[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Coastal Zone Information Center V A Sm 1*1 V IX G 70 .G 3 G74 1976 appendix lidlife v. 17 STU rL---,S BASIN F 4 0 3 Great Lakes Basin Framework Study APPENDIX 17 WILDLIFE U . S . DEPA8TMENT OF COMW EFICE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413 ME VrOPertY Of CSC Library Z GREAT LAKES BASIN COMMISSION Prepared by Wildlife Work Group Sponsored by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife U.S. Department of the Interior Published by the Public Information Office, Great Lakes Basin Commission, 3475 Plymouth Road, P.O. Box 999, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Printed in 1975. Cover photo by Kristine Moore Meves. This appendix to the Report of the Great Lakes Basinkraimework Study was prepared at field level under the auspices of the Great Lakes Bhsin' Commission to provide da-ta *for use in the conduct of the Study and preparation of the Report. The conclusions and recommendations herein are those of the group preparing the appendix and not necessarily those of the Basin Commission. The tecommendations of the Great Lakes Basin Commission are included in the Report. The copyright material reproduced in this volume of the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study was printed with the kind consent of the copyright holders. Section 8, title 17, United States Code, provides: The publication or republication_@Y,the Governirnent,-either separately or in a public document, of any n-'@ N@11 ' "bAa-ken to cause any abridgement or annulment of the material in which copyright is-sub�istii@g not- copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such copyright material without the consent of the copyright proprietor. The Great Lakes Basin Commission requests that no copyrighted material in this volume be republished or reprinted without the permission of the author. OUTLINE Report Appendix 1: Alternative Frameworks Appendix 2: Surface Water Hydrology Appendix 3: Geology and Ground Water Appendix 4: Limnology of Lakes and Embayments Appendix 5: Mineral Resources Appendix 6: Water Supply-Municipal, Industrial, and Rural Appendix 7: Water Quality Appendix 8: Fish Appendix C9: Commercial Navigation Appendix R9: Recreational Boating Appendix 10: Power Appendix 11: Levels and Flows Appendix 12: Shore Use and Erosion Ap])endix 13: Land Use and Management Appendix 14: Flood Plains Appendix 15: Irrigation Appendix 16: Drainage Appendix 17: Wildlife Appendix 18: Erosion and Sedimentation Appendix 19: Economic and Demographic Studies Appendix F20: Federal Laws, Policies, and Institutional Arrangements Appendix S20: State Laws, Policies, and Institutional Arrangements Appendix 21: Outdoor Recreation Appendix 22: Aesthetic and Cultural Resources Appendix 23: Health Aspects Environmental Impact Statement 1J 11 J J SYNOPSIS Nearly all of the Great Lakes Basin is wild- land-use intensity. The current Basin popula- life habitat. In the U.S. portion of the land tion, 30 million people, is expected to increase area there are 75 million acres of habitat or to 53 million during the 50-year study period. resource base, out of a total of 84 million acres. Most of these people live in a belt through the The shoal waters in the U.S. portion of the southern tier of Basin States where the Great Lakes total 610,000 acres, of which greatest increase will occur. 491,000 acres are important to wildlife. All of People cause two problems of greatest con- the open waters are used from time to time cern to wildlife managers-habitat degrada- by migrating waterfowl. The value of this habi- tion and loss. The population increase will tat varies greatly, but the important consider- cause a loss of a projected five million acres of ation is that all nonurbanized land, some wildlife habitat over the study period. Degra- urban land, and all waters have some value to dation is difficult to quantify. It is estimated wildlife. that significant portions of the Basin wildlife The eight kinds of Basin wildlife habitat in- habitat will be degraded by 2020. clude northern wilderness forests; farmland Ironically, increased human populations woodlots; blocks of eastern hardwood forests; also mean an increased demand for wildlife river bottom woodlands; scrub and brush resources. The present demand for use of wild- lands; open fields and meadows; cropland; and life resources is 15 million man-days, and it is freshwater wetlands. projected to increase to 33 million man-days in The supply of wildlife habitat other than 2020. Hunter participation is growing more cropland is generally good in the northern and slowly than population so the demand figure far eastern areas of the Basin and only fair projected for 2020 actually consists of more south of these areas. The country north of the non-hunters than hunters. Milwaukee- Buffalo line is forested and sparsely settled, while the Basin country Game and furbearer population trends and south of this line is heavily settled and is pri- the environmental factors influencing them marily industrial and agricultural. The wide are felt to be generally indicative of those for spectrum of wildlife that occupies this habitat nongame species associated with similar can be grouped into the following major habitats. The use of game and furbearer data categories: big game, waterfowl, shorebirds, throughout the report reflects availability wading birds, songbirds, small game and fur- rather than an emphasis on this relatively bearers. Some of these animals and birds are small group of wildlife species. rare, some endangered, and some common. To meet these demands and insure protec- The single most important factor affecting tion of wildlife habitat a number of recom- Basin wildlife and habitat is human popula- mendations are made, including the aequisi- tion growth and the resultant increase in tion of 14 million acres of wildlife habitat. v FOREWORD Appendix 17, Wildlife, is intended primarily and Eugene Bass (alternate), Indiana; J. Mark for use in plan formulation. It represents the Hargitt, Stanley R. Quackenbush, Ed Mikula, combined effort of work group members, with Dr. Norman F. Sloan and Arlow Boyce (alter- greatest input from State members. In 1962 nate), Michigan; Jerome H. Kuehn, Joseph Senate Document No. 97, 87th Congress, di- Sizer, and John Hall (alternate), Minnesota; rected close cooperation in planning by key Ralph S. Palmer (liason), Edgar M. Reilly, Federal agencies "to the end that regional, Robert F. Perry, Charles Mason (replaced R.F. State, and local objectives may be accomplish- Perry in March 1972), John A. Finck (informa- ed to the greatest extent consistent with na- tion); Denton Aldrow (alternate), New tional objectives." With the passage of PL 89- York; Allen Cannon, Ohio; Nicholas Vukovich, 80, the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, Pennsylvania; and Frank King and Edward J. it was declared to be the policy of the Congress Frank (alternate), Wisconsin. to encourage the conservation, development, The appendix was prepared by Sumner A. and utilization of water and related land re- Dole, Jr., John C. Peterson, and Kenneth A. sources of the United States on a comprehen- Multerer, staff members of the Lebanon, Ohio, sive and coordinated basis by the Federal field office of the U.S. Bureau of Sport government, States, local governments, and Fisheries and Wildlife. A number of persons in private enterprise with the cooperation of all the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, affected Federal agencies and others con- several State employees, and representatives cerned. To this end, the Great Lakes Basin of several Federal agencies assisted the au- Commission was created and the Wildlife thors by providing information for the appen- Work Group formed to provide an inventory dix. of the existing wildlife resources and a plan This appendix is written to favor pres- for their future use. The work group was di- ervation and sound management of wildlife rected by the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries resources. We also understand that any and Wildlife. "trade-offs" or losses of wildlife habitat to Members of the work group and alternates other planning interests are the responsibility are as follows: Sumner A. Dole, Jr., work group of decision-making and policy-level govern- chairman, and John C. Peterson, U.S. Bureau ment officials. of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife; H. Gordon Hanson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Fran- Notwithstanding prior agreements with cis J. Baker, U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Rec- other planning elements, terminology used in reation; Robert Radtke, U.S. Forest Service; this appendix is that recognized by the major- Charles Smith, U.S. Soil Conservation Ser- ity of the work group, voting members from vice; Richard Lutz, Illinois; Edward Hanson State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page OUTLINE .................................................................... iii SYNOPSIS ................................................................... v FOREWORD ................................................................. vi LIST OF TABLES ............................................................ x LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................... xiv INTRODUCTION ............................................................. xvii I BASIN DESCRIPTION ................................................... 1 1.1 Biophysical Characteristics ........................................... 1 1.1.1 Lake Superior Basin ............................................ 1 1.1.2 Lake Michigan Basin ........................................... 1 1.1.3 Lake Huron Basin ............................................. 2 1.1.4 Lake Erie Basin ................................................ 2 1.1.5 Lake Ontario Basin ............................................ 2 1.2 Demographic Considerations .......................................... 3 2 PRESENT STATUS OF WILDLIFE ...................................... 5 2.1 Basin Wildlife Populations and Trends ................................ 5 2.1.1 Minnesota ...................................................... 5 2.1.2 Wisconsin ...................................................... 5 2.1.3 Illinois ......................................................... 6 2.1.4 Indiana ........................................................ 6 2.1.5 Michigan ....................................................... 6 2.1.6 Ohio ............................................................ 7 2.1.7 Pennsylvania ....................................... ............ 8 2.1.8 New York ...................................................... 8 2.2 Wildlife Habitat and Trends .......................................... 26 2.2.1 The Wildlife Habitat Base ...................................... 26 2.2.2 Great Lakes Wetlands and Waterfowl .......................... 38 2.2.2.1 Introduction ........................................... 38 2.2.2.2 Defining Wetlands ..................................... 38 2.2.2.3 Wildlife and Great Lakes Wetlands ..................... 38 2.2.2.4 Waterfowl Use Patterns ................................ 54 2.2.2.5 National Wildlife Refuges .............................. 66 2.2.2.6 Status of Wetlands ..................................... 67 2.3 Use of Wildlife Resources and Trends ................................. 72 2.3.1 Species Utilization ............................................. 72 2.4 Existing Wildlife Problems ............................................ 73 2.4.1 Basinwide Problems ............................................ 73 2.4.2 Wildlife Problems in Each Planning Subarea ................... 77 2.4.2.1 Planning Subarea 1.1, Minnesota and Wisconsin ....... 77 2.4.2.2 Planning Subarea 2.1, Wisconsin ....................... 78 vii viii Appendix 17 Page 2.4.2.3 Planning Subarea 2.2, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana 79 2.4.2.4 Planning Subarea 2.3, Indiana and Michigan ........... 80 2.4.2.5 Planning Subareas 1.2, 2.4, and 3.1, Michigan .......... 82 2.4.2.6 Planning Subarea 3.2, Michigan ........................ 83 2.4.2.7 Planning Subarea 4.1, Michigan ........................ 84 2.4.2.8 Planning Subarea 4.2, Indiana and Ohio ............... 85 2.4.2.9 Planning Subarea 4.3, Ohio ............................. 86 2.4.2.10 Planning Subarea 4.4, Pennsylvania and New York .... 90 2.4.2.11 Planning Subarea 5.1, New York ....................... 91 2.4.2.12 Planning Subarea 5.2, New York ....................... 92 2.4.2.13 Planning Subarea 5.3, New York ....................... 93 3 FUTURE USE OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES ............................. 95 3.1 Projected Human Populations ........................................ 95 3.2 Projected Hunter Use ................................................ 95 3.2.1 Projected Participants ......................................... 95 3.2.1.1 Licensed Resident Use ................................. 95 3.2.1.2 Licensed Non-Resident Use ............................ 96 3.2.1.3 Unlicensed Use ........................................ 96 3.2.1.4 Latent Demand ........................................ 96 3.2.2 Projected Annual Use Rates Per Participant ................... 97 3.2.3 Projected Gross Demand ....................................... 97 3.2.4 Projected Net Demand ......................................... 97 3.2.5 Planning Subareas: Hunters and Needs ........................ 97 3.2.6 Estimated Non-Hunter Use .................................... 100 4 ALTERNATIVES FOR SATISFYING FUTURE REQUIREMENTS ...... 101 4.1 Capabilities of Wildlife Resources to Sustain Future Demands ........ 101 4.2 Known Future Management Programs and Recommendations ........ 101 4.2.1 Minnesota .................... ................................. 101 4.2.1.1 Future Management Programs ........................ 101 4.2.1.2 Management Recommendations (Planning Subarea 1.1) 101 4.2.2 Wisconsin ...................................................... 102 4.2.2.1 Future Programs ...................................... 102 4.2.2.2 Management Recommendations for Northern Forest Re- gion (Planning Subarea 1.1 and Northern Half of Plan- ning Subarea 2.1) ...................................... 102 4.2.2.3 Management Recommendations for Farm and Urban Region (Planning Subarea 2.2 and Southern Half of Plan- ning Subarea 2.1). ..: .................................... 104 4.2.3 Illinois ........ .................................. 104 4.2.3.1 Known Future Management Programs ................. 104 4.2.3.2 Management Recommendations (Planning Subarea 2.2) 104 4.2.4 Indiana ........................................................ 105 4.2.4.1 Future Management Programs .......... 105 4.2.4.2 Management Recommendations (Planning'9*u*ba'r*e*a*s*'2*.*2*, 2.3, and 4.2) ............................................ 105 4.2.5 Michigan ....................................................... 105 4.2.5.1 Future Programs ...................................... 105 4.2.5.2 Management Recommendations for Southern Part of the State ................................................... 106 4.2.5.3 Management Recommendations for Northern Part of the State ................................................... 106 Table of Contents ix Page 4.2.6 Ohio ............................................................ 107 4.2.6.1 Future Programs ...................................... 107 4.2.6.2 Management Recommendations (Planning Subareas 4.2 and 4.3) ................................................ 108 4.2.7 Pennsylvania ................................................... 108 4.2.7.1 Future Management Programs (Planning Subarea 4.4). 108 4.2.7.2 Management Recommendations (Planning Subarea 4.4) 109 4.2.8 New York ...................................................... 109 4.2.8.1 Future Programs ...................................... 109 4.2.8.2 General Management Recommendations (Planning Sub- areas 4.4, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3) .............................. 109 4.2.8.3 Waterfowl and Wetland Recommendations ............. 109 4.2.8.4 Farm-Game Recommendations ......................... 110 4.2.8.5 Upland Game Recommendations ....................... 110 4.2.8.6 Big-Game Recommendations ........................... 110 4.2.8.7 Other Recommendations ............................... 110 4.2.8.8 Additional Recommendations Specific to Planning Sub- area 5.3 ................................................ ill 4.3 Estimated State Budgets for the Study Period ........................ ill SUMMARY ................................................................... 123 Status of Wildlife Resources (1970) ....................................... 123 Future Use of Wildlife Resources (1980 to 2020) ........................... 124 General Basinwide Recommendations .................................... 124 GLOSSARY .................................................................. 127 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................ 131 ADDENDUM ................................................................. 135 Methodology .............................................................. 135 Basic Data for Planning Subarea 4.2 ..................................... 135 Computations ............................................................. 136 Determination of the Acreage Needs of the Wildlife User .................. 139 Determination of Needed Acres in Planning Subarea 4.2 ................. 140 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 17-1 Population of Great Lakes Basin by Plan Area and Planning Subarea. 3 17-2 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 1.1, Minnesota and Wis- consin ................................................................. 11 17-3 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 2.1 and 2.2, Wisconsin 12 17-4 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 2.2, Indiana and Illinois 13 17-5 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 2.3, Indiana and Michigan 14 17-6 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 1.2 and 2.1, Michigan . 15 17-7 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 2.4 and 3.1, Michigan .. 16 17-8 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 3.2 and 4.1, Michigan . 17 17-9 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 4.2, Ohio .............. 18 17-10 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 4.2, Indiana, and 4.3, Ohio 19 17-11 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 4.4, New York and Pennsylvania .......................................................... 20 17-12 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 5.1 and 5.2, New York 21 17-13 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, Black River Valley and Central Tug Hill ........................................... 22 17-14 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, Tug Hill Transition and Western Adirondacks .................................. 23 17-15 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, Adirondack Transition and Central Adirondacks ................................... 24 17-16 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, St. Law- rence Plain and Eastern Ontario Plain ................................ 25 17-17 Total Acres and Percent of Farm and Forest Game Habitat by Planning Subarea in 1960 ....................................................... 26 17-18 Acres of Farm and Forest Game Habitat by State and Planning Subarea in 1960 ................................................................ 26 17-19 Acres of Public Lands Open to Hunting, Mid-1960s .................... 27 17-20 State Parks and Recreation Areas, Mid-1960s ......................... 28 17-21 Determination of Supply Acres of Wildlife Habitat .................... 29 x List of Tables xi Table Page 17-22 Areas of Ecological Significance in Minnesota ......................... 31 17-23 Areas of Ecological Significance in Indiana ............................ 32 17-24 Areas of Ecological Significance in Wisconsin .......................... 33 17-25 Areas of Ecological Significance in Illinois ............................. 33 17-26 Areas of Ecological Significance in Michigan .......................... 34 17-27 Areas of Ecological Significance in Ohio ............................... 34 17-28 Areas of Ecological Significance in Pennsylvania ...................... 36 17-29 Areas of Ecological Significance in New York ......................... 36 17-30 Great Lakes and Connecting Waterways Shoal Acreages .............. 54 17-31 Great Lakes Basin National Wildlife Refuges .......................... 67 17-32 National Wildlife Refuges in the Great Lakes Basin-Waterfowl and Public Use ............................................................. 67 17-33 Acres of Great Lakes Basin Coastal Wetlands of Significant Value to Fish and Wildlife ........................................................... 68 17-34 Total Hunters by Target Years in the Great Lakes Basin ............. 73 17-35 Great Lakes Basin Projected Net Demands on Wildlife Habitat by Non- Consumptive Users by Target Years .................................. 73 17-36 Pennsylvania Game Harvest .......................................... 74 17-37 Indiana Estimated Game Harvest ..................................... 74 17-38 Illinois Estimated Game Harvest ............... ....................... 74 17-39 Ohio Estimated Game Harvest ........................................ 74 17-40 Minnesota Estimated Game Harvest .................................. 74 17-41 Wisconsin Estimated Game Harvest ................................... 74 17-42 Michigan Estimated Game Harvest .................................... 75 17-43 New York Game Harvest .............................................. 75 17-44 Great Lakes Basin Fur Catch ......................................... 76 17-45 Percent of Great Lakes Basin Habitat Base Lost to Urban Development 77 17-46 Cooperative Agreements in the Ohio Portion of Planning Subarea 4.2 86 17-47 Cooperative Agreements in Planning Subarea 4.3 ..................... 89 17-48 Total Hunters, Great Lakes Basin ..................................... 95 xii Appendix 17 Table Page 17-49 Resident Licensed Hunters, Great Lakes Basin ....................... 96 17-50 Licenses and Gross and Net Demands for Hunting, Great Lakes Basin 98 17-51 Acres of Wildlife Habitat Needed to Satisfy Hunter Demands, Great Lakes Basin ........................................................... 99 17-52 Projected Net Demands on Wildlife Habitat by Non-Consumptive Users, Great Lakes Basin .................................................... 99 17-53 Acres of Potentially Huntable Land, Great Lakes Basin ............... 100 17-54 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 1.1, Minnesota .................................................... 112 17-55 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 1.1, Wisconsin .................................................... 112 17-56 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 2.1, Wisconsin .................................................... 113 17-57 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 2.2, Wisconsin .................................................... 113 17-58 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 2.2, Indiana ...................................................... 114 17-59 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 2.3, Indiana ...................................................... 114 17-60 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 4.2, Indiana ...................................................... 115 17-61 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 2.3, Michigan ....... 115 17-62 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 3.2, Michigan ....... 116 17-63 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 4.1, Michigan ....... 116 17-64 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 2.4, Michigan ....... 117 17-65 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 2.1, Michigan ....... 117 17-66 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 1.2, Michigan ....... 118 17-67 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 3.1, Michigan ....... 118 17-68 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 4.2, Ohio .......................................................... 119 17-69 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 4.3, Ohio .......................................................... 119 17-70 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 4.4, Pennsylvania ................................................. 120 List of Tables xiii Table Page 17-71 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 4.4, New York .................................................... 120 17-72 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 5.1, New York .................................................... 121 17-73 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 5.2, New York .................................................... 121 17-74 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Sub- area 5.3, New York .................................................... 122 17-75 Sample License Table ................................................. 138 17-76 Sample Supply Areas Table, Planning Subarea 4.2 .................... 138 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 17-1 Great Lakes Region Planning Subareas ............................... xviii 17-2 Typical Minnesota Forest Habitat in Planning Subarea 1.1 ............ 5 17-3 Wildlife Habitat Zones, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York .............. 10 17-4 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 1.1 as of 1970 ................................................................... 39 17-5 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 1.2 as of 1970 ............................................................ : ...... 40 17-6 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.1 as of 1970 ................................................................... 41 17-7 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.2 as of 1970 ................................................................... 42 17-8 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.3 as of 1970 ................................................................... 43 17-9 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.4 as of 1970 ................................................................... 44 17-10 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 3.1 as of 1970 ................................................................... 45 17-11 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 3.2 as of 1970 ................................................................... 46 17-12 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.1 as of 1970 ................................................................... 47 17-13 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.2 as of 1970 ................................................................... 48 17-14 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.3 as of 1970 .................................................................... 49 17-15 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.4 as of 1970 ................................................................... 50 17-16 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 5.1 as of 1970 ................................................................... 51 17-17 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 5.2 as of 1970 ................................................................... 52 17-18 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 5.3 as of 1970 .................................................................... 53 xiv List of Figures xv Figure Page 17-19 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Diving Ducks ................ 56 17-20 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Dabbling Ducks .............. 57 17-21 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Canada Geese ................ 58 17-22 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Blue and Snow Geese ........ 59 17-23 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 1 ............................ 60 17-24 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 2 ............................ 61 17-25 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 3 ............................ 62 17-26 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 4 ............................ 63 17-27 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 5 ............................ 64 17-28 Great Lakes Basin National Wildlife Refuges .......................... 65 17-29 Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge .................................. 69 17-30 Pointe Mouillee State Game Area Before Break in Barrier Beach, 1937. 70 17-31 Pointe Mouillee State Game Area After Break in Barrier Beach, Loss of Marshlands, 1957 ...................................................... 70 17-32 Pointe Mouillee State Game Area, Loss of Marshlands, 1970 ........... 70 17-33 Marina and Boat Channel Construction Destroy Wetlands in Western New York ............................................................. 71 17-34 Wetlands Being Filled to. Make Golf Course at Buck Pond, Beatty Point in Monroe County, New York ............................................ 71 17-35 Industrial Development Threatens Round Pond, an Important Coastal Wetland West of Rochester, New York ................................. 71 17-36 Fill for Shipping and Docking Facilities Engulfing Marsh at Buffalo, New York ................................................................... 71 17-37 Canoga Marsh on Cayuga Lake ........................................ 72 17-38 Sodus Bay Marsh on Lake Ontario .................................... 72 17-39 Forest Regeneration of the Same Site Over a 41-Year Period (1926-1967) in Cheboygan County, Michigan, 1926 ................................. 81 17-40 Forest Regeneration on the Same Site Over a 41-Year Period (1926-1967) in Cheboygan County, Michigan, 1967 ................................. 82 17-41 The Recent Shift to Monoculture Throughout Extensive Portions of Planning Subarea 4.2 Has Had an Adverse Effect on Wildlife .......... 87 17-42 Stream Channelization of the Little Auglaize River, Paulding County, Ohio ................................................................... 87 xvi Appendix 17 Figure Page 17-43 Stream Channelization of the Little Auglaize River, Paulding County, Ohio ................................................................... 88 17-44 Looking Across Little Auglaize from County Road 72 Bridge .......... 88 17-45 Urban Encroachment-an Ever-Present Factor in Southern Great Lakes Wildlife Habitat ....................................................... 90 17-46 Two Satisfied Resident Pennsylvania Hunters ......................... 99 17-47 Typical Northern Wisconsin Potential Forest Game Habitat Treatment Site Showing Residual Aspen, Birch, and Maple Following a Commercial Aspen Harvest ........................................................ 103 17-48 Northern Wisconsin Forest Game Habitat ............................. 103 INTRODUCTION The study area includes portions of seven sidered "present" are based on the year 1970 Great Lakes Basin States: Minnesota, Wis- unless otherwise indicated. consin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, The objectives of the study at the State level New York, and all of Michigan. The scope of vary with each State and are keyed to the this Type I framework study includes inven- needs of each planning subarea. Although the tory of the present wildlife resource situation, Great Lakes Basin Framework Study em- assessment of present State programs and phasizes the study of river basin groups, the plans for increased management, assessment Great Lakes Basin Commission also consid- of the losses in resource acreage and other ered the Great Lakes Region as 15 planning problem s,'computation of present resource subareas, using county lines as boundaries. use, and projection of future use. Since most available data on wildlife and its In keeping with the guidelines established use (particularly hunting and trapping) are by the Great Lakes Basin Commission, data available on a State and county basis, this ap- and information in this report that are con- pendix is geared to the planning subareas. xvii 71 wo. S LEGEND Great Lakes Region Ban 01 Planning Subareas MINL Q Subregion number Planning Subarea nu LAKE SUPERIOR 0 (cities) Standard Matt M A STA U k s ONTARIO ERE=::=EEE==[-- 20 0 10 40 60 Mary. Ri- MICHIGAN Oi .4 IVI, Gq ct@ 7 ad GEORGIAN MAY LAKE@URON WISCON A. b4, M Gree say Va. Ni- ZE L NTARI X HIGAN SANADA - I Z 3' -U,,ITED STAYES A% City .. .... K,.- n R host r Man- milt ago" Ri- sun& miliesuk %. (;.--I ft.. Flint St. Clair Raw L. , + Grand bVids Iasi NEW ORK r273 Iasi W, I Detroit St. Clair rfis ILLINOIS Is 1( ,vt Jackson a -E YLY Edo L Chicago 0 IGAN ICH ILLINOIS - Go If Osouth Bond INDANA 10 ad. a Cleveland I U1 9 t Fort wayn 1 4 CAlinin 64 I N D I A N A U"o 0 H 10 Section 1 BASIN DESCRIPTION 1.1 Biophysical Characteristics climate. The harsh climate and poor soils have permitted less agricultural activity which has allowed the large forested areas to remain in- 1.1.1 Lake Superior Basin tact. This is the northernmost of the five Great Lakes basins and has ecological characteris- 1.1.2 Lake Michigan Basin tics dissimilar to the others. Vegetative cover is predominantly a northern spruce-fir forest. Lake Michigan and its extensive drainage Bogs and their associated plant species are basin encompass a wide variation in vegeta- common, as are aspen stands. Wetlands in this tive and climatological situations. The basin's basin, with the exception of the St. Louis River northern extremities are forested with a area and a few others, are of low quality for spruce-fir biorne on both sides of the Lake. waterfowl. The soils, waters, and the Lake it- South in Wisconsin the forest cover begins to self are of low fertility because of the geology change and gives way to agricultural lands at of the basin and its weather conditions. Like the Green Bay latitude. In Michigan, the all of the Great Lakes basins, this basin was forest cover extends further south, to approx- once glaciated. The northern extremities of imately the Muskegon-Clare-Midl and line. the Great Lakes are part of what is referred to Land around the southern tip of the Lake (ex- as the Laurentian Shield, where the glacier clusive of urban areas) is completely agricul- scoured the earth's surface deep enough to turalized with little tree cover remaining in expose the granite substrata. Topsoils are Indiana and Illinois. thin and acidic and support only specialized Wildlife species in the basin's northern plant species. Runoff is low in nutrients. areas are the same as those of Lake Superior Streams, lakes, and marshes are infertile and basin with the exception of the very rare Lake Superior is a cold and infertile or oligo- timber wolf. The black bear is found through- trophic lake. out the northern region. Farther south, wild- The wildlife species of the basin reflect the life species become less specialized. Farm soil types and plant ecology. There are fewer game such as the ring-necked pheasant, species, lower densities, and more specializa- cottontail rabbit, and gray and fox squirrel as tion than elsewhere in the Great Lakes. well as big game, including the white-tailed Perhaps the timber wolf reflects this best. deer and black bear, are common. The wolf requires a vast unbroken wilderness Planning Subarea 2.4 contains a pocket of with few human intrusions. He also requires prairie chicken habitat that supports a small white-tailed deer and moose populations as population of these rare birds. Another rare well as smaller mammals in sufficient num- species found in Planning Subarea 2.4 is the bers to sustain him through the winter. Other Kirtland's warbler, which nests in young pine basin species include coyote, red fox, snow- forest lands. Bald eagles and ospreys, which shoe hare, ruffed grouse, black bear, bald used to be common in the Green Bay area and eagle, osprey, sharp-tailed grouse, wood- in the islands and bays on the opposite side of cock, spruce grouse, bobcat, lynx, and fur- the Lake, are becoming less common but are bearers including otter, fisher, beaver, mink, still present seasonally. Remaining waterfowl muskrat and pine marten. -marshes in the Green Bay area support nest- The shorter growing season and colder cli- ing and loafing waterfowl. Significant water- mate, as well as precipitation amounts, have fowl marshes exist in the Fox and Wolf River an important influence on the vegetative type. drainages and at Seney, Michigan. Small The tree, shrub, and other plant species found waterfowl marshes also exist at river mouths in the Lake Superior basin are adapted to the around the Lake. 2 Appendix 17 Degraded habitat in the urbanized south- sin. Major unique features of the basin include ern basin supports little wildlife. However, the western shore marshes, Upper Sandusky some paradoxes occur here. Large flocks of River, Lake Erie Islands, Grand River Valley, resting waterfowl are to be found off the Gary Presque Isle Peninsula, Niagara Falls and Steel complex during the fall. City parklands several gorges in the eastern plateau. The and forest preserves support small popula- Erie basin can be divided into eastern and tions of rabbits, squirrels, furbearers, and western halves geologically. The flat lake numerous species of songbirds. These animals plain of the west is heavily farmed and ur- and birds are just as important as the wilder- banized. Cover, where it is found, is brushy, ness species because they provide recreation consisting of idle farmland, small woodlots, and outdoor enjoyment in the urban areas. and wooded stream bottoms. Stream gra- dients are very gentle and streams are wide, shallow, and slow-moving. The tree and shrub 1.1.3 Lake Huron Basin species are those of the eastern deciduous forest: oak, hickory, maple, beech, ash, elm, The U.S. side of the Lake Huron basin is hawthorn, aspen, alder, and dogwood. equally divided into two physiographic re- The very gently sloping character of the gions. The northern half is rolling and vege- west end of the basin changes almost imper- tated with a variety of cover types including ceptibly eastward, first to rolling country, northern forest jack pine and other timber, then to plateaus and glaciated valleys in New open grassy areas, wooded bogs, and brush York. Cover is much more extensive than in lands. Many small lakes and marshes are pres- the western half of the basin. Tree and shrub ent, and this region is interlaced with many species are the same as in the west but also streams of high fish and wildlife value. The include conifers-eastern hemlock, balsam fir, southern half is generally flat terrain, heavily white pine-and shrub species associated with agriculturalized, and less wooded. Southern northern hardwoods, such as azalea, laurel streams are slow-moving and of lower quality and rhododendron. The basin's wildlife in- than northern streams, but wetlands impor- cludes both those species adapted to farmed tant to wildlife are present. areas and low-to-medium populations of forest The most outstanding physiographic fea- species. Although some white-tailed deer'are ture is the Saginaw Bay complex. Many found in the west, the Allegheny plateau in thousands of acres of fine waterfowl marsh the east is the best forest habitat, with white- surround the open waters of the Bay and ex- tailed deer, black bear, turkey, ruffed grouse tend inland up the Saginaw River system. The and squirrels present. Probably the most im- Bay is a nationally known waterfowl concen- portant wildlife populations of the basin are tration area. Inland wetlands in the "Thumb" the waterfowl located in the western basin of Michigan also support nesting populations and in scattered areas of the eastern basin. of geese and ducks. The variety of wildlife species includes black bear, white-tailed deer, elk, turkey, sharp- 1.1.5 Lake Ontario Basin tailed grouse, prairie chicken, mourning dove, ring-necked pheasant, woodcock, ruffed The Lake Ontario basin is the last in the grouse, cottontail rabbit, snowshoe hare, gray Great Lakes drainage system and therefore squirrel, fox squirrel, aquatic and terrestial the lowest in water level elevation. Relief in furbearers, bobcat, waterfowl, shore birds, the basin, which includes the Adirondack passerine birds and other songbirds. The en- Mountains, is the highest in the Great Lakes. dangered Kirtland's warbler nests in the ba- The climate is relatively cool, and watershed sin. Eagles and osprey are also residents. fertility is low in the uplands. A wide variation of sometimes complicated topographic features exists here. The level 1.1.4 Lake Erie Basin plain around the edge of the Lake gives way to rolling, glaciated topography. The uplands are Erie, the southernmost of the Great Lakes, plateaus or glaciated hills with steep slopes. is the most fertile limnologically and mor- Streams near the headwaters are fast-moving phologically. Historically, some of the largest and cold, with high water quality. expanses of fine waterfowl marsh in the U.S. Cover is good over most of the basin. Farm- existed here. Highly productive marshes, ing is restricted to localized areas of suitable river mouths, and shoals still exist in the ba- soils, secondary forest cover remains Basin Description 3 elsewhere. Tree species in its eastern half are ant, gray and fox squirrels, and other farm- those of the northern forests: balsam, fir, game species are found in medium-to-high white pine, hemlock, birch, spruce, maple, and densities. Wildlife habitat is varied and is gen- aspen. Tree species common to the deciduous erally of high quality. forest are found at the lower elevations in the Numerous areas throughout the marsh- western half of the basin. The higher eleva- island complex of the St. Lawrence River have tions of the western half also have the north- unusual geologic, floral, and faunal features. ern tree species. Bays, river mouths, and shoreline estuaries in the St. Lawrence River include many thou- sands of acres of some of the finest freshwater 1.2 Demographic Considerations marshes in New York State. There are also high quality inland marshes in the river sys- Human populations are shown in Table 17-1 tems, particularly downstream from the for the years 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 2000, Finger Lakes and in the St. Lawrence Plain. and 2020. Most planning subarea projections Wildlife species include waterfowl and indicate that populations will at least double shorebirds, farm and forest wildlife. White- during the study period. In three planning tailed deer, black bear, ruffed grouse, and subareas, however, the increase ranges from a other forest species are found in medium den- low of only 4 percent to a high of 35 percent for sities. Cottontail rabbit, ring-necked pheas- the 50-year period. TABLE 17-1 Population of Great Lakes Basin by Plan Area and Planning Subarea Total Population (Thousands) Census Final Count Projections 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 2000 2020 Great Lakes Basin Total 18,791 21,772 26,364 29,332 33,566 42,338 53,497 Plan Area 1.0 533 513 545 533 538 594 669 PSA 1.1 336 330 359 345 367 417 475 PSA 1.2 197 183 186 188 171 177 194 Plan Area 2.0 8,673 9,953 12,041 13,517 15,542 19,645 24,830 PSA 2.1 771 817 896 1,005 1,082 1,358 1,726 PSA 2.2 6,034 6,919 8,481 9,493 10,999 13,844 17,386 PSA 2.3 1,499 1,807 2,211 2,523 2,914 3,772 4,876 PSA 2.4 369 410 453 496 547 671 842 Plan Area 3.0 732 840 1,056 1,236 1,411 1,810 2,324 PSA 3.1 94 102 119 142 164 209 267 PSA 3.2 638 738 937 1,094 1,247 1,601 2,057 Plan Area 4.0 7,095 8,520 10,466 11,514 13,299 16,794 21,281 PSA 4.1 2,697 3,440 4,292 4,848 5,802 7,425 9,568 PSA 4.2 1,176 1,325 1,566 1,725 1,963 2,474 3,116 PSA 4.3 1,887 2,233 2,825 3,099 3,476 4,389 5,527 PSA 4.4 1,335 1,522 1,783 1,842 2,058 2,506 3,070 Plan Area 5.0 1,758 1,946 2,256 2,532 2,776 3,495 4,393 PSA 5.1 620 682 798 946 978 1,222 1,538 PSA 5.2 940 1,057 1,236 1,362 1,572 2,016 2,556 PSA 5.3 198 207 222 224 226 257 299 Section 2 PRESENT STATUS OF WILDLIFE 2.1 Basin Wildlife Populations and Trends 2.1.2 Wisconsin Decreased quality of white-tailed deer 2.1.1 Minnesota habitat due to successional changes is re- flected in Table 17-2. However, ruffed grouse Long-term trends in the habitat are shown and black bear populations are high. Grouse in Table 17-2. Plant succession changes have numbers, which tend to fluctuate, are difficult not benefited white-tailed deer and sharp- to correlate with the change in forest succes- tailed grouse, and the population trend of sion. However, decreases in aspen stands these species is downward. The trend toward mean that as aspens give way to climax forest an increase in small-game species populations species, grouse populations will decline on the indicates conversion of forest land to agricul- long term. The bear, on the other hand, is less tural and other uses. Historically strong affected by plant successional changes be- species such as marten and fisher are making cause it is more dependent on large blocks of a strong comeback. Aquatic furbearers and undeveloped land which are plentiful in Plan- waterfowl are not numerous, due to the low ning Subarea 1.1. water fertility and lack of food plants and or- Table 17-3 shows a more diverse habitat in ganisms. The area's most famous resident the Wisconsin portion of Planning Subarea wildlife species, the timber wolf, remains sta- 2.1. Medium densities of farm-game species ble over much of his range. A marked decrease exist here, as compared to lower levels farther in the deer herd could, however, reduce wolf north. At the same time, medium and high populations. densities of forest game also exist here. Me- fA J, ro J U, % mhib@ A Ur "n- I.