a

eria

l pho

tos.

Sta

nd d

omin

ated

by

nort

hern

har

dwoo

ds a

nd/o

r he

mlo

cks.

Sho

uld

be m

atur

e, b

ut p

lace

3

= G

oo

dhe

re if

unc

erta

in. <

30%

asp

en (

see

IFM

AP

lu_2

000

GIS

laye

r).

Imm

atur

e st

ands

, or

stan

ds w

ith m

ixed

har

dwoo

d an

d as

pen

dom

inan

ce. I

nclu

des

thin

ned

2 =

Fai

rha

rdw

ood

fore

sts.

1 =

Po

or

>60%

asp

en-d

omin

ated

. O

r, y

oung

, suc

cess

iona

l sta

nd, a

s de

term

ined

on

aeria

l pho

tos.

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

100+

acr

es

3 =

Go

od

50-9

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r25

-49

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<25

acre

s

A-13


DRY-MESIC NORTHERN FOREST

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

N/A

. Old

-gro

wth

site

s ap

pear

to h

ave

rela

tivel

y la

rge

crow

n di

amet

ers.

May

be

scor

ed if

we

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

use

circ

a 19

38 a

eria

l pho

tos.

Oak

- or

pin

e-do

min

ated

sta

nd. S

houl

d be

mat

ure,

but

pla

ce h

ere

if un

cert

ain.

<30

% a

spen

3

= G

oo

d(s

ee IF

MA

P lu

_200

0 G

IS la

yer)

.

Imm

atur

e st

ands

, or

stan

ds w

ith m

ixed

oak

and

asp

en d

omin

ance

. Inc

lude

s th

inne

d oa

k 2

= F

air

fore

sts,

incl

udin

g th

ose

unde

rpla

nted

with

whi

te p

ine.

1 =

Po

or

>60%

asp

en-d

omin

ated

. O

r, y

oung

, suc

cess

iona

l sta

nd, a

s de

term

ined

on

aeria

l pho

tos.

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

100+

acr

es

3 =

Go

od

50-9

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r25

-49

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<25

acre

s

OAK-PINE BARRENS

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey,

unl

ess

nativ

e vs

. non

-nat

ive

grou

ndco

ver

can

be d

eter

min

ed

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

from

aer

ial p

hoto

s.

Mod

erat

e tr

ee a

nd s

hrub

enc

roac

hmen

t, to

geth

er c

ompr

isin

g <5

0% c

over

at t

he s

ite.

3 =

Go

od

Nat

ive

vs. n

on-n

ativ

e gr

ound

cove

r lik

ely

inde

term

inab

le o

n ae

rial p

hoto

s.

Tre

e an

d sh

rub

encr

oach

men

t sev

ere,

toge

ther

com

pris

ing

>50%

cov

er a

t the

site

, whi

ch

2 =

Fai

ris

stil

l rec

ogni

zabl

e as

bar

rens

.

Rep

rese

nts

form

er o

ak-p

ine

barr

ens

(bas

ed o

n ci

rca

1800

veg

etat

ion

map

) th

at h

ave

1 =

Po

or

conv

erte

d to

dry

-mes

ic n

orth

ern

fore

st d

ue to

pos

t-18

00 fi

re s

uppr

essi

on.

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

100+

acr

es

3 =

Go

od

55-9

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r25

-54

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<25

acre

s

A-14


DRY SAND PRAIRIE

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey.

Gro

undc

over

sho

uld

be >

90%

nat

ive

spp.

(w

arm

sea

son

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

gras

ses

show

as

gray

or

brow

n on

aer

ial p

hoto

s).

Mod

erat

e tr

ee a

nd s

hrub

enc

roac

hmen

t, to

geth

er c

ompr

isin

g <2

5% c

over

at t

he s

ite.

3 =

Go

od

Mos

tly n

ativ

e co

ver,

if d

eter

min

able

on

aeria

l pho

tos.

Tre

e an

d sh

rub

encr

oach

men

t sig

nific

ant,

toge

ther

com

pris

ing

>25%

cov

er a

t the

site

, 2

= F

air

whi

ch is

stil

l rec

ogni

zabl

e as

pra

irie.

Or,

sig

nific

ant c

over

by

non-

nativ

e sp

p.

Con

vert

ed o

ak-p

ine

barr

ens,

or

seve

rely

deg

rade

d st

ruct

ure.

Non

-nat

ive

spp.

dom

inat

e 1

= P

oo

rgr

ound

laye

r (c

ool s

easo

n gr

asse

s te

nd to

sho

w a

s pi

nk o

n ph

otos

).SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

10+

acre

s

3 =

Go

od

6-9.

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r3-

5.9

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<3 a

cres

SUBMERGENT MARSH

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey.

3 =

Go

od

Veg

etat

ion

with

in e

xpec

ted

rang

e of

var

iatio

n. Z

onat

ion

vario

us d

epen

ding

on

mat

urity

.

2 =

Fai

rN

/A.

Req

uire

s fie

ld s

urve

y.

Veg

etat

ion

outs

ide

expe

cted

ran

ge o

f var

iatio

n. P

oor

cond

ition

typi

cally

indi

cate

d by

1

= P

oo

ral

tere

d hy

drol

ogy

(see

Abi

otic

Con

ditio

n).

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

100+

acr

es

3 =

Go

od

60-9

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r30

-59

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<30

acre

s

A-15


EMERGENT MARSH

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey.

3 =

Go

od

Veg

etat

ion

with

in e

xpec

ted

rang

e of

var

iatio

n. Z

onat

ion

vario

us d

epen

ding

on

mat

urity

.

2 =

Fai

rN

/A.

Req

uire

s fie

ld s

urve

y.

Veg

etat

ion

outs

ide

expe

cted

ran

ge o

f var

iatio

n. P

oor

cond

ition

typi

cally

indi

cate

d by

1

= P

oo

ral

tere

d hy

drol

ogy

(see

Abi

otic

Con

ditio

n).

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

100+

acr

es

3 =

Go

od

60-9

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r30

-59

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<30

acre

s

NORTHERN WET MEADOW

IOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey.

Mod

erat

e sh

rub

encr

oach

men

t, co

mpr

isin

g <2

5% c

over

at t

he s

ite.

Nat

ive

vs. n

on-n

ativ

e 3

= G

oo

dgr

ound

cove

r lik

ely

inde

term

inab

le o

n ae

rial p

hoto

s.

Shr

ub e

ncro

achm

ent s

igni

fican

t, co

mpr

isin

g >2

5% c

over

at t

he s

ite, w

hich

is s

till

2 =

Fai

rre

cogn

izab

le a

s w

et m

eado

w.

Shr

ub e

ncro

achm

ent s

ever

e, c

ompr

isin

g >5

0% c

over

at t

he s

ite, w

hich

is s

till r

ecog

niza

ble

1 =

Po

or

B

as w

et m

eado

w.

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

60+

acre

s

3 =

Go

od

40-5

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r20

-39

acre

s

1 =

Po

or

<20

acre

s

A-16


INTERMITTENT WETLAND

IOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey.

3 =

Go

od

Veg

etat

ion

with

in e

xpec

ted

rang

e of

var

iatio

n. Z

onat

ion

vario

us d

epen

ding

on

mat

urity

.

2 =

Fai

rN

/A.

Req

uire

s fie

ld s

urve

y.

Veg

etat

ion

outs

ide

expe

cted

ran

ge o

f var

iatio

n. P

oor

cond

ition

typi

cally

indi

cate

d by

1

= P

oo

rB

alte

red

hydr

olog

y (s

ee A

biot

ic C

ondi

tion)

.SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

40+

acre

s

3 =

Go

od

20-3

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r5-

19 a

cres

1 =

Po

or

<5 a

cres

COASTAL PLAIN MARSH

IOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey.

3 =

Go

od

Veg

etat

ion

with

in e

xpec

ted

rang

e of

var

iatio

n. Z

onat

ion

vario

us d

epen

ding

on

mat

urity

.

2 =

Fai

rN

/A.

Req

uire

s fie

ld s

urve

y.

B

Veg

etat

ion

outs

ide

expe

cted

ran

ge o

f var

iatio

n. P

oor

cond

ition

typi

cally

indi

cate

d by

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

1 =

Po

or

alte

red

hydr

olog

y (s

ee A

biot

ic C

ondi

tion)

.

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

40+

acre

s

3 =

Go

od

20-3

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r5-

19 a

cres

1 =

Po

or

<5 a

cres

A-17


1 =

Po

or

<5 a

cres

LAKEPLAIN WET-MESIC PRAIRIE

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey,

unl

ess

nativ

e vs

. non

-nat

ive

grou

ndco

ver

can

be d

eter

min

ed

from

aer

ial p

hoto

s.

3 =

Go

od

Mod

erat

e tr

ee a

nd s

hrub

enc

roac

hmen

t, to

geth

er c

ompr

isin

g <2

5% c

over

at t

he s

ite.

Nat

ive

vs. n

on-n

ativ

e gr

ound

cove

r lik

ely

inde

term

inab

le o

n ae

rial p

hoto

s.

2 =

Fai

rT

ree

and

shru

b en

croa

chm

ent s

igni

fican

t, to

geth

er c

ompr

isin

g >2

5% c

over

at t

he s

ite,

whi

ch is

stil

l rec

ogni

zabl

e as

pra

irie.

Tre

e an

d sh

rub

encr

oach

men

t sev

ere,

toge

ther

com

pris

ing

>50%

cov

er a

t the

site

, whi

ch

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

1 =

Po

or

is s

till r

ecog

niza

ble

as p

rairi

e.

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

5+ a

cres

3 =

Go

od

2-4.

9 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r1-

1.9

acre

s

NORTHERN FEN

BIOTIC CONDITION

Com

mun

ity S

truc

ture

and

F

unct

ion

Veg

etat

ive

stru

ctur

e an

d co

mpo

sitio

n

1 =

Po

or

<1 a

cre

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

N/A

. R

equi

res

field

sur

vey.

3 =

Go

od

Mod

erat

e sh

rub

encr

oach

men

t, co

mpr

isin

g <2

5% c

over

at t

he s

ite.

Nat

ive

vs. n

on-n

ativ

e gr

ound

cove

r lik

ely

inde

term

inab

le o

n ae

rial p

hoto

s.

2 =

Fai

rS

hrub

enc

roac

hmen

t sig

nific

ant,

com

pris

ing

>25%

cov

er a

t the

site

, whi

ch is

stil

l re

cogn

izab

le a

s fe

n.

Shr

ub e

ncro

achm

ent s

ever

e, c

ompr

isin

g >5

0% c

over

at t

he s

ite, w

hich

is s

till r

ecog

niza

ble

SIZE

Com

mun

ity s

ize

Are

a in

acr

es

1 =

Po

or

as fe

n.

4 =

Exc

elle

nt

35+

acre

s

3 =

Go

od

20-3

4 ac

res

2 =

Fai

r5-

19 a

cres

Documents

Statewide Analysis and Surveys to Develop an Approach for ...approach for evaluating the landscape and identifying or predicting areas of high ecological value or significance remotely