-A Courtesy of U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Courtesy of U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife FIGURE17-2 Typical Minnesota Forest Habitat in Planning Subarea 1.1. (Left) Openings made by beaver ponds improve quality of wildlife habitat in extensive forest areas. (Right) Illustration of a good mixture of aspen and conifers. Young aspens are ideal food for wildlife. 5 6 Appendix 17 dium densities of waterfowl and furbearers The status of wildlife and its habitat in the are supported by sizeable marshes. three-county Indiana portion of Planning Nearly uniform farm-game habitat exists in Subarea 4.2 is poor (Table 17-10). the southern Planning Subarea 2.2. Habitat near cities can both increase and decrease in value, since urbanization has a profound ef- 2.1.5 Michigan fect on wildlife populations. In the interim be- tween cessation of farming and development, The status and density of wildlife species in farmland reverts to an early successional the Upper Peninsula including Planning Sub- (brushy) stage that temporarily improves areas 1.2,2.1, and 2.4 are shown by Tables 17-6 habitat for wildlife such as cottontail rabbit, and 17-7, respectively. The full spectrum of fox, raccoon and songbirds. However, high northern Great Lakes forest wildlife exists human populations exert enough pressure to here as well as healthy populations of farm preclude species with special habitat re- game. quirements such as the bobcat, beaver, and Changing forest succession is as important ruffed grouse (Table 17-3). to wildlife here as it is in the western Great Lakes areas because similar trends in forest management and forest ecology are reducing 2.1.3 Illinois the habitat value for wildlife. White-tailed deer populations are of Urbanization in the Illinois portion of Plan- medium-to-low density and are slowly declin- ning Subarea 2.2 has progressed to the point ing due to decreased habitat quality. Although where only scattered areas of habitat support ruffed grouse appear to be at a high point in a diversity of wildlife species (Table 17-4). their cycle, it is difficult to relate this high to Habitat reduction by intense human pressure habitat quality. has reduced farm game and furbearers near A fair interspersion of farmland exists in the the Chicago metropolitan area to -low levels. Upper Peninsula of Michigan as is indicated White-tailed deer, surprisingly, are expanding by the presence of cottontail rabbits and their range in some counties. It is probable pheasants. Waterfowl habitat is plentiful, but that this is due to adaptation to agricultural not all is of high quality. Furbearer popula- conditions, as well as increases in acres of tions are of medium-to-high density and in brush lands in place of cultivated land. some cases are increasing. Marten and fisher have been reintroduced in the Upper Penin- sula and are holding their own. The lynx has 2.1.4 Indiana reestablished itself in the last two decades and is slowly increasing in numbers in remote The same varied effects of urbanization on parts of the Upper Peninsula. habitat are also evident in the Indiana portion The lower Peninsula has a much broader of Planning Subarea 2.2 with increasing and spectrum of wildlife habitats than the Upper decreasing populations of various species. In- Peninsula. Species diversity, density, and creases in cottontail rabbit and ring-necked status for Planning Subareas 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, and pheasant populations reflected in Table 17-4 .4.1 are noted in Tables 17-5, 17-7, and 17-8, could be attributed to increased brushy habitat respectively. due to idle farms in the vicinity of cities. These The northern half of the Lower Peninsula is increase's will probably be temporary since nearly identical to the Upper Peninsula in idle farmland will soon be -developed, with a habitat and species diversity. White-tailed resulting loss of habitat. deer and turkey populations are in better con- In Planning Subarea 2.3 the wildlife situa- dition here, probably due to slightly better tion is much brighter (Table 17-5). Medium habitat. Forest succession changes have not densities of white-tailed deer, small game, and been quite as detrimental here as farther furbearers, with a trend toward an increase in north. Small-game populations are generally these species, and others, indicates that ur- of medium density, with ruffed grouse increas- banization is not having much effect. Habitat ing here as elsewhere in the Basin. Woodcock in this part of Indiana is better than elsewhere are also on the increase here, but since they in the lower tier of Basin states. A good diver- are migratory, it is difficult to relate density to sity of habitat types exists, including wet- local habitat conditions. lands, brushy land, meadows, cultivated land, Ring-necked pheasant densities are sizeable tracts of woodland, lakes, and stream medium where suitable habitat occurs. At one bottomlands. time this bird was very common in the Present Status of Wildlife 7 Thumb-Saginaw Bay farmlands, but a decline tant to waterfowl and furbearers. Increased in habitat quality has reduced the population. urbanization has resulted in either outright A small population of rare prairie chickens destruction of wetlands or degradation that appears to be losing its battle to declining reduces total productivity. Human distur- habitat. Eagles and osprey are also becoming bance of marshlands has resulted in the de- more rare. There is considerable scientific cline of populations of water-dependent evidence that the decline of these birds is wildlife in the Saginaw Bay area, St. Clair largely due to a chlorinated hydrocarbon- River, Lake St. Clair, Lake Erie shoreline, and induced reproductive failure as a result of en- inland southern Michigan. Although the re- vironmental contamination caused by the maining wetlands are still highly productive widespread use of pesticides. Other contribut- wildlife areas, there has been a noticeable re- ing causes are loss of habitat, human distur- duction in total numbers of various species. bance at nesting site, and illegal shooting. This is especially true of herons, bitterns, The status of the Kirtland's warbler is un- rails, the sandhill crane, and shorebirds. certain. Joint private, State, and Federal habitat management has been initiated. How- ever, the 1971 survey indicated that this has 2.1.6 Ohio not been sufficient to prevent population de- cline. Further effort is being made to assure The density and status of wildlife popula- survival of this species, with particular atten- tions in the Great Lakes Basin portion of Ohio tion being given to the problem of cowbird are noted in Tables 17-9 and 17-10. competition with Kirtland's warbler nest us- Planning Subarea 4.2 wildlife habitat has age. generally undergone the greatest detrimental Most furbearers are doing well except in change of all Basin planning subareas. areas of marsh drainage and other habitat Large-scale destruction of marshes has oc- disturbances. The Canada lynx has not yet curred in the past. More recently, changes in found its way south across the Straits of Mac- agriculture toward clean cultivation, larger kinac or reestablished itself. Bobcat numbers equipment, and larger fields with the same are low-to-absent, which may indicate that crops each year have seriously reduced the while cat habitat exists, there are other limit- value of other habitat types. Rabbits, pheas- ing factors such as an inadequate food supply. ants, squirrels, and bobwhite quail are declin- Populations of the snowshoe hare, a prime ing in this planning subarea, indicating that prey species for both lynx and bobcat, are also upland habitat is being reduced in productiv- low-to-absent. Like many other wildlife prey ity and quantity. species the hare is highly cyclic. Wooded Raptorial birds are also declining in num- swamps, preferred habitat, are essential dur- bers. Part of their decline could be due to re- ing lows in the cycle. Drainage of wooded wet- duced prey species, but reproductive failure lands can be very detrimental to this animal due to pesticides is undoubtedly a contribut- and other members of the food chain which ing factor. depend upon this type of habitat. The white-tailed deer increase in northwest The lower half of the Lower Peninsula has Ohio is independent of declines in other more homogeneous habitat than anywhere wildlife species. Deer habitat here was else in Michigan. With the exception of under-occupied, but in recent years restrictive numerous wetlands, a mixture of woods and hunting regulations in Ohio and Michigan agricultural lands predominate. White-tailed have helped the herd increase in size. Also, deer, waterfowl, and small game are the major movement into Ohio from higher-density species. High deer populations indicate that areas in the two adjoining States has been an Planning Subarea 3.2 (Table 17-8) probably important factor in increasing the population. has a higher percentage of woodland habitat Furbearers are also losing ground as the than other southern Michigan planning sub- quality of the marsh habitat declines due to areas where white-tailed deer populations are water quality degradation. Muskrats in the medium or low. Reversion of former agricul- northwest Ohio marshes are the principal tural lands to brush in the vicinity of cities has reason for Ohio consistently having the sec- increased the productivity of deer and other ond highest muskrat harvest in the United woodland game species in southern Michigan. States. Loss of any significant amount of re- Clean farming practices in some areas have maining habitat and consequent reduction of been important factors in the decline of the muskrats will result in local economic losses. pheasant from former high population levels. Habitat in the northeast quarter of Ohio def- Loss of marsh habitat is particularly impor- initely differs from the previously described 8 Appendix 17 northwest quarter. A greater diversity of and streams are doing well, with high popula- cover exists and the impact of agriculture is tions of muskrat and beaver. less intense. Unlike the northwest portion of the State, there are no large marshes and waterfowl habitat is scattered. 2.1.8 New York The forest cover in this area has not been appreciably reduced in recent years, but the Wildlife density and status for the New York timber stands are younger. Therefore, the portion of Planning Subarea 4.4 and Planning value for white-tailed deer and other wood- Subareas 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 is noted in Tables land game has increased. Northeast Ohio has 17-11, 17-12, and 17-13 through 17-16, respec- medium densities of deer and ruffed grouse. tively. A diversity of habitat exists across the Change in ownership of nonurban land from New York portion of the basin, making it pos- agricultural to other private interests has re- sible for a greater-variety of wildlife to exist, sulted in many farms reverting to early suc- as well as making the habitat more produc- cessional stages. This is occurring on a broad tive. scale in northeast Ohio, as elsewhere in the Wildlife habitat in Planning Subarea 4.4 is lower tier of Basin planning subareas, and has primarily of the farm-game type. It is located greatly improved upland game habitat. How- along the lake plain and hill country, extend- ever, the decline in crop production has hurt ing northeast from the Pennsylvania line to the productivity of habitat for some seed- the Lake Ontario shore. This land supports eating species, resulting in declines of the medium densities of most farm-game species Ring-necked pheasant and bobwhite quail. except the mourning dove, which is of low de-n- Other wildlife species (with the exception of sity. raptors, which are declining nearly High-quality upland forest habitat is found everywhere) are doing well in this part of the in the southeast corner of the planning sub- State. area. Medium white-tailed deer densities and occasional black bear and turkey (increasing) are indicators of the habitat quality. However, 2.1.7 Pennsylvania ruffed grouse populations are of low density here, in contrast to highs elsewhere in the Wildlife habitat in Erie County, Pennsyl- Great Lakes Basin. vania, is similar to that in northeast Ohio. The Niagara River is an important water- However, a transition occurs here. Eastward fowl loafing and feeding area during migra- the land becomes more hilly and wooded. De- tion. Scattered small wetlands are found clining farming is allowing the land to revert mostly near the Lake Ontario shore, but none to early successional brush and young trees. are of great importance. Hawthorn thickets in former farm fields are Planning Subarea 5.1 is equally divided into common. Habitat value for upland game and forested uplands (southern half) and agricul- white-tailed deer has increased in recent turalized lowlands (northern half). The low- years. land portion contains numerous wetlands in Table 17-11 indicates density and status for lake bays and in inland areas. the wildlife species in Erie County, Pennsyl- Forest game populations in the southern vania. White-tailed deer are at medium levels half of the planning subarea, including white- and stable, while ruffed grouse are high and tailed deer, black bear, turkey, and snowshoe increasing. Turkeys have been stocked and hare, are of low-to-medium density. Turkey is are found in low levels in the southeastern increasing. Although high-quality forest portion of the county. With the change in land habitat exists here, the bobcat is absent. use, some farm-game animals are declining. Farm game is doing well in the lowland por- This county never had good pheasant habitat tion of the Planning Subarea 5.1 and includes and populations are low. Mourning doves, also high pheasant populations and medium popu- seed eaters, are at medium population den- lations of cottontail rabbits, mourning doves, sities and increasing. and squirrels. Woodcock populations are also Op en water on Lake Erie and Erie Bay has of medium density. High pheasant popula- declined in value for waterfowl due to tions, unusual in the basin, may indicate that pollution-caused reduction of food organisms. changes in farming practices detrimental to Ducks are still found in high numbers, but are habitat have not occurred here as extensively decreasing. Furbearers in the inland marshes as they have elsewhere. Present Status of Wildlife 9 Many furbearers occur at medium densities tion of the St. Lawrence River island complex. in the shore marshes and the inland river as- Wildlife status and density figures are shown sociated marshes and streams. by zones (eight in all), because many differ- ences in habitat types exist across the plan- To the east is Planning Subarea 5.2, a large ning subarea (Tables 17-13 through 17-16 and area which encompasses a wide variety of Figure 17-3). habitats, including agricultural lands, small woodlots, idle farmlands, marshy stream bot- Forest-game populations vary. White-tailed toms, lake associated marshes, wooded river deer populations vary from low to high, black bottoms, and intermediate and mature bear from low to high, turkey from absent to forests. A broad urban belt bisects the plan- -low, and ruffed grouse from low to high. The ning subarea from east to west, and expansion more rare forest species such as bobcat, mar- of this zone is diminishing wildlife habitat. ten, fisher and spruce grouse range from ab- However, idle farmland is more common in the sent to low. However, fisher populations range vicinity of urban areas, and increases in this from medium to high in the three Adirondack acreage partially compensate for habitat zones shown in Figure 17-3. losses. Furbearers are generally of medium density A greater diversity of wildlife species exists throughout the area, with some species at here because of the variety of habitat types. high levels in most zones. Mink and muskrat Forest-game populations in the eastern and are common at high levels in the planning southern portions of the planning subarea are subarea. Otter population is also high in the at low-to-medium densities. Black bears are western and central Adirondack zones, indi- common in the northern part of Herkimer cating high-quality stream habitat. The oc- County but occur only occasionally elsewhere, currence of other unusual wildlife species at probably due to the proximity of humans. high population levels is indicative of the high Bobcats are also found in low numbers in the value of the wilderness habitat. One interest- forested portions of the planning subarea. ing species, the coyote, has become well estab- Since these cats are moderately tolerant of lished in Planning Subarea 5.3, adding more humans, their presence is dependent on diversity to the fauna. adequate second-growth hardwood and conif- erous forests. Rodent and other small mam- Although due to State policy no manage- mal populations are necessary food sources to ment practices can be carried out in the bobcats but are probably not a limiting factor Adirondack Forest Preserve, there is benefit here. Marten are occasionally seen in the to wilderness-dwelling animals. These species planning subarea's coniferous forests. White- are adapted to old growth and climax forests tailed deer are at medium density, and tur- and do not need the diversity created by man- keys at low density but increasing. Other resi- agement practices. dent forest species include snowshoe hare, ruffed grouse, squirrels, and porcupines. The Farm-game habitat is not as plentiful as farm-game species, rabbit, ring-necked forest and fore st-transition habitat. Farm- pheasant and mourning dove, are doing well. game species are generally restricted to the The woodcock is at medium density. Fur- farm lowlands along the Lake Ontario and St. bearers are also thriving. There is a high Lawrence River shorelines. Cottontail popu- muskrat population and medium mink, lations vary from low to exceptionally high weasel, beaver, raccoon, skunk and opossum densities, and ring-necked pheasants and populations; only the otter and fisher are at a mourning doves are scarce. A fairly stable, low level. The planning subarea's plentiful huntable population of Hungarian partridge wetland habitat is important to most fur- persists in several of the more active farming bearers as well as waterfowl. It is also impor- areas in this lowland zone. tant to the occasionally seen bald and golden eagles. The marshes of the St. Lawrence River and other river valleys support high populations of Planning Subarea 5.3 is the most complex ducks and geese. Large wetland acreages in region of the New York portion of the Great those areas serve as production areas as well Lakes Basin. It includes a large part of the as resting and feeding areas for migrating Adirondack Forest Preserve as well as a por- waterfowl. (continued on page 26) 10 Appendix 17 ST LAWRENCE PLAIN ADIRONDACK EASTERN ONTARIO TRANSITION PLAIN CENTRAL of ST, LA RENCE ADIRONDACKS WESTERN ADIRONDACKS LAKE BLACK RIVER VALLEY ONTARIO JEFFERSON CENTRAL TU HILL TUG HILL TRANSITION LEGEND SCALE IN MILES HABITAT ZONE BOUNDARY 10 15 20 COUNTY BOUNDARY FIGURE 17-3 Wildlife Habitat Zones, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York Present Status of Wildlife 11 TABLE 17-2 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 1.1, Minnesota and Wisconsin Planning Subarea 1.1--14innesota Planning Subarea 1.1--Wisconsin Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Medium Decreasing Due to forest succes- Medium Decreasing Douglas County best sion and heavy snow Black Bear High Stable High Stable Top harvest in State Moose High Stable High in suitable range Low Stable Only area in State WATERFOWL Ducks Low Stable Poor waterfowl area Low Stable Geese Low Stable Poor waterfowl area Low Stable SMALL GAME Ring-necked Pheasant Low Stable Low Stable Ruffed Grouse High Stable Present top cycle High Stable Snowshoe Hare Medium Increasing Medium Stable Cottontail Rabbit ------ ------ Low Stable Sharp-tailed Grouse Low Decreasing Low Stable Best range in State Woodcock Medium Stable High Stable Mourning Dove Low Stable Low Stable Fox Squirrel ------ ------ Lov Stable Gray Squirrel ------ ------ Medium Stable FURBEARERS Muskrat Low Stable Medium Stable Mink Medium Stable Medium Stable Beaver Medium Stable High Stable Weasel Medium Stable Medium Stable Raccoon Low Stable Medium Stable Otter Medium Stable Medium Stable Skunk Low Stable Medium Stable Opossum ------ ------ Low Stable Badger ------ ------ Medium Stable NON-GAME Woodchuck Low Stable Low Stable Porcupine Medium Stable Medium Stable Red Fox Medium Stable Medium Stable Gray Fox Low Stable Low Stable Bobcat Low Stable Medium Stable Crow Low Stable Medium Stable Raven Medium Stable Medium Stable Red Squirrel Medium Stable Medium Stable Coyote Medium Stable Medium Increasing Raptors Medium Stable Medium Stable RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S)l Eastern Timber Wolf (E) Medium Stable Low Stable Rare-unknown packs Pine Martin (S) Low Increasing ------ ------ Fisher (S) High Stable Low Increasing Canada Lynx (S) Low Stable Low Decreasing Bald Eagle (E)2 Low Stable Low Decreasing Downward trend American Osprey (S) Low Stable Low Decreasing Downward trend Artic Peregrine Falcon (E) Rare transient Low Decreasing Migrant Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) Rare transient Medium Decreasing Occasional breeder UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS 3 Spruce Grouse Low Stable Low Stable Golden Eagle Rare transient Low Decreasing Occasional migrant Sandhill Crane ------ ------ Low Stable 1Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 2For the purposes of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. 12 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-3 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 2.1 and 2.2, Wisconsin Planning Subarea 2.1--Wisconsin Planning Subarea 2.2--Wisconsiri Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density' Trerfd Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Varied Stable Mod-Brown County & Low Stable S.E. of PSA. High--- Marquette, Waushara, & Shawano Counties Black Bear Medium Stable Only north of line ------ ------ Green Bay to Shawano Turkey Low Stable Local populations only ------ ------ WATERFOWL Ducks Medium Increasing SE--high; N--low Medium Stable Geese Medium Increasing SE--high; N--low Medium Stable SMALL GPME Cottontail Rabbit Medium Stable Medium Stable Ring-necked Pheasant Varied Stable High--Fond Du Lac & Medium Stable High--Racine & Winnebago Counties Kenosha Counties. None--Forest, Flor- ence & Menominee Ruffed Grouse Varied Stable Low--Brown, Fond Du Low Stable Only--Ozaukee Lac, Manitowoc, & Washington Counties Winnebago Counties Gray Squirrel Medium Stable Medium Stable Fox Squirrel Varied Stable Common in S; un- Medium Stable common in N Snowshoe Hare Varied Stable None--S Counties ------ ------ Sharp-tailed Grouse Low Decreasing ------ ------ Woodcock Medium Stable Low Stable Mourning Dove Varied Stable More--S Counties Medium Stable Bobwhite Quail Low Stable Low Stable Hungarian Partridge Medium Stable Most--Brown, Calumet, Low Decreasing & Kewaunee Counties FURBEARERS Muskrat High Stable Medium Stable Mink Medium Stable Medium Stable Beaver Varied Increasing Low--7 SE Counties ------ ------ Weasel Medium Stable Medium Stable Raccoon High Increasing High Increasing Otter Varied Stable ------ ------ Skunk Medium Stable High Stable Opossum Medium Stable High Stable Badger Low Stable Low Stable NON-GAME Woodchuck Medium Stable Medium Increasing Porcupine Varied Stable Low/none--7 SE Counties ------ ------ Red Fox Medium Stable Medium Stable Gray Fox Low Stable Low Stable Bobcat Low Stable Low--7 SE Counties ------ ------ Grow Medium Stable Medium Stable Red Squirrel Medium Stable Low Stable Some --N Counties Raven Medium Stable ------ ------ Raptors Medium Decreasing Medium Stable Coyote Varied Stable Low--7 SE Counties ------ ------ RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S)l Fisher (S) Low Increasing Local populations ------ ------ Canada Lynx (S) Low Stable Very rare ------ ------ Bald Eagle (E)2 Low Decreasing Some inland hatches Low Decreasing Rare Migrant American Osprey (S) Low Decreasing Downward trend Low Decreasing No breeders, some migrants. Arctic Peregrine Falcon (E) Low Rare Migrant Low Rare Migrant No. Gr. Prairie Chicken (R) Low Decreasing Marquette & Waushara ------ ------ Counties Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) Medium Stable Breeds some Medium Stable Migrant UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3 Sandhill Crane Varied Increasing S only; most--SW in Low Stable Green Lake & Waushara Counties Spruce Grouse Low Increasing ------ ------ Golden Eagle Low Decreasing Rare migrant Low Very rare migrant 1Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office. of Endangered Species. 2For the purposes of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. Present Status of Wildlife 13 TABLE 17-4 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 2.2, Indiana and Illinois Planning Subarea 2.2--Indiana Planning Subarea 2.2--Illinois (see note) Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Medium Increasing Medium Increasing Inc. some counties. Expanding range WATERFOWL Ducks Medium Decreasing Down 1970-71 Medium Decreasing Depends on annual Canada production Geese Law Decreasing Down 1970-71 High Increasing Depends on annual Canada production SMALL GAME Cottontail Rabbit Low Increasing Up 1969-70 Low Decreasing Low due to urbaniza- tion and habitat destruction Ring-necked Pheasant Medium Increasing Up 1969-70 Medium Decreasing Low due to urbaniza- tion and habitate destruction Gray Squirrel Low Stable Medium Stable Fox Squirrel Medium Stable Medium Increasing State upward trend Woodcock Low Stable Low Stable Mourning Dove Medium Stable High Decreasing Bobwhite Quail Low Increasing Up 1969-70 Medium Decreasing Hungarian Partridge ------ ------ Low Stable Expanding southward FURBEARERS Muskrat Medium Stable Medium Stable Mink Low Stable Law Decreasing Beaver Medium Stable Medium increasing Weasel Low Stable Low Decreasing Raccoon Medium Stable Medium Increasing Skunk Low Stable Low Stable Opossum Medium Stable Medium Stable Badger Low Decreasing Low Decreasing NON-GAME Woodchuck Medium Stable Medium Decreasing Red Fox Medium Decreasing Low Stable Gray Fox Medium Increasing Low Decreasing Crow Low Stable Law Decreasing Red Squirrel Low Stable May be extinct Coyote Low Stable Low Stable Raptors Medium Decreasing Low Decreasing RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S)l Bald Eagle (E)2 Low Decreasing Low Decreasing No breeders, some migration American Osprey (S) Low Stable Occasional Low Decreasing No breeders, some migration No.Gr. Prairie Chicken (R) Last record--1970 ------ ------ Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) Low Stable Very rare in State Arctic Peregrine Falcon (E) ------ ------ Low Decreasing No breeders, some migration UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3 Sandhill Crane Low Stable ------ ------ Golden Eagle Law Decreasing Low Some migration Note: Planning Subarea 2.2 in Illinois is unique due to boggy cattail marshes, especially in Lake County. This is the only breeding area for the following Illinois birds: yellow-headed blackbird, Wilson's phalarope, Forster's tern, common tern, Wilson's snipe, Leconte's sparrow, mourning warbler, chestnut-sided warbler, veery, Brewer's blackbird, piping plover; also the only breeding records for canvasback, ruddy duck, pintail, black duck and shoveler are from this area. 1Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 2For the purposes of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. 14 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-5 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 2.3, Indiana and Michigan Planning Subarea 2.3--Indiana Planning Subarea 2.3--Michigan Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Medium Increasing Medium Increasing Turkey ------ ------ Law Stable WATERFOWL Ducks Medium Decreasing Medium Increasing Geese Law Decreasing High Stable SMALL GAME Cottontail Rabbit Law Increasing Up 1969-70 High Stable Ring-necked Pheasant Low Stable Medium Stable Ruffed Grouse Low Stable Some sightings in Low Stable St. Joseph County Gray Squirrel Low Stable Low Increasing Fox Squirrel Medium Stable High Stable Woodcock Low Stable Law Stable Mourning Dove Low Stable Medium Increasing Bobwhite Quail Low Increasing Up 1969-70 Medium Stable Hungarian Partridge Low Decreasing Low Stable FURBEARERS Muskrat Medium Stable Medium Stable Mink Low Stable Medium Stable Beaver Low Stable Law Decreasing Weasel Low Stable Medium Stable Raccoon Medium Stable High Stable Skunk Law Stable Medium Stable Opossum Medium Stable Medium Stable Badger ------ ------ Low Stable NON-GAME Woodchuck Medium Stable Medium Stable Red Fox Medium Stable Medium Stable Gray Fox Medium Increasing Low Stable Crow Low Stable Medium Increasing Red Squirrel Low Stable Medium Stable Coyote Low Stable Low Stable Raptors Low Decreasing Medium Stable RARE(R) FNDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S) I Bald Eagle (E) 2 LOW Decreasing ------ ------ American Osprey (S) Low Occasional ------ E. Pigeon Hawk (S) Low Stable Occasional Rare transient Indiana Bat (E) Unknown ------ ------ UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3 Golden Eagle Low Decreasing Rare transient Sandhill Crane ------ ------ Medium Stable 1Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. Present Status of Wildlife 15 TABLE 17-6 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 1.2 and 2.1, Michigan Planning Subarea 1.2--Michigan Planning Subarea 2.1--Michigan Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Medium Decreasing Medium Decreasing Black Bear Medium Stable Medium Stable Moose Low Stable Turkey ------ ------ Low Increasing WATERFOWL Ducks Medium Stable Medium Increasing Geese Medium Increasing Low Increasing SMALL GAME Cottontail Rabbit Low Stable LOW Decreasing Ruffed Grouse High Increasing Medium Increasing Gray Squirrel Low Stable LOW Stable Fox Squirrel Low Stable Low Stable Sharp-tailed Grouse Low Decreasing LOW Decreasing Woodcock High Increasing High Increasing Mourning Dove Low Stable LOW Stable Snowshoe Hare Medium Stable High Stable Ring-necked Pheasant LOW Stable FURBEARERS Muskrat Low Stable Medium Stable Mink LOW Stable Medium Stable Beaver Medium Stable Medium Stable Weasel Low Stable Medium Stable Raccoon Low Stable Low Stable Otter Low Decreasing Low Decreasing Skunk Low Stable Low Stable Badger ------ ------ Low Stable NON-GAME Woodchuck Low Stable Low Stable Porcupine High Stable High Stable Bobcat Medium Decreasing Low Decreasing Crow Medium Stable Medium Stable Raven Law Stable Low Stable Red Squirrel Medium Stable Medium Stable Coyote Medium Stable Medium Stable Red Fox ------ ------ Low Stable Raptors Medium Stable Medium Stable RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UMDETERMINED(S)l Eastern Timber Wolf (E) Low Stable Low Stable Pine Martin (S) Law Stable Low Stable Fisher (S) Recent reintroduction Canada Lynx (S) Low Stable Bald Eagle (E)2 Law Decreasing Low Decreasing American Osprey (S) Low Decreasing Low Decreasing Arctic Peregrine Falcon (E) Rare transient Rare migrant Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) ------ ------ Rare transient UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3 Sandhill Crane Low Stable Low Stable Spruce Grouse Medium Stable Low Stable Golden Eagle Rare transient Rare transient IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 2For the purposes of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. 16 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-7 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 2.4 and 3.1, Michigan Planning Subarea 2.4--Michigan Planning Subarea 3.1--Michigan Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Medium Decreasing Medium Decreasing Black Bear Low Decreasing Low Decreasing Moose Low Increasing ------ ------ I Turkey Low Increasing Varied Increasing Low/medium density Elk ------ ------ Low Varied Stable/increase trend WATERFOWL Ducks Medium Stable Medium Stable Geese Medium Increasing Low Stable SMALL GAME Cottontail Rabbit High Stable Medium Stable Ring-necked Pheasant Low Stable Low Stable Occasionally seen Ruffed Grouse High Increasing High Stable Gray Squirrel Medium Increasing Medium Increasing Fox Squirrel Medium Increasing Medium Stable Snowshoe Hare Low Decreasing Varied Stable Low/medium density Woodcock High Increasing High Increasing Mourning Dove Medium Stable Medium Increasing Bobwhite Quail Low Stable ------ ------ Sharp-tailed Grouse Low Decreasing Upper Peninsula ------ ------ FURBEARERS Muskrat Medium Decreasing Medium Stable Mink Medium Stable Medium Stable Beaver High Stable High Increasing Weasel Medium Stable Medium Decreasing Raccoon High Increasing Medium Increasing Otter Low Decreasing Low Decreasing Skunk High Increasing High Increasing Opossum Medium Increasing Low Increasing Badger Law Stable Low Stable NON-GAME Woodchuck Medium Stable High Stable Porcupine Low Decreasing Medium Decreasing Red Fox Medium Stable Medium Stable Bobcat Low Decreasing Law Decreasing Crow High Increasing High Stable Raven Low Stable Medium Stable Red Squirrel Medium Increasing Medium Stable Coyote Low Stable Medium Stable Raptors Medium Stable Medium Stable RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S) I Bald Eagle (E)2 Low Decreasing Low Stable American Osprey (S) Low Decreasing Low Stable No. Gr. Prairie Chicken (R) Law Decreasing Missaukee and Low Decreasing Osceola Counties Kirtlands Warbler (E) Low Decreasing Low Decreasing Iosco County Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) Rare transient Rare transient Canada Lynx (S) Low Increasing Upper Peninsula ------ ------ UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3 Sandhill Crane Low Increasing Low Stable Spruce Grouse Low Stable Low Stable Golden Eagle Rare transient Rare transient Sharp-tailed Grouse Low Decreasing Lower Peninsula Low Decreasing 1Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are li -sted as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. Present Status of Wildlife 17 TABLE 17-8 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 3.2 and 4.1, Michigan Planning Subarea 3.2--Michigan Planning Subarea 4.1--Michigan Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Medium Stable Low Increasing Black Bear Law Decreasing ------ ------ Turkey Low Stable ------ ------ WATERFOWL Ducks High Stable High Stable Geese High Stable Medium Increasing SMALL GAME Cottontail Rabbit Low Stable Medium Stable Ring-necked Pheasant Medium Stable High Stable Ruffed Grouse Medium Stable Low Stable Gray Squirrel Low Stable Low Decreasing Fox Squirrel Medium Stable Medium Stable Woodcock Medium Increasing Low Stable Mourning Dove High Stable High Stable Snowshoe Hare Low Stable ------ ------ Bobwhite Quail ------ ------ Low Stable FURBEARERS Muskrat High Stable High Stable Mink High Stable Medium Stable Beaver Medium Stable Low Decreasing Weasel Medium Stable Medium Stable Raccoon High Stable Medium increasing Skunk Medium Stable High Increasing Opossum Medium Stable High Stable Badger Low Stable Low Stable Otter Low Stable ------ ------ NON-GAME Woodchuck Medium Stable Medium Stable Red Fox High Stable Medium Stable Gray Fox Occasional Low Stable Crow Medium Stable High Stable Red Squirrel Medium Stable Low Stable Coyote Low Stable Low Stable Raptors Medium Stable Medium Stable Porcupine Low Stable ------ ------ Bobcat Low Stable ------ ------ RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S) 1 Bald Eagle (E) 2 Low Stable Law Decreasing American Osprey (S) Low Decreasing Low Decreasing Kirtlands Warbler (E) Low Decreasing ------ ------ Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) Rare transient ------ ------ 13NIJSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3 Sandhill Crane Low Stable Medium Stable Golden Eagle Rare transient Rare transient IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. ,18 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-9 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 4.2, Ohio PlannIng Subarea 4.2--Ohio Class and Species Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Low Increasing One-half to two per section WATERFOWL Ducks Medium Stable Geese Medium Increasing SMALL GAME Cottontail Rabbit Low Decreasing 99 to 144 per section Ring-necked Pheasant Low Decreasing 7 to 124 per section Fox Squirrel Medium Decreasing 2 to 3 per wooded acre Woodcock Low Stable Mourning Dove High Stable Bobwhite Quail Low Decreasing 45 to 98 per section Hungarian Partridge Low Decreasing Local, 10 per section FURBEARERS Muskrat High Decreasing State consistently second in total U.S. catch. Mink Medium Decreasing Beaver Law Stable Weasel Low Decreasing Raccoon High Stable Skunk Medium Stable Badger Low Stable Opossum Medium Stable NON-GAME Woodchuck Medium Stable Red Fox Medium Stable Gray Fox Low Increasing Crow Medium Decreasing Red Squirrel Medium Decreasing Coyote Accidental Raptors Low Decreasing RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S) 2 Bald Eagle (E) 3 Low Decreasing Northern Bald Eagle--eight nesting pairs, but no reproduction in 1971. Southern Bald Eagle-- very rare (result of summer movement of juveniles into planning subarea). American Osprey (S) Low Decreasing Decrease during migration. Regular nesting before 1900 is presumed. Arctic Peregrine Falcon (E) Low Decreasing Decrease from previous annual flights in recent years in Western Lake Erie Counties. Perhaps former nester. Kirtland's Warbler (E) Low Decreasing Irregular as a migrant. Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) Low Decreasing Decrease from previous spring and fall flights in recent years in Western Lake Erie Counties. Perhaps former nester. Indiana Bat (E) Low Stable UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS4 Sandhill Crane Accidental migrant. Last nest reported in 1926. No longer.recorded. Golden Eagle Accidental migrant. Not recorded annually. Lake Erie Water Snake Low Stable Lake Erie islands only. Eastern Plains Garter Snake Low Decreasing Range only in part of Wyandot County -in and near Killdeer Plains Wildlife Area. IPopulation densities shown represent the range in averages for drainages within the PSA. 2Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 3For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 4AnimaI species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. Present Status of Wildlife 19 TABLE 17-10 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 4.2, Indiana, and 4.3, Ohio Planning Subarea 4.2--Indiana Planning Subarea 4.3--Ohio Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Low Increasing Medium Stable Two to three per section WATERFOWL Ducks Low Stable Medium Stable Geese Low Stable Medium Increasing SMALL GAME Cottontail Rabbit Low Increasing Up 1969-70 Medium Stable 23 to 144 per section Ring-necked Pheasant Low Stable Low Decreasing 7 to 69 per section Fox Squirrel Low Decreasing High Stable 2 to 3 per wooded acre in western half, one- half to one in eastern Woodcock Low Stable Medium Stable Mourning Dove Medium Stable Medium Stable Bobwhite Quail Low Increasing Up 1969-70 Law Stable 7 to 25 per section Hungarian Partridge Low Stable ------ ------ Ruffed Grouse ------ ------ High Stable FURBEARERS Muskrat Low Increasing Medium Stable Mink Low Stable Medium Stable Beaver Low Decreasing Medium Stable Weasel Low Stable Low Stable Raccoon Medium Stable High Stable Skunk Low Increasing Medium Stable Opossum Medium Stable Medium Stable Badger Low Increasing Low Stable NON-GAME Woodchuck Low Increasing Medium Stable Red Fox Medium Stable Medium Stable Gray Fox Low Stable Low Increasing Crow Low Stable Medium Stable Red Squirrel I- Increasing Medium Stable Coyote Low Increasing ------ ------ Raptors Low Stable Medium Decreasing RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S) 2 Bald Eagle (E) 3 Low Decreasing Low Decreasing No.Bald Eagle, rare migrant. Former nester. So. Bald Eagle, rare (result summer movement of juveniles into area) American Osprey (S) ------ ------ Low Decreasing Decrease during migration. Regular nesting before 1900 presumed. Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) Law Stable Rare--migrant only Arctic Peregrine Falcon (E) ------ ------ Low Decreasing Rare--migrant only UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS4 Sandhill Crane Low Increasing ------ ------ Golden Eagle Low Decreasing Accidental migrant River Otter ------ ------ Low Decreasing Recorded in Grand River watershed and vicinity Eastern Smooth Green Snake ------ ------ Low Stable Boreal Redback Vole ------ ------ Low Decreasing Formerly in Pyma- tuning Region--may be extirpated. 1Population densities shown represent the range in averages for drainages within the PSA. 2Rare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 3For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 4Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. 20 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-11 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 4.4, New York and Pennsylvania Planning Subarea 4.4--New York Planning Subarea 4.4--Pennsylvania Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Medium Stable Medium Stable Black Bear Low Stable ------ ------ Turkey Low Increasing Low Stable Mostly stocked WATERFOWL Ducks Medium Stable Varied Decreasing High--Lake Erie Law--inland Geese Low Stable Low Stable SMALL GAME Cottontail Rabbit Medium Stable Lower elevations Medium Decreasing Ring-necked Pheasant Medium Stable Medium Stable Mostly stocked Ruffed Grouse Low Stable High Increasing Gray Squirrel Medium Stable Low Stable Fox Squirrel Low Stable Medium Stable Snowshoe Hare Law Stable ------ ------ Woodcock Low Stable High Increasing Sharp-tailed Grouse ------ ------ Low Decreasing Introduced Mourning Dove Low Stable Medium Increasing Bobwhite Quail ------ ------ Low Decreasing FURBEARERS Muskrat Medium Stable High Stable Mink Low Stable Low Stable Beaver Low Decreasing High Increasing Weasel Low Stable Low Stable Raccoon Medium Increasing Medium Stable Skunk Medium Stable Medium Stable Opossum Medium Increasing Medium Increasing Badger Occasional transient ------ ------ NON-GAME Woodchuck Medium Stable Medium Stable Porcupine Low Few found in southern ------ ------ Chautauqua & Cattar- augus Counties Red Fox Low Stable Medium Increasing Gray Fox Low Stable Low Stable Crow Medium Stable Medium Decreasing Red Squirrel Medium Stable Low Stable Raptors Medium Stable Medium Stable RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S) Indiana Bat (E) Low Unknown ------ ------ Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) Low Unknown ------ ------ Bald Eagle (E)2 Low Unknown Frequent transients. Low Decreasing No known breeding. American Osprey (S) Low Unknown Frequent transierits. Low Decreasing Occasional No known breeding. UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS 3 Common Loon A few transients ------ ------ Great Blue Heron Law Unknown ------ ------ Least Bittern Low Unknown ------ ------ Lake Erie Water Snake Low Unknown ------ Timber Rattlesnake Law Unknown ------ ------ Spotted Turtle Law Unknown ------ ------ Golden Eagle A few transients ------ ------ Eastern Bluebird Low Unknown ----- ------ Goshawk Low Decreasing ------ ------ IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. Present Status of Wildlife 21 TABLE 17-12 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subareas 5.1 and 5.2, New York Planning Subarea 5.1--New York Planning Subarea 5.2--New York Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Medium Stable Only southern part of Medium Stable watershed. Low density in northern part Black Bear Low Stable Only southern part of Low Stable Refers to actual watershed watershed Turkey Low Increasing Only southern part of Low Increasing watershed WATERFOWL Ducks Medium Stable Medium Stable Geese High Increasing High Increasing SMALL GAME Cottontail Rabbit Medium Stable Medium Stable Ring-necked Pheasant High Stable Only northern part of Medium Stable watershed Ruffed Grouse Low Stable Only southern part of Medium Stable watershed Gray Squirrel Medium Stable Medium Stable Fox Squirrel Low Stable ------ ------ Snowshoe Hare Low Stable Only certain areas in Medium Stable southern part of watershed Woodcock Medium Stable Medium Stable Mourning Dove Medium Stable Medium Stable Hungarian Partridge ------ ------ Low Stable FURBEARERS Muskrat High Stable High Stable Mink Medium Stable Medium Stable Beaver Low Decreasing Medium Stable Weasel Medium Stable Medium Stable Raccoon Medium Stable Medium Stable Skunk Medium Stable Medium Stable Opossum Medium Increasing Medium Increasing Otter ------ ------ Low Stable NON-GAME Woodchuck High Stable Medium Stable Porcupine Low Stable Few in southern part Low Stable Coyote ------ ------ Low Stable Red Fox Medium Stable Medium Stable Gray Fox Low Stable Low Stable Crow Medium Stable Medium Stable Red Squirrel Medium Stable Medium Stable Bobcat ------ ------ Low Stable Raptors Medium Stable Medium Stable RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S)l Indiana Bat (E) Low Unknown Low Unknown Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) Low Some seen in Low Unknown Bald Eagle (E) 2 Low Decreasing migration A few transients Bog Turtle (R) Low Decreasing Low Decreasing American Osprey (S) ------ ------ Low Decreasing Occasional resident Arctic Peregrine Falcon (E) ------ ------ A few transients Fisher (S) ------ ------ Low Stable Doing well under managed trapping Pine Marten (S) ------ ------ Low Stable UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3 Golden Eagle Transients only A few transients Common Loon A few transients Low Decreasing Great Blue Heron Low Unknown Low Unknown Least Bittern Low Unknown Low Unknown Goshawk Low Decreasing Low Decreasing Eastern Bluebird Low Unknown Low Unknown Massasauga Rattlesnake Low Unknown Low Unknown Spotted Turtle Low Unknown Law Unknown Timber Rattlesnake Low Unknown ------ ------ Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker ------ ------ Low Unknown Lincoln's Sparrow ------ ------ Low Unknown Bicknell's Thrush ------ ------ Low Unknown IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. 22 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-13 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, Black River Valley and Central Tug Hill Planning Subarea 5.3--New York Black River Valley Central Tug Hill Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Low Stable Low density due to Medium Increasing No wintering areas, illegal activities, migrate dogs and land use Black Bear Low Stable WATERFOWL Ducks Medium Stable Enhancement potential Medium Stable Geese High stable Fall feeding area Medium Stable SMALL GAME Cottontail Rabbit Medium Stable ------ ------ Ring-necked Pheasant LOW Stable ------ ------ Ruffed Grouse LOW Stable Low Stable Snowshoe Hare Low Stable Medium Stable Gray Squirrel Medium stable ------ ------ Woodcock Low Stable Low Stable Mourning Dove Medium Stable Low Stable FURBEARE16 Muskrat High Stable Medium' Stable Mink High Stable High Stable Beaver Law Stable High Stable Weasel High Stable Low Stable Raccoon Medium Stable Law Stable Otter Low Stable Low Stable Skunk Medium Stable Low Stable Opossum Low Stable ------ ------ NON-GAME Woodchuck Medium Stable Medium Stable Porcupine Law Stable High Stable Red Fox Medium Stable Low Stable Gray Fox Low Stable Low Stable Bobcat Low Decreasing May be endangered Medium Decreasing May be endangered and need protection Crow Medium Stable Medium Stable - Red Squirrel Medium Stable Medium Stable Coyote Low Stable Medium Stable Raptors Medium Stable Medium Stable RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S) Bald Eagle (E)2 Low Occasional transient ------ ------ American Osprey (S) Low Decreasing Low Decreasing Fisher (S) Low Stable Low Stable Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) Low Unknown ------ ------ UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS 3 Common Loon Low Decreasing ------ ------ Great Blue Heron Low Unknown ------ Least Bittern Low Unknown ------ ------ Eastern Bluebird Low Unknown ------ ------ lRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. Present Status of Wildlife 23 TABLE 17-14 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, Tug Hill Transition and Western Adirondacks Planning Subarea 5.3--New York Tug Hill Transition Western Adirondacks Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Medium Increasing Good deer yards, High Stable illegal activity and dogs important Black Bear Low Stable Medium Stable WATERFOWL Ducks Medium Stable Low Stable Geese Medium Stable Low Stable SMALL GAME Cottontail Rabbit Low Stable ------ ------ Ruffed Grouse High Increasing Land abandonment Medium Stable Gray Squirrel Low Unknown ------ ------ Snowshoe Hare High Increasing Land abandonment Medium Stable Woodcock High Stable Low Stable Mourning Dove Low Stable Low Stable FURBEARERS Muskrat Medium Stable Medium Stable Mink Medium Stable Medium Stable Beaver Low Decreasing High Decreasing Weasel Medium Stable Low Stable Raccoon Medium Stable High Stable Otter Low Stable High Stable Skunk Medium Stable Low Stable Opossum Low Stable ------ ------ NON-GAME Woodchuck Medium Stable Low Stable Porcupine Low Stable Medium Stable Red Fox Medium Stable Low Stable Gray Fox Low Stable ------ ------ Bobcat Lw Stable I- Stable May be endangered Red Squirrel High Stable High Stable Coyote Low Stable Medium Stable Grow Medium Stable Low Stable Raven ------ ------ Low Stable Raptors Medium Stable Low Stable RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S) 1 Fisher (S) 2 Low Stable High Increasing Bald Eagle (E) Low Decreasing Low Occasional transient American Osprey (S) Low Increasing Law Decreasing Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) Low Unknown Low Unknown Eastern Timber Wolf (E) ------ ------ Low Stable Very rare Pine Marten (S) ------ ------ Low Stable Canada Lynx (S) ------ ------ Low Stable UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE,ANIMALS3 Common Loon Low Unknown Low Decreasing Great Blue Heron Low Unknown Low Unknown Least Bittern Low Unknown Low Unknown Eastern Bluebird Low Unknown ------ ------ Lincoln's Sparrow Low Unknown Low Unknown Bicknell's Thrush ------ ------ Low Unknown Spruce Grouse ------ ------ Law Stable Golden Eagle ------ ------ Low Stable Goshawk ------ ------ Law Decreasing Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker ------ ------ Low Unknown IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. 24 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-15 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, Adirondack Transi- tion and Central Adirondacks Planning Subarea 5.3--New York Adirondack Transition Central Adirondacks Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Medium Stable Medium Stable Winters and range conditions control numbers Black Bear Low Stable High Stable WATERFOWL Ducks Low Stable Law Stable Geese Low Stable Low Stable SMALL GAME Cottontail Rabbit Low Stable ------ ------ Ruffed Grouse High Stable Medium Stable Gray Squirrel Low Stable ------ ------ Snowshoe Hare High Stable Medium Stable Woodcock High Stable Low Stable Mourning Dove Low Stable Low Stable Hungarian Partridge Low Stable ------ ------ FURBEARERS Muskrat Medium Stable Medium Stable Mink High Stable High Stable Beaver Medium Stable Medium Stable Weasel Medium Stable Low Stable Raccoon Medium Stable Medium Stable Otter Medium Stable High Stable Skunk Medium Stable Low Stable Opossum Low Stable ------ ------ NON-GAME Woodchuck Law Stable Low Stable Porcupine High Stable High Stable Red Fox Medium Stable Low Stable Gray Fox Low Stable ------ ------ Bobcat Low Stable May be endangered Medium Stable Red Squirrel High Stable High Stable Coyote Low Stable Medium Stable Crow Medium Stable Medium Stable Raven ------- ------ Low Stable Raptors Medium Stable Low Stable RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S) 1 Fisher (S) 2 Medium Decreasing High Increasing Bald Eagle (E) Law occasional transient Low Occasional transient American osprey (S) Medium Decreasing Law Decreasing .Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) Low Unknown Law Unknown Pine Marten (S) ------ Low Stable Canada Lynx (S) ------ ------ Low Stable UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS3 Spruce Grouse Low Stable Low Stable Golden Eagle Low Decreasing Law Stable Goshawk Low Decreasing Low Decreasing Common Loon Low Decreasing Low Decreasing Great Blue Heron Low Unknown Low Unknown Least Bittern Low Unknown Low Unknown Arctic Three-toed Woodpecker Low Unknown Low Unknown Eastern Bluebird Low Unknown ------ Lincoln's Sparrow Low Unknown Low Unknown Bicknell's Thrush Law Unknown Low Unknown IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. Present Status of Wildlife 25 TABLE 17-16 Status of Wildlife as of 1970, Planning Subarea 5.3, New York, St. Lawrence Plain and Eastern Ontario Plain Planning Subarea 5.3--New York St awrence Eastern Ontario Plain Class and Species Density Trend Notes Density Trend Notes BIG GAME White-tailed Deer Low Stable Illegal activity and Low Stable Illegal activity dogs controls numbers controls numbers Black Bear Low Stable Low Stable Turkey ------ ------ Low Stable WATERFOWL Ducks High Increasing Enhancement potential High Stable large Geese Medium Increasing Enhancement potential High Stable large SMALL GA14E Cottontail Rabbit Low Stable High- Stable Ring-necked Pheasant Low Stable Law Stable Ruffed Grouse High Stable Medium Stable Gray Squirrel Low Stable Medium Stable Snowshoe Hare Medium Stable Low Stable Woodcock High Stable High Stable Mourning Dove Low Stable Medium Stable Hungarian Partridge Medium Stable Medium Decreasing FURBEARERS Muskrat High Stable High Stable Mink High Stable Medium Stable Beaver Low Stable Medium Stable Weasel Medium Stable High Stable Raccoon Medium Stable High Stable Otter Low Stable Low Stable Skunk Medium Stable High Stable Opossum ------ ------ Low Stable NON-GAME Woodchuck Medium Stable Medium Stable Porcupine Medium Stable Low Stable Red Fox High Stable Medium Stable Gray Fox Low Stable Low Stable Bobcat Law Stable Low Stable Crow Medium Stable Medium Stable Red Squirrel Medium Stable Medium Stable Coyote Low Stable Low Stable Raptors Medium Stable High Stable RARE(R) ENDANGERED(E) STATUS UNDETERMINED(S) I Fisher (R) 2 Low Decreasing Endangered Low Decreasing Bald Eagle (E) Low Decreasing Low Decreasing American Osprey (S) Medium Decreasing Medium Stable Eastern Pigeon Hawk (S) Low Unknown Low Unknown Arctic Peregrine Falcon (E) Low A few transients ------ ------ UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ANIMALS 3 Common Loon Low Decreasing Low Decreasing Great Blue Heron Low Unknown Low Unknown Least Bittern Low Unknown Low Unknown Eastern Bluebird Low Unknown Low Unknown Lincoln's Sparrow Law Unknown Low Unknown Goshawk Low Decreasing ------ ------ IRare and Endangered Fish and Wildlife of the United States, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1968 Edition. Also based on February 1972 data from the Bureau's Office of Endangered Species. 2For the purpose of this appendix the northern and southern subspecies of bald eagle are listed as bald eagle, the endangered status being the important consideration. 3Animal species considered to be unusual or unique on a regional, State, or planning subarea basis. 26 Appendix 17 2.2 Wildlife Habitat and Trends TABLE 17-17 Total Acres and Percent of Farm and Forest Game Habitat by Planning Subsection 2.1 of this appendix considered Subarea in 19601 the relationship of wildlife populations and Farm- % of Forest % of trends to the habitat. Subsection 2.2 is divided Planning Total Total land Total land Total into two parts: the first analyzes wildlife Subarea Land Habitat Habitat Land Habitat Land 1.1 9 473.5 9 327.8 816.5 8 8 511.3 90 habitat base, the actual amounts of land con- 1.2 6:411.8 6:178.0 346.2 5 5:831.8 91 sidered capable of supporting wildlife, and the 2.1 10,010.7 9,236.3 4,224.3 42 5,012.0 50 amounts of habitat available for use by both 2.2 .5,212.7 3,984.2 3,546.2 68 438.0 8 2.3 8 944.4 7,693.3 6,466.8 72 1,226.5 14 the hunter (consumptive user), and the non- 2.4 8:094.2 7,607.6 1,701.7 21 5,905.9 73 hunter (non-consumptive user); the second 3.1 4,017.8 3,785.5 762.2 19 3,023.3 75 considers the wetlands habitat of the Great 3.2 4,424.1 3,904.7 2,848.9 64 1,055.8 24 4.1 3,980.4 2,955.8 2,502.0 63 453.8 11 Lakes Region. 4.2 6,319.4 5,777.5 5,204.9 82 .572.6 9 4.3 2,308.4 1,666.8 1,149.6 50 517.2 22 4.4 3,069.9 2,454.7 1,474.1 48 980.6 32 5.1 2 458.7 2 104.8 1 525.7 62 579.1 24 2.2.1 The Wildlife Habitat Base 5.2 5:427.4 4:970.7 2:909.8 54 2,080.9 38 5.3 3,385.6 3,171.6 1,160.3 34 2,011.3 59 Tables 17-17 and 17-18 provide basic land 1Acres shown in thousands resources data by planning subarea and State. Table 17-21 indicates the acres of cropland, pasture land, forest land, and other land for each target year and the estimated percent available for hunting. Included in the totals are public lands and wetlands, which are dis- cussed separately but cannot be disaggre- gated from the totals because of the way the data were collected. TABLE17-18 Acres of Farm and Forest Game These data are derived from the Conser- Habitat by State and Planning Subarea in 1960 Planning vation Needs Inventory, U.S. Department of State Subarea Farm Forest Agriculture, using percentages based on State fish and game personnel's knowledge of the Minnesota 1.1 587,400 6,037,500 areas. The percentages are judgments based Wisconsin 1.1 229,100 2,473,800 on a number of important considerations, such 2.1 4,o44,500 3,370,500 as the extent of posting, farmer attitudes, 2.2 1,22, 151,900 physical access, and so on. TOTAL 5 50 500 TPOO3,200 The successive target years indicate trends 2.2 1,466,500 148,100 in the habitat base. Status and trends of "'no's wildlife habitat are also discussed in conjunc- Indiana 2.2 846,800 131,000 tion with Subsection 2.5, Existing Wildlife 2-3 1,249,900 145,000 Problems. Table 17-19 indicates public land 4.2 88 -_ open to hunting by State in the mid-1960s. TOML 2, P., 0 39iW State totals of public lands closed to hunting, Michigan 1.2 346,2w 5,831,800 but open to nonconsumptive use are listed in 2.1 179,800 1,641,500 Table 17-20. Figures 17-4 through 17-18 pre- 2-3 5,2i6,goo 1,081,500 2.4 1,701,700 5,905,900 sent recent data on public lands open to hunt- 3-1 762,200 3,023,300 ing in each planning subarea. The trend in all 3.2 2,M,900 1,055,800 4.1 2 2,000 413 "'00 public lands is for acreage to remain the same 1 0,700 18,99 or increase slightly. Due to rapidly increasing TOTAL 3, 3,600 land values, particularly in the lower tier of Ohio 4.2 5P204,900 572,6oo States, large increases in public holdings are 4.3 1' 14 517,200 not likely. Public forest lands will probably TOrAL 6,35?,'500 1,689'" increase as managing agencies block in pri- Pennsylvania 4.4 281,goo i24,ooo vate areas bounded by the forest. State game divisions' acquisition plans vary widely. Most Nev York 4.4 1,192,200 856,6oo increases in public hunting area will be made 5-1 1,525,700 579,100 by adding land to existing units, rather than 5.2 2,909,800 2,080,900 5.3 1,160 2,011,300 g _ z300 acquisition of new areas, with the possible ex- TOTAL _rM, 000 5o527,900 ception of privately owned wetlands. Present Status of Wildlife 27 TABLE 17-19 Acres of Public Lands Open to Hunting, Mid-1960s National Public State and PSA Forest Hunting Areas State Forest Others Minnesota 1.1 2,134,000 500 544,500 Wisconsin 1.1 282,200 18,500 59,400 1,200 (State Park) Big Game 2.1 591,600 109,200 6,500 (County Park) All Hunting 3,900 (State Park) Big Game 2.2 ------- 38,200 14,200 TOTAL 873,800 165,900 98,200 11,600 Illinois 2.2 ------- 6,400 ------ Indiana 2 `2 ------- 7,800 ------ 2.3 ------- 9,100 ------ 4.2 ------- ----- ------ TOTAL ------- 16,900 ------ Michigan 1.2 1,082,500 ------- 1,073,000 2.1 171,400 ------- 392,000 2.3 4,000 113,800 --------- 2.4 992,300 59,000 1,392,000 95,000 (Seney N.W.R.) Big Game only 3.1 415,600 100 880,000 3.2 --------- 65,400 172,200 4.1 --------- 29,900 --------- TOTAL 2,6652800 268,200 3,9092200 Ohio 4.2 ------- 14,300 2,900 4.3 ------- 13,700 ----- TOTAL ------- 282000 22900 Pennsylvania 4.4 ------- 11,700 ------ New York 4.4 ------- 9,100 42,100 61,000 (State Park) 5.1 ------- 16,700 44,700 16,600 (State Park) 5.2 13,800 53,900 129,200 5.3 ------- 36,900 81,400 8,200 (State Park) TOTAL 13,800 116,600 297,400 85,800 28 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-20 State Parks and Recreation Private land habitat management pro- Areas, Mid-1960s grams include various land treatment meas- ures of benefit to wildlife. Many of these meas- State and ures are applied by landowners and PSA Acres operators with technical assistance provided Minnesota 26,100 by the Soil Conservation Service in the vari- ous Soil Conservation Districts within the Ba- sin. Wisconsin 1.1 5,200 Land treatment measures of benefit to 2.1 17,100 wildlife have been established in approxi- mately 135 counties which represent 71 per- 2.2 500 cent of the planning subareas of the Great TOTAL 22,800 Lakes Basin. These measures include 29,000 ponds, 177 miles of field borders, 2,429 miles of Illinois hedgerow planting, more than a million acres 2.2 67,231 of wildlife wetland habitat management, and almost a million acres of wildlife upland Indiana habitat management. 2.2 4,000 A selected mix of land treatment measures 2.3 2,400 could give the land a distinctive pattern of 4.2 ----- cultivated crops, grass, shrubs, trees, and TOTAL 6,400 water areas that make good wildlife habitat. Borders planted or cut along the edge of a field Michigan or woods provide food and cover. Hedges pro- 1.2 22,900 vide travel lanes, and ponds improve wildlife 2.1 1,000 production and furnish stopover areas for 2.3 23,400 migrating waterfowl. 2.4 21,700 As our population increases and land use 3.1 17,500 becomes more intensive, planned production 3.2 6,400 of wildlife will become more and more impor- 4.1 35,300 tant in meeting the demand for wildlife uses. TOTAL 128,200 Obviously, landowners and operators hold the key to this production through application of good soil and water conservation practices. At Ohio the same time they can improve the quality of 4.2 2,400 the environment and provide a viable wildlife 4.3 2,200 resource in the Basin. TOTAL 4,600 The trend for wetlands is downward. Tre- mendous losses have already occurred in wet- Pennsylvania lands close to large cities and in high-value 4.4 3,000 agricultural land. Shore wetlands, having in- creased in value more than upland acreages, New York are increasingly more difficult to protect from 4.4 65,700 development. 5.1 20,500 Unique, scenic, or natural areas are listed in 5.2 13,800 Tables 17-22 through 17-29. These areas of 5.3 10,100 unusual ecological significance are subject to TOTAL 110,100 the same degradation and loss as wetlands, but their protection is slightly easier to ac- complish because they tend to be more con- Open to public recreational use tained than other marshlands or upland other than hunting or trapping. areas. Present Status of Wildlife 29 TABLE 17-21 Determination of Supply Acres of Wildlife Habitat PLANNING SUBAREA 1.1 PLANNING SUBAREA 1.2 PLANNING SUBAREA 2.1 YEAR KCRES OF ACRES Of- ACRES OF AND HUNTABLE LAND HUNTABLE LAND HUNTABLE LAND LAND USE TOTAL ACRES (%) TOTAL TOTAL ACRES TOTAL TOTAL ACRES (%) TOTAL 1966-67 Cropland 430,100 64,515 (15%)' 262,800 157,680 ( 60%) 3,316,400 663,200 (20%) Pasture 99,500 49,750 (502) 65,800 59,220 ( 90%) 356,700 142,680 (40%) Forest 8,3549900 7,937,155 (95%) 5,909,600 5,909,600 (100%) 5,116,600 4,604,940 (90%) Other 304,500 213,150 (70%) 65,800 52,640 ( 80%) 757,100 378,550 (50%) 8,264,570 6,179,140 5,789,370 1980 Cropland 430,100 64,515 (15%) 262,800 157,680 ( 60%) 3,308,400 661,680 (20%) Pasture 99,500 49,750 (50%) 65,800 59,220 ( 90%) 355,800 142,320 (40%) Forest 8,354,200 7,936,490 (95%) 5,909,600 5,909,600 (100%) 5,104,200 4,593,780 (90%) Other 304,500 213,150 (70%) 65,800 52,640 ( 80%) 755,300 377,650 (50%) 8,263,905 6,179,140 5,775,430 2000 Cropland 429,700 64,455 (15%) 262,800 1579680 ( 60%) 3,293,400 658,680 (20%) Pasture 99,400 499700 (50%) 65,800 59,220 ( 90%) 354,200 141,680 (40%) Forest 8,347,200 7,929,840 (95%) 5,908,600 5,908,600 (100%) 5,081,000 4,572,900 (90%) Other 304,200 212,940 (70%) 65,800 52,640 ( 80%) 751,900 375,950 (50%) 8,256,935 6,178,140 5,749,210 2020 Cropland 429,000 64,350 (15%) 262,700 157,620 (60%) 3,274,900 654,980 (20%) Pasture 99,000 49,500 (50%) 65,800 59,220 ( 90%) 352,200 140,880 (40%) Forest 8,333,700 7,917,015 (95%) 5,905,500 5,905,500 (100%) 5,052,400 4,547,160 (90%) Other 3039700 212,590 (70%) 65,800 52,640 ( 80%) 747,700 373,850 (50%) 8,243,455 6,174,980 5,716,870 PLANNING SUBAREA 2.2 PLANNING SUBAREA 2.3 PLANNING SUBAREA 2.4 YEAR ACRES OF ACRES OF ACRES OF AND HUNTABLE LAND HUNTABLE LAND HUNTABLE LAND LAND USE TOTAL ACRES (%) TOTAL TOTAL ACRES (%) TOTAL TOTAL ACRES (%) TOTAL 1966-67 Cropland 2,843,400 7109850 (25%) 5,374,800 19074,960 (20%) 19481,500 5929600 (40%) Pasture 237,400 71,220 (30%) 459,400 413,460 (90%) 351,800 316,620 (90%) Forest 340,700 272,560 (80%) 1,704,700 193639760 (80%) 5,434,300 4,890,870 (90%) Other 580,100 290,050 (50%) 598,000 239,200 (40%) 411,800 288,260 (70%) 1,344,680 3,091,380 69088,350 1980 Cropland 2,477,000 619,250 (25%) 5,305,400 1,061,080 (20%) 1,478,600 591,440 (40%) Pasture 206,800 62,040 (30%) 453,500 408,150 (90%) 351,100 315,990 (90%) Forest 296,800 237,440 (80%) 1,682,700 1,346,160 (80%) 5,423,600 4,881,240 (90%) Other 505,300 252,650 (50%) 590,300 236,120 (40%) 411,000 2879700 (70%) 1,171,380 3,051,510 6,076,370 2000 Cropland 1,999,800 4999950 (25%) 5,199,900 1,039,980 (20%) 1,473,000 589,200 (40%) Pasture 167,000 50,100 (30%) 444,500 400,050 (90%) 349,800 314,820 (90%) .Forest 239,700 191,760 (80%) 1,649,200 1,319,360 (80%) 5,403,200 4,862,880 (90%) Other 407,900 203,950 (50%) 578,600 231,440 (40%) 409,500 286,650 (70%) 945,760 2,990,830 6,053,550 2020 Cropland 1,641,000 410,250 (25%) 5,070,000 1,014,000 (20%) 1,466,600 -586,640 (40%) Pasture 137,100 41,130 (30%) 433,400 390,060 (90%) 348,300 313,470 (90%) Forest 196,700 157,360 (80%) 1,608,000 1,286,400 (M) 5,379,600 4,642,640 (90%) Other 334,700 167,350 (50%) 564,100 225,640 (40%) 407,600 285,320 (70%) 776,090 T916,100 -C-,027,070 30 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-21 (continued) Determination of Supply Acres of Wildlife Habitat - PLANNING SUBAREA 3.1 PLANNING SUBAREA 3.2 PLANNING SUBAREA 4.1 YEAR ACRES OF ACRES OF ACRES OF AND HUNTABLE LAND HUNTABLE LAND HUNTABLE LAND LAND USE TOTAL ACRES (%) TOTAL TOTAL ACRES (%) TOTAL TOTAL ACRES M TOTAL 1966-67 Cropland 531,200 265,600 (50%) 2,370,000 474,000 (20%) 2,215,600 332,340 (15%) Pasture 173,600 156,240 (90%) 185,200 138o9OO (75%) 117,700 88,275 (75%) Forest 2,914,300 2,185,725 (75%) 1,194,700 955,760 (80%) 665,700 532,560 (80%) Other 219,100 153,370 (70%) 285,200 142,600 (50%) 222,000 88,800 (40%) 2,760,935 1,711,260 1,041,975 1980 -Ur-op- F=n 530,100 265,050 (50%) 2,339,400 467,880 (20% 2,013,000 301,950 (15%) Pasture 173,200 155,880 (90%) 182,800 137,100 (75%) 107,000 80,250 (75%) Forest 2,908,000 2,181,000 (75%) 1,179,300 943,440 (80%) 604,800 483,840 (80%) Other 218,600 153,020 (70%) 281,500 140,750 (50%) 201,700 80,680 (40%) 2,754,950 1,689,170 946,720 2000 Cropland 528,600 264,300 (50%) 2,294,800 458,960 (20%) 1,726,000 258,900 (15%) Pasture 172,700 155,430 (90%) 179,300 134,475 (75%) 91,800 68,850 (75%) Forest 2,899,700 2,174,775 (75%) 1,156,800 925,440 (80%) 518,600 414,880 (80%) Other 218,000 152,600 (70%) 276,100 138,050 (50%) 173,000 69,200 (40%) 2,747,105 1,656,W 811,830 2020 Cropland 526,700 263,350 (50%) 2,264,300 452,860 (20%) 1,535,900 230,385 (15%) Pasture 172,100 154,890 (90%) 176,900 132,675 (75%) 81,700 61,275 (75%) Forest 2,899,400 2,167,050 (75%) 1,141,400 913,120 (80%) 461,500 369,200 (80%) Other 217,200 152,040 (70%) 272,400 136,200 (50%) 154,000 61,600 (40%) 2,737,330 1,634,855 722,460 - PLANNING SUBAREA 4.2 PLANNING SUBAREA 4.3 PLANNING SUBAREA 4.4 YEAR ACRES OF ACRES OF ACRES OF AND HUNTABLE LAND HUNTABLE LAND HUNTABLE LAND LAND 13SE TOTAL ACRES (%) TOTAL TOTAL ACRES (%) TOTAL TOTAL ACRES (%) TOTAL 1966-67 Cropland 4,735,100 710,265 ( 15%) 741,300 593,040 ( 80%) 858,700 214,675 (25%) Pasture 213,800 192,420 ( 90%) 131,300 118,170 ( 90%) 252,600 126,300 (50%) Forest 453,400 453,400 (100%) 538,800 538,800 (100%) 1,364,500 818,700 (60%) Other 349,300 139,720 ( 40%) 288,200 201,740 ( 70%) 109,100 21,820 (20%) 1,495,805 1,451,750 1,181,495 1980 Cropland 4,683,400 702,510 ( 15%) 680,000 544,000 ( 80%) 841,200 126,180 (15%) Pasture 211,500 190,350 ( 90%) 120,500 108,450 ( 90%) 247,500 74,250 (30%) Forest 448,500 448,500 (100%) 494,300 494,300 (100%) 1,336,700 668,350 (50%) Other 345,500 138,200 ( 40%) 264,400 185,080 ( 70%) 106,900 16,035 (15%) 1,479,560 1,331,830 884,815 2000 Cropland 4,599,800 689,970 ( 15%) 566,500 453,200 ( 80%) 810,400 81,040 (10%) Pasture 207,700 186,930 ( 90%) 100,400 90,360 ( 90%) 238,400 59,600 (25%) Forest 440,500 440,500 (100%) 411,800 411,800 (100%) 1,287,700 515,080 (40%) Other 339,300 135,720 ( 40%) 220,300 154,210 ( 70%) 103,000 15,450 (15%) 1,453,120 1,109,570 671,170 2020 Cropland 4,511,900 676,785 ( 15%) 471,300 377,040 ( 80%) 781,900 78,190 (10%) Pasture 203,700 183,330 ( 90%) 83,600 75,240 ( 90%) 230,000 57,500 (25%) Forest 432,100 432,100 (100%) 342,600 342,600 (100%) 1,242,500 497,000 (40%) Other 232,800 93,120 ( 40%) 183,300 128,310 ( 70%) 99,400 14,910 (15%) 1,385,335 923,190 647,600 Present Status of Wildlife 31 TABLE 17-21 (continued) Determination of Supply Acres of Wildlife Habitat PLANNING SUBAREA 5.1 PLANNING SUBAREA 5.2 PLANNING SUBAREA 5.3 YEAR ACRES OF ACRES OF ACRES OF AND HUNTABLE LAND HUNTABLE LAND HUNTABLE LAND LAND USE TOTAL ACRES (%) TOTAL TOTAL ACRES (%) TOTAL TOTAL ACRES (%) TOTAL 1966-67 Cropland 1,055,100 263,775 (25%) 1,759,100 527,730 (30%) 633,900 316,950 (50%) Pasture 162,900 73,305 (45%) 443,700 221,850 (50%) 254,400 152,640 (60%) Forest 871,500 479,325 (55%) 2,545,700 1,781,990 (70%) 2,215,400 2tlO4v63O (95%) Other 98,100 19,620 (20%) 428,200 85,640 (20%) 136,000 40,800 (302) 836,025 2,617,210 2,615,020 1980 Cropland 1,040,500 156,075 (15%) 1,734,600 260,190 (15%) 633,700 253t480 (40%) Pasture 160,700 64,280 (40%) 437,500 196,875 (45%) 254,300 127,150 (50%) Forest -859,500 429,750 (40%) 2,510,200 1,506,120 (60%) 2,214,900 1,993t4lO (90%) Other 96,700 14,505 (15%) 422,200 63,330 (15%) 136,000 27,200 (20%) 664,610 2,026,515 2,401,240 2000 Cropland 1,020,900 153,135 (15Z) 1,703,600 255,540 (15%) 632,300 158,075 (252) Pasture 157,700 31,540 (20%) 429,700 171,880 (40%) 253,700 101,480 (40%) Forest 843,300 337,320 (40%) 2,465,400 1,232,700 (50%) 2,210,100 1,989,090 (90%) Other 94,900 14,235 (15%) 414,700 62,205 (15%) 135,700 20,355 (15%) 536,230 1,722,325 2,269,000 2020 Cropland 996,100 99,610 (10%) 1,670,300 250,545 (15%) 630,700 157,675 (25%) Pasture 153,900 30,780 (20%) 421,300 168,520 (40%) 253,100 101,240 (40%) Forest 822,800 329,120 (40%) 2,417,200 lt208,6OO (50%) 2,204,600 1,984,140 (90Z) Other 92,600 13,890 (15%) 406,600 60,990 (15%) 135,400 20,310 (15%) 473,400 1,688,655 2,263,365 TABLE 17-22 Areas of Ecological Significance in Minnesota (1971) PSA County Name of Area Importance Ownership Acres 1.1 Carlton Perch Lake Wild Rice Bed Indian Lands 778 Carlton --- Wild Rice Bed State 200 Carlton Jay Cook State Park* --- State 11,196 Cook Cascade River State Park --- State 2,813 Cook Cross River State Wayside --- State 2,560 Cook Devils Tract State Wayside --- State 240 Cook Judge C.R. Magney State Park --- State 4,514 Cook Kodonce River State Park State 128 Cook Temperance River State Park --- State 133 Cook Pigeon Point Rugged Lake Shore Private Lands 6,000 & Island Complex Lake Baptism River State Park --- State 706 Lake Caribou Falls State Wayside --- State 97 Lake Flood Bay State Wayside --- State 19 Lake George Crosby Manitou State Park --- State 4,790 Lake Gooseberry Falls State Park --- State 1,662 Lake Split Rock Lighthouse State Park State 996 St. Louis Bearhead Lake State Park --- State 4,373 St. Louis McCarthy Beach State Park --- State 3,737 St. Louis Savanna Portage State Park --- State 15,758 St. Louis Tower Soudan State Park --- State 982 Lake/Cook/ Boundary Waters Canoe Area Vast Lake & U.S. Forest 1,000,000 St. Louis Forest Wilderness Service *The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources acquires State Parks for the purpose of preserving their scientific and natural values. 32 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-23 Areas of Ecological Significance in Indiana (1969) PSA County Name of Area -ership Acres 2.2 Lake Merrilville Mire Private 30 Lake Mystery Mounds Private 10 Total 40 LaPorte Mt. Pleasant Swamp Private 45 LaPorte Pinhook Bog Private 170 LaPorte South LaPorte Woods Private 26 LaPorte Shoemaker Bog --- 50 LaPorte Barker Woods Private 30 Total 321 Porter Cowles Bog & Dunes Dunes Acres 20 Porter Ancient Pines Nature Area, State* 180 Indiana Dunes State Park Porter Ecology Coves, Dunes State Park State* 25 Porter Little Calumet River Various -- Total '@-25 Elkhart Parsons Swamp Woods Private 17 Elkhart Wear Woods Private 12 Total 29 LaGrange Lane Lake Pigeon River State Fish & Game Area* 20 LaGrange Nasby Overlook Prairie Pigeon River State Fish & Game Area* 10 LaGrange Olin Lake & Browand Woods Purdue University Private 180 LaGrange Quog Lake Private 100 LaGrange Tamarack Bog Pigeon River State Fish & Game Area* 65 Total 7-5 Noble Lloyd W. Bender Preserve Acres, Inc. 60 Noble Gene Stratton Porter State Mem. Woods State* 6 Noble Griders Woods Tri-County State Fish & Game Area* 17 Noble Long Swamp Woods & Pond Private 40 Noble Loni Daw Nature Preserve Acres, Inc. 25 Noble Merry Lea Nature & Religious Center Merry Lea Foundation 600 Noble Edna W. Spurgeon Woodland Reserve Acres, Inc. 65 Total 713 2.3 St. Joseph Clingenspell Woods & New-Oak-Road Bog Private (State to purchase) 80 St. Joseph St. Marys College Nature Area St. Marys College 100 St. Joseph Bendix Gift Park Woods St. Joseph County Park Dept. 30 St. Joseph Spicer Lake Private 30 Total 240 Steuben Fawn River below Orland State stream through private land 4.7 miles Steuben Barnes Swamp Private 125 Steuben Beaverdam Lake State* 55 Steuben Beechwood Nature Preserve Acres, Inc. 19 Steuben Cedar Marsh Private small Steuben Charles McClue Reserve County 80 Steuben Marsh Lake Club & individuals 70 Steuben Stayner Dry Prairie Pigeon River State Fish Came Area* 15 Steuben Wing Haven Private 200 Steuben Woodland Bog Acres, Inc. 20 Total !@8-4 4.2 Allen Spring Lake Woods & Bog Private 20 Allen Bluecast Woods Private 25 Allen Fox Island Private 200 Total T4-5 Dekalb Kado-lato Woods Private 40 All State owned areas are managed by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Present Status of Wildlife 33 TABLE 17-24 Areas of Ecological Significance in Wisconsin (1970)* PSA County Name of Area Importance Acres 1.1 Ashland Bad River-Kakagon Marsh Vast marshland 10,000 Bayfield-Ashland Apostle Islands 21 Islands - natural state 40,000 Douglas Brule River Important trout stream 1,000 Douglas Douglas County Grouse Area Jack pine barren, sharp-tailed grouse mgmt. area 240 2.1 Door Peninsula Beech Forest Beech forest 30 Door Peninsula Cedar-Spruce Grove White cedar, white spruce, open forest 40 Door Ridges Sanctuary-Baileys Harbor Abandoned beach ridge, many rare plants 700 Door Sister Islands Gull nesting area & wildlife refuge 15 Door Tofts Point Hemlocks, white pine, & northern hardwoods, 300 white cedar & spruce on dolomite outcrop Door Whitefish Bay Dunes Best dunes on Lake Michigan in State 400 Door Rock Island State Park Isolated island, supports excellent northern 900 hardwood timber Fond do Lac Ripon Prairie Assortment of prairie relics 1.5 Fond du Lac Spruce Lake Bog Open bog & tamarack, spruce forest 117 Fond du Lac Top 0' the Thumb** Marshes, islands, & bays 4,800 Fond do Lac Waupun Park Maple Forest Old growth sugar maple, basswood, & red oak forest 40 Fond du Lac Haskell Noyes Memorial Woods Sugar maple, red oak, & basswood forest with the 70 Kettle Moraine State Forest Langlade Flora Lake Spring pond surrounded by swamp conifers 40 Manitowoc Wilderness Ridge Abandoned beach line, pine forest with hemlock 8 Manitowoc VanderBloemen Bog Rich growth of ferns, bog shrubs, & insectivorous 24 plants Manitowoc Maribel Caves Niagara dolomite escarpment, shaded cliff community 8 Manitowoc Two Creek Buried Forest Exposed remains of a boreal forest 12 Marinette Marinette County Beech Forest Northern hardwoods with areas of nearly pure beech 40 Marinette Lawrence Creek One-half mile of trout stream used for research 25 Oconto Charles Pond Lake inlet & marsh, 40 acres of maple, elm, basswood 110 Sheboygan Cedar Grove, Hawk Gathering place for hawks during migration 32 Sheboygan Terry Andrae St. Park Extension** Sand dunes and marsh 1,000 Waupaca Cactus Rock Dry prairie, includes rare dwarf cactus on 20 granite outcrop Kenosha Silver Lake Bog Excellent open bog 30 Kenosha New Muster Bog Island 15 acres of sand knoll of oaks in tamarack bog 55 Kenosha Chiwaukee Prairie Finest prairie remaining in State 65 Ozaukee Fairy Chasm 80 foot deep chasm with cold microclimate 55 Ozaukee Cedarburg Beech Woods Healthy stand of beech, hard maple, & white ash 50 Ozaukee Cedarburg Bog Tamarack swamp forest with black spruce & open bog 392 Racine Sanders Park Hardwoods Red oak & white ash forest 30 Waukesha Scuppernong Prairie Wet prairie with small oak opening 25 Waukesha Eagle Oak Opening Showy pasque flowers & other dry prairie species 60 with burr & white oak on morainal debris All areas have been designated scientific or natural areas by the State Board for the Preservation of Scientific Areas and are in State ownership. Areas not currently under public ownership but are slated for State ownership. TABLE 17-25 Areas of Ecological Significance in Illinois (1969) PSA County Name of Area Importance Acres 2.2 Lake Illinois Beach State Park Sand & marsh terrace with dune ridges, prairie 1,550 grasses, other unusual flora Lake Illinois Beach State Park Ext.* Sand ridge & marshes 2,000 Lake Volo Bog* Unusual flora 47 Lake Wauconda Bog* Unusual flora 67 Kane Trout Park* (Elgin Botanical Over 60 species of grass and other unique flora 60 Garden) Private ownership 34 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-26 Areas of Ecological Significance in Michigan (1969) PSA County Name of Area Importance Acres 1.2 Chippewa & Luce Betsie Lake Natural Area Preserve 14,137 Baraga & Marquette Huron Mountains* Highest terrain in Michigan wilderness. 100,000 Habitat for lynx & wolf. Alger Pictured Rocks* Cliffs, sand dunes, lakes, & ponds 100,000 Chippewa Vermilion Beach* Beaches, bogs, & marshes 3,200 Chippewa Whitefish Bay* Beaches, dunes, marshes, & forests 600 Chippewa Raber Point* Geologic interest, fossils, lakes, & forest 5,800 Chippewa Potagonnissing Bay* 21 Island complex with marshes 2,800 Chippewa St. Vital Point* Wide beaches & mixed conifer, hardwood forest 5,600 2.3 Muskegon & Ottawa County Line* Massive dune complex one mile wide, fine beaches 2,500 Allegan Saugatuck* Dune complex, beaches, & deciduous forest 1,400 Van Buren Thunder Mountain* Dune complex, wide beaches, & deciduous forest 500 Berrien Stevensville* (3 units) Dune complex, shallow lakes, & marsh 2,000 2.4 Benzie Betsie Point* Sand dunes & deciduous forest 500 Benzie Herring Lake* Bluffs, dunes, & lake complex 900 Benzie Arcadia* Bar Lake & fine beaches 700 Mason Bass Lake Dunes* High dunes & beaches 600 Oceana & Muskegon Flowei Creek Dunes* Dunes, creek mouth beaches 1,200 Mackinac Boise Blanc Nature Study Area 696 Mackinac Point Patterson* Beaches, marsh, dunes 12,000 Schoolcraft Seul Choix* Beaches, dunes, marshes, & deciduous forest 5,500 Emmet Sturgeon Bay* High dunes, connects State Forest to State Park 2,200 Charlevoix Fisherman Island* Shoal area around island & shore dunes 1,500 Leelanau Cat Head Bay* Fine beach, dunes, & shallow water 3,000 Leelanau Sleeping Bear* One of the highest & largest sand dune complexes 30,000 in Great Lakes with National significance Leelanau South Manitou Island Gulf Point Nature Study Area 453 Nature Reservation 551 Natural Area Preserve 1,038 Roscommon Roscommon Red Pine Nature 160 Area Preserve 3.1 Presque Isle Besser Natural Area 135 Presque Isle Lake Breeze* Beach, dunes, & coniferous forest 1,000 Presque Isle Thompsons Harbor* Rocky points, harbor, & bays 1,200 Alpena South Point* Wide shoal area, beach, & forest 3,400 Alcona Sturgeon Point* Beaches, gull nesting point, shallow bays 4,000 Iosco Au Sable Point* Shallow waters, wide beaches, dunes, & conifers 300 losco Tawas Point* Beaches, tamarack bog, forest 1,500 3.2 Bay Tobico Marsh* Marsh & lagoon complex 517 Huron Port Crescent* River course through sand dunes & marsh 2,000 4.4 Wayne Celeron Island Vital shallow water waterfowl feeding area 1,000 and shore marshes Areas not currently in public ownership. TABLE 17-27 Areas of Ecological Significance in Ohio (1969) PSA County Name of Area Importance Acres 4.2 Allen Heslers Woods Rich flora 30 Allen Roberts Property Woods 25 Allen Shenk Property Wildflowers 15 Crawford Crawford County Prairie Burr oak, savanna tall grass prairie 5 Crawford Tschanen Woods Good beech, maple 26 Present Status of Wildlife 35 TABLE 17-27 (continued) Areas of Ecological Significance in Ohio (1969) PSA County Name of Area Importance Acres 4.2 Defiance Krills Lake Odonata fauna 30 Defiance "Tree Farm" Sample of flora for the region 78 Erie Berlin Heights Ravine Flora (hemlock & others) Unknown Erie Resthaven Wildlife Area* Former wet-marl prairie 2,328 Erie Cedar Point Marsh vegetation 325 Erie Galpin Wildlife Preserve* Rich flora 37 Erie Lotus Beds American & Oriental lotus Unknown Erie Sheldons Folley White oak, beech, hickory, sassafras, & 54 black walnut Erie Kellys Island* Unique geology, upland game habitat 670 Erie Glacial Grooves* National Natural Landmark 1 Erie Plum Brook Dunes & marsh, high value shore & wading 1,400 bird habitat Fulton Maumee State Forest* Some dunes & wet prairie 3,071 Fulton Coll Woods* old growth hardwood forest, nearly virgin 50-70 Ottawa Cooks Woods Great variety of trees, shrubs, & herbs 80 Ottawa Haunks Pond, Middle Bass Island Pond succession & swamp forest 2 Ottawa Lakeside Daisy Lakeside daisy Unknown Ottawa Middle Harbor* First class sanctuary for waterfowl & wildlife 200 Ottawa Redbuds Mature redbuds Unknown Ottawa Sand Point Dunes & marsh Unknown Lucas Irwin Prairie Wet prairie 80 Lucas Oak Openings Metro Park* Unusual flora, sand dunes 3,200 Seneca Swamp & Marsh Good, unspoiled wetlands 160 Van Wert Heistand,Woods Wet forest 18 Van Wert York Township Woods Believed to be a virgin swamp forest Unknown Williams Hayes Lake Water with small bog 5 Williams Mud Lake Small, shallow lake with bog meadow Unknown Williams Nettle Lake Natural pothole surrounded by wooded hills 94 Williams Opdycke Woods Good burr oak, white oak 45 Wood New Rochester Woods Spring flora 375 Wood Steidman Wildlife Sanctuary Second growth timber 65 Wood Weston Cemetery Pond Heavy aquatic vegetation Wyandot Killdeer Plains* Formerly wet prairie (try to restore) 6,174 4.3 Ashtabula Armstrong Hemlock Grove Bog with sphagnum, mature hemlocks 4-5 Ashtabula Conneaut Creek Spring flora, hemlocks & other northern species 225 Ashtabula Fillingham Road Woods Spring flora & second growth timber 70 Ashtabula Geneva-on-the-Lake Lagoons & deciduous forested creek mouth 244 Ashtabula Heronry (Great Blue) Mature beech forest Unknown Ashtabula Lisowski Property Beech- maple, yellow birch, & hemlock forest, Unknown spring flora Ashtabula Pennline Bog Swamp forest recently cut, larch 50 Ashtabula Plymouth Marsh Elm swamp forest 20 Ashtabula Swamp Forest Elm humid swamp forest Unknown Ashtabula Thoburn Property Old farm & second growth forest 160 Ashtabula Vort Woods Excellent herbaceous flora 50 Ashtabula Warners Hollow Gorge with Canadian zone life, newts & salamanders Unknown Cuyahoga Cleveland Metro Park District* Hemlock coves, gorges, oak forests, ponds, Unknown swamps, beech-maple forest Cuyahoga Lake Abrams Open water marsh 20-30 Cuyahoga Tinkers Creek* National Natural Landmark 1,335 Cuyahoga North Chagrin Reservation* Good forest & spring flora 1,719 Cuyahoga Brecksville Reservation* Good forest 2,500 Geauga Ansells L5dges Beech, sweet birch, hemlock & mountain maple Unknown Geauga Fern Lake Glacial bog lake with floating margin 20 Geauga Holden Arboretum National Natural Landmark 2,100 Geauga Little Mountain Rainfall up to-50-60 inches, white pine & hemlock Unknown Geauga Parkman Gorge Gorge of Grand River, hemlocks & mountain maple Unknown Geauga Punderson Lake State Park* Emerald Lake, boggy margin 25 Geauga Raised Bog Raised iron bog on hillside I Geauga Stebbins Gulch Deep ravine of northern species Unknown Geauga White Pine Bog Forest Peat bog forest 50-100 Geauga Whittam Memorial Forest* Woodland rich in species of trees 90 Lake Cascade Falls Scenic falls on shale Unknown Lake Chapin State Forest* Mature red oak, cucumber, tulip, etc. 361 Lake Daykin Swamp3 Essentially virgin 23 Lake Hells Hollow* Undisturbed valley 500 36 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-27 (continued) Areas of Ecological Significance in Ohio. (1969) PSA County Name of- Area Importance Acres 4.3 Lak Indian Point* High flattopped point, essentially virgin 116 Lake Kimball Woods3 Second growth woods, rolling terrain 100 Lake Kitts Gully White pine, hemlock, Canada honeysuckle Unknown Lake Mentor Marsh* Virgin swamp forest, marsh & open water 560 Lake Mill Creek Hogback* Buffalo berry, hemlock, spring flora 172 Lake Paine Hollow Hardwood, pine, hemlock Unknown Lake Penitentiary Gulch Deep ravine, northern species Unknown Lake Taxus (Canada Yew) Habitat Steep slope with mature hemlock & stand of Taxus Unknown Lake Wickliffe High School* Large woods & swamp Unknown Lorain Chance Creek Hemlock,*beech-maple forest 68 Medina Hardscrabble Heronry Beech, maple, elm, white ash, & about 20 Unknown blue heron nests Medina Hinckley Reservation Pond, lowland forest, sandstone cliffs 1,890 Medina Spruce Run Probably best fern flora in county Unknown Portage Bird Bog Laborador tea, leather leaf, etc. 25 Portage Crystal Lake Glacial lake with jellyfish Unknown Portage Nelson-Kennedy Ledges* Azaleas, trillium, & sandstone formation 167 Portage Dollar Lake Tamarack-sphagnum bog lake Unknown Portage Mantua Swamp Rare orchids, Philadelphia lily, Castelleja, 140 azalea, shrubby cinquefoil Portage Beverly Woods3 Swamp & mixed hardwood forest 42 Portage Jennings Woods3 Wildflower habitat 72 Portage Frame Lake Bog3 Tamarack, shrubby cinquefoil, bayberry, buckthorn 28 Portage Triangle Lake Glacial bay, grass-of-parnassis Unknown Portage Eagle Creek2 Swamp forest & bog 270 Summit Cranberry Bog Sphagnum, cranberry, poison sumac Several Summit 532 Swamp Swamp with much open water Unknown Summit Furnace Run* Young valley, great variety of habitat 885 Summit Green Township Singer Lake, smaller ponds, marsh, bog, swamp 'Unknown Summit Knight Property About 14,000 bd ft/ acre of tulip, cucumber, Unknown red oak, etc. Summit Nimisila Bog Meadow Open meadows of sphagnum. shrubby cinquefoil, Several blazing star, fringed gentian, orchids Summit Sand Run Metro Park* Rugged terrain 987 Summit Stumpy Basin3 Old canal basin, marsh, mixed mesophytic forest 22 Summit Tamarack Swamps Beech-maple, oak forest, & hemlock 1,600 Summit Virginia Kendall Metro Park* Beech-maple on Sharon conglomerate formation 1,575 Publicly owned; all others are private except those with special reference marks as follows: 1Owned by Bowling Green State University 2owned by Nature Conservancy 3Owned by Kent State University TABLE 17-28 Areas of Ecological Significance in Pennsylvania (1970) PSA County Name of Area Importance Acres 4.4 Erie Elk Creek* Unique ravine with hemlock-hardwood forest 850 & beach at mouth of ravine Erie Presque Isle State Park 7.8 mile peninsula with marshes, beaches, 4,370 & unique ecology Erie Siegal Marsh* Unusual marsh & swamp ecosystem 1,303 Erie State Game Land No. 109 Wetland forest area 1,638 Area not currently in public ownership. TABLE 17-29 Areas of Ecological Significance in New York (1969) PSA County Name of Area Importance Acres 4.4 Chautauqua Canadaway Creek, Came Mgnt.Axea2 Heron rookery 2,180 Erie & Cattaraugus Zoar Valley2 Geologic features and unusual flora 3,534 Erie Springville Bog* Unusual flora 26 Niagara Niagara Power Dam & Geologic feature NIA Niagara Falls2&3 5.1 Allegany Hanging Bog, Came Mgnt.Area 2 Unusual flora, rare orchids 4,350 Allegany Moss Lake* Unusual flora 26 Present Status of Wildlife 37 TABLE 17-29 (continued) Areas of Ecological Significance in New York (1969) PSA County Name of Area Importance Acres 5.1 Genesee & Monroe Bergen Swamp* Massasauga rattler, marl bog, unusual flora 1,200 Genesee & Orleans Oak Orchard Complex2 Unusual flora & fauna 17,000 Livingston Rattlesnake Hill Game Kgnt.Area2 Timber rattlers 5,150 Livingston Danville/Woodville'j@ Unusual flora N/A Livingston Caledonia State Fish Hatchery2 First fish hatchery in U.S. N/A Livingston & Wyoming Letchworth State Park2 Geologic features & unusual flora 14,337 Monroe Kennedys Bog* Unusual flora, Canadian muskeg 5 Monroe Point at Hamlin Beach State Park2 Nesting area for bank swallows 1,113 Monroe Braddock Bay Marsh2 Marsh & ponds, waterfowl & furbearers --- Monroe Thousand-acre Swamp Waterfowl, furbearers, rattlesnakes, & unique 1,000 plant life Monroe Genesee Falls* Scenic value in Rochester --- Monroe Devils Nose* Waterfowl & geologic value 190 Orleans East of Hulberton along Unusual flora, bastard paw paw N/A Barge Cana12 Wyoming Warsaw Glen* Unusual flora, mountain saxifrage N/A 5.2 Cayuga & others Cayuga Lake* Geologic features 42,496 Cayuga & Seneca Montazuma Marshl Marsh habitat 6,175 Cayuga Wood Mill, Town of Scipio* Jeffersonia diphylZa, Twin leaf N/A Cayuga Duck Lake Bogs, Town of Conquest* Unusual flora N/A Cayuga Howlands Island State Waterfowl & furbearer value 4,900 Game Mgmt.Area2 Madison Chittenango Falls State Park2 Unusual flora 123 Oneida Fish Creek, Taberg* Unusual flora, Canadian primrose & butterwort N/A Oneida Rome Sand Plains* Geologic feature 3,200 Onondaga Cicero Swamp2 Unusual flora & fauna including Massasauga rattler 3,720 Onondaga Clark Reservation2 Unusual flora, Hart's tongue fern 228 Oswego Barrier Beaches2&* Gealogic features 5miles4 Oswego Salmon River Falls, Orwell* Unusual flora, Canadian primrose & mountain N/A saxifrage Oswego Deer Creek Marsh Waterfowl & furbearers, shore wetland --- Oswego Three Mile Bay State Game Fishery, waterfowl, & furbearers --- Mgmt.Area, includes Toad Harbor & Big Bay Creek2 Oswego Butterfly Marsh* Lake shore marshes, waterfowl & furbearers --- Oswego Teal Marsh, Oswego Harbor* Waterfowl & furbearers --- Oswego Peter Scott Swamp* Waterfowl & furbearer value --- Entire Area Finger Lakes* Unique group of fresh water lakes & marshes Oswego & Wayne Lake Ontario Barrier Beaches* Beach;s & associated wetlands --- Herkimer Moose River Plains, headwaters Wilderness area --- of Moose River2 Herkimer Fulton Chain of Lakes2 Herkimer Mud Pond, Jordanville* Unusual flora, rare orchids --- Herkimer Mountain Peaks 2000,+2&* Wayne Mud Pond, Town or Zurich* Unusual flora --- Wayne Zurich Swamp* Ususual flora 100 Wayne Chimney Bluffs* Geological features 3 miles4 Seneca Junius Ponds* Unusual flora & fauna, rare orchids, Bog --- or Muhlenberg's turtle Seneca & others Seneca Lake* Geologic features 42,688 Tompkins Fall Creek Gorge, Ithaca* Unusual flora N/A Tompkins Taughannock Falls State Park2 Unusual flora & geological features 794 Tompkins Connecticut Hill Game Mgmt.Area2 Unusual flora, coal skink 11,610 Yates Parish Glen, Naples* Heron rookery N/A 5.2 & Herkimer & St. Lawrence Adirondack Forest & Preserve2l* Wilderness, forest, & mountains 5.3 5.3 Jefferson Perch River Game Mgmt.Area2 Waterfowl, fishery, & furbearers values Jefferson Lakeview Marsh, includes Waterfowl, fishery, & furbearers values. --- Ponds & Beach2 Scenic area Jefferson Dexter Marsh2 Lakeshore marsh, waterfowl & furbearers Jefferson Eldorado Shore, includes Lakeshore marsh, waterfowl & furbearers --- Black Pond* Jefferson Indian River & Lakes* River & lake system, waterfowl, fish & furbearers --- 38 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-29 (continued) Areas of Ecological Significance in New York (1969) PSA County Name of Area Importance Acres 5.3 Jefferson Little Galloo Island* Geologic & scenic values --- Jefferson Goose Bay Islands* Geologic & scenic values --- Jefferson Goose Bay* Waterfowl significance --- Jefferson Wilson Bay Marsh* Waterfowl & wilderness --- Jefferson High Bluffs, Henderson area* Harbor & Point, waterfowl & fishery values --- Jefferson N.Y. State Great Lakes Sport & commercial fish Research & --- Fisheries Station2 Management Center Jefferson Lake Ontario Off-Shore islands* High value for fishing, shorebirds, and diving --- ducks. Includes one nesting colony of Double-crested Cormorant. Jefferson 1,000 Island Complex* Geologic features Jefferson Gull Island* Ring-billed Gull rookery --- Jefferson Galloo Island* Herring Gull rookery 5,000 Jefferson Tug Hill Plateau* Wilderness --- Jefferson Limestone Bluffs, Henderson Hbr.* Geologic features 2 miles4 St. Lawrence Wilson Hill Wildlife Mgmt. Area2 Waterfowl --- St. Lawrence Chippewa Bay* Waterfowl & fishery values --- St. Lawrence Mountain Peaks 2000,+2&* --- St. Lawrence Upper & Lower Lakes2 Waterfowl & fishery values --- St. Lawrence Fish Creek, Game Mgmt.Area2 Waterfowl, fishery, & furbearers --- 4.4, St. Lawrence Erie Barge Canal2 Connecting waterway between Great Lakes and --- 5.1 & Hudson River system. Recreation, fishin 5.2 hunting, allows interchange of aquatic Igiie. 1US Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife ownership. 2New York State Agencies ownership. 3New York State Power Authority ownership. 4Length of shoreline. Private ownership. 2.2.2 Great Lakes Wetlands and Waterfowl conspicuous feature, are included in the definition, but the permanent waters of streams, reservoirs, and deep lakes are not included. 2.2.2.1 Introduction This definition works well for the inland wetlands, but presents a confused picture Although waterfowl, fish, and other forms Of along the shores of the Great Lakes. Shoal wildlife are not restricted to political bound- area and shoreline marshes overlap, because aries, this discussion will concentrate on the shoals include both marshes and adjacent United States portion of the Great Lakes and shallow open water. For the purpose of this their basins. There are two major categories of appendix we will consider shoal areas as wet- water in the Great Lakes: the open waters of lands. The eight wetland types found in the the Lakes with their associated shoreline Great Lakes Basin are defined in the Glossary. marshes and shoal areas, and inland open waters and associated marshes in the Basin's drainage area. 2.2.2.3 Wildlife and Great Lakes Wetlands The open water of the Lakes produces mil- lions of pounds of fish and is also important to 2.2.2.2 Defining Wetlands many species of waterfowl. Migrating and wintering waterfowl use the open waters as It is necessary to understand the term "wet- resting areas. Large "rafts" of ducks And lands." The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in geese have been observed many miles from its Circular 39 published in 1956 describes the land. nature of wetlands: Although many species of waterfowl use the The term "wetlands" as used in this report and in open water, its overall value is low when com- the wildlife field generally refers to lowlands covered pared to the shoal and marsh areas along the with shallow and sometimes temporary or intermit- lakeshores. While the open water is used tent waters. They are referred to by such names as marshes, swamps, bogs, wet meadows, potholes, primarily as a resting area, the shoals and sloughs, and river over-flow lands. Shallow lakes marshes are used for resting, nesting, and and ponds, usually with emergent vegetation as a (continued on page 54) Present Status of Wildlife 39 ............. ........................ ............. r ...... ................. ......... .*:72,4170 .. .................. .. ................... ...... ....... .......... . ...... ..... ..... ............ ........ ..... .............. .. ............ : .::::::: , ....................... COO15 .... ............. :::::::, * , , - ................ ....... .............. I...... .... LAKE ......... ..... . ........ ......I .... .............. ......... . ...... .......... ............. ........... .......... .............. .......... .............. 0 .......... . .......... ...... * 106,090 024,000 S ell APOSTLE ISLANDS 316,780 S 0431,600 ST. LOUIS Duluth 49,590 ...... 1,000 0 540 CARLTON 0@ (1) z U' 0<0 40 M, Z (-) .............. WISCH Ln 4 32,960 2 0 240 Co 0 4040 r)nllrl AS RAYFIELD ...... 10,970 14,240 06,560 06300 AND LEGEND 1,240 NATIONAL FOREST LAND STATE FOREST LAND SCALE IN MILES .............. .............. .............. ........... ................ .................. ......... ...................... . ................. 0 STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND 0 COUNTY FOREST LAND 0 5 10 15 20 25 STATE PARK LAND FIGURE 17-4 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 1.1 as of 1970 40 Appendix 17 KEWEENAW ISLE ROYALE 3,000 KEWEENAW COUNTY 42,000 LAKE SUPERIOR 65,000' ........... .... .. .... ............................... ..... 0, ......... :,: ... ... ::1.44,380 18,050 ....... ... .. .......... ..... . ........... 72,000 ..:-::::-1H0IJGHT0N-' BARAGA ..................... 9i@!Q: :: : :, E*)*N';FC*NAGE)N- ............... 269,000 @!c 11/a ....... MARQUETTE 101,000 sco 4tv:::: ALGER LAKE SUPERIOR WHITEFISH SAY ..... ..... ......... ....... 287,000 ::::217,:900 .... 22SPOO oy,:::::: ............... : ...... L CE ::::: ....... .... h: 6,4PREWA DRUMMOND 1. LEGEND CALE IN MILES 7I_ NATIONAL FOREST LAND mms, 0 5 10 15 20 25 STATE FOREST LAND "'@/ILE RO11 @DRU@-OND I FIGURE 17-5 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 1.2 as of 1970 Present Status of Wildlife 41 ....... IRON 91,000 A41C DICKINSON 219 000 S//V .......... :.0: . . : : : : : '. :: : : .'rc).' MENOMINEE ........... .......... ........... 0 00 T10 ............ ... F6 RE CE MARINETTE 07,580 2,060 ...... m m v ASHINGTON ISLAND 32,190 ........... .............. 171 7 0 LANGLADE MENOMINEE 2,T30 DOOR 0 12,460 0 170 SHAWANO OCONTO 02,610 KEWAUNEE o960 OUTAGAMIE 03,180 Green Bay 4* 0 3,120 0980 S 1,220 BROWN 44 WAUPACA MANITOWOC SCALE IN MILES CALUMET pm@ 0-4 * 2,610 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 7,050 0 7,130 IVAUSHARA C3 3,950 03,17 1 LEGEND WINNEBAGO I FO D DU LAC SHEBOYGAN NATIONAL FOREST LAND STATE FOREST LAND IJ 6, 300 016,350 * 91510 12,470 0 STATE PUBLIC HUNTINGAREA LAND MARQU GREEN LAKE 0 7,790 10 1,100 m COUNTY PARK LAND M 6,500 Cm STATE RECREATION AREA LAND STATE PARK LAND FIGURE 17-6 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.1 as of 1970 42 Appendix 17 WASHINGTON OZAUKEE 4 3,01o CI 1, too 0 7,580 LEGEND STATE FOREST LAND - 0 STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND Milwaukee SCALE IN MILES L 7,220 5 10 15 20 0. 3,560 MILWAUKEE South Milwaukee WAUKESHA WALWORTH 0 2,320 4,020 Racine 0 1,480 RACINE A4 Kenosha 11 4,580 WISCONSIN KENOSHA ILLINOIS Waukegan 7r- 0 3,200 McHENRY LAKE KANE F COOK Chicago 7- MICHIGAN DU PAGE INDIANA Aurora V- Joliet OP 11 4,500 LA POR TE O:z z 1< 13 3,200 :i 0 WILL PORTER JWA 0 A' RTH Lw 02 4' _O 0 1 .480 -@, /MICH IGAN 0 1,00 0 2,300 L LAKE STARK FIGURE 17-7 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.2 as of 1970 Present Status of Wildlife 43 1,400 MONTCALM o 21,000 KENT c3 8,400 OTTAWA - CLINTON SHIAWASSEE *R;and o 3,300 pids Z,560 0 1,900 s 10 IA ALLEGAN BARRY Lansing 10 0 4,100 o 43,400 0 18,200 EATON INGHAM CALHOUN JACKSON VAN BUREN KALAMAZOO Kalam 3zoo Jackson 1 0 EJ 2, 700 2,300 CASS ST. JOSEPH BRANCH I HILLSDALE 0 3,100 0 2,100 o 2,400 BERRIEN MICHIGAN INDIANA u6c" MICHIGAN -T`TE OHIO 1%0.,th 0 9,100 Bend LAGRANGE NOBLE ELKHART MARSHALL LEGEND SCALE IN MILES 2 NATIONAL FORESTLAND 0 5 10 15 20 ING SO JA@CKN a@ 0 STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND FIGURE 17-8 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.3 as of 1970 44 Appendix 17 SCHOOLCRAFT 4 285,000 00. 4 202,000 MACI@@Ag .... ... ... ...... .7 ... 24t 5 Mackinac Island is a c Island -0 'to D Beaver Island 0 \(,t 41 T5,000 \,_ EMMET 0 22,300 * 30,000 6::) 30 North Manitou Island CHARLEVOIX South Manitou Island,3 S 4 41,000 ANTRIM@ 11 OW L ELANALI BENZIE El 400 0 700 * 65,000 138,000 60,000 c::Z:) 640 GRAND TRAVERSE ..=KA 23) 38,000 0 3, 0 ......... v ............... 88,000 4 195,000 0 11,800 o 3,400 6:D 40 Manistee IYIANI@T@fF: ............. C@FORD ROSCOMMON LEGEND (::::D NATIONAL FOREST LAND 0 30 an STATE FOREST LAND 16,000 0 STATE PuaLIC HUNTING AREA LAND .. ........ 0 9,800 11 500 t'Q'3* ;'9' It' 01 3,000 ....... .. MECOSTA 066A;14A, .... 2,490 NEWAY 0 6,600 SCALE IN MILES MljSKi66i:: t2l IM 20 25 FIGURE 17-9 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 2.4 as of 1970 Present Status of Wildlife 45 CHIPPEWA MACKINAC DRUMMOND oil ISLAND Straits of M@ki- CD 30 180, 000 4 80,000 CHEBOYGAN PRESQUE ISLE Michi an 240 Thmder Bay 91,000 4 134,000 42,000 OTSEGO MONTMORENCY ALPENA 164,000 * 54,COO 8,000 10.'4'1:50:: ... ... .. ...... .............. CRAWFORD,::::::::* OSCODA ................ ALCO .......... 475,000 LEGEND ... NATIONAL FOREST LAND OGEMAW 24,000 STATE FOREST LAND ARENAC STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LA140 28,000 0 100 SAGINAW SAY F4 SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 17-10 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 3.1 as of 1970 46 Appendix 17 LAKE HURON A 48,000 85,000 CLARE GLADWIN 0 SAGINAW SAY o 2,650 HURON 2,700 1,000 rX., City ISAB LLA MIDLAND BAY -F- ,a /@ .gmaw 27,300 4 37, 000 0 20,800 TUSCOLA .0 5,900 GRATIOT SAGINAW Mount Morris Flint 0 91180 -APEER GENESEE co 10 0 40 LEGEND NATIONAL FOREST LAND SCALE IN MILES L----- znm=@ W S.Y S -IN. Z@@ H ?'70 -ty Y @B'A STATE FOREST LAND 0 5 10 15 20 0 STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND FIGURE 17-11 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 3.2 as of 1970 Present Status of Wildlife 47 71 m 0 LEGEND S z 0 STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND 0 7,710 SANILAC SCALE IN MILES J@7 P---" 10 15 0 7,400 ST. CLAIR OAKLAND MACOMB LIVINGSTON 0 14,440 0 18,090 o 210 Pontiac WAYN E LAKE ST. CLAIR Ann Arbor [1 9,810 0 250 WASHTENAW 0 500 Ot 4,290 LENAWEE MICHI ROE OHIO FIGURE 17-12 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.1 as of 1970 48 Appendix 17 N Wj'!Q E LAKE ERIE MICHIGAN 0 O'ri 10 LUCAS Toledo 0 150 3,070 OTTAWA DE KALB WILLIAMS FULTON D 560 0 21 700 Sandwky Bay IANCE 0 2,510 <1 4 0 SANDUSKY ERIE -Z-L0 < -1 0 WOOD zi 11 1,680 PUTNAM Findlay 4 'F.,l Wayne PAULDING SENECA - HURON ALLEN VAN WEI@T CIRAWFORD ALL IN HANCOCK 8,500 ADAMS 0 360 L L,-a WYANDOT MERCER AUGLAIZE LEGEND SCALE IN MILES 4 STATE FOREST LAND 10 15 20 25 0 STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND Bay U r"'j 0 '50 L IA -S F I W' @DELF ANIE 0 420 @@AILE C3 S' 0 L" LWYAND.T FIGURE 17-13 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subareai.2 as of 1970 Present Status of Wildlife 49 S m z z 0 0 X -< 17, z LAKE 0 730 ASHTABULA Lorain 0 1,370 GEAUGA CUYAHOGA 0 690 LORAIN kron E) 600 C3 4,000 MEDINA PORTAGE 0 SUMMIT LEGEND 0 STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND FIGURE 17-14 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.3 as of 1970 50 Appendix 17 LAKE ONTARIO NIAGARA 0 3,400 Niagara Falls Grand Island AL s Buffalo OP.- 500 1,080 RIE V 4- Presque Isle z 15,000 27, 100 <IX > 0 -J:>- 0 2,200 0 5,500 Erie >-13: * 59,960 uj z z CHAUTAUQUA NEWYORK CATTARAUGUS L Uj 20 0 11,700 a. PENNSYLVANIA :E z 0 ERIE LEGEND SCALE IN MILES STATE FOREST LAND L 0 STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND 15 20 STATE PARK LAND FIGURE 17-15 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 4.4 as of 1970 Present Status of Wildlife 51 L A K E 0 N T A R 1 0 Rochester C3 150 ORLEANS Ils ?,280 0 5,700 MONROE GENESEE 2,600 C@, f@, @,Q 0 4,700 * 14,340 13 2,500 N -ZAL@: WYOMING ALLEGANY 42,100 0 6,000 LEGEND NEWYORK PENNSYLVANIA STATE FOREST LAND SCALE IN MILES STATE PARK LAND Fm-@ - -- 0 ST@TE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND 0 5 10 15 77Roche@r FIGURE 17-16 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 5.1 as of 1970 52 Appendix 17 A# E S OSWEGO 0 0 is, 200 17,700 Rome Z' Utica ONTARIO 0 6,000 Syracu 0 35,300 o 4,300 ONONDAGA HERKIMER L 2,100 23,500 ONEIDA 0 1,400 [3 7,500 0 3,600 YATES 3,600 MADISON 0 3,200 4 1,900 0 200 CAYUGA - 4-00 SEIWE 3-510 9750 4' 19,000 0 6,200 16,500 C@7 5 20 0 5,600 TOMPKINS SCHUYLER LEGEND <0 NATIONAL FOREST LAND SCALE IN MILES 4 STATE FOREST LAND 0 5 10 15 20 0 STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND FIGURE 17-17 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 5.2 as of 1970 Present Status of Wildlife 53 4,500 0 16,700 * 4,600 0. -@o 12,200 0 15,800 00 * 3,600 ST. LAWRENCE LAKE 64,700 ONTARIO JEFFERSON [3 5,000 V LEGEND 4 STATE FOREST LAND SCALE IN MILES 0 STATE PUBLIC HUNTING AREA LAND 15 20 0 STATE PARK LAND FIGURE 17-18 Publicly Owned Lands Open to Hunting in Planning Subarea 5.3 as of 1970 54 Appendix 17 feeding. These shore areas are also some of the TABLE 17-30 Great Lakes and Connecting most important waterfowl hunting areas. The Waterways Shoal Acreages (1970)1 Great Lakes and connecting waterways have Important to a total of 610,150 acres of shoal areas, of which Total Fish and 491,156 acres are considered important to Zone by State Shoal Wildlife wildlife (Table 17-30). Shoreline shoals and wetlands are influ- St. Lawrence River 17,939 17,939 enced by the fluctuating water levels of the New York Great Lakes. With a steep gradient relatively Lake Ontario few acres of shoreline may be affected, but a New York 28,290 14,290 fluctuation of as little as six inches may affect Niagara River thousands of acres of wetlands where the gra- New York 2,420 2,420 dient is low. Shallow water is one of the prime require- Lake Erie ments for the production and maintenance of New York 6,420 waterfowl populations as well as many other Pennsylvania 5,970 forms of animal life. It is used as spawning Ohio 61,265 grounds by many Great Lakes fishes. The con- Michigan 14,170 trol of water depths through the use of dikes Total 87,825 67,825 and levees with controlled outlet structures is Detroit River a major waterfowl management technique. Michigan 4,519 4,519 Large acreages of these diked-off, controlled wetlands have been established around the Lake St. Clair and shoreline of Saginaw Bay on Lake Michigan St. Clair River and on the western end of the shoreline of Michigan 37,447 37,447 Lake Erie. Lake Huron Because water-level fluctuations bring Michigan 160,945 140,945 about changes in aquatic plant communities, Lake Michigan control over these fluctuations is necessary to Michigan 107,234 maintain optimum conditions for wildlife over Wisconsin 63,388 an extended period of time. It is probably im- Illinois 2,710 possible to regulate the Lakes'water levels to Indiana 2,100 assure ideal conditions for waterfowl and fur- Total 77-5,432 140,432 bearers, but if the levels could be regulated within specified limits, successful long-term St. Marys River control over marsh water levels through erec- Michigan 34,040 34,040 tion of structures separating the marshes Lake Superior from the Lakes is possible. Michigan 37,266 Wisconsin 19,708 Minnesota 4,325 2.2.2.4 Waterfowl Use Patterns Total 61,299 31,299 Although the Great Lak .es Basin cannot BASIN TOTAL 610,156 491,156 compare in importance to the prairie-pothole 1Shoal acreages include all Great Lakes country of the Dakotas and the western prov- waters six feet and under in depth inces of Canada for waterfowl production, the Basin may be of greater importance to waterfowl than is generally acknowledged. It figures as follows: diving ducks, Figure 17-19; is an important link in waterfowl migration dabbling ducks, Figure 17-20; Canada geese, between Canada and the southern United Figure 17-21; and Blue-Snow geese, Figure States. At least three million waterfowl mi- 17-22. grate into or through the Basin annually. Div- National wildlife refuges play an important ers and some dabblers (puddle ducks) mi- role in providing feeding and resting habitat grate from west to east across the Great Lakes to these migrating waterfowl. These refuges Region, while the rest of the dabblers and the are discussed in Subsection 2.2.2.5. majority of geese move in a north-south pat- The role of the Great Lakes Basin in the tern across the Basin. The migration patterns production of waterfowl is also important. of four categories of waterfowl are shown in Both the Great Lakes coastal marshes and the Present Status of Wildlife 55 inland wetlands furnish significant amounts larger interior marshes. The sandhill crane of nesting habitat, as well as migration resting has established a breeding population in the areas. Figures 17-23 through 17-27 show the Grand River basin. coastal zone and inland areas of greatest The open waters of Saginaw Bay are used value to waterfowl. Some of these production, extensively by all forms of migrating water- migration, and wintering areas are listed be- fowl, including ducks, geese, and swans. The low. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1) The east-central portion of Wisconsin in manages approximately 20,000 acres of wet- Planning Subarea 2.1 contains valuable wet- lands on or near Saginaw Bay, and the Bureau lands along the Fox and Wolf Rivers, and of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife manages Lakes Winnebago, Poygan, and Butte Des nearly 9,000 acres of wetlands in the Shiawas- Morts.-The area is especially important to mi- see National Wildlife Refuge, just south of grating waterfowl, but some nesting does oc- Saginaw Bay. Both areas are extremely im- cur. The west shore of Green Bay has many portant for migrating waterfowl, and portions productive wetland areas located near the of the areas are used for nesting and winter- mouths of the Big and Little Suamico, Pen- ing. Industrial and urban development is a saukee, Oconto, and Peshtigo Rivers. The na- continual threat to the wetlands around tionally known Horicon National Wildlife Ref- Saginaw Bay. uge in east-central Wisconsin is just outside (7) The waterways which connect Lake of the planning subarea. Huron with Lake Erie are important to water- '(2) Southeastern Wisconsin in Planning fowl. The St. Clair River is used by migrating Subarea 2.2 in the Lake Michigan. basin is an waterfowl. Lake St. Clair is nationally known important dabbler nesting area. for its high use by migrating waterfowl from (3) The Upper Peninsula of Michigan from both the Mississippi and Atlantic nyways and Munising eastward is an important breeding is one of the most important stops in the and nesting ground for the ring-necked duck United States for canvasbacks and redheads. as well as several species of dabblers and the The St. Clair flats is an area of open water and Canada goose. cattails, which in addition to migration use (4) The western part of the Upper Penin- offers excellent nesting sites for both dabbling sula from Munising west has scattered but and diving ducks. The State of Michigan and significant acreages of good waterfowl pro- the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife duction habitat for the same species as those manage approximately 10,000 acres of this in the eastern portion. wetland. The Detroit River, on which cutter (5) The upper half of the Lower Peninsula races were staged during the early 1900s, is of Michigan has scattered but significant now an important wintering area for ducks acreages of good waterfowl production because the United States side of the river no habitat. One area, Grand Traverse Bay, longer freezes. Waterfowl wintering here are should be noted because of its rather unusual under constant threat of death from these populations of mute swans. The swans use this heat- and oil-polluted waters. Pollution caused area mainly as a migration stop with some the deaths of approximately 10,000 ducks in nesting and wintering on the tributary rivers 1948. Another 1,000 were killed in 1960 and of the bay. The Thunder Bay area has impor- 1964. Pointe Mouillee, near the mouth of the tant wetlands for waterfowl production and Detroit River, contains a 2,600-acre wetlands migration. The State of Michigan manages area managed by the Michigan Department of approximately 1,400 acres of these wetlands Natural Resources. for waterfowl use. (8) The marshes in Planning Subarea 4.2 at (6) The southern half of the Lower Penin- the western end of Lake Erie are well known sula has some of the best waterfowl pro- for their excellent waterfowl hunting. This duction areas in Michigan. The Grand River marsh area, extending from Sandusky to To- basin in Planning Subarea 2.3 and the area ledo, Ohio, contains approximately 30,000 inland from Saginaw Bay in Planning Sub- acres. State and Federal ownership approxi- area3.2 are outstanding waterfowl production mates 13,000 acres of these wetlands and pri- zones. Wood ducks and mallards nest vate duck clubs control several thousand addi- throughout this zone. The giant Canada tional acres. These marshes offer excellent goose, Branta canadensis maxima, nests gen- resting areas for migrating waterfowl and pro- erally throughout this region and winters vide nesting areas for giant Canada geese, here in significant numbers. The blue-winged mallards, black ducks, blue-winged teal, wood teal nests in the coastal marshes and the (continued on page 66) LEGEND DIVING DUCK ............ ............ ESTIMATED NUM US ING A CORRI D .. ......... MINNESOTA 251,000 76,000 .......... M3 26,000 Duluth N- ........... STATUTE @ULES NrA 10 =:Z @40w Mic ch ........... ........... LAKE UR SIN . ............. ... ......... ...... ... ... ................. .. I ... ....... ... ....... ... .... ........... ........... . .......... NEW YO K ILI' *w Chic V MKHPGAN ILLINOIS I N D I A N A 0 H FIGURE17-19 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Diving Ducks (Adapted from Bellerose Waterfowl Migrati LEGEND DABBLING DUCKS ESTIMATED NUMBER USING A CORRIDOR- ID V- s MINNESOTA OiA 3 101,000 LAKE SUPERIOR 31,000- K Duluth ONTARIO 2@ STATUTE MILES MICH[ A 2, "Z C, WISCONSI LAKE@IJRON HIGAN Buffalo NEW YON k- wa ILLI 3k IN DIAN FIGURE17-20 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Dabbling Ducks (Adapted from Bellerose WaterfowlMigrat LEGEND CANADA GEESE EST IMATED NUMBER USING A CORRI DOP: 75 100 - 150 tA MINNESOTA 25, IOC - 75 ERIOR L 5,100 25 tA KE _VIN IN SIN muCHIGAN X f .11 1 OkN @tCHIGA@ m INOIANA z ILLINOIS 0 H 10 I ",A z1x FIGURE17-21 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Canada Geese (Adapted from Bellerose Waterfowl Mi LEGEND: BLUE AND SNOW HEAVY DEI", IS I- LIGHTER D MINNESOTA rA zz LAKE RIOR ARIO STATUTE MILES 20 0 40 60 80 100 NI ICHI F%@co V WISCL) RO .... ....... iIGAN ONTARIO LAKE CA ADA Q N- R-, WIS NEW YORK NEW YORK L - - - - - - -- M 101tGAN I NA b-H-TO e7 Is O@y z IN D I A N A z 0 H 1 0 so z FIGURE 17-22 Great Lakes Fall Migration Corridors of Blue and Snow Geese (Adapted from Bellerose Waterfowl 1968) MINN-TA CANADA Migration and/or wintering _7 2 1 1 YORI Nesting ond migration @..D-A VICINITY MAP OFTHE DRAINAGE BASINS OF THE GREAT LAKES R 0 0 N T A M MINNESOTA 1.2 M I C H I G A N WISCONSIN SCALE IN MILES =17--p=4 0 10 20 30 4U 50 Present Status of Wildlife 61 CAN- Migration and/or wintering .-..N Nesting and migration 5 N-ORK .,L.No. N"L,-" VICINITY MAP ...... ..... 2.4 C 0 N S I N M I C H I G A N LLJ 2.3 2.2 ILLINOIS oHlo FIGURE 17-24 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 2 62 Appendix 17 1-GRK 'r-A o- VICINITY MAP 0 N T A R 1 0 0 % 00 3.1 L A, K E MICHIGAN H U 0 0 N SIS Migration ond orwintering Nesting and migration CM- FIGURE 17-25 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 3 s 0 N T -A R 1 0 4.1 MICHIGAN m NEW YORK .......... 4.4 . ........... PENNSYLVANIA ............ @.o - 4.2 _Z3 518 0 H 1 0 MIMNE- 2 ........ Migration and orwintering Nesting and migration vicl 64 Appendix 17 (D w1wokv, 5 2 NEI YORI 111.1o's VICINITY MAP 0 N T A R 1 0 5.3 CA1- L A K E ONTARIO 5.2 Y 0 R K 5.1 Migration and or wintering Nesting and migration FIGURE 17-27 Primary Waterfowl Use Area, Plan Area 5 1 NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 1. HURON IS. 2. HORICON 3. GRAVEL IS. 4. GREEN BAY IS. 00 5. SENEY 6. MICHIGAN IS 7. SHIAWASSEE 8LAKE ST. CLAIR 9WYANDOTTE MINNESOTA 10 CEDAR POINT 11 OTTAWA LAKE SUPERIOR 12 WEST SISTER ISLAND 13 IROQUOIS 14 MONTEZUMA ONTARIO sl-U ."Ls x 0 40 bO A( MICHIGAN bc@ 4 WISCONSIN LAKE@URON B.y an IT / ONTARI m T MICHIGAN J,AKE SA '@Dl 2 SIAT NEW YORK ILLINOIS @ORK 9 f, NEW - Y. L mICHIGAN ICHICA D 12 ILLINOIS INDIANA z giz 315 I N D I A N A 0 H 10 zig 66 Appendix 17 ducks, and pintails. The open waters of west- waterfowl and vary in size from the two-acre ern Lake Erie, especially around the islands, Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge to the provide resting areas for ducks and geese dur- 95,500-acre Seney National Wildlife Refuge. ing spring and fall migrations. Most of these refuges are also used as breed- (9) In the Pennsylvania portion of Plan- ing and nesting areas for some waterfowl and ning Subarea 4.4, Presque Isle is the only area many other species of wildlife, including fur- that has significant waterfowl use. bearers, songbirds, forest and farm game, and (10) The eastern end of Lake Erie in New reptiles and amphibians. Refuges are not only York in Planning Subarea 4.4 (including the important to animals, but also provide protec- Niagara River) is an important concentration tion for many types of plant life. area for spring and fall migrations of ducks, Recreational use of these refuges is not lim- geese, and whistling swans. The Niagara ited to nonconsumptive use (nature study, River has become noted recently as a winter- photography, picnicking, etc.), but includes ing area for canvasbacks and scaup. consumptive use (fishing and hunting) on cer- (11) The 19,000-acre State and Federally tain refuges in designated areas at specific developed area 'on the Niagara-Orleans- times. Many refuges have visitor-interpretive Genesee County borders, in Planning Sub- centers for the general public, and many pro- areas 4.4 and 5.1is a stopping-off place for as vide self-guiding automobile tours and walk- many as 100,000 Canada geese during spring ing trails. Most recreational visits to these ref- migration. Many ducks and some geese also uges are for the purpose of observing wildlife. breed in this wetland complex. Visitations usually peak during the spring and (12) One area of valuable New York wet- fall migration periods. Some refuges receive lands is the Finger Lakes region, Planning most of their visitations during the summer Subarea 5.2. Small marshes around and be- months by families on vacation. tween the lakes offer valuable nesting National wildlife refuges in the Great habitat for waterfowl. The Montezuma Na- Lakes Basin are listed in Table 17-31. These tional Wildlife Refuge, a 6,000-acre wildlife refuges are located on the primary migration area located at the north end of Cayuga Lake, routes and are situated in 9 of the 15 Great is used by thousands of ducks and geese dur- Lakes Basin planning subareas. ing migration and some use the refuge for Horicon National Wildlife Refuge is located nesting. outside of the Great Lakes drainage basin but (13) Another area of high waterfowl value is partially in Planning Subarea 2.1. This ref- in New York includes the lowlands and uge is noted for its fall and spring concentra- marshes along the eastern end of Lake On- tions of migrating waterfowl, when as many as tario and the St. Lawrence River in Planning 150,000 geese may be present at one time. Two Subareas 5.2 and 5.3. This area is important small refuges, Gravel Island and Green Bay, both for the harvest and production of many are administered from Horicon and are used species of dabbling and diving ducks. A sig- by herons, gulls, Caspian terns, and water- nificant acreage of undeveloped, privately fowl. owned wetlands with a high wildlife en- Seney National Wildlife Refuge, located in hancement potential and a potential for public the Great Manistique Swamp in Michigan's acquisition exist along the St. Lawrence Plain. Upper Peninsula, is the Basin's largest ref- uge. Huron National Wildlife Refuge, which is administered from Seney, consists of five 2.2.2.5 National Wildlife Refuges islands along the south shore of Lake Superior in Marquette County. These five islands are In 1903 President Theodore Roosevelt set being considered for wilderness status. aside Pelican Island on the east coast of Species found on these islands include cor- Florida to protect a nesting colony of pelicans morants, gulls, terns, and waterfowl. and herons. This was the first national Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge, noted wildlife refuge in a system that now includes for its high numbers of whistling swans, is 330 refuges totaling 30 million acres. The located approximately 30 miles south of Great Lakes Basin contains approximately Saginaw Bay. Shiawassee also administers 139,000 acres of National Wildlife Refuge Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge, a 304- lands managed primarily for waterfowl (Fig- acre island and water area in the Detroit ure 17-28). River, which is used extensively by migrating Refuges in the Great Lakes Basin are man- diving ducks. Michigan Islands National aged basically as stopover areas for migrating Wildlife Refuge, consisting of three islands in Present Status of Wildlife 67 TABLE 17-31 Great Lakes Basin National Wildlife Refuges Acres of Habitat Open PSA Refuge Location Primary Use Upland Water Marsh Total 1.2 Huron Marquette, Mich. Cormorants, gulls, terns ------ ------ ------ 147 2.1 Horicon Fond du lac, Dodge, Wis. Waterfowl 7,165 7,325 6,346 20,836 2.1 Gravel Island Door, Wis. Herons, gulls, ------ ------ ------ 29 Green Bay Caspian terns 2.4 Seney Schoolcraft, Mich. Waterfowl 27,327 7,243 60,885 95,455 2.4 Michigan Island Charlevoix, Mich. Herons, gulls, terns ------ ------ ------ 363 3.1 Alpena, Mich. 3.2 Shiawassee Saginaw, Mich. Waterfowl 7,486 192 1,179 8,857 4.1 Lake St. Clair St. Clair, Mich. Waterfowl ------ ------ ------ 4,200 4.1 Wyandotte Wayne, Mich. Diving ducks ------ ------ ------ 304 4.2 Cedar Point Lucas, Ohio Waterfowl 100 445 1,700 2,245 4.2 Ottawa Lucas, Ottawa, Ohio Waterfowl 2,403 540 2@426 5,369 4.2 West Sister Is. Ottawa, Ohio Heron rookery ------ ------ ------ 82 5.1 Iroquois Genesee, Orleans, N.Y. Waterfowl 3,649 ------ 7,134 10,783 5.2 Montezuma Seneca, N.Y. Waterfowl 702 ------ 5,340 6,042 TABLE 17-32 National Wildlife Refuges in the Great Lakes Basin-Waterfowl and Public Use (1970) Waterfowl Use Days Public Use Days Whistling Non- Refuge Ducks Geese Swans Coots Hunting Fishing Consump. Total Horicon 1,238,755 12,121,201 6,875 1,033,550 2,745 6,375 289,392 298,512 Seney 293,735 204,963 84 615 5,569 7,995 77,686 91,249 Shiawassee 5,523,735 3,311,203 74,466 69,818 9,623 ----- 15,811 25,434 Cedar Point 736,016 26,532 11,634 201,497 ----- ----- ------- ------- Ottawa 4,708,222 1,183,380 16,224 535,064 ----- ----- ------- 3,642 Iroquois 1,069,268 915,343 851 31,394 ----- ----- ------- 177,636 Montezuma 2,326,788 1,939,803 330 239,377 ----- ----- ------- 41,000 1No data are available for the following areas: Huron, Gravel Island, Green Bay, Michigan Islands, Lake St. Clair, Wyandotte, and West Sister Island Lake Huron and Lake Michigan, is adminis- are primary migration stops for waterfowl in tered from Shiawassee and is used by herons, the Atlantic flyway. Montezuma, located in gulls, and terns. A large area in Lake St. Clair, the Finger Lakes region, receives more consisting of 4,200 acres of shallow water and waterfowl-use days, but Iroquois, northeast of marsh habitat, serves as a refuge and is posted Buffalo, provides more people-use days (Table during the waterfowl season to provide rest- 17-32). ing and feeding areas for large concentrations of canvasbacks, redheads, scaup, and black ducks. This area is also administered from 2.2.2.6 Status of Wetlands Shiawassee. Some of the best remaining waterfowl Wetlands are the single most important habitat in the Lake Erie marshes is included type of wildlife habitat in the Great Lakes Ba- in the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge. Ot- sin. Their preservation is important for two tawa, containing more than 5,000 acres, also reasons: first, they are considered to be the administers the 2,245-acre Cedar Point Na- most productive of all types of wildlife habitat; tional Wildlife Refuge and the West Sister Is- and second, they are the most vulnerable to land National Wildlife Refuge. West Sister Is- the urban growth since they can be drained, land supports a large blackcrowned night diked, filled, or dredged and converted to other heron rookery and is being considered for wil- types of land or water use. Natural causes are derness status. also responsible for degradation and loss of Iroquois and Montezuma National Wildlife wetlands. Erosion by wind and water has Refuges, located in the Lake Ontario basin, caused great changes in Great Lakes coastal 68 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-33 Acres of Great Lakes Basin Coastal Wetlands of Significant Value to Fish And Wildlife (1970) PSA Reach and State Acres PSA Reach and State Acres Lake Ontario Lake Huron (continued) 4.4 Niagara River outlet to Orleans-Monroe None 3.2 Sanganing River to Linwood--Mich. 4,885 county line--N.Y. Kawkawlin River outlet--Mich. 170 5.1 Orleans-Monroe County line to Rochester 2,890 Bay City to Point Aux Barques--Kich. --N.Y. Point Aux Barques to Port Hope--Mich. 225 Hardwood Point to Harbor Beach--Mich. 440 5.2 Monroe-Wayne County line to Sterling 2,670 Harbor Beach to Forestville--Mich. 110 Creek outlet--N.Y. Total 34,475 South Pond and Deer Creek Marsh to 10,635 4.1 Forestville to Port Huron--Mich. None Sandy Creek outlet--N.Y. Total 13,305 TOTAL--Lake Huron 49,190 5.3 Stony Creek outlet to Wilson Bay--N.Y. 4,311 Lake Superior Black River Bay to Wilson Bay--N.Y. 2,100 Total 6,411 1.1 North Shore--Minn. None TOTAL--Lake Ontario 20,506 Superior to west boundary of Red Cliff 2,430 Indian Reservation--Wis. Lake Michigan West boundary of Red Cliff Indian Reser- 11,820 vation to Mich. State Line--Wis. 2.1 Menominee County Line to Menominee--Mich. 622 Total 14,i-5-0 Marinette to Suamico--Wis. 8,350 1.2 Copper Harbor to Point Abbaye--Mich. 1,255 Suamico to Point Sable--Wis. 4,380 Total 13,352 Keeweenaw Waterway--Mich. 2,730 Point Abbaye to Au Train River--Mich. 550 2.2 Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana None Au Train River to Whitefish Point--Mich. 1.265 2.3 South Haven to Muskegon--Mich. 2,827 Total 5,800 2.4 Muskegon to Ludington--Mich. 2,827 TOTAL--Lake Superior 20,050 Ludington to Empire--Mich. 3,370 Lake Erie Empire to Mackinac Bridge--Mich. 715 Mackinac Bridge to Peninsula Point--Mich. 3,390 4.1 Huron River to Ottawa River--Mich. 11,025 Peninsula Point to Escanaba--Mich. 3,210 4.2 Ottawa River to Marblehead--Ohio 12,305 Escanaba to Menominee County Line--Mich. 622 Sandusky Bay--Ohio 10,385 Total 14,134 Total 22,690 TOTAL--Lake Michigan 30,313 4.3 Erie-Lorain County Line to Penn. None Lake Huron State Line--Ohio 3.1 St. Ignace to Detour--Mich. 5,195 4.4 Presque Isle--Penn. 960 Penn.-N.Y. line to Niagara River--N.Y. None Mackinac Bridge to Stoneport--Mich. 955 Total 960 Stoneport to Point Au Sable--Mich. 1,685 Au Gres River outlet--Mich. 940 TOTAL--Lake Erie 34,675 Point Au Gres to Sanganing River--Mich. 5,9 Total 14,715 TOTAL--GREAT LAKES 154,734 marshlands. This loss and degradation of wet- the 1953-54 studies would be nearly impossi- lands is critical in many sections of the United ble. States. Losses have been significant in many parts In 1953 and 1954, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife of the Basin. The western Lake Erie marshes Service, working in cooperation with various of Ohio and Michigan and the connecting State fish and game agencies, conducted a waterway and associated shoals and marshes nationwide inventory of wetlands. This sur- between Lake Erie and Lake Huron have been vey has been followed by various individual especially hard-hit in recent years. Within the State wetlands appraisals. Because of varia- last ten years thousands of acres of prime wet- tions in the coverages and time periods of lands in the northern part of Lake St. Clair these later studies, no uniform data are avail- have been lost to Venetian-type housing de- able on which to base an up-to-date assess- velopment. Further south in the vicinity of ment of wetlands losses for the entire Great Monroe, Michigan, hundreds of acres of prime Lakes Region. There was, however, 'a deter- wetlands have been used as sanitary fill areas mination of the acres of coastal wetlands in by the City of Detroit and slated for industrial the Great Lakes as of 1970 (Table 17-33), de- development. veloped by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and The existing 30,000 acres of wetlands in Wildlife as part of its activities for the Inter- Planning Subarea 4.2 in Ohio are all that re- national Joint Commission's Great Lakes main of the original 100,000-odd acres of Lake studies. However, to correlate these data with Erie marshes. Representative of these rem- Present Status of Wildlife 69 '*A, Aulk_ Courtesy of U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife FIGURE 17-29 Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge. Maumee Bay, top background; Lake Erie, right. nant Lake Erie marshes in this planning cases is beyond the financial capability of local subarea are the wetlands of the Cedar Point and State governments. In the case of the National Wildlife Refuge, shown in an aerial Pointe Mouillee area, it is possible that this photograph taken in October 1966 (Figure barrier beach can be at least partially restored 17-29). during the nearby Trenton channel commer- Wetlands loss or change due to natural cial navigation project of the U.S. Army Corps causes, such as erosion by wind and water, is of Engineers. Rock taken from the channel dramatically illustrated by three aerial could be placed in offshore dikes at Pointe photos of the Pointe Mouillee area taken in Mouillee. If this measure were successful in 1937, 1957, 1970 (Figures 17-30, 17-31 and 17- providing barrier-beach protection, approxi- 32). A storm from the southeast in 1952 with mately 2,700 acres of shoals and marshes could the highest water on record did the greatest be managed and eventually stabilized. damage, breaking the barrier beach on the Further east in the New York portion of the east side of the wetlands and eroding marsh- Basin, wetlands are generally scattered and lands behind the beach. By 1957 this erosion in short supply. In several places pressure for had proceeded to the extent shown in Figure more recreation areas has resulted in wet- 17-31. lands being dredged or filled by various levels The restoration and then preservation of of government to provide additional park- this barrier beach, as well as others in the lands and facilities such as boat channels, Great Lakes, is fundamental to the perpetua- marinas, boat ramps, roads, building sites, tion of thousands of acres of coastal marshes. and golf courses. Two examples of these Restoration is a costly process and in most trade-offs of wetlands to other recreational in- 70 Appendix 17 'X Courtesy of State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources Courtesy of State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources FIGURE 17-30 Pointe Mouillee State Game FIGURE 17-32 Pointe Mouillee State Game Area Before Break in Barrier Beach, 1937 Area, Loss of Marshlands, 1970 _V, New York State biologists describe Round 5- Pond as follows: Round Pond is the most easterly unit of a once- contiguous high-value wetland situated along the south shore of Lake Ontario, starting at Rochester and stretching westward. All of the various units have been critically affected through commercial, industrial, and housing development. Fish and wild- life productivity of desirable species has been reduced from an extreme high to a moderate level through pollution, loss of littoral zone through filling, and high human disturbance factors. Albeit Round Pond with reference to its location in a highly popu- lated area has considerable value as open space, for educational demonstrative purposes, and possibly an outdoor laboratory for ecological studies. The Fish and Wildlife Division of the New York State Department of Environmental CIourtesy of State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources Conservation as the result of these devas- FIGURE 17-31 Pointe Mouillee State Game tating effects of man's activities has comple- Area After Break in Barrier Beach, Loss of ted studies of wetlands in three regions in the Marshlands, 1957 Lake Ontario basin as follows: (1) Lake Ontario coastal wetlands and Finger Lakes wetlands in Planning Subareas terests are illustrated by recent aerial photos 5.1 and 5.2 from the Niagara River eastward to of construction of a marina and boat channel Cayuga County (Figure 17-33) and filling wetlands to make a (2) Erie and Oswego Canal wetland units in golf course at Buck Pond, Beatty Point in Planning Subarea 5.2 Monroe County (Figure 17-34), both in Plan- (3) wetlands of eastern Lake Ontario and ning Subarea 5.1. Industry and commerce also the St. Lawrence River from Oswego County I viol take their toll of wetlands as illustrated by an in Planning Subarea 5.2 north and east along aerial photo of industrial development at the coast and down the St. Lawrence River Round Pond, Monroe County just west of Plain in St. Lawrence County in Planning Rochester (Figure 17-35), and one of fill for Subarea 5.3 shipping and docking facilities engulfing a These wetlands were classified for their fish marsh at Buffalo (Figure 17-36). The former is and wildlife habitat value as high, medium, or in Planning Subarea 5.1 and the latter in 4.4. low. In addition each wetland surveyed was Present Status of Wildlife 71 7 4:1 E vt_@ Courtesy of State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation Courtesy of State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation FIGURE 17-33 Marina and Boat Channel FIGURE 17-35 Industrial Development Construction Destroy Wetlands in Western Threatens Round Pond, an Important Coastal New York Wetland West of Rochester, New York 7-- Courtesy of State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation Courtesy of State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation FIGURE 17-34 Wetlands Being Filled to FIGURE 17_36 Fill for Shipping and Docking Make Golf Course at Buck Pond, Beatty Point in Facilities Engulfing Marsh at Buffalo, New Monroe County, New York York assigned a destruction vulnerability classifi- Two units have been selected at random to cation: illustrate the type of information these three (1) Class 1-an area which is in immediate studies contain; the State's comments are danger of being destroyed within the next five quoted directly from its report. The two units years are Canoga Marsh (Figure 17-37) on Cayuga (2) Class 2-an area that could be de- Lake in the Finger Lakes region and Sodus stroyed in the foreseeable future Bay Marsh (Figure 17-38) on the Lake Ontario (3) Class 3-an area that is safe from de- coast in Wayne County, both marshes in Plan- struction due to its ownership, isolation loca- ning Subarea 5.2. tion, or other factors The New York State Study describes the Nine units totaling 2,801 acres of wetlands Canoga Marsh on Cayuga Lake as follows: were surveyed in study 1, 23 units totaling Location: Map Reference U.S.G.S. Union 5,378 acres of wetlands in study 2, and 53 units Spring, 1:24,000 quad. Town of Fayette, totaling 9,918 acres of wetlands in study 3. County of Seneca. Acreage, 180-+. Cover type 72 Appendix 17 4-- A@_ MEW- 'ot K 04"! 4 Pr Courtesy of State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation Courtesy of State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation FIGURE 17-37 Canoga Marsh on Cayuga FIGURE 17-38 Sodus Bay Marsh on Lake On- Lake tario composition, marsh, 90%; open marsh, 8%; cation, high. Destruction Vulnerability Class woody swamp, 2%. Fish and Wildlife Value 1. Classification, high. Destruction Vulnerabil- Remarks: This is a key marsh area in the ity Class 2. Wayne County Wetlands complex. All of the Remarks: This wetland unit has already surrounding uplands have been acquired suffered from landfill activities in the vicinity under the Recreational Bond Act Program of Canoga Island. The area which has high fish and are under the administration of the De- and wildlife values, is used extensively by partment of Environmental Conservation. To fishermen and hunters. Man's activities to complete control and permit initiation of de- date have not materially affected the pro- velopment and management activities, the ductive nature of the marsh insofar as water- unallocated underwater lands should be fowl, aquatic furbearers, marsh birds, and fish placed under the Department of Environmen- are concerned. Trends for recreational de- tal Conservation, the agency having respon- velopments along all of the Finger Lakes will sibilities for management of the fish and wild- ultimately result in destruction of Canoga life resources. Marsh if it is not dedicated as an important Enhancement Possibilities: Manipulation of ecological area and placed under jurisdiction aquatic vegetation by various management of the Department of Environmental Conser- techniques. vation. Enhancement Possibilities: The productive nature of the area could be improved by more 2.3 Use of Wildlife Resources and Trends favorable regulation of lake levels, and inter- spersion of aquatic vegetation through exca- vation of potholes and level ditching. 2.3.1 Species Utilization The New York State Study describes Sodus Bay Marsh on Lake Ontario as follows: Although the percentage of the populace Location: Map Reference U.S.G.S. Sodus buying hunting licenses has decreased in most Point, 1:24,000 quad. Town of Huron, County of planning subareas over the last decade, the pro- p IR@ Wayne. Acreage, 240-t. Cover type composi- jected sales of hunting licenses are increasing tion, marsh, 60%; open marsh, 35%; woody (Table 17-34). This upward trend is based on swamp, 5%. Fish and Wildlife Value Classifi- the projection that the population is increas- Present Status of Wildlife 73 TABLE17-34 Total Hunters by Target Year in TABLE 17-35 Great Lakes Basin Projected the Great Lakes Basin (in thousands) Net Demands on Wildlife Habitat by Non- Consumptive Users by Target Years (in Base Year Target Years 2 thousands)' PSA 1970 1980 2000 2020 1.1 81.0 87.0 92.0 97.0 PSA 1980 2000 2020 1.2 54.1 55.8 55.8 57.9 1.1 26.0 27.0 32.0 2.1 224.1 235.2 270.2 315.2 1.2 15.0 7.2 27.9 2.2 384.1 670.9 821.6 1,009.2 2.3 337.0 410.0 486.0 570.0 2.1 330.0 632.7 896.5 2.4 129.0 139.2 154.5 175.2 2.2 2,507.4 3,754.0 4,946.1 3.1 61.5 65.1 71.9 80.5 2.3 504.5 753.6 966.4 3.2 199.7 241.1 285.0 335.3 2.4 202.3 332.4 514.7 4.1 337.5 469.9 577.8 720.2 3.1 16.1 66.5 132.1 4.2 165.0 225.6 260.8 298.3 3.2 396.6 786.3 1,203.7 4.3 134.0 198.0 241.0 294.0 4.4 153.3 190.1 206.9 218.0 4.1 1,596.4 2,474.2 3,539.0 5.1 74.9 92.7 109.1 125.3 4.2 581.1 921.8 1,273.5 5.2 153.5 179.6 211.9 246.7 4.3 896.7 1,420.6 2,035.1 5.3 35.6 41.3 44.0 47.8 4.4 169.2 262.3 331.0 Total 2,524.3 3,301.5 2,888.5 4,590.6 5.1 83.8 161.2 240.7 1Includes resident and non-resident licensed 5.2 138.3 293.8 461.1 hunters and unlicensed hunters. 5.3 23.2 36.3 53.6 2Includes resident and non-resident licensed Total 7,486.6 11,929.9 16,653.4 hunters, unlicensed hunters, and latent demand 'Net demand is measured in thousands of man-days. Net demand represents hunters. the unsatisfied demand, which is the amount that the desire to do something exceeds the opportunity necessary to meet this desire. ing faster than the decline in hunting license information on the 1965 Basin furbearer har- sales. A decreasing participation rate was vest. used for the successive target years to reflect the expected decline in the quality of the hunt- ing experience. However, nonconsumptive 2.4 Existing Wildlife Problems (non-hunter) use of wildlife and wildlife lands will increase more rapidly than hunter use and will compensate for decreases in hunting 2.4.1 Basinwide Problems where they occur. Table 17-35, for example reveals that the desire of the non-hunter to A description of wildlife-related problems is enjoy wildlife will exceed the opportunity to do essentially a description of the environmental so by nearly 5 million man-days in Planning status of the Basin. Wildlife has been accu- Subarea 2.2 by 2020. rately described as a barometer of the quality Harvest is a function of game population of the environment. If the quality of the envi- density, habitat quality, and hunter access. In ronment is low, the diversity of wildlife species northern wilderness areas total kill is lower will be low and populations unstable. If en- for game animals than in more southern areas vironmental quality is high and habitat is because there are often fewer animals and be- plentiful, nearly all habitat will be occupied. cause it is more difficult for the hunter to by healthy populations of a wide variety of reach them. Kill is also lower in areas with species. high percentages of posted land and in ag- The Great Lakes Basin, because of its ex- ricultural areas where habitat value has been tensive latitudinal and longitudinal range, lowered by clean farming practices and poor encompasses a diversity of wildlife habitat land management. Harvest data are provided and weather conditions and, therefore has a in Tables 17-36 through 17-43. variety of wildlife problems. The single most The value of the furbearer harvest in the important Basinwide wildlife problem is the eight Great Lakes States in 1965 was over two loss of habitat. A total of 5,099,000 acres in the million dollars. Table 17-44 presents detailed Great Lakes Basin will be lost over the 50-year 74 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-36 Pennsylvania Game Harvest TABLE 17-39 Ohio Estimated Game Harvest (1970)1 (1970)1 Planning Subarea Planning Subarea Species 4.4 Species 4.2 4.3 Deer 710 Ducks 72,577 36,075 Turkey 75 Pheasant 93,000 46,000 Ducks 7,950 Cottontail Rabbit 498,0002 168,000 Geese 175 Hungarian Partridge ------- 0 Cottontail Rabbit 20,000 Squirrel 200,000 165,000 Pheasant 6,600 Fox 4,2002 2,065 2 Ruffed Grouse 2,000 Quail ------- ------- Squirrel 2,000 Deer 206 312 Woodcock 3,500 Badger 3 1 Mourning Dove 4,700 Beaver 0 175 Muskrat 30,000 Mink 1,839 308 Beaver 215 Muskrat 200,416 59,065 Raccoon 5,500 Opposum 2,420 899 Woodchuck 14,000 Raccoon 48,701 20,877 Skunk 52 15 All are estimates except deer, turkey, and Weasel 38 34 beaver, wHich are actual harvest figures. 1All harvest data are estimates except beaver and deer which are actual harvest. Other fur- bearer harvest data are based on fur buyer annual reports. 2Number harvested was insignificant. TABLE 17-37 Indiana Estimated Game Har- vest (1966) Planning Subarea Species 2.2 2.3 4.2 TABLE 17-40 Minnesota Estimated Game Waterfowl 2,5001 15,0001 1,0001 Harvest (1968-1970) Squirrel 50,000 75,000 10,000 Planning Subarea Rabbit 75,000 60,000 20,000 Species 1.1 Quail 30,000 20,000 8,000 Pheasant 5,000 7,000 2,000 Deer 31,130 Woodcock 1,0002 5002 ------2 Ducks 32,400 Deer 200 760 160 Ruffed Grouse 23,330 11970 21969 TABLE 17-41 Wisconsin Estimated Game Harvest (1967-1968) Planning Subarea TABLE 17-38 Illinois Estimated Game Har- Species 1.1 2.1 2.2 vest(1968-1969) Coot 7,000 82,000 21,000 Planning Subarea Duck 26,000 265,000 79,000 Species 2.2 Geese 500 8,000 800 Pheasant 0 128,000 95,000 Dove 82,000 Hungarian Partridge 0 18,000 8,000 Squirrel 35,000 Ruffed Grouse 45,000 136,000 2,000 Pheasant 125,000 Woodcock 1,500 26,000 5,000 Quail 18,000 Snowshoe Rabbit 13,000 0 0 Rabbit 152,000 Cottontail Rabbit 0 207,000 125,000 Raccoon 22,000 Squirrel 12,000 242,000 90,000 Hungarian Partridge 2,000 Raccoon 200 39,000 12,000 Fox 9,000 Deer 9,123 39,912 782 Woodcock 1,500 Bear 186 171 0 Present Status of Wildlife 75 TABLE 17-42 Michigan Estimated Game Harvest (1969) Planning Subarea Small Game 1.2 2.1 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 4.1 Pheasant 0 4,000 224,000 13,000 4,000 127,000 51,000 Ruffed Grouse 46,000 15,000 9,000 107,000 61,000 61,000 6,000 Woodcock 4,500 4,000 15,000 74,000 30,000 21,000 700 Ducks 27,000 11,000 80,000 107,000 27,000 133,000 149,000 Geese 5,000 500 10,000 15,000 1,000 15,000 3,500 Coots 600 600 6,000 9,000 1,200 21,000 21,000 Cottontail Rabbit 9,000 9,000 320,000 91,000 46,000 183,000 439,000 Snowshoe Rabbit 47,000 23,000 200 60,000 23,000 5,000 0 Squirrel 14,500 7,000 254,000 182,000 15,000 145,000 109,000 Raccoon 300 300 152,000 32,000 700 34,000 118,000 Upper Peninsula Upper k Lower Peninsula Lower !I Lower Peninsula Big Game (PSA 1.2, 2.1, & 2.4) (PSA 2.4, 3.1, & 3.2) (PSA 2.3 & 4.1) Deer 20,893 71,368 17,192 Bear 840 No season No season TABLE 17-43 New York Game Harvest (1960-1968)1 Planning Subarea Species 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 Pheasant (1963-64) 83,000 64,000 86,000 11,000 Woodcock (1960-61) 10,000 7,000 15,000 2,000 Snowshoe Hare (1961-62) No Season No Season 29,000 76,000 Cottontail.Rabbit (1963-64) 107,000 93,000 270,000 47,000 Ducks & Coots (1967-68) 19,000 23,000 66,000 29,000 Geese & Brant (1964-65) 600 3,000 8,000 1,500 Ruffed Grouse (1967-68) 33,000 27,000 60,000 32,000 Squirrel (1965-66) 98,000 74,000 159,000 26,000 Deer 6,000 8,000 11,000 8,000 1Latest figures available by species. study period (Table 17-45). Much of this acre- increasing demands for sewage treatment, age will be fertile lands in flood plains and water supply, industrial expansion, hospitals, peripheral to cities, inland and estuarine wet- schools, and airports. lands, and other valuable habitat. Degrada- Secondary effects of land use changes in- tion of remaining habitat is an inseparable part of the former problem and is nearly as clude the intensification of agricultural activ- serious. In either case, a change in land use is ity on presently cultivated lands. Agricultural usually at fault although all types of environ- land is important wildlife habitat, but as more mental pollution also degrade wildlife habitat. clean farming is instituted, the wildlife value The expected loss of wildlife habitat due to of agricultural land diminishes. The resulting land-use change is largely a result of human fewer acres of idle land, woodland, fencerows, population expansion, with attendant housing and field borders support less wildlife. developments, road construction, power lines, Other land use changes which have serious power plants, landfill for waste disposal, and impact on wildlife include strip mining, rural 76 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-44 Great Lakes Basin Fur Catch (1965) Average Average Unit Value Total Value Unit Value Total Value Species Catch (dollars) (dollars) Species Catch (dollars) (dollars) Minnesota--10% of State Total Michigan--100% of State Total Beaver 1,550 9.00 13,950 Beaver 16,800 16.00 26,880 Bobcat 5 17.00 85 Coyote 3,290 3.00 9,870 Coyote 30 7.00 210 Fox 29,300 6.00 175,800 Fox 1,450 6.00 8,700 Mink 11,700 7.50 87,750 Lynx 25 20.00 500 Muskrat 177,000 2.00 354,000 Mink 6,320 12.00 74,740 Otter 825 25.00 20,625 Muskrat 72,730 1.25 90,900 Raccoon 214,800 3.00 644,400 Otter 40 20.00 800 Weasel 2,400 .75 1,800 Raccoon 10,000 3.50 35,000 465,115 1,321,125 Skunk 140 1.00 140 Weasel 240 .50 120 Ohio--25% of State Total 92,530 225,142 Beaver 60 9.00 540 Wisconsin--30% of State Total Fox 1,290 2.00 2,580 Mink 1,840 8.00 14,720 Beaver 2,700 9.00 24,300 Muskrat 104,650 1.25 156,810 Fox 3,600 6.00 21,600 Opossum 2,440 .30 732 Mink 7,500 12.00 90,000 Raccoon, 35,900 1.50 48,850 Muskrat 110,000 1.25 137,500 Skunk 170 .60 102 Opossum 200 .25 50 Weasel - 310 .80 248 Otter 200 20.00 4,000 146,660 224,582 Raccoon 18,000 3.00 54,000 1 Skunk 100 1.00 100 Pennsylvania 142,300 331,500 Beaver 215 9.00 1,935 Indiana--5% of State Total Muskrat 30,000 1.25 37,500 Raccoon 5,500 1.50 8,250 Beaver 15 9.00 135 35,715 47,685 Fox 1,500 2.00 3,000 New York--50% of State Total Mink 450 8.00 3,600 Muskrat 9,300 1.25 14,000 Fisher 181 12.00 2,172 Opossum 1,450 .30 435 Otter 159 24.00 3,816 Raccoon 5,550 1.50 8,325 340 5,988 Skunk 40 .60 24 Illinois Weasel 15 .80 12 18,320 29,531 No data 1Percent of State total unknown residence construction, filling and draining of owners would not have had the means to un- wetlands, and water development projects. dertake drainage on their own. Practices such Attrition of wetland acreage and degradation as these, which result in bringing more land continue to be a problem in spite of the recent into crop production and more intensive use of public awareness of the value of these lands. existing cropland, seem questionable in view This problem arises from conflicts over of the Federal efforts to regulate crop economic values, such as whether it is more surpluses through cropland retirement pro- expedient to destroy a marsh by drainage or grams. by use as a land fill site rather than to use it for Stream channelization for flood control and waterfowl production and general aesthetics. agricultural benefit conflicts seriously in Marsh destruction often accompanies Feder- nearly every case with wildlife values. It is al, State, or local dredging projects in harbors particularly bad in areas where clean farming and rivers due to the need for spoil disposal. practices are used, because stream bottom In some cases channelization of streams habitat which often is the best remaining makes drainage of wet areas and type II wet- cover is destroyed. Flood control could be best lands possible where prior to the project land- served in most cases by attempting to hold Present Status of Wildlife 77 TABLE 1745 Percent of Great Lakes Basin vast expanses of forest, heavy snowfall, and Habitat Base Lost to Urban Development low human population density. Wildlife man- Resource Base in Acres Loss agement problems are important here, but PSA 1966-67 2020 Acres Percent some serious problems are appearing due to 1.1 9,189,000 9,165,600 23,400 .25 human activity. Degradation and loss of 1.2 6,304,000 6,299,800 4,200 .07 habitat are occurring from surface mining op- 2.1 9,546,700 9,427,200 119,500 1.25 erations and associated facilities. The ex- 2.2 4,001,600 2,309,500 1,692,100 42.29 pected increase in acres devoted to this prac- 2.3 8,136,900 7,675,500 461,400 5.67 tice will eventually result in a significant por- 2.4 7,679,400 7,602,200 77,200 1.01 tion of the planning subarea being devoted to 3.1 3,838,200 3,805,400 32,800 .85 this single-purpose use. There is a serious con- 3.2 4,035,100 3,855,000 180,100 4.46 flict because the area, due to its high environ- 4.1 3,221,000 2,233,100 987,900 30.67 mental quality, is much more suited to outdoor 4.2 5,751,600 5,480,500 271,100 4.71 recreational use. The economic benefits of this 4.3 1,699,600 1,080,800 618,800 36.41 4.4 2,584,900 2,353,800 231,100 8.94 use are traded for economic benefits derived 5.1 2,187,600 2,065,500 122,100 5.58 from mining, which may preclude the area's 5.2 5,176,700 4,915,400 261,300 5.05 returning to recreational use at a later date. 5.3 3,239.70 3,223,800 15,900 .49 The long-term trend in big-game popula- TOTAL 76,592,000 71,493,000 5,099,000 6.66 tions is downward, due primarily to the effects of natural succession away from a young, uneven-aged, mixed hardwood-conifer forest water on the land through land treatment toward the even-aged homogeneous spruce-fir practices rather than letting it run off faster. climax forest. Timber harvest activity and Moreover the long-range detrimental impact wildlife management programs tend to arrest of stream channelization projects on wildlife this trend and may create the variety of vege- values cannot be adequately considered in tation necessary to sustain suitable game conventional benefit/cost analyses. Methods populations. All of the big game in the area must be developed to allow such intangible (white-tailed deer, moose, black bear, and values to successfully compete with other land timber wolf), do best when the forest is broken uses. up into a mosaic of stands of different age and A problem having a serious impact on all species composition. The carrying capacity of planning taking place in the Great Lakes the habitat is sustained for deer and moose Basin is the lack of adequate funding to State populations, and wolf populations are thus agencies which are being asked to carry out kept healthier, too. much of the work. Habitat conditions for ruffed grouse, snow- Hunter access to wildlife lands is a major shoe hare, and woodcock have deteriorated for problem in all but the northern planning sub- the same reasons as big game. However, the areas, which have adequate public land. Ae- trend toward a climax spruce-fir forest results cess is becoming more restricted in New York, in improved habitat for spruce grouse. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, south- Habitat for all wildlife species can be improved ern Michigan and southern Wisconsin. As the by forestry and wildlife management prac- population densities of these areas increase, tices that create diversity of habitat types. so do problems resulting from public use and Waterfowl populations are limited in spite of over-use of private land. In the face of increas- the abundance of water in the planning sub- ing demand for the opportunity to enjoy area. Low fertility of soil and water limits the wildlife, the trend is toward complete restric- production of waterfowl food. The most favor- tion of consumptive and nonconsumptive able habitat for waterfowl consists of small wildlife use to limited areas of public land. flows, beaver ponds, and lake bays. Planning Subarea 1.1 is noted for heavy snowfalls. Annual accumulated depths are up 2.4.2 Wildlife Problems in Each Planning to 80 inches or more in some areas. This snow Subarea causes severe deer management problems. During times of deep snow, deer concentrate in "yards" thereby putting undue stress on 2.4.2.1 Planning Subarea 1.1, Minnesota and the food supply of that area. Deer losses occur Wisconsin directly due to malnutrition and indirectly due to reduced reproductive capability of the Planning Subarea 1.1 is characterized by herd in future years. 78 Appendix 17 Populations of white-tailed deer and ruffed 2.4.2.2 Planning Subarea 2.1, Wisconsin grouse, the major game species, are probably underharvested in the remote northern Population growth, hunting pressure from reaches of the planning subarea because of the Milwaukee-Chicago area, and a reduction limited access by public roads. On the in the resource base underlie the problems in other hand, shore areas of Lake Superior close Planning Subarea 2.1. Projected figures indi- to public roads are heavily hunted. Snow is cate the population will double by year 2020 (to seldom a contributing factor to the underhar- 1.7 million) and the resource base will be re- vest because the hunting season is scheduled duced by 125,000 acres. The population in ad- before winter. jacent Planning Subarea 2.2 (Milwaukee- The largest remaining concentration of Chicago) is expected to double, to a total of 17.4 timber wolves in the United States, with the million. exception of Alaska, is found in the Minnesota Loss of wildlife habitat from changing land portion of Planning Subarea 1.1. Although the use is as much a problem in this planning sub- State of Minnesota does not consider the wolf area as it is elsewhere, except that perhaps an endangered species (population is cur- the value of the habitat is a little higher here. rently placed at 750 animals), the U.S. Bureau Types III, IV, and V (high waterfowl value) wet- of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife officially re- lands are found in this part of the Great Lakes gards this animal (eastern timber wolf) as rare Basin. Types II and VI wetlands provide winter and endangered. Wolf numbers are limited di- cover for ring-necked pheasants and act as rectly by availability of their principal prey, alternative cover to offset nest losses suffered deer, and thus indirectly by the carrying in Wisconsin's abundant hay fields. Agricul- capacity of deer habitat. The U.S. Forest Ser- tural practices and the demand for rural home vice believes that the high demand for wolves sites are having an adverse effect on the qual- as trophies, pelts, pups, exhibits, and scientific ity of wildlife habitat in general, with the purposes has resulted in an increasing drainage of wetlands having the most serious number of persons searching for timber wolf impact. dens each spring, thereby creating a problem In the 1960s small watershed activities in- on those portions of National Forest lands creased in Planning Subarea 2.1, which in- where access is not limited. cludes wetland areas of value to wildlife. One The moose population has been declining of the watershed projects contains 12,391 slightly in recent years, apparently from some acres of wetlands. Preliminary project pro- winter losses and lowered productivity caused posals could directly or indirectly result in the by habitat limitations. The population is at or drainage of 7,700 acres of these wetlands. This above the carrying capacity of the range, due watershed lies approximately 10 miles north to changes in forest succession. of the Horicon National Wildlife Refuge and A conflict between forest management and surrounds the southern tip of Lake Win- wildlife management is avoided when cutting nebago, the largest lake in Wisconsin. Pot- operations in aspen and other hardwood holes and marshes in this area of Wisconsin stands attempt to regenerate aspen rather have the highest concentrations of migratory than release a thick understory of small waterfowl in the State, and the region ranks hardwood trees. The maintenance of aspen among the highest in number of breeding and its associated undergrowth as a compo- pairs of ducks. These wetlands also provide nent of forest habitat is necessary if white- excellent furbearer habitat. The extensive tailed deer and ruffed grouse are to be per- fresh meadows and brush marshes contribute petuated. substantially to the fact that Fond du Lac Snowmobiles, although a boon to the winter County regularly ranks among the top ten recreation industry in this planning subarea, Wisconsin counties in the harvest of ring- constitute a potentially serious threat to necked pheasants. This danger of habitat loss wildlife. These vehicles are capable of making due to channelization is not limited to this their own roads, and irresponsible individuals area and may occur in nearly every watershed have used them for such illegal purposes as in southern Wisconsin. harassing wildlife in remote areas. However, The snowmobile boom of the past ten years Minnesota has specific regulations about the has caused serious conflicts of use among the use of snowmobiles in the taking of either sportsman, general recreationist, and rural game or non-game species and in the opera- resident. Stricter regulation of snowmobiles is tion of snowmobiles on public land. needed to insure that each interest can pursue Present Status of Wildlife 79 its activity without interference from preservation under State acquisition pro- another. Snowmobile problems are especially grams becomes more costly. acute on those public lands where access is not The northern forested area of Planning restricted. Subarea 2.1 is suffering from a loss of white- The Wisconsin Forest Crop Law, Woodland tailed deer and ruffed grouse habitat because Tax Laws, and County Forest Laws enable the of forest succession. When the larger aspen State to manage private lands for forestry and other hardwoods are cut, the other hard- purposes, while making them available to the woods will regenerate unless management public for hunting. The total acreage involved steps are taken to perpetuate the aspen. The is approximately 675,000 acres in Planning maintenance of aspen and its associated Subarea 2.1. This acreage of private land undergrowth is necessary if deer and grouse represents nearly one-third of the total acre- populations are to be perpetuated. age of land open to the public for hunting. If Destruction of waterfowl habitat by carp present public access arrangements are lost, poses problems on major streams and lakes. many acres of habitat would be closed to the The State of Wisconsin has a rough fish re- public. In addition to private lands open to moval program and is working on methods to hunting, there are 63 State-owned or leased make it more effective and economical. public hunting areas and tracts of State The Fox-Wolf River basins project in east- forest, national forest, county park, and State central Wisconsin proposed by the Corps of park lands, which contribute to the total 10.15 Engineers may help solve a problem in one of acres per hunter in Planning Subarea 2.1. the State's most valuable wildlife areas. The Pollution from agricultural pesticides will major problem is that marshes in the area are continue to be a problem in sections of Plan- deteriorating due to flooding and erosion. A ning Subarea 2.1, especially in the Door cooperative effort is needed to provide flood Peninsula where spraying of fruit trees is ex- control, bank stabilization, improved naviga- tensive. Thermal pollution poses a potential tion routes, and preservation or enhancement problem in that waterfowl may be enticed to of fish and wildlife resources in portions of the winter if there is open water. This unnatural basin. situation may increase waterfowl losses. Arti- ficial feeding could be required if the water becomes ice-covered during periods of exces- 2.4.2.3 Planning Subarea 2.2, Wisconsin, sive cold weather or facility shut-down. Artifi- Illinois, and Indiana cial feeding is usually considered as a "last resort" management practice. This is the most densely populated planning Activities of large canning companies and subarea in the Great Lakes Basin. A total of muck farmers cause problems in several ways. 8,481,000 people reside in three major popula- The canning companies leave large blocks of tion centers: Chicago, Illinois; Milwaukee land and then clean-farm the area, removing Wisconsin; and Gary, Indiana. The character fence rows and wildlife pockets. Early plowing of the area is predominantly suburban, with (August-September) of open flatlands exposes only three outlying counties in Wisconsin and the soil to wind and water erosion throughout two in Indiana retaining a rural character. much of the year. The greatest concentration of people is along Muck farmers are in direct competition with the Lake Michigan shore in a nearly unbroken the State of Wisconsin for wetlands acquisi- belt from Mequon, Wisconsin, to Michigan tion and use. On several occasions muck farm- City, Indiana. ers have been able to outbid the State to ac- The planning subarea's foremost wildlife quire wetlands for farming purposes. After problem is loss of habitat and hunting oppor- these wetlands are drained, serious wind and tunity caused by the conversion of woodlots, water erosion problems can be expected. wetlands, and farms to residential, industrial, Rural residential development, both sea- and private recreational uses. Hunting is the sonal and year-round housing, reduces avail- first casualty, due to increasing posting able wildlife habitat to the extent that laws against trespass and demands for restrictions and building sites often replace undisturbed on the use of firearms. Temporary improve- woodlots. It restricts hunting opportunity ments in wildlife habitat and small-game substantially because the entire area is often populations which occur on the fringes of sub- posted. Residential development also drives urban developments are more than offset by woodlot and wetland values upward so that permanent losses of habitat associated with 80 Appendix 17 intensive development of real estate and its 2.4.2.4 Planning Subarea 2.3, Indiana and associated transportation systems. Michigan Loss of wildlife habitat is also of concern to Wildlife problems, needs, and solutions are nonconsumptive wildlife interests, which are discussed at length in Appendix K of the Com- probably greater in this planning subarea prehensive Water Resources Study of the than are consumptive (hunter) interests. Grand River Basin, Michigan, published in Open space, even if only low-quality wildlife March 1968, which covers approximately habitat, will become increasingly important one-half of Planning Subarea 2.3. as the planning subarea becomes more ur- This planning subarea has few public land- banized. An open space program similar to the use problems, because a homogeneous dis- 67,231 acres of forest preserves and parks in tribution of public land already exists. The northern Illinois is of exceptional importance. Michigan portion has many State game and This is particularly true in view of the plan- wildlife areas. Game and wildlife, and rec- ning subarea's expected population increase reation lands are located in 14 of the 19 Michi- and expected urban expansion, such as the gan counties. Three of the six Indiana coun- proposed Indiana Seaport at Burns Ditch, ties have either State Fish and Game Areas or which could result in the complete urbaniza- State Parks. Furthermore, most of the areas tion of Porter County. in both States are located close to large popu- lation centers. The resource base of 3,626,115 acres (1970) is Major problems in providing opportunity for expected to be reduced to 1,813,270 acres by hunters and nonconsumptive wildlife users in 2020. During this same period of time the this planning subarea are related to a decreas- population is expected to increase from ing resource base. In 1960, the base included a 9,786,000 to 17,356,000. The rural regions of the total of 7,693,300 acres of public and private Wisconsin portion of the planning subarea are lands. Preliminary projected resource base for productive agricultural lands with less than 2020 is 7,194,050 acres, which includes only 15 percent tree cover. Muck farming and clean wildlife habitat in the "other land" inventory farming are contributing to the degradation of category (excludes urban areas of 10 acres or the wildlife potential of these lands. The under). This means 500,000 acres of habitat drainage activities of various public agencies will be lost to various developments. This loss are also having an adverse impact on the re- occurs within the same time-span as an ex- source base. pected increase of 2,664,000 people in the area, Stream channelization through small more than twice the 1960 population. During watershed development projects could be easy this period another loss of 62,189 acres is ex- to dismiss as a minimal threat to wildlife due pected to occur as private lands now under to the comparatively small acreages involved. contract with the USDA, ASCS, for public However, since the stream bottoms are impor- hunting (Cropland Adjustment Program land) tant not only as the last remaining natural will revert to private control. This could result cover, but also as potential green belts, chan- in a critical reduction in public hunting oppor- nelization will be a more serious problern in tunity. this planning subarea than in planning sub- Rapid population increases, coupled with a areas of lower population density and more shrinking resource base, will result in greatly abundant stream habitats. increased pressure on existing public hunting lands. Other complications are the increasing The Lake Michigan shore also provides difficulty of expanding public hunting lands as some wildlife benefits in the form of waterfowl land values rise, and the degradation of all hunting, but public access is poor due to pri- outdoor recreational experiences resulting vate ownership of most of the shoreline. The from crowding. Crowding and the resultant acreage of public hunting lands per licensed lowering of the quality of wildlife habitat and hunter is 125. Compounding the problems of outdoor opportunity is a problem in southern lack of opportunity and loss of open space is an Michigan public areas, due in part to the increase in pollution, particularly in the dramatic increase in use of off-road vehicles, southern tip of Lake Michigan. Air and water including four-wheel-drive vehicles, motorcy- quality are so low that they sometimes consti- cles, snowmobiles, and other special purpose tute a direct hazard to the health and well- all-terrain machines. As of 1970, no effective being of fish and wildlife as well as the human controls had been imposed on these population. specialized conveyances. Public hunting lands Present Status of Wildlife 81 are subjected to heavy use by these special significant a problem as trying to provide op- vehicles, since access to private lands is lim- portunity for waterfowl hunters and noncon- ited. The noise, damage to vegetation, im- sumptive users. Although many public lands pact on wildlife, and litter from this use is on within the planning subarea include wet- the increase. Even horseback riders, when lands, thousands of acres of high-value wet- added to an already crowded scene, present a lands are privately owned and unprotected. problem in some areas. Wetlands within Michigan have been severely Programs of stream channelization by all damaged in the past, and future damage in levels of government and by private individu- this planning subarea is likely to be the most als pose a serious conflict of interest problem, serious in the State. materially contributing to a shrinking wildlife There is less reason to be concerned about habitat base. This work often results in the continued upland game opportunity than complete destruction of the streambanks and waterfowl opportunity. Wetlands are subject stream borders. Removal of vegetation from to conversio-n into agricultural lands as well as streambanks and sides can have a disastrous urban lands. If wetland losses continue, the effect on furbearers, upland game, and non- proportion of wetland habitat to upland game populations in heavily-agriculturalized habitat will become increasingly smaller. areas where the bank vegetation is often the only significant cover left over vast regions. The recent expansion of the Federal in- 2.4.2.5 Planning Subareas 1.2, 2.4, and 3.1, terstate highway system, as well as construc- Michigan tion of State and local highways where stream crossings are necessary, has contributed to Planning Subareas 1.2, 2.4, and 3.1 are stream bottom destruction in the planning characterized by large tracts of State and na- subarea. Approximately 20 miles of stream tional forest. Human population densities are have been channeled at highway crossings, low, and problems here are of resource man- disturbing not only the immediate area but agement rather than the people-related prob- also the downstream ecosystem. In addition, lems of the southern areas. channel modifications completed under the Historically, the forested areas of the Great provisions of Public Law 83-566 have resulted Lakes were burned regularly by lightning- in 9.1 miles of stream channelization, 104.9 ignited fires. The arrival of white men and miles proposed for channelization, and there clear-cut logging practices increased the are four projects undey consideration for. acreage of large open areas with their early channelization. successional forest plant communities. The Insecticide (chlorinate d-hydroc arbon) run- openings first revegetated with brush species off from orchards and nonagricultural appli- such as viburnum and blueberry, followed by cation in southern Michigan has created prob- intolerant tree species such as aspen, jack lems in marshes, as well as the more well- pine, and scrub oak. A continual process of known problems of fishery ecology, such as the fires (later combined with logging) kept the DDT build-up in coho salmon. The pesticide forests in a state of change and provided a enters the food chain through the water, good variety of cover and food for wildlife through plant life, and through small aquatic species such as Kirtland's warbler, bobcat, organisms, becoming more and more concen- snowshoe hare, prairie chicken, sharp-tailed trated in the larger organisms. Fish-eatipg grouse, white-tailed deer, and ruffed grouse birds, such as eagles, osprey, wading and (Figures 17-39 and 17-40). shore birds, have high concentrations of insec- In recent years forest fires have been effec- ticide in body tissues and are experiencing tively controlled, and it is now unusual for reproductive difficulties. more than a few thousand acres a year to burn A lesser problem, but related to that of pro- in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and northern viding opportunity for increased demand, is Lower Peninsula. In addition, forestry prac- the provision for different types of hunting tices have encouraged too great a component and nonconsumptive opportunity. Presently, of conifers. Open areas have been regularly most big-game hunters travel out of the plan- planted to pine, and forest types are being ning subarea to hunt. This is due to the pres- changed through longer harvest rotation ence of large tracts of State and national (conversion of mixed aspen and white pine to forests to the north which provide better solid stands of white pine, which provide no white-tailed deer habitat than is generally browse accessible to deer for most of the trees' found in the planning subarea. This is not as maturation). This leads to declining habitat 82 Appendix 17 A4. p- A A@T YT 'low, T" A@A:X_ Courtesy of State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources FIGURE 17-39 A Cheboygan County, Michigan, Site in 1926. Only sparse and ragged cover remained in 1926 after logging and fires in 1919 and 1925. This gives fair to good wildlife habitat but is of low timber value. value for deer and other forest game. This lishment and management of the wolf. If there trend needs to be reversed, as these animals is loss of livestock, it would seem expedient to are decreasing in density in many areas. simply pay the fariner for this loss to preda- Off-road vehicles, particularly snowmobiles, tors, rather than spend large sums to destroy are becoming a more serious problem as their a unique wildlife resource. numbers and versatility increase. The Michi- The bald eagle, osprey, and peregrine falcon gan Department of Natural Resources has es- are declining over all of their southern range. tablished trails and regulations governing the There is considerable scientific evidence that use of off-road vehicles on public lands, but this decline is due to the presence of persistent sheer numbers may soon overwhelm the exist- pesticides in the food chain. These chemicals ing controls. are used to increase agricultural production, The decline of rare and endangered species and with the exception of DDT, their use has is a problem that in some cases is very difficult not been discontinued. Residues of DDT will to remedy, since the reasons for the decline of remain in the environment for many years. these animals and birds are often tied to poli- Other rare and endangered species of this tics and economics. part of the Great Lakes Basin are probably The timber wolf was once a common resident affected more by habitat loss and over-harvest of the northern forests of Michigan. En- than by pesticides. Efforts are being made to croachment of civilization has been a factor in preserve scarce habitat for the Kirtland's wolf decline, but large expanses of suitable warbler and prairie chicken. Efforts have habitat still exist. The wolf was reduced by been made to reintroduce pine marten and hunting, poisoning, and trapping to protect fisher, two species that were wiped out by livestock. Today, however, for many people over-harvest and by logging practices that re- the chance to observe and photograph rare duced habitat. The Canada lynx, also over- animals like the wolf in his natural surround- harvested, is making a comeback on its own. ings is a supreme outdoor experience. Yet ig- Less encroachment from human activity norance and politics still prevent the reestab- has occurred here than in other areas, but Present Status of Wildlife 83 7 A@ A Z@ Courtesy of State of Michigan Departmnt of Conservation FIGURE 17-40 ForestRegeneration on the Same Site (see Figure 17-39) Over a 41-Year Period (1926-1967). In 1967, the planted pine plus natural growth of maple and other hardwoods had achieved a close stand and wildlife had become sparse. 114,000 acres will be lost by 2020. year-round home of numerous aquatic and terrestrial fur animals, upland game, and white-tailed deer. Inland marshes in State 2.4.2.6 Planning Subarea 3.2, Michigan and Federal refuges and in private holdings also provide important habitat for these birds Wildlife habitat in the planning subarea is and animals. diverse. It includes northern forest, active and Although the State owns submerged land to fallow farmland, and fine waterfowl marsh. the normal highwater mark, shoreline Urban areas make up a significant portion of marshes are still subjected to degradation by the area, and their associated problems have humans. Due to the extremely gentle gradient seriously degraded wildlife habitat. Changes of the shore, a minor lowering of the water in forest succession are occurring here, but level during a dry year exposes large expanses this problem is not as great as it is in the more of marshes. Riparian shore owners can, under northern Michigan planning subareas. permit, cut and remove marsh vegetation Loss and degradation of wetland habitat when the water level drops. This contributes around Saginaw Bay is the most critical to the decline in marsh area value. Agency people-oriented wildlife resource problem. actions causing a loss of habitat are dredging Approximately 40,500 acres of fine marsh for navigation, marina construction, and fill- exist along the shores of the Bay. The Bay and ing for garbage disposal and spoil deposition. its extensive marsh complex are a nationally Private actions such as the construction of known waterfowl concentration area, provid- small-boat channels, docks, and groins also ing feeding, resting, nesting, and nursery adversely affect wildlife resources. habitat for transient and breeding ducks. This Planning Subarea 3.2 at one time was good NEW, i/ area is vital in the support and protection of ring-necked pheasant habitat, but lately the many species of waterfowl, shorebirds, marsh situation has declined. Clean farming prac- birds, and passerine birds which frequent the tices, particularly in the Thumb on the east North American Continent. It is also the side of Saginaw Bay, have hurt pheasant nest- 84 Appendix 17 ing and winter cover and reduced the pheas- Basin. This gigantic biomass places an over- ant food supply. Mercury-treated grain and whelming strain on the area's ecosystem. pesticide use will continue to have an impact River systems, airsheds, and natural values on ring-necked pheasant populations. are seriously degraded. Wildlife problems are Clean farming means many things in terms those of survival, rapidly diminishing and de- of the wildlife situation. It is a change to new graded habitat, use conflict, and numerous and bigger farm machinery; it is combination other people-oriented problems. corn picking and shelling operation; it means The most important wildlife resource of the hiore intensive row cropping; it means less planning subarea is the western Lake Erie unharvested grain and stalks left in the field; marsh complex that stretches along the shore and it means that due to the size of the plows from the Ohio line to the lower Detroit River. and harvesting equipment, fence rows and Large marsh areas also exist in Lake St. Clair field borders are being eliminated to facilitate at the mouth of the St. Clair River. These maneuvering of the larger machines. In all, marshes, once vast and productive, have been the cleaner, more efficient farming provides reduced to small segments of their original much less wildlife habitat and reduces the size. The prevailing attitude over the years winter-survival chances of game species such has been that marshes are wastelands unfit as ring-necked pheasants. for anything unless man interferes. Precisely In addition to the degradation of the wildlife the opposite is true from a natural viewpoint. value of farmlands, losses of wildlife habitat Marshes are the single most productive are occurring from urban ex0ansion in and wildlife habitat type and are fit for many liv- around the planning subarea's major cities. ing things as long as man does not interfere. The construction of highways, subdivisions, This fact has been recognized in Planning and new utilities is taking a significant Subarea 4.1 by only a few people, and only the amount of land. The total acreage expected to efforts of the Michigan Department of be lost to these uses by 2020 is 180,000. Natural Resources and other conservation Channelization activity in Planning Sub- agencies have protected parcels of the marsh- area 3.2 is potentially more damaging than lands. elsewhere in the State due to the presence of Inland areas are also being degraded. wetlands. Species such as the woodcock will be Stream courses are not only seriously polluted hurt the most by channel and drainage ac- but are damaged by dumping and channel tivities, which dry out the soil and eliminate modifications. Federally administered chan- food sources in wet woodlands and fields. The nel modification and local action have in- clearing of stream bottoms will also reduce creased pollution in streams such as Red Run habitat for ruffed grouse. Drain near Mt. Clemens. There are problems in the implementation Loss and degradation of wetlands is compli- of programs such as the Public Law 83-566 cated by the expected rise in real estate value Small Watershed and ACP (now Rural En- of these lands once they have been filled or vironmental Assistance Program), which, if drained. This filling has increased the value of corrected, could greatly help wildlife. Federal any surrounding marshes to a price often cost-sharing programs take considerable cred- higher than the State can afford. Even though it for providing wildlife habitat enhancement shore marshlands are invaluable to wildlife, but actually do not spend enough of their their high real estate value in Planning Sub- budget on these programs to provide any tan- area 4.1 results in a shift to State purchase of gible benefits. lcwer-priced, important wildlife lands else- where. -Consequently, industrial and private interests are winning the race for the acquisi- 2.4.2.7 Planning Subarea 4.1, Michigan tion of shore areas. A number of problems threaten waterfowl This planning subarea has the most compli- and habitat in the lower Detroit River, a cated wildlife management problems in the wildlife area of extreme importance. The prob- entire Great Lakes Basin. The most produc- lems include oil and other chemical pollutants tive and largest expanse of marshland in the from city and private development activity on Basin is found here and is being overrun by a Celeron Island. Both situations seriously de- huge metropolitan complex. Five million grade and jeopardize the habitat and depen- people live in and around Detroit, Ann Arbor, dent waterfowl resources. Marine facilities and Pontiac, making this the second most and expanding year-round housing on Celeron densely populated planning subarea in the Island threaten to destroy all waterfowl feed- Present Status of Wildlife 85 ing areas on and immediately adjacent to the amount to 1.5 cents per acre per year. Present island. Oil and other pollutants kill birds out- State programs for wildlife habitat manage- right, and most chemical pollutants also kill ment on State forests in these same planning invertebrate animals, reducing diving duck subareas are 20 times greater than the Forest food supplies. Service Program. Celeron Island and the surrounding marsh areas are the heart of the waterfowl food and cover supply, providing high-quality vegeta- 2.4.2.8 Planning Subarea 4.2, Indiana and Ohio ble foods such as wild celery and sago pond weed. These plants constitute 50 to 60 percent The problems of Planning Subarea 4.2 are of the standing waterfowl food crop. Other similar to those of Planning Subarea 2.3. A food sources such as invertebrate animals shrinking resource base is the most serious (mollusks, etc.) are abundant and at times problem. In this case the 1960 resource base provide 20 to 50 percent of the diet of diving was 5,777,700 acres, while the 2020 projected ducks. A total of 5,000 acres of high-quality base is 5,480,500 acres, a loss of 297,000 acres. waterfowl food crops exist around Celeron Is- The population during this period is projected land. Species found here in large numbers in- to go from 1,566,000 in 1960 to 3,116,000 in 2020. clude canvasback and scaup ducks and whis- In all, there are 13 public hunting areas to- tling swans. taling 19,955 acres in the Ohio portion of the This habitat is utilized year-round due to an planning subarea. These areas range in size artificial situation which has been in effect from 153 to 8,162 acres, average 1,535 acres, since the thirties. Heated waters from power and occur in 9 of the 20 counties. Eight of the plants and industry have kept the lower De- 13 areas are less than 600 acres in size. This troit River ice-free, and waterfowl have be- amounts to 0.12 acres of public hunting land come winter residents. Concentrations of per hunter within the planning subarea. The ducks are thus very vulnerable to the above Statewide ratio is one acre of public land per problems, particularly oil pollution, even in hunter. the winter. The Ottawa and Cedar Creek National Wild- The description of wildlife management life Refuges provide significant wetland problems associated with Federal programs habitat (approximately 7,921 acres) and non- providing cost-sharing and funding for consumptive wildlife recreational opportu.ni- wildlife habitat enhancement applies to most ty. The remaining public areas that provide of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. general outdoor recreation opportunity are (1) Federally cost-shared drainage and for the most part highly developed for inten- channelization projects do not require protec- sive use with few natural areas. Thus the pro- tive measures to mitigate wildlife habitat loss- ductivity and use of these areas for wildlife es, and in many cases do not require protec- purposes is limited. tive measures needed to insure the planned In 1962 between 54 and 67 percent of the life of the installations. farms in the Ohio portion of the planning sub- (2) Some tree planting programs are used area were open to the public for hunting with as much or more to raise funds for local or- or without permission. Under a Division of ganizations as they are to provide needed Wildlife Cooperative Hunting Program, which habitat improvement. provides control of hunters on private land, a (3) The influence of the State level plan- total of 154,267 acres were available in 1970 to ning committee for ACP is low because it can the public for hunting with permission in the act only in an advisory capacity. As a result, Ohio portion of the planning subarea. Table fish and wildlife interests are outnumbered 17-46 is a list of these acreages by county as of and critical decisions are made without a December 31, 1970. wildlife interest vote. In 1970 the USDA Cropland Adjustment (4) A total of 116,551 acres are presently Program provided public access on only 9,358 open to hunting under CAP agreement. The acres of diverted cropland for hunting in the 1965 act that provided for these lands also Ohio portion of this planning subarea. Only 27 provided for a ten-year contract which will percent of the farmers participating in CAP soon expire. Unless the legislation is renewed, elected to participate in the public access these acreages will be closed to public hunting. phase of the program. Approximately 60 per- (5) Federal budgets to provide wildlife cent of CAP public access acres were in the management practices on Federal forest Cooperative Hunting Program. lands in Planning Subareas 2.4 and 3.1 The shrinking resource base is particularly 86 Appendix 17 TABLE17-46 Cooperative Agreements in the Part of Planning Subarea 4.2 contains some Ohio Portion of Planning Subarea 4.2 (De- of the finest wildlife habitat in Ohio with cember 31, 1970) Statewide, if not national importance. Ohio ranks second in the harvest of muskrats in the Number of United States, with 25 percent of the take com- County Agreements Acres ing from this planning subarea. The five Lake Erie shoreline counties are classified by the Allen 31 2,803 U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Auglaize 123 24,478 Wetlands Inventory as high-value waterfowl Crawford 10 1,692 habitat. Extensive Type IV wetlands (deep Defiance 86 12,175 fresh marsh) existed here at one time. A small Erie 30 6,010 but significant portion of them still remain, Fulton 39 4,9,69 but these remaining wetlands are still sub- Hancock 8 942 jected to many kinds of degradation. Both Henry 3 332 natural destruction from wave action and de- Huron 44 7,398 struction from man's activities, such as filling Lucas 9 734 and drainage, have contributed to the loss of wetlands. Many thousands of acres of Ohio Mercer 43 5,612 wetlands have already been drained for ag- Ottawa 1 50 ricultural, industrial, or urban home de- Paulding 139 27,416 velopment in Planning Subarea 4.2 and Putnam 17 1P856 elsewhere. Sandusky 21 3,045 Seneca 203 33,970 Van Wert 27 31-444 2.4.2.9 Planning Subarea 4.3, Ohio Williams 79 12,460 Wood 6 703 The most serious wildlife problem in Plan- Wyandot 21 4,178 ning Subarea 4.3 is a diminishing resource base. This is due mostly to the presence of the TOTAL 940 154,267 second largest city in the Lake Erie basin, Cleveland, which touches the cities of Lorain and Elyria in Lorain County on the west side, Akron and Cuyahoga Falls in Summit County critical in this planning subarea due to the on the south side, and parts of Geauga and intense agricultural use. Farming activity Lake Counties on the east side. In addition to over much of the planning subarea has left this large urban area there are many small little relatively undisturbed cover, as illus- towns, all of which contribute to the urban trated in Figure 17-41. It is not uncommon to character of the planning subarea. One county, see an absence of fence rows, which are vital as Ashtabula, still retains rural characteristics. wildlife cover. The preliminary figures of the The population of Planning Subarea 4.3 in Land Use Work Group indicate that forest 1960 was 2,625,000 and is projected to increase land in particular and other land (idle lands) to 5,527,000 by 2020. The resource base is pro- categories are proportionately small com- jected to be reduced from 1,666,800 acres to pared to those in other planning subareas. 1,017,500 acres during the same period. Again Most present cropland is dependent upon as in other planning subareas, when popula- drainage. Tiling and drainage ditches are ex- tion density doubles much wildlife habitat is tensive. These agricultural drainage ditches, lost. which sometimes occupy former intermittent While the 13 public hunting areas totaling natural watercourses, frequently provide 10,036 acres are well-distributed, the pre- habitat diversity. Many miles of agricultural ponderance of this acreage lies east of the ditches are renovated annually. Cleveland-Akron area. These hunting areas Degradation and destruction of stream bot- range from 69 to 4000 acres in size and all but tom habitat resulting from channelization of three are less than 1,000 acres in size. Only major natural watercourses has the most del- 0.07 acres of public hunting land per hunter eterio'us effect upon wildlife, even though less occur within the basin. The Statewide ratio is miles of watercourse are affected. Figures -one acre of public land per hunter. The small 17-42, 43, and 44 illustrate the impact of this size of most public hunting areas severely activity. limits their ability to provide quality hunting Present Status of Wildlife 87 I_ML-, _Z@ -vt _7 40, '4,do"' t Courtesy of State of Ohio Department of Natural Resources FIGURE 17-41 'The Recent Shift to Monoculture Throughout Extensive Portions of Planning Subarea 4.2 Has Had an Adverse Effect on Wildlife. FIGURE17-42 Stream Channelization of the Little Auglaize River, Paulding County, Ohio, Look- ing Downstream From County Road 72 Bridge. Productive fish habitat (stream) and wildlife habitat (woody vegetation along each bank) have been transformed to a sterile ditch. Courtesy of State of Ohio Department of Natural Resources 88 Appendix 17 'AMM& AdW.7 -@7 "X., -'*41 A A- i;" A M &I Courtesy of U.S. Bureau of z5port Fisheries and Wildlife FIGURE17-43 Stream Channelization of the Little Auglaize River, Paulding County, Ohio. (Same view as Figure 17-42, four years later.) Shallow, warm water limits fish life and grassed banks are of little value as wildlife habitat. FIGURE17-44 Looking Across Little Auglaize (West to East) From County Road 72 Bridge. Three to five acres of woods were removed during channelization. Note scraggily row of shrubs planted (center of photo) to mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat. Courtesy of U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 'v; It, @74 .-p V Flo Present Status of Wildlife 89 opportunity for major game species. These TABLE 17-47 Cooperative Agreements in areas, along with the sizable Cleveland, Ak- Planning Subarea 4.3 (1970) ron, and Lorain Metropolitan Park Systems, the Mentor Marsh Natural Area, the Kent Number of State University natural areas system, and County Agreements Acres city water supply reservoirs do, however, con- Astabula 69 10,465 tribute significantly to the public wildlife habitat base in this highly urbanized area. Cuyahoga 5 177 Hunting opportunity exists for upland game Geauga 3 465 and waterfowl. The deficiency of big-game Lake ------ hunting opportunity is remedied by the close- Lorain 31 4,090 ness of more hilly and forested lands just out Medina 37 5,512 of the planning subarea to the south. Use of Portage 24 2,307 public lands for both consumptive and non- Summit 6 654 consumptive purposes will become more in- tense. Crowding and the resultant lowering of TOTAL 175 23,670 the quality of the outdoor experience will probably be the foremost of the foreseeable problems on public lands. Hunting access on private land is highly re- high demand for nonconsumptive wildlife ex- stricted in many counties in this planning periences in the metropolitan areas of Cleve- subarea. In 1962 less than 50 percent of farms land and Akron. in the planning subarea were open to,the pub- Air pollution has an influence on noncon- lic for hunting with or without permission. sumptive wildlife values in urban areas. It Under a cooperative hunting agreement be- seems futile to plan for outdoor users when tween the Division of Wildlife and private medical experts are advising city dwellers to landowners, a total of 23,670 acres were avail- remain indoors. Habitat development is also able in 1970 to the public for hunting with restricted because of planting limitations as permission. Acreage of cooperative hunting far as 30 miles distant from industrial centers. land by county is shown in Table 17-47. Established white pine plantations are dying In 1970, public access to diverted cropland within this zone of influence, reportedly due to acres under the USDA Cropland Adjustment air pollution. The full potential of any noncon- Program provided only 13,411 acres for hunt- sumptive wildlife developments within urban ing. Approximately 30 percent of the farmers areas with air pollution problems will not be in this planning subarea participating in CAP realized until air pollution controls are more elected to receive additional payments for effective. providing public access on their diverted crop- It is anticipated that locally financed land acres. Nearly 50 percent of CAP public stream channelization will be of significance access acres were also in the Cooperative in this planning subarea in the future as a Hunting Program. result of private and local government action. Another problem made more acute by the The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has several presence of a high-density human population projects in the area. Most of these are naviga- is water pollution. Many miles of waterways tion projects and will probably have little ef- within the Greater Cleveland-Akron area are fect on wildlife' re sources. grossly populated. This area is second only to One project involves the construction of a Detroit in its deleterious effect on the water reservoir which does affect wildlife. The pro- quality of Lake Erie. The Cuyahoga, Black, posed Grand River reservoir pool will inundate Chagrin, and Rocky Rivers are all in various thousands of acres of wildlife habitat that will stages of degradation. be difficult if not impossible to replace. This The lower Cuyahoga River valley still has a river valley is unique because it is a semi- great deal of potential as a green belt de- wilderness area located close to a large city. velopment in conjunction with the Tinkers The river bottom and adjacent land is high- Creek Wildlife Area. The grossly polluted con- value habitat for ruffed grouse, white-tailed dition of the stream detracts from the valley, deer, and beaver. Therefore, while the reser- being a fire and health hazard. Once stringent voir would add to fishing opportunity and water-pollution controls are enforced and the probably to the waterfowl resources and to stream is rehabilitated, the development of a general recreation potential, the irreplace- green belt could meet part of the extremely able wilderness and the deer, grouse, and 90 Appendix 17 A Aw MW r FIGURE 17-45 Urban Encroachment-an Ever-Present Factor in Southern Great Lakes Wildlife Habitat beaver habitat would for all practical pur- Lake Erie shore and the Niagara County, New poses be lost.. York, section of Lake Ontario shore. Water The potential for degradation of wildlife pollution in the tributaries and open waters of benefits by commercial navigation will be of these sections, stemming from pesticide run- concern if the Lake Erie and Ohio River Canal off from the numerous grape orchards, organ- proposed in conjunction with this project ever ic loads from grape processing, and industrial becomes a reality. and municipal sewage, is therefore a serious problem. Added to this is poor quality water from sources in the western basin of Lake Erie 2.4.2.10 Planning Subarea 4.4, Pennsylvania affecting eastern Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. and New York The shoreline of Lake Erie at Erie County, Pennsylvania, lies on a main migration route. The Cleveland, Ohio-Erie, Pennsylvania- At one time 20,000 to 30,000 greater scaup, Buffalo, New York urban belt flows along the ringneck, and other diving ducks wintered in Lake Erie shore in a band from one side of this Erie Bay. A thermal outfall from the Erie planning subarea to the other. Habitat loss is General Electric plant keeps the water open the most serious problem. An estimated east of the Bay and has recently also attracted 240,000 acres of habitat will be lost by 2020, large winter flocks of waterfowl. Paper- while human populations will increase from mill wastes and other industrial pollutants 1.3 million persons to a total of 3.1 million. have reduced the production of aquatic food Increased land values, taxes, and more expen- organisms in the littoral zone so drastically sive farm operations are forcing small farmers that the numbers of wintering ducks and mi- out of business. Although the spread of ur- grating ducks (stopping to feed) have declined banization causes more idle farmland, the re- to only a few thousand. version of this land to early successional brush The upper and lower Niagara River is and small trees greatly benefits wildlife (Fig- another important wintering area. It is a ter- ure 17-45). minal migration area for redheads, canvas- Important waterfowl habitats exist in the backs, and scaup (as many as 20,000 scaup Erie County, Pennsylvania, section of the have been observed). This situation is an un- Present Status of Wildlife 91 natural one, again due to open water caused ing and wildlife management on surrounding by thermal pollution. It is very serious, be- lands. cause food and cover are poor and extreme oil By 2020 population is projected to increase pollution hazards are present. The source of to 1,538,000 from 884,000 in 1970. Most of the these problems is the Buffalo, North Tona- increase will occur in the northern or lowland wanda, Tonawanda and Niagara Falls in- region. In all, 122,200 acres of wildlife habitat dustrial complex, including a power plant at will be lost to urbanization during the study Niagara Falls that causes a fluctuation of as period. The construction of new houses along much as four feet in water levels. This de- secondary roads forms a barrier against use of grades food-producing capabilities of the river remaining lands behind these houses. and backwaters, and at the same time, induces Another problem restricting access to wild- the thermal condition. Industrial operations life lands all over the basin is posting. This also produce oil, tar, and other waste chemi- practice causes the most restriction of access cals that threaten waterfowl and other animal to huntable wildlife lands, nearly all of which life. are private. As human populations increase, Industrial pollution in Dunkirk Harbor has the incidence of nuisance trespass increases, reduced its value as a waterfowl area. Steel both from wildlife users and others. The land- slag dumped into the open waters of Lake Erie owners then post more land to attempt to re- from the Lackawanna steel plants, and glue duce their own problems of crop damage, fire, and tannery wastes from factories in Tona- fence damage, and stock losses. wanda are other water quality problems af- A use problem that goes hand in hand with fecting wildlife. posting is the tendency for sport groups to Dredge and fill activity of the U.S. Army reserve the right to hunt on private lands by Corps of Engineers beach erosion control direct payment to the landowner. This is a project at Presque Isle Peninsula, Pennsyl- partial solution to the restricted access prob- vania, has damaged the planning subarea's lem, but aggravates the overall problem. If most unique marshland. well-managed hunting preserves were open to Restricted access to private lands is a a larger segment of the hunters, the pressure wildlife use problem in New York, with posted on public areas would be reduced. However, farmland common in rural areas. The situa- hunting preserves are operated well below tion is better in Pennsylvania because of a maximum sustained yield, which further good supply of public hunting land. The total limits overall hunting opportunity. If the of 119,150 acres of the State Game lands, trend toward shooting preserves continues, as Safety Program lands, and Farm Game much as 40 percent of the planning subarea's Cooperative Program lands provided 3.7 acres private lands will be in private preserves by per resident hunter in 1968 in the Pennsyl- the year 2020. vania portion of Planning Subarea 4.4. Loss of wetlands is a serious problem be- cause this habitat is in short supply in the planning subarea. The losses are usually due 2.4.2.11 Planning Subarea 5.1, New York to agricultural, industrial, and municipal de- velopments, often partially funded by gov- This planning subarea is divided into three ernmental programs. Single-purpose flood physiographic region s-upland s, transition control, navigation, and agricultural drainage zone, and lowlands. The uplands or head- programs have been responsible for wetland waters region, which is forested and hilly, ex- losses throughout the Great Lakes Basin. tends into Pennsylvania. The Genesee River Shore marshes have been damaged by naviga- forms a canyon and waterfalls as it cuts tion projects and by the usual filling for gar- through the escarpment at the transition bage and trash disposal. zone. The lake plain is the predominant land The shore and related areas of Planning feature of the lowlands region, with agricul- Subarea 5.1 have a total of 2,890 acres of ture the primary activity. Urban development marshland habitat remaining. A factor of is intrudinginto the river valleys and uplands. great concern is the plan to manipulate levels Urban encroachment into valuable wildlife and flows. An across-the-board determination habitat is the most important of the lowland of an optimum water level for the most effec- problems. Land-use changes such as conver- tive management of shoreline marshes is not sion of agricultural land to residential or in- possible. Each marsh or wetland along the dustrial activities not only permanently de- shore will require an individual biological as- stroys wildlife habitat but also restricts hunt- sessment before an optimum water level can 92 Appendix 17 be recommended. In some cases higher leve Is Preserve in the northern half. Here problems will result in loss of wetland productivity by are similar to forest management problems inundation, while in others decreased levels elsewhere in the Great Lakes Basin and are will dry out shoreline marshes. more solvable than urban problems. Inland marshes exist mainly along the river The following problems are specific to Plan- systems. These areas are threatened by the ning Subarea 5.2. usual flood control projects and land-use (1) waterfowl-wetland problems changes. Shallow swamp areas are being filled (a) Water pollution (oil and some chemi- by developers for cottage sites. Coordinated cals) causes a direct loss ofwaterfowl. and carefully-planned water resource de- (b) Water level control is an important velopment can not only expedite flood control, consideration of both inland lakes and Lake but enhance the diminishing waterfowl Ontario. Drastic changes of water level can be habitat. disastrous. Recent lower levels in Lake On- Water pollution in the planning subarea has tario are having damaging effects on the so adversely affected approximately 100 miles shoreline marshes. of streams that their ability to support a (c) Marina developments, construction fishery has been impaired. Wherever disrup- of shoreline cottages, resorts, and road con- tion or destruction of the aquatic food chain struction where they intrude on wetlands and occurs, dependent mammalian and avian other important wildlife habitat are a sig- species are also affected. Mink, raccoon, nificant zoning problem. muskrats, shorebirds, wading birds, ducks, (d) Dredge and fill activity for whatever and geese depend wholly or partly on aquatic purpose is contributing heavily to loss of wet- organisms for food. Reduced food supplies lands, shallow water areas, and aesthetic val- mean fewer of these animals and birds. ues. In addition to diminished wildlife popula- (e) Drainage of inland wetlands for ag- tions, the aesthetic qualities of the water sys- ricultural purposes, mosquito control, etc., is a tems are impaired, thereby diminishing the serious problem. ability to support nonconsumptive wildlife M Hunter access to wetlands and water demand. This is particularly true in the lower areas is often blocked by private ownership of Genesee River. peripheral lands. (g) The presence of lead shot in shallow waters is a continuing problem responsible for 2.4.2.12 Planning Subarea 5.2, New York waterfowl mortality each year. (2) small-game problems, farm and upland Wildlife problems here are similar to those (a) Intensive agricultural practices, of Planning Subarea 5. 1. However, the Oswego such as clean farming, row cropping, and basin (Planning Subarea 5.2) has larger tracts woodlot clearing, decrease wildlife habitat. of rural land and fewer people problems. The (b) Posting of private lands reduces planning subarea population in 1970 was hunter access. 1,385,000 and is expected to grow to 2,557,000 (c) Early-season haying operations re- by 2020. During the same period 261,300 acres sult in direct mortality of ring-necked pheas- of wildlife habitat will be lost to urban ants and cottontails and nest destruction. encroachment. (d) Fall plowing reduces winter cover, The greatest concentration of people in this food, and nest areas for cottontails and pheas- area occurs in an urban complex strung out ants. along Interstate 90 from Rochester in Plan- (e) Herbicides applied to grain crops re- ning Subarea 5.1 to Syracuse and Utica, both duce weed seed production of fall and spring in Planning Subarea 5.2. This urban belt also food supplies. includes the communities at the mouths of the (f) Farmland abandonment results in Finger Lakes. These lakes attract cottage and loss of farm-game habitat. summer home development, which have (g) Increased use of pesticides and her- brought in the usual support facilities, roads, bicides may have serious reproductive impli- and utilities, making the planning subarea cations for small game. rather uniformly urbanized in the southern . (h) Adequate early-stage forest succes- half. sional habitat must be maintained. In sharp contrast to the more urban south- (i) Lack of interspersed conifer cover for ern half of the planning subarea is the forest snowshoe hare and ruffed grouse over much of land in and around the Adirondack Forest their range limits the population. Present Status of Wildlife 93 (j) Woodcock habitat is decreasing due to lem. Presently substantial wetland reduction vegetational succession and reduced grazing, is occurring at an alarming rate due to filling both of which result from farmland abandon- and dredging; agricultural drainage and ment. channelization; landfills; urbanization; (k) Posting of private lands reduces pollution-including over-enrichment; crea- hunter access. tion of impoundments-deep water or fluc- (3) big-game problems tuating water levels; and artificial lowering of (a) Winter cover in northern Herkimer Lake Ontario water levels detrimental to County has been damaged by high white- shoreline estuaries in relation to the St. tailed deer populations. Lack of conifers is also Lawrence Seaway Development and Power a factor. This part of the planning subarea has Project water management plan. the most severe winter weather conditions. (b) Advanced vegetative succession, (b) Uncontrolled and feral dogs are a fac- coupled with selective cutting of softwood tor in high winter mortality of deer, precluding trees, has seriously reduced productive forest population establishment and herd expansion habitat in many areas. in much of the planning subarea. (c) White-tailed deer winter concentra- (c) Illegal kill, particularly in Oswego tion areas are destroyed by timber harvest and Oneida Counties along with dogs running and the construction of impoundments. Deer deer, is a limiting factor in deer populations. are harrassed by snowmobiles. (4) other problems (d) Lack of logging because State con- (a) Degraded water quality (particularly stitutional constraints prevent harvest on nutrient enrichment) causes early aging of State lands within Forest Preserves results in lakes and ponds and reduces wildlife value of general deterioration of white-tailed deer streams. All kinds of pollution limit the value winter range. of stream courses. Water milfoil invasion of (e) Illegal shooting and dog predation are inland lakes has resulted from excessive nut- important limiting factors to distribution of rient enrichment. deer and some other species. (b) Private ownership of key resource (f) Cycles of severe winters seriously areas locks the public out and prevents wise curtail wildlife species not adapted to subarc- management. There is also a problem on tic conditions. State owned lands (not under the jurisdiction (g) Physical access for hunters in of the New York Department of Environmen- Adirondack zones are needed. Forest Pre- tal Conservation, i.e., lands under water) of serve laws prevent construction of additional preserving unique fish and wildlife values. roads. Many roads and trails are not well iden- (c) Trout streams in the mountains are tified or plowed in winter. sometimes degraded by numerous beaver (h) There is a lack of information con- dams. Concentrations of these animals in- cerning population status of several species, crease water temperature and turbidity by including some forms considered to be en- clearing trees from the banks, impounding dangered, such as the pine marten. water, and creating bottom disturbances. At (i) Many hunters are opposed to antler- the same time, beaver dams provide valuable less deer seasons and other harvest- edge effect and are attractive to waterfowl management techniques. and other wildlife. (j) Some species such as beaver tend to cause problems wherever they occur in areas of intensive land use. 2.4.2.13 Planning Subarea 5.3, New York (k) Some zones have stable land-use pat- terns, but lack wildlife species adapted to such The following problems are specific to Plan- use. ning Subarea 5.3. (2) other problems (1) wildlife problems Other problems are the same in Planning (a) Damage to wetland areas is the Subarea 5.3 as in Planning Subareas 5.2 and foremost environmental preservation prob- 5.1. Section 3 FUTURE USE OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES Planning for future wildlife resource use is Great Lakes Basin consists of actual hunters influenced by many factors including human and potential hunters. The actual hunter population increases, land-use practices, in- category consists of resident licensed hunters, creased urbanization, and related socio-eco- non-resident hunters, and unlicensed hun- nomic factors. ters. Potential hunters include all hunters In this study as in most comprehensive plus the number of latent hunters. Table 17-48 studies the hunter day is used as a measure of lists the total number of hunters in the Basin comparative need. In addition to the hunter for the years 1970, 1980, 2000, and 2020. day an attempt was made to project the actual number of acres of habitat needed to satisfy the increase in hunting demand. The Adden- 3.2.1.1 Licensed Resident Use dum provides the rationale and methodology for determining acres of habitat needed, as Hunting license sales, considered the best well as a detailed step-by-step discussion of index for projecting future hunting demands, the methodology used to develop hunter day are recorded and readily available on a county demands and related data. All projections basis. Resident hunting license sales for all were made on a planning subarea basis with counties in a planning subarea were totaled the county as the base unit. to arrive at the resident licenses per capita 3.1 Projected Human Populations TABLE 17-48 Total Hunters, Great Lakes Projected population figures for the Basin Basin (in thousands) and each planning subarea were provided by 1 2 2 2 the Office of Business Economics, U.S. De- PSA 1970 1980 2000 2020 partment of Commerce, in Appendix 19, 1.1 81.0 87.0 92.0 97.0 Economic and Demographic Studies (Table 1.2 54.1 55.8 55.8 57.9 17-1). Present and future population figures are used as a basis for projecting the future 2.1 224.1 235.2 270.2 315.2 2.2 384.1 670.9 821.6 1,009.2 demand for hunting, with per square mile and 2.3 337.0 410.0 486.0 570.0 acre of habitat per capita being two of the 2.4 129.0 139.2 154.5 175.2 important factors used in our projection equa- tion. 3.1 61.5 65.1 71.9 80.5 3.2 199.7 241.1 285.0 335.3 4.1 337.5 469.9 577.8 720.2 3.2 Projected Hunter Use 4.2 165.0 225.6 260.8 298.3 4.3 134.0 198.0 241.0 294.0 Projections of future hunter use are based 4.4 153.3 190.1 206.9 218.0 on certain assumptions and can be revised if 5.1 74.9 92.7 109.1 125.3 future conditions show these assumptions to 5.2 153.5 179.6 211.9 246.7 be misleading. Hunter use, expressed in 5.3 35.6 41.3 44.0 47.8 man-days, is a function of the number of hun- Basin Total 2,524.3 3,301.5 2,888.5 4,590.6 ters and the annual participation rate. Includes resident and non7resident licensed hunters and unlicensed hunters. 3.2.1 Projected Participants 2Includes resident and non-resident licensed hunters, unlicensed hunters, and latent The projected number of hunters for the demand hunters. 95 96 Appendix 17 for use in the projective process. Resident TABLE 17-49 Resident Licensed Hunters, license sales per capita were considered indic- Great Lakes Basin (in thousands) ative of the acres of potential hunting land per PSA 1970 1980 2000 2020 capita. In 1960 Planning Subarea 3.1 in the upper part of Michigan's Lower Peninsula 1.1 69.0 69.0 73.0 77.0 had both the highest resident licensed hunter 1.2 45.2 44.1 44.1 45.8 per capita rate, .395, and the largest number 2.1 187.9 183.6 210.9 246.1 of acres of potential hunting land per capita, 2.2 327.4 425.7 521.3 640.4 32 acres. Conversely, Planning Subarea 2.2 2.3 291.0 317.0 376.0 441.0 (Chicago, Milwaukee, and Gary) had only a 2.4 109.6 110.8 123.0 139.5 .040 resident licensed hunter per capita rate 3.1 51.7 52.7 58.1 65.1 and.47 acres of habitat per capita. In the Ohio 3.2 170.7 189.3 223.7 263.3 River Basin Comprehensive Survey it was 4.1 289.4 324.3 398.8 497.1 found that the correlation coefficient (r) be- 4.2 158.0 187.3 216.5 247.7 4.3 128.0 137.1 167.0 204.0 tween licensed resident hunter per capita and 4.4 129.1 132.1 143.8 151.5 acres of potential hunting land per capita was 5.1 64.1 66.1 77.8 89.4 highly significant at the 99 percent probabil- 5.2 131.3 133.5 157.6 183.4 ity level. Population density, also a factor in 5.3 30.2 31.4 33.5 36.3 projecting the number of licensed hunters for the target years, was found to be highly sig- Basin Total 2,182.6 2,404.0 2,825.1 3,327.6 nificant. After considering several factors related to projecting future use of wildlife resources, population densities and acres of habitat per capita were determined to be the best factors 3.2.1.2 Licensed Non-Resident Use in projecting future hunting demand in most planning subareas. The method used in projecting non-resident However, in three planning subareas with participation was to find the 1960 ratio of high population densities and low acres of non-resident to resident hunters and apply habitat per capita, it was found that better this factor to the projected resident licensed results could be obtained by using total popu- hunters. It was assumed that no significant lation and total area as the factors involved in change would occur in this ratio during the making the projections. These three are Plan- projected years. ning Subareas 2.2, 4.1, and 4.3. Multiple regression equations (Introduc- ti6n) were used to project the number of 3.2.1.3 Unlicensed Use licensed hunters per capita for 1960 in each planning subarea. The computed 1960 licensed Adjustments for unlicensed hunters were hunter per capita figure was then adjusted as made from statistics developed in the 1965 Na- it deviated from the known 1960 licensed tional Survey of Fishing and Hunting and hunter per capita figure. The correction factor data received from the various State fish and was derived by dividing the actual per capita game agencies. Some unlicensed hunters were figure by the computed per capita figure for hunting in violation of existing laws requiring each planning subarea. The projected per licenses. However, most unlicensed hunters capita figure was then multiplied by this cor- are exempted from the license requirements rection factor to partially account for various by legislation. Typical exemptions are prop- unknown determinants specific to each par- erty owners on their own land, persons under ticular planning subarea. Adjustment factors or over certain ages, disabled or active ser- were not large but were thought to provide vicemen, and so on. No significant change in increased accuracy when applied to pro- legislation concerning exemptions is antici- jections for the future. pated for the target years. The Addendum shows the calculation pro- cedure using Planning Subarea 4.2 as an example. Table 17-49 lists the total number of 3.2.1.4 Latent Demand licensed hunters in the Basin for the base year 1970 and the projected numbers of licensed Latent demand is that desire to hunt inher- hunters for the target years 1980, 2000, and ent in the total population but not fulfilled 2020. because of lack of facilities, time, money, or for Future Use of Wildlife Resources 97 other reasons. A national survey published in of supply and demand permits an evaluation 1962 probed this problem of latent demand and of future net hunting needs or excess supply. estimated that five percent of the adult popu- To. arrive at the 1980 net demand, the 1970 lation (18 years and older) would like to begin gross demand was subtracted from the 1980 hunting, and five percent would like to hunt gross demand and then adjusted for acres of more. In the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive habitat lost and acres gained of intensively Study, based on these national figures, the managed hunting areas. An intensively scope of coverage was expanded to make the managed area provides higher use than an factors adaptable to total population. The re- unmanaged area. For example, if 20,000 acres sults show that 1.62 percent of the total popu- of private land were lost with a use of .20 lation of the Ohio basin have unfulfilled de- man-days per acre (4,000 man-days lost), and mand for hunting. only 2,000 acres is gained but managed inten- In this appendix, latent-demand hunters sively with a use factor of 3.00 man-days per were projected as a percent of the actual 1960 acre (6,000 man-days gained), there would be a resident licensed hunters. In order to deter- net gain of 2,000 man-days of hunting. mine this percent factor, 1.62 percent of the Net demands for 2000 and 2020 were deter- total population in each planning subarea was mined using the same method used for deter- divided by the number of actual resident hunt- mining 1980 net demands. Therefore, 2000 and ers for that planning subarea. The results 2020 net demands were a function of changes ranged from 5 percent to 40 percent. The same in gross demands during the years 1980-2000 percent factor determined for each planning and 2000-2020, the carry-over net demand subarea was used for the target years. from the previous target year, and the effects of land-use changes on opportunity and use. Table 17-50 shows the net demand in man- 3.2.2 Projected Annual Use Rates Per days for the base year 1970 and the target Participant years 1980, 2000, and 2020. Estimates of average annual hunter par- ticipation rates were based on State data for each planning subarea. The average annual 3.2.5 Planning Subareas: Hunters and Needs estimated Basin participation rate for 1970 was 10.0 days and 8.8 days in 2020. Annual Table 17-51 provides data on the acreages of participation rates ranged from a low of 4 days wildlife habitat required to provide hunting to a high of 15 days per hunter. Participation opportunity. Data are provided for the base rates were reduced 4 percent for each target year 1970 as well as projected data for the year to account for increasing population target years 1980, 2000, and 2020. The pro- densities and a decreasing habitat base. jections made in the table are considered to be reliable indications of the future relationships between numbers of persons desiring to use 3.2.3 Projected Gross Demand wildlife, total acreage required to meet this desire, the actual supply of acreage expected To arrive at total (gross) demand figures for to be available under present land manage- the target years 1980, 2000, and 2020, the ment and use programs, and the expected un- number of projected participants for each satisfied demand (unsatisfied opportunity) to planning subarea was multiplied by the use wildlife resources. The net (unsatisfied) hunter participation rate for that planning demands are presented in two tables. Table subarea. Gross demands in hunter days are 17-50 shows the unsatisfied or net demand in shown in Table 17-58. terms of number of hunter man-days of use, while Table 17-51 presents the unsatisfied op- portunity to use wildlife in terms of net (de- 3.2.4 Projected Net Demand ficit) acres of wildlife habitat needed. Factors which contribute to the loss of After projecting gross demand for each wildlife habitat and the resultant shortage in planning subarea, it becomes necessary to es- future target years are discussed in other sec- timate future change in opportunity (supply) tions of the appendix. (See Table 17-53 and represented by acres of habitat. A comparison Figure 17-46.) 98 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-50 Licenses and Gross and Net Demands for Hunting, Great Lakes Basin (in thousands) Resident UrI7 Non- Gross Net Licensed Licensed Resident Latent Actual Potential Demand Demand FSA Year Hunters Hunters Hunters Hunters Hunters Hunters Man-days Man-days 1.1 1970 69 11 .7 -- 81 -- 808 -- 1980 69 11 .7 6 81 87 838 26 2000 73 12 .7 6 81 92 842 27 2020 77 13 .7 6 81 97 849 32 1.2 1970 45.2 7.4 1.5 -- 54.1 -- 702.5 -- 1980 44.1 7.2 1.5 3 52.8 55.8 717.5 15 2000 44.1 7.2 1.5 3 52.8 55.8 709.6 7.2 2020 45.8 7.5 1.5 3.1 54.8 57.9 729.6 27.9 2.1 1970 187.9 30.6 5.6 -- 224.1 -- 2,584.7 -- 1980 183.6 29.9 5.5 16.2 219.0 235.2 2,982.6 330.0 2000 210.9 34.4 6.3 18.6 251.6 270.2 3,285.3 632.7 2020 246.1 40.1 7.3 21.7 293.5 315.2 3,678.5 896.5 2.2 1970 327.4 53.4 3.3 -- 384.1 -- 3,840.8 -- 1980 425.7 69.4 4.3 171.5 499.4 670.9 6,440.2 2,507.4 2000 521.3 85.0 5.3 210.0 611.6 821.6 7,558.3 3,754.0 2020 640.4 104.4 6.5 257.9 751.3 1,009.2 8,880.8 4,946.1 2.3 1970 291 44 2 -- 337 -- 3,502 -- 1980 317 48 2 43 367 410 4,031 504.5 2000 376 56 3 51 435 486 4,308 753.6 2020 441 66 3 60 510 570 4,541 966.4 2.4 1970 109.6 17 2.4 129 -- 1,947.2 -- 1980 110.8 18.1 2.3 8.0 131.2 139.2 2,003.6 202.3 2000 123.0 20.0 2.6 8.9 145.6 154.5 2,132.2 332.4 2020 139.5 22.7 2.9 10.1 165.1 175.2 2,313.5 514.7 3.1 1970 51.7 8.4 1.4 --- 61.5 -- 800.3 -- 1980 52.7 8.6 1.4 2.4 62.7 65.1 814.6 16.1 2000 58.1 9.5 1.6 2.7 69.2 71.9 862.6 66.5 2020 65.1 10.6 1.8 3.0 77.5 80.5 925.1 132.1 3.2 1970 170.7 27.8 1.2 -- 199.7 -- 2,597.1 -- 1980 189.3 30.9 1.3 19.6 221.5 241.1 3,014.0 396.6 2000 223.7 36.5 1.6 23.2 261.8 285.0 3,418.8 786.3 2020 263.3 42.9 1.8 27.3 308.0 335.3 3,856.6 1,203.7 4.1 1970 289.4 47.2 .9 --. 337.5 -- 2,902.1 -- 1980 324.3 52.9 1.0 91.7 378.2 469.9 4,510.6 1,596.4 2000 398.8 65.0 1.2 112.8 465.0 577.8 5,315.3 2,474.2 2020 497.1 81.0 1.5 140.6 579.6 720.2 6,337.9 3,539.0 4.2 1970 158.0 6.0 1.0 -- 165.0 -- 1,844.1 -- 1980 187.3 7.5 1.4 29.4 196.2 225.6 2,413.8 581.1 2000 216.5 8.7 1.6 34.0 226.8 260.8 2,738.6 921.8 2020 247.7 9.9 1.8 38.9 259.8 298.3 3,072.5 1,273.5 4.3 1970 128 5.0 .9 -- 134 -- 1,592.0 -- 1980 137.1 5.5 1.0 54 144 198 2,344.6 896.7 2000 167 7.0 1.2 66 175 241 2,791.4 1,420.6 2020 204 8.1 1.5 81 214 294 3,352.5 2,035.1 4.4 1970 129.1 21.0 3.2 -- 153.3 -- 613.4 -- 1980 132.1 21.5 3.3 33.2 156.9 190.1 760.6 169.2 2000 143.8 23.4 3.6 36.1 170.8 206.9 827.5 262.3 2020 151.5 24.7 3.7 38.1 179.9 218.0 872.0 331.0 5.1 1970 64.1 10.4 .4 -- 74.9 -- 299.7 -- 1980 66.1 10.8 .4 15.4 77.3 92.7 370.7 83.8 2000 77.8 12.7 .5 18.1 91.0 109.1 436.5 161.2 2020 89.4 14.6 .6 20.8 104.5 125.3 501.3 240.7 5.2 1970 131.3 21.4 .8 -- 153.5 -- 614.0 -- 1980 133.5 21.8 .8 23.5 156.1 179.6 718.4 138.3 2000 157.6 25.7 .9 27.7 184.2 211.9 847.7 293.8 2020 183.4 29.9 1.1 32.3 214.4 246.7 986.8 461.1 5.3 1970 30.2 4.9 .4 -- 35.6 -- 142.2 -- 1980 31.4 5.1 .4 4.3 37.0 41.3 165.1 23.2 2000 33.5 5.5 .4 4.6 39.4 44.0 176.2 36.3 2020 36.3 5.9 .5 5.0 42.8 47.8 191.1 53.6 Future Use of Wildlife Resources 99 -A1, 'X 441, @77 Cou@tesy of State of Pennsyl@ania Game Commission FIGURE 17-46 Two Satisfied Resident Pennsylvania Hunters TABLE 17-51 Acres of Wildlife Habitat TABLE 17-52 Projected Net Demands on Needed to Satisfy Hunter Demands, Great Wildlife Habitat by Non-Consumptive Users, Lakes Basin (in thousands) Great Lakes Basin' PSA 1980 2000 2020 Factor 1 PSA 1980 2000 2020 1. 1 0.0 60.0 150.0 15 1.1 26.0 27.0 32.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 50.0 25 1.2 15.0 7.2 27.9 2.1 0.0 495.0 1,125.0 15 2.1 330.0 632.7 896.5 2.2 1,383.6 2,730.0 4,406.4 12 2.2 2,507.4 3,754.0 4,946.1 2.3 299.0 986.0 1,734.0 10 2.3 504.5 753.6 966.4 2.4 26.0 316.0 708.0 20 2.4 202.3 332.4 514.7 3.1 22.0 152.0 316.0 20 3.1 16.1 66.5 132.1 3.2 217.0 619.0 1,082.0 10 3.2 396.6 786.3 1,203.7 4.1 1,596.4 2,474.2 3,539.0 4.1 439.5 873.5 1,447.0 5 4.2 581.1 921.8 1,273.5 4.2 312.0 618.0 944.0 10 4.3 896.7 1,420.6 2,035.1 4.3 100.0 410.0 800.0 10 4.4 169.2 262.3 331.0 4.4 36.0 175.0 266.0 10 5.1 83.8 161.2 240.7 5.1 24.0 161.0 296.0 10 5.2 138.3 293.8 461.1 5.2 26.0 307.0 609.0 10 5.3 23.2 36.3 53.6 5.3 28.0 76.0 144.0 20 TOTAL 7,486.6 11,929.9 16,653.4 TOTAL 2,913.1 7,978.5 14,077.4 1 Net demand (measured in thousands of man-days) INumber of acres required for each additional is unsatisfied demand, the amount the desire hunter. to do something exceeds the opportunity. 100 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-53 Acres of Potentially Huntable Land, Great Lakes Basin (in thousands) PSA Year Required Supply Needs PSA Year Required Supply Needs 1.1 1970 8,264.6 8,264.6 .0 3.2 2000 2,275.9 1,656.9 619.0 1980 8,263.9 8,263.9 0 2020 2,716.9 1,634.9 1,082.0 2000 8,316.9 8,256.9 60.0 2020 8,393.5 8,243.5 150.0 4.1 1970 1,042.0 1,042.0 0 .1980 1,386.2 946.7 439.5 1.2 1970 6,179.1 6,179.1 0 2000 1,685.3 811.8 873.5 1980 6,179.1 6,179.1 0 2020 2,169.5 722.5 1,447.0 2000 6,178.1 6,178.1 0 2020 6,225.0 6,175.0 50.0 4.2 1970 1,495.8 1,495.8 0 1980 1,791.6 1,479.6 312.0 2.1 1970 5,789.4 5,789.4 0 2000 2,071.1 1,453.1 618.0 1980 5,775.4 5,715.4 0 2020 2,329.3 1,385.3 944.0 2000 6,244.2 5,749.2 495.0 2020 6,841.9 5,716.9 1,125.0 4.3 1970 1,451.75 1,451.75 0 1980 1,431.83 1,331.83 100.0 2.2 1970 1,344.7 1,344.7 0 2000 1,519.57 1,109.57 410.0 1980 2,555.0 1,171.4 1,383.6 2020 1,723.19 923.19 800.0 2000 3,675.8 945.8 2,730.0 2020 5,182.5 776.1 4,406.4 4.4 1970 1,181.5 1,181.5 0 1980 920.8 884.8 36.0 2.3 1970 3,091.4 3,091.4 0 2000 846.2 671.2 175.0 1980 3,350.5 3,051.5 299.0 2020 913.6 647.6 226.0 2000 3,976.8 2,990.8 986.0 2020 4,650.1 2,916.1 1,734.0 5.1 1970 836.0 836.0 0 2.4 1970 6,088.4 6,088.4 1980 688.6 664.6 24.0 .0 2000 697.2 536.2 161.0 1980 6,102.4 6,076.4 26.0 2020 769.4 473.4 296.0 2000 6,369.6 6,053.6 316.0 2020 6,735.1 6,027.1 708.0 5.2 1970 2,617.2 2,617.2 0 1980 2,052.5 2,026.5 26.0 3.1 1970 2,760.9 2,760.9 0 2000 2,029.3 1,722.3 307.0 1980 2,776.9 2,754.9 22.0 2020 2,297.7 1,688.7 609.0 2000 2,899.1 2,747.1 152.0 2020 3,053.3 2,737.3 316.0 5.3 1970 2,615.0 2,615.0 0 1980 2,429.2 2,401.2 28.0 3.2- 1970 1,711.3 1,711.3 0 2000 2,345.0 2,269.0 76.0 1980 1,906.2 1,689.2 217.0 2020 2,407.4 2,263.4 144.0 1lAcres needed are cumulative by target years 3.2.6 Estimated Non-Hunter Use Local ordinances, State laws, and other safety limitations are forcing a decrease in the use of Basin nonconsumptive (non-hunter) use, firearms. Lower-quality hunting experience based on a judgment decision by the Wildlife due to degraded habitat and fewer game ani- Work Group, is at least equal to projected con- mals is reducing the desire to hunt, while the sumptive use. It therefore is listed in Table desire to use wildlife habitat for non-hunting 17-53 as a function of net hunter demand. purposes is increasing greatly. State game Nonconsumptive use will probably increase lands near cities are receiving more off-season faster than projected hunter use in some than hunting use. Increases in these areas aieas. This increase will be due largely to and other wildlife lands will benefit the non- crowding in the southern tier of Basin States. consumptive user more as time goes on. Section 4 ALTERNATIVES FOR SATISFYING FUTURE REQUIREMENTS 4.1 Capabilities of Wildlife Resources to lie lands, and acquisition will be limited to deer Sustain Future Demands wintering sites. The State assistance program to private Wildlife populations seek the maximum car- land owners will be continued. The Federal rying capacity of the habitat as dictated by its Rural Environmental Assistance Program potential and level of management. The finite (REAP) and State game funds will continue to dimension most important to wildlife, the re- be available to provide necessary incentives source base in acres, will not increase, but will for private development of wildlife habitat. decrease in the future due to other pressures. Minnesota Department of Natural Re- The only means of maintaining a wildlife sources and Superior National Forest person- population to meet increasing demand is nel are working together on a wolf manage- through more intensive management. ment plan that is now in review. 4.2 Known Future Management Programs and 4.2.1.2 Management Recommendations Recommendations (Planning Subarea 1.1) The following is a series of brief discussions (1) Give top priority to forest management of State and Federal management programs practices that save or maintain existing open- listed by State. These discussions are for fu- ings, but also create a diversity of habitat ture programs only in the sense that no Basin types for wildlife. State is in a position to project increases in (2) Seed logging roads with a mixture of management much beyond the present rate of legumes and grasses for wildlife food and increase. Changes in politics are notwithin maintain hunter access by slowing invasion the realm of projection, and methodology and by trees and shrubs. future State programs are dependent on fu- (3) Create openings in the forest and then ture political situations as well as unforeseen seed with a mixture of legumes and grasses to shifts in the local and national economy. provide wildlife food as well as an area to ob- Also included is a list of recommendations serve and harvest game. for management, and solutions to the prob- (4) Institute prescribed burning of forest lems of each State. lands to create wildlife openings and retard vegetative succession, allowing the growth of young succulent food for wildlife. (5) Release post-sale aspen in forest open- ings by knocking down all small hardwoods, 4.2.1 Minnesota creating a favorable condition for aspen re- generation. (6) Complete acquisition of public lands within purchase boundary of national forest. 4.2.1.1 Future Management Programs (7) Subsidize industry practices by State game divisions to keep forest land acreage in The Minnesota Department of Natural Re- early succession stages and continue coopera- sources, Division of Game and Fish, expects to tion between all governmental levels in game acquire 233,000 acres (Statewide) of game and and timber management practices. fish lands by 1975. (8) Prohibit or regulate snowmobile use as Generally speaking Cook, Lake, Carlton and to time and areas, i.e., prohibit use during St. Louis Counties have an abundance of pub- big-game hunting season in hunting areas, 101 102 Appendix 17 and confine use to marked snowmobile trails. cropland diverted from agricultural pro- (9) Institute zoning laws regulating resi- duction. dential and commercial development within a certain distance of inland lakes and the Lake 4.2.2.2 Management Recommendations for Superior shore. Northern Forest Region (Planning (10) Identify low-yield timber areas and Subarea 1.1 and Northern Half of manage these areas for forest game species Planning Subarea 2.1) and public hunting. (11) Purchase, lease, obtain easements, or (1) Increase wildlife habitat management offer other incentives to local government under the multiple management planning bodies and private landowners to encourage concept for State and county forest lands. the preservation of open spaces and natural (2) Seek improved Federal funding to unique ecological and scenic areas for non- strengthen the wildlife management program consumptive use. on national forest lands. (12) Develop more markets for forest pro- (3) Maintain sun-loving, early successional ducts in the area. timbertypes such as aspen,jackpine, andoak, (13) Manage the timber wolf more inten- which constitute a critical component of sively, including protection-directed control, forest-game habitat on private lands, by im- habitat management, and establishment of proving the market for these species and by game animal status. offering cost-sharing to encourage treatments (14) Establish game animal status for that create favorable conditions for their re- black bear. generation (Figures 17-47 and 17-48). (15) Institute a regulated trapping season (4) Inventory and maintain existing forest on fishers. openings on public lands for their wildlife (16) Emphasize and utilize important fur- habitat and aesthetic value. bearers such as beavers, muskrat, mink, and (5) Identify low-yield timber areas, desig- others. nate their primary management objective as (17) Continue to develop specific regula- wildlife production and public hunting, and tions to control the damage and changes in manage them to this end. ecology of wilderness areas caused by canoeist (6) Initiate research efforts to determine overuse. status of and management needs for nongame wildlife. (7) Restore wildlife law enforcement pro- 4.2.2 Wisconsin gram to the 1960 level. (8) Continue to develop and maintain log- ging roads and permanent firebreaks as wild- 4.2.2.1 Future Programs life openings. This will also provide access for hunters. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Re- (9) Complete acquisition of public lands sources, Division of Forestry, Wildlife and within purchase boundaries of national, State, Recreation, planning goals call for the acquis- and county forests. ition of 385,335 acres of land (Statewide) by (10) Improve land-use zoning and wildlife 1981. Game lands alone are being purchased at management programs on the county level to the rate of approximately 15,000 acres per provide for preservation and enhancement of year. A total of 912,841 acres was owned by the wildlife habitat. Department of Natural Resources on July 1, (11) Provide for the preservation of unique 1971. The U.S. Forest Service plans to acquire ecological and scenic areas through public ac- 5,165 acres of additional land in the northern quisition, easements, or tax incentives for pri- .national forests in a five-year period. vate landowners. Department efforts to protect wetlands by (12) Expand wildlife management exten- acquisition and easements will continue. Wild- sion services, cost-sharing, and other incen- life habitat needs and management on public tives to private landowners to encourage de- forest lands are expected to receive additional velopment and maintenance of forest-game consideration under an expanded multiple- habitat. use concept of forest management. The future (13) Regulate the use of snowmobiles, trail of farm-game habitat maintenance and im- bikes, and other off-road vehicles as to time provement lies in preserving existing non- and area. Prohibit use entirely in certain cropland acreage and by improving cover on areas, restrict use to certain hours during the Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 103 TIP kk J"I'V "Ac - Courtesy of State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources FIGURE 17-47 Typical Northern Wisconsin Potential Forest Game Habitat Treatment Site Show- ing Residual Aspen, Birch, and Maple Following a Commercial Aspen Harvest Courtesy of State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Courtesy of State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources FIGURE 17-48 Northern Wisconsin Forest Game Habitat. Left Photo: "Shearing" is often done after commercial aspen harvest to remove residual trees. Right Photo: Same area 11/2years later (two growing seasons) showing young aspen regeneration, good wildlife habitat. 104 Appendix 17 deer hunting season, and confine use to range master plan, but it is not complete at the marked trails where adverse effects on time of this writing. The Illinois Park Districts wildlife, habitat or the environment occur. and Forest Preserves add valuable open space (14) Reintroduce the timber wolf in areas lands (in some cases high quality wildlife of suitable habitat. habitat) to their holdings at a rate of 7 percent annually. Total district holdings to date are 25,000 acres Statewide. 4.2.2.3 Management Recommendations for Potential projects significant to wildlife in Farm and Urban Region (Planning the Illinois portion of the Basin include: ex- Subarea 2.2 and Southern Half of pansion of the existing Chain 0' Lakes and Il- Planning Subarea 2.1) linois Beach State Parks to their maximum available land limit, and acquisition of addi- (1) A State or Federal water bank ease- tional State parks wherever possible; acquisi- ment program or property tax incentives to tion of the 31 recreation resource areas iden- preserve privately owned wetlands should be tified in the Northeastern Illinois Metropoli- initiated and adequately funded. tan Area Planning Commission Report, "Open (2) Enact legislation which will extend the Space in Northeastern Illinois;" encourage- principles of wildlife management and public ment of National Recreation Area develop- access contained in Title IV of the Cropland ment of the shore of Lake Michigan from Adjustment Program-Food and Agriculture Waukegan north to Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Act of 1965. development of the Chicago, Aurora, and (3) State and counties should continue to Elgin Railroad right-of-way and other aban- acquire land to preserve critical components doned rights-of-way in this area into a system of wildlife habitat as well as unique ecological of recreation trails and prairie vegetation pre- and scenic areas. serves. (4) Local zoning ordinances should be adopted or amended to limit proliferation of residential, transportation, and industrial de- 4.2.3.2 Management Recommendations velopments and to maintain open space and (Planning Subarea 2.2) environmental corridors. (5) Restore waterfowl and furbearer (1) Local zoning ordinances should be habitat in lakes and streams by improving adopted or amended to limit the proliferation water quality and reducing turbidity. De- of residential and industrial developments velopment of specific toxins for control of and to maintain open space. rough fish (especially carp) would yield im- (2) The State and counties should continue mediate benefits. to acquire land to conserve critical compo- (6) Survey wildlife resources and comment nents of wildlife habitat and to guarantee pub- on impact statements (NEPA-1969) to insure lic access to natural areas. that the environmental ramifications of pro- (3) A State wetland or Federal water bank posed developments of projects (such as PL easement program to prevent drainage and 566) are understood and that all beneficial filling of privately owned wetlands should be uses of water and land resources, including initiated. wildlife habitat, have been taken into consid- (4) Obtain easements or offer other incen- eration. tives to private landowners to insure the pre- (7) Retain and expand lease agreements servation of natural, unique ecological, and between the State and private landowners to scenic areas. provide controlled access for public hunting. (5) Retain and expand lease agreements (8) Items number 6 and 7 in Subsection between State agencies and private land- 4.2.2.2 also apply to the southern half of Plan- owners for controlled access to private lands. ning Subarea 2.1. (6) Continue the Federal Cropland Ad- justment Program or enact other legislation which will extend the principles contained in 4.2.3 Illinois Title IV of the Cropland Adjustment Program of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965. (7) Enhance waterfowl and furbearer 4.2.3.1 Known Future Management Programs habitat by improvingwater quality and reduc- ing carp populations in lakes and streams. The State is in the process of writing a long- (8) Improve coordination among all local, Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 105 State, and Federal agency programs to insure carp populations in lakes and streams. that the potential environmental ramifica- (8) Improve coordination between all local, tions of proposed projects are understood and State, and Federal agency programs to insure that all beneficial uses of water and land re- that the potential environmental rami- sources, including fish and wildlife habitat, fications of proposed projects are understood have been taken into consideration. Use to full and that all beneficial uses of water and land advantage all opportunities under PL 566 for resources, including fish and wildlife habitat, preserving, improving, and creating fish and have been taken into consideration. wildlife habitat and open space. (9) Encourage and support the activities of local and national conservation organizations in the preservation and improvement of the 4.2.4 Indiana quality of the environment. (10) If supported by biological data, enact State legislation to permit the hunting of 4.2.4.1 Future Management Programs mourning doves. (11) Enact legislation and develop a policy The Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife on stream and lakeshore filling that would plans to acquire 2,500 to 3,000 acres by 1980 as prevent further destruction of privately additions to existing game lands in the three owned marshes as well as degradation of planning subareas. Also planned is the acquis- watercourses by municipal dumps. The new ition of 4,000 acres of wetlands. The State Ohio Stream Littering Law and the 1968 In- hopes to initiate a natural stream pres- diana Department of Natural Resources, ervation program which would initially in- Natural Resource Commission Wetlands Pol- clude 72 miles of streams. Expansion of the icy Statement should be helpful in the de- Indiana Dunes area by the Federal govern- velopment of this policy. ment to include all significant dunes and open (12) Enact more effective legislation on lands is probable. water pollution that could improve the water quality of streams such as the Maumee and thereby enhance the waterfowl wintering and 4.2.4.2 Management Recommendations production potential, furbearer potential, (Planning Subareas 2.2, 2.3, and 4.2) fishing potential, and general aesthetic qual- ity. (1) Local zoning ordinances should be (13) Amend PL 83-566 (Small Watershed adopted or amended to limit proliferation of Program) to include cost of additional land residential and industrial development and rights for mitigation as a construction cost to maintain open space. be cost-shared at the same rate as the struc- (2) The State and counties should continue tural measure creating the need for miti- to acquire land to conserve critical eompo- gation. nents of wildlife habitat and to guarantee pub- lic access to natural areas. (3) A State wetland or Federal water bank 4.2.5 Michigan easement program to prevent drainage and filling of privately owned wetlands should be initiated. 4.2.5.1 Future Programs (4) Obtain easements or offer other incen- tives to private landowners to insure the pres- By 1977 the Michigan Department of ervation of natural, unique ecological, and Natural Resources has proposed to acquire scenic areas. 198,000 acres of land for wildlife purposes in- (5) Retain and expand lease agreements cluding scarce habitat, game land additions, between State agencies and private land- and recreation areas. Most of this acquisition owners for controlled access to private lands. is proposed for southern areas, since the de- (6) Continue the Federal Cropland Ad- mand is highest there and the number of users justment Program or enact other legislation per acre is higher. Additional capital expendi- which will extend the principles contained in tures (items not funded through existing or Title IV of the Cropland Adjustment Program foreseeable fund sources) may provide for of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965. 257,800 more acres of land. This would include (7) Enhance waterfowl and furbearer hab- scarce habitat, deer and upland habitat, and itat by improving water quality and reducing wetlands. The U.S. Forest Service has plans to 106 Appendix 17 purchase blocks of private land remaining in (7) Provide the Michigan Wildlife Division the six national forests in northern Michi- with permit-granting authority for marsh gan. vegetation modifications. (8) Provide greater protection of marsh areas through legislative action, or through 4.2.5.2 Management Recommendations for policy changes by such agencies as the U.S. Southern Part of the State Army Corps of Engineers, placing wetland preservation on an equal basis with naviga- (1) Update and strengthen existing zoning tion and shoreline construction activity. laws and ordinances. High-value wildlife hab- (9) Provide legislative or policy changes to itats such as the Lake Erie marshes, lower assure the enhancement of wildlife habitat in Detroit River marshes, Lake St. Clair marshes the application of PL 566 and REAP projects. and remaining good stream bottoms should be Expansion of the Michigan Department of rigidly zoned against further development Natural Resources private land habitat man- and destruction. Zoning classifications that agement program should include providing preclude development, and modifications of technical service to the Rural Environmental these areas would help protect them and re- Assistance Program. Cost-sharing by the sult in a freeze or lowering of real estate val- State or another public agency, in addition to ues to a point commensurate with the re- the cost-sharing already provided the private source agencies' ability to purchase lands for landowner under REAP, could greatly in- permanent protection. crease management practices and improve (2) Amend PL 83-566 to include cost of ad- the quality of wildlife habitat. ditional land rights for mitigation as a con- (10) Continue efforts to purchase as much struction cost to be shared at the same rate as wetland habitat and as many parcels of impor- the structural measure creating the need for tant pheasant habitat as possible. mitigation. (11) Continue action to restrict the man- (3) Intensify water-pollution control ac- ufacture, sale, and use of remaining hard and tivities, particularly in cases of floating oil, persistent pesticides. persistent pesticides, and heavy metals. (12) Develop a program to assist and guide (4) Strengthen or amend ASCS, Forest urban homeowners and others in the preser- Service and SCS activities to benefit the vation and enhancement of open space for wildlife programs as follows: wildlife. (a) Institute policy changes that require earmarking funds specifically for wildlife en- hancement, and provide for administrative 4.2.5.3 Management Recommendations for follow-up on the use of these funds. Northern Part of the State (b) Protect project-construction work such as drainage ditches and channels by fenc- The problems of changing plant succession ing from livestock and other wildlife habitat in the northern forests of Michigan have been degrading uses. partially resolved by an updated policy for (c) Emphasize funding for routine managing State forest lands which was put wildlife enhancement practices, such as food into effect in June 1970. The main emphasis in and cover plot plantings. this plan is multiple use, with the recommen- (d) Legislate to provide renewal of the dation that timber management be modified Cropland Adjustment Program land con- to give equal consideration to wildlife man- tracts. agement. Modification of timber management (5) Change the funding of water resources practices is the most effective method of indi- planning to include States that have the most rectly improving wildlife habitat. Other ap- to gain or lose from these plans. proaches are direct wildlife habitat improve- (6) Include provision for public access to ment measures, such as cutting to produce lands covered by any future crop diversion deer browse, food and cover planting, and de- program or continuation of the current pro- velopment of trails and wildlife openings. The gram under the Food and Agricultural Act of following are recommended timber manage- 1965. Approximately 62,189 acres of private ment practices: land now open to public access under the Crop- (1) Scatter small timber sales. land Adjustment Program of the U.S. De- (2) Spread cutting on large sale areas over partment of Agriculture will revert to private several years. control by the year 1976. (3) Preserve uncut plots and travel lanes Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 107 for wildlife in large clear cuttings. into wilderness areas and habitat with little (4) Use selective cutting to open the chance of conflict with livestock. Improve- canopy of dense forests. ment of deer habitat should have secondary (5) Maintain adequate cover in deer winter benefits to wolves. concentration areas. (2) Bald eagle and osprey need nest-site (6) Plan cutting programs to retain mature acquisition and protection, tightening of con- male aspen for ruffed grouse and mast- trols on persistent pesticides, and clean-up of producing oaks for deer and bear. heavy concentrations of pesticides in polluted (7) Plan winter cuttings so food for deer is waters to survive. provided when and where needed. (3) The prairie chicken needs continued (8) Recycle aspen by noncommercial protection and management of scarce prairie means when demand is not sufficient to secure chicken habitat. harvest before deterioration of stand and sub- (4) Kirtland's warbler needs continued sequent conversion to shade tolerant species. management of jack pine stands to maintain Aspen stands of several ages in fairly close an adequate supply of habitat, and possibly a proximity are desirable. study of wintering grounds in the Bahamas to (9) Use in-stand conversion to preserve determine wintering habitat requirements. buffer strips of original type between planted (5) Pine marten and fishers need protec- areas and other timber. tion from trapping in release site areas. Ef- (10) Preserve and maintain existing small forts to reestablish the animals in suitable openings. habitat, and manage habitat in areas of suc- (11) Reserve openings in larger planta- cessful reestablishment should be continued. tions. (6) Canada lynx should be protected from (12) Break large planted areas with trapping and hunting in the Upper Peninsula natural cover strips. where they are making a comeback. The following are recommended wildlife (7) The program of controlling cowbirds habitat management practices: should continue in areas where they are (1) Employ controlled burns to stimulate parasitizing Kirtland's warbler nests. aspen and jack pine regeneration and growth of cherries, birch, Juneberries, dogwood, blueberries, raspberries, and other herba- 4.2.6 Ohio ceous plants; create or maintain forest open- ings; and open selected 10- to 20-acre areas adjacent to deer yards. 4.2.6.1 Future Programs (2) Mechanically create openings and trails in the forest. The Ohio Division of Wildlife has tentative (3) Cut, spray, or bulldoze deer browse plans to purchase 20,000 acres of wildlife lands plants to increase sprouts and shoots avail- in the Basin portion of Ohio. In addition to able to deer. these lands (most of which are additions to (4) Release or plant fruit-producing trees existing State upland wildlife lands), the Divi- and shrubs. sion also hopes to purchase much of the re- (5) Establish evergreen cover in extensive maining 15,000 acres of Lake Erie marshes. stands of aspen or hardwoods. Other divisions of the Ohio Department of (6) Plant browse, particularly male aspen, Natural Resources will purchase 9,500 acres of and cover-producing trees in areas of natural areas. Acquisition of the remaining maximum benefit to wildlife. marshes will be by far the Ohio Division of The solution to overuse of public lands by Wildlife's most important land purchase in the snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles lies in near future. These marshes are prime wildlife measures intended to reduce the numbers of habitat with Basinwide importance to sea- these vehicles. Higher registration fees, more sonal concentrations of waterfowl and public restrictions on their use, and outright limiting use. The ability of marshlands to support non- of their numbers on public lands are pos- consumptive wildlife use is far greater than sibilities. their consumptive-use potential. Even though The problem of protecting and perpetuating the cost of this program is the highest in the rare and endangered species should employ budget, the acquisition of these wetlands may specific solutions for each species: be the most efficient and economical recom- (1) Timber wolf should be reintroduced mendation proposed. 108 Appendix 17 4.2.6.2 Management Recommendations (11) Continue and expand the wildlife hab- (Planning Subareas 4.2 and 4.3) itat benefits and public access opportunities on USDA diverted cropland as program re- (1) Acquire public lands, including at least quirements. 15,000 acres of the remaining wetlands in the (12) Expand assistance and guidance to Lake Erie marsh region of Ohio. urban homeowners and others to preserve and (2) Obtain perpetual easements or pur- enhance open space for wildlife. chase unique and critical wildlife areas. (13) Provide increased technical assis- (3) Alter existing zoning laws to provide tance to individuals and public agencies so for preservation of natural open space. that wildlife benefits can be incorporated into (4) Provide legislation to strengthen and their land management operations (e.g., mow- broaden the State's wildlife management au- ing of roadside berms during the pheasant thority to include all native wildlife species. nesting season). Companion legislation providing additional (14) Institute rental and lease agreements funding to meet this broader responsibility is between public agencies and owners of private also needed. land to provide public access. (5) Enact State legislation to permit the (15) Encourage, advise, and support the hunting of mourning doves, based upon biolog- activities of local end national conservation ical data. organizations in the preservation and im- (6) Provide better legislation on stream provement of the quality of the environment. and lakeshore filling that would prevent (16) Develop and strengthen means to en- further destruction of privately owned sure that recreational and other uses of public marshes. Legislation similar to the new Ohio hunting areas will not prevent these lands Stream Littering Law should be adopted. from continuing to contribute to the regional (7) Provide more effective legislation on wildlife habitat base, and provide safeguards water pollution to improve the water quality to ensure quality hunting and wildlife-related of streams such as the Maumee and thereby outdoor recreational opportunity. This would enhance the waterfowl wintering and pro- include improved planning and development duction potential, furbearer potential, fishing of these areas compatible with biological con- potential, and general aesthetic quality. siderations and restrictions on types of rec- (8) Amend Public Law 83-566 (Small reational use, the number of users, and time of Watershed Program) to include the cost of ad- use. ditional land rights together with the cost of (17) Give more attention to the consump- development for wildlife use for mitigation as tive and nonconsumptive use of furbearers. a construction cost to be cost-shared at the Ohio is currently one of the two top commer- same rate as the structural measures creating cial muskrat harvesting States in the nation. the need for mitigation. Planning Subarea 4.3 also. contains some of (9) Initiate and improve continuing re- the State's better beaver habitat. Landowner source inventories to monitor wildlife popula- complaints indicate that more recreational tion changes and land-use changes of major use could be made of these species to help significance to wildlife. Wildlife population in- satisfy some of the projected demand. Ex- ventories need to be more comprehensive, panded educational programs on the aesthetic more precise, and of sufficient sample size to and wildlife values created by the beaver are permit analysis by relatively small sampling needed to reduce land owner resistance to this units (county size or smaller). Existing soil species where little economic damage is in- and water conservation needs inventories and volved. forest surveys by the U.S. Department of Ag- riculture should be modified to provide addi- tional data of wildlife significance. Other en- 4.2.7 Pennsylvania vironmental parameters (e.g., water quality) should also be monitored. (10) Increase the Ohio Department of 4.2.7.1 Future Management Programs Natural Resources technical assistance to en- (Planning Subarea 4.4) hance wildlife habitat benefits through soil and water conservation practice, cost-share The Pennsylvania Game Commission plans programs, and crop production adjustment expansion of the 14 State Game Land Units programs of the U.S. Department of Agricul- within Erie County as funds and land become ture. available. However, escalating land costs may Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 109 limit acquisition. The Land and Water Con- 4.2.8 New York servation and Reclamation Bond Issue, com- monly called Project 500, will provide funds for game habitat improvement and hunter ac- 4.2.8.1 Future Programs cess. This bond issue provides funds to the Game and Fish Commissions for development, The New York State Department of En- but no acquisition can be undertaken with the vironmental Conservation has plans for funds. Intensive development for small game, wildlife enhancement in the Basin through forest game and waterfowl is underway on five 1976. These plans include the development of State game lands and work is in the planning 40,000 acres of wetlands for waterfowl produc- stage for the other management units with tion, purchase of 69,000 additional acres of bond issue funds. wetlands, provision of 170 miles of hunting ac- An additional source of funding for wildlife cess roads, and improvement of 11,000 acres of habitat development will be available through wildlife habitat. the Penn Soils Resource Conservation and Development Project that includes Erie County. Emphasis within this project will be on waterfowl habitat improvement by the use 4.2.8.2 General Management Recommenda- of small ponds and dikes. tions (Planning Subareas 4.4, 5.1, Expansion of existing Farm-Game Coopera- 5.2, and 5.3) tive units is also planned for the future. Experimental introduction of the sharp- (1) Promote better private landowner- tailed grouse, a western species, may help hunter relationships through State fish and compensate for low pheasant productivity in game agency educational programs with em- this area. The Game Commission is also exper- phasis on the recreational and economic bene- imenting with Korean pheasants here. fits realized by both parties. This could al- leviate public access restrictions. This pro- gram could also be used to improve the exist- ing hunting preserves by informing land- owners of sound wildlife management prac- 4.2.7.2 Management Recommendations tices. (Planning Subarea 4.4) (2) Increase acquisition of public hunting lands to offset the trend toward diminished (1) Improve legislation and provide strict private land access. enforcement of water quality standards to al- (3) Improve zoning by increased emphasis leviate degradation of waterfowl feeding on green belts and open space, and improve areas. watershed planning by establishing regula- (2) Develop agreements with the Corps of tory powers. These are means of controlling Engineers to prevent further destruction of urban encroachment into wildlife habitat. the Erie Bay marshes. (4) Improve effectiveness of Federal con- (3) Preserve green areas by zoning to con- servation programs such as REAP by promot- trol urban expansion. ing more landowner participation in fish and (4) Expand farm-game conservation proj- wildlife management. ects and safety zone programs to promote (5) Take measures to rehabilitate de- better landowner-hunter relationships. graded streams after pollution levels are re- (5) Increase land acquisition programs. duced through rigid pollution control regula- (6) Develop a conservation education pro- tion and strong enforcement. gram to reach all segments of the population. (7) Continue an effective law enforcement program. (8) Initiate research programs that will 4.2.8.3 Waterfowl and Wetland Recom- provide information on maximum carrying mendations capacity for native species, and possible intro- duction of exotic species. (1) Maintain and preserve the Lake On- (9) Expand land management program to tario and St. Lawrence River marshes as well improve habitat for forest- and farm-game as other wetlands, including the Barge Canal species. and large inland marshes. (10) Develop waterfowl habitat areas. (2) Enhance remaining waterfowl habitat 110 Appendix 17 by giving high priority to legal protection of 4.2.8.5 Upland Game Recommendations remaining wetlands and waterfowl develop- ments in conjunction with State and Federal (1) Manage both farm-game and upland water development programs. game through leases of abandoned farms. (3) Reduce user access problems by wildlife (2) Reduce posted land to improve hunter management and development of suitable access. State owned wetlands not currently managed (3) Manage forest-game habitat through by the Bureau of Wildlife. FPA and FWMA programs. (4) Establish small shallow-water areas (4) Purchase additional land for public use. and marshes throughout the basin to improve (5) Fence woodlots to protect against ex- local waterfowl production and to increase cessive grazing except where grazing is desir- areas available to migratory waterfowl. Plan- able as a woodcock management measure. ning Subarea 5.3 is particularly well-suited for marsh development. (5) Provide ownership or control of State 4.2.8.6 Big-Game Recommendations owned underwater wetlands including buffer strips by the agency most concerned with (1) Reduce illegal kill and control free run- natural resource management. This would ning dogs in large zones where deer are re- solve conflicts of interest which arise over duced by such factors. This could result in an marina developments and other intrusions increase of as much as five times the present into wetland habitat. buck harvest. (6) Acquire first-priority wetlands still in (2) Reduce and maintain deer populations private ownership. in Central Adirondacks and Central Tug Hill (7) Curtail agricultural stream channel- and southern tier zones at a level commensu- ization projects threatening wetlands. rate with available food and cover. This will (8) Stabilize water on Lake Ontario at sea- result in an improved deer herd and will allow sonal levels compatible with the best interests depleted winter yard areas to recover. of shore wetland management. (3) Provide greater access to deer popula- (9) Consider wetland values in all land-use tions. This could increase recreational oppor- planning efforts, and help preserve these tunity and desired harvest. areas through local governmental open space (4) Increase publicly owned land area to a and natural land-use zoning or easement level commensurate with future nonconsump- agreements. tive use. (10) Institute better liaison and coopera- (5) Further influence land management tion between the New York Department of practices to benefit deer. Environmental Conservation and other State (6) Institute policy changes to insure an and Federal agencies. The New York State adequate deer harvest, including special sea- Conservation Law, Section 429, is a factor in sons in problem areas. the protection of wetland degradation from dredging and filling. 4.2.8.7 Other Recommendations 4.2.8.4 Farm-Game Recommendations (1) Improve enforcement of anti-pollution laws and improve laws needed to solve pollu- (1) Provide more recreational opportunity tion problems. Water milfoil problems in in- through reduction of posted land or access land lakes might be solved if nutrients were agreements with private landowners. reduced. Changes in detergent legislation (2) Modify present farming methods. For could have a bearing on this problem (nutrient example, use flushing bars on haymowers, re- enrichment) everywhere. tain small hedgerows and fencerows, protect (2) Provide firm State policy decisions to and manage woodlots and wetlands, and en- protect and preserve unique habitat types and courage crop rotation. enact protective legislation to solve the prob- (3) Provide technical assistance to farmers lem of wetland drainage for agricultural pur- and rural landowners on land use in develop- poses. ing the wildlife potential (wider FWMA pro- (3) Provide wildlife management practices gram involvement). to control beaver, such as live trapping and Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 111 relocating or increased trapping pressure, to important wildlife species should be em- help solve water quality problems on moun- phasized. tain streams. (10) Investigate the possibility of new (4) Monitor effects of pollutants on wildlife. species introduction in grassland zones (St. Lawrence Plain) and the possible problems from such introductions. ' 4.2.8.8 Additional Recommendations Specific The following are recommended wetlands to Planning Subarea 5.3 actions: (1) Identify important wetlands including (1) Make no attempt to promote species littoral zones adjacent to navigable waters. acclimated to more temperate areas, such as (2) Dedicate State owned littoral zones to pheasants. Effects of weather on all indige- wildlife purposes and control select adjoining nous wildlife should be publicized. uplands to sever riparian interest. (2) Provide better legislation and in- (3) Protect remaining wetlands by impact creased law enforcement and conduct inten- reviews and zoning. sive public relations campaigns to alleviate il- (4) Acquire most important inland wetland legal shooting and dog predation on deer. units (to State ownership). (3) Liberalize harvest regulations in areas (5) Provide better coordination with public of intensive land-use. Extension programs are agencies promoting agricultural drainage needed to provide informational material to and other land use affecting wildlife. landowners to aid in eliminating wildlife prob- (6) Encourage wetland development and lems (beaver damage, etc.). enhancement. (4) Provide better techniques to monitor wildlife populations, particularly in wilder- ness areas. 4.3 Estimated State Budgets for the Study (5) Build additional improved boat launch- Period ing sites on large water bodies to provide in- creased hunter access to wilderness areas. Tables 17-54 through 17-74 provide cost in- Long-term cooperative agreements with large formation by State and planning subarea for land holding interests are also important. the 50-year study period. These tables are ar- (6) Institute changes in forest preserve ranged in the same sequence as the discussion management policy to permit wildlife habitat in Subsection 4.2. "Ongoing Budgets" covers management practices. the management programs generally dis- (7) Provide extension programs to help cussed in Subsection 4.2. "Additional Capital prevent pulpwood operations in deer yards. Expenditures" covers the management rec- Planning, legislation, and zoning efforts are commendations in Subsection 4.2, including a also needed to prevent impoundments on im- breakdown of proposed acreage acquisition. portant deer wintering areas as well as deer All Basin States but Michigan are listed as yard harrassment by off-road vehicles. having annual budgets, with the cumulative (8) Administer long-range public relations ongoing budgets (1971-1980, 1981-2000, 2001- programs to better inform the public on the 2020) at the bottom of the table. Michigan's issue of deer harvest regulations. cumulative budget is listed under the main (9) Provide a program of wildlife tree plant- heading. ings on private lands recently abandoned from Information is not presented for the Illinois farming. Concentration on slow-growing section of Planning Subarea 2.2 because it is a species and those known to be preferred by completely urbanized area. 112 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-54 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 1.1, Minnesota ITEM 1970 198o 2000 2020 On-going $ 200,000 300,000 4oo,ooo 500,000 Budgetsi Additional 150,000 250,000 350,000 450,000 Capital Expenditures2 Other3 6o,ooo 100,000 150,000 200,000 TOTAL 41o.,ooo 650,000 9OO,OW 1,15MOO 'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are included and are 20 percent of budget. 2ftems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" and recommended programs include: wildlife habitat management practices on 693,200 acres; subsidized forestry practices on 28,200 acres; acquisition of 14,480 acres of deer yards; establishment of a hunting season on moose; establishment of a trapping season on fisher; establishment of intensive management and game animal status for the timber wolf. Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $2,550,000; 1981-2000 = $7,050,000; 2001-2020 $9,050,000. TABLE 17-55 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 1.1, Wisconsin ITEM 1970 198o On-going $ 372,000 520,000 Budgetsl Additional Capital Expenditures2 300,000 Other3 80,000 TOTAL 372,000 9001000 'Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittm an- Robertson funds are included and are 22 percent of budget. @ltems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" for the period 1971-1980 include: 40,000 acres ofimproved forest habitat (through management); 16,000 acres of maintained aspen regeneration; 6,000 acres of maintained forest openings; 120 miles ofdeveloped and 4,000 miles ofmaintained trails and firebreaks; 6,000 acres of land acquisition; improved law enforcement; research on nongame wildlife species; extensive wildlife management practices; management of low yield timber areas-20,000 acres of improved habitat. The estimated costs for these programs are $3,414,000 for the period 1971-1980. The estimated "On-going Budget" for 1971-1980 is $4,534,000. Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 113 TABLE 17-56 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 2.1, Wisconsin ITEM 1970 1980 On-going Budgets 1 $ 1,68o,OOO 2,350,000 Additional Capital Expenditures2 1,300,000 Other3 350,000 TOTAL 1,68o,ooo 4,000,0W 'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are included and are 40 percent of budget. @Items recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" for the period 1971-1980 include: 40,000 acres of improved forest habitat; 32,000 acres of maintained aspen regeneration; 10,500 acres of maintained access trails; 15,000 acres of forest land acquisition; improved law enforcement practices; management oflow yield timber areas for wildlife; 65,000 acres ofwetlands preservation; 100,000 acres ofwildlife cover on diverted cropland; 150,000 acres of restored lakes and streams; 50,000 acres of public hunting leases; research on nongame wildlife species; extensive wildlife management practices. Estimated costs for these programs are $12,320,000. The estimated cumulative "On-going Budget" for the period 1971-1980 is $20,485,000. TABLE 17-57 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Subarea 2.2, Wisconsin ITEM 1970 1980 On-going $ 388,000 550,000 Budgetsi Additional Capital Ex-penditures2 350,000 Other3 75,000 TOTAL 388,ow 975,000 @Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies forhabitat management, enforcement, research, etc., forwildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are included and are 37 percent of budget. 21tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" for the period 1971-1980 include: preservation of 40,000 acres ofwetlands; improved wildlife cover on 25,000 acres ofdiverted cropland; 50,000 acres ofrestored lakes and streams; wildlife surveys and environmental impact studies; 40,000 acres of public hunting leases; nongame wildlife research; improved law enforcement. The cost for these programs for the 1971-1980 period is $3,460,000. The estimated "On-going Budget" cost for 1971-1980 is $4,771,000. 114 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-58 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 2.2, Indiana ITEM 1970 1980 2000 2020 On-going Budgetsi $ 2106,000 24o,ooo 280,000 320,000 Additional Capital Exrlenditures2 696,ooo 659,000 862,000 Other3 TOTAL 216,ooo 9306,000 939,000 1,182,000 'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforce ment, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are included and are 29 percent of budget. @Items recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" and recommended programs include; a natural stream preservation program for acquisition of easements, in-fee or rights-of-way, along 19 milesofstream; leasingofl6,000 acres ofprivate land toprovide hunter access; acquisition of 1,000 acres ofwetlands, mark boundaries and provide access; acquisition ofl,930 acres offish and wildlife lands; establishment ofa wildlife babitat classification act. Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $2,532,000; 1981-2000 = $5,220,000;2001-2020 $6,020,000. TABLE 17-59 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 2.3, Indiana ITEM 1970 198o 2000 2020 On-going Budgetsi $ 173,900 200,000 24o,ooo 280,000 Additional Carital Expenditures2 732,000 1,285,000 1,425,000 Other3 Unknown TOTAL 173,900 932,000 1,525,000 1,705,000 @ Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research,ete., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson fundsare included and are 23 percent of budget. @ltems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" and recommended programs include: natural stream preservation program for acquisition of easements, rights-of-way, or in-fee along48 miles ofstream; acquisition of3,000 acres ofwetland; lease of3,500 acres ofprivate land for public access; acquisition of 2,000 acres of Fish and Wildlife lands; establishment of a wildlife habitat classification act. Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" forthe target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $1,883,000; 1981-2000 @ $4,420,000; 2001-2020 $5,220,000. Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 115 TABLE 17-60 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 4.2, Indiana ITEM 1970 1980 2000 2020 On-going Budgetsi $ 66,ooo 79,000 85,000 100,000 Additional Capital 2 J@xrenditures 80,000 135,000 20,000 Other3 Unknoim TOTAL 6) 6, ow 155,000 220, OW 120,000 'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. No Pittman -Robertson funds are included in this budget. @ltems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. @Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" and recommended programs include: a natural stream preservation program for acquisition of ease- ments, rights-of-way, or in-fee along 5 miles of stream; lease of 34,000 acres of private land for hunter access; establishment of a wildlife habitat classification act. Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $709,500; 1981-2000 = $1,605,000; 2001-2020 $1,857,500. TABLE 17-61 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 2.3, Michigan ITE211 19'(1-1980 1981-2ooo 2001-2020 On-going Budgetsi 7,001,959 2 14,2oo,ooo 14,9oo,ooo Additional Capital Expenditures3 6.4oo,ooo 11,850,000 9,850,000 Other4 575,000 900,000 950,000 TOTAL 13,97(6),959 26,950,000 25,700,000 'Projection ofannual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittra an- Robertson funds are included and are 17.5 percent of budget. 21neludes State recreational bonding funds. @ltems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 4Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" items include: acquisition of 11,800 acres of upland habitat; acquisition of 11,500 acres of wetlands; development of 24,000 acres of wetlands; information and ecology training centers; Canada goose release program; waterfowl identification training; development of nonconsumptive use of waterfowl; -ore conservation officers. 116 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-62 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea, 3.2, Michigan ITEM 1971-198o 1981-2000 2001-2020 On-going Budgetsl $ 8,270,2672 10"000,000 12,000,000 Additional Capital Expenditures3 18.,6oo,ooo 35,000,000 l7o7@0,000 Other4 500,000 1,000"000 1.,200,000 TOTAL 27,370,267 46,"JOOO 30,950,000 'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are included are are 17.5 percent of budget. 21neludes State recreational bonding funds. 31tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 4Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" include: acquisition of 12,000 acres of upland habitat; acquisition of 18,000 acres of wetlands; developmentof31,000 acres ofwetlands; Cana0agoose release program; development oftarget shooting facilities; managed waterfowl hunting program; improved law enforcement; management of 15,000 acres of upland habitat; and development of an ecology museum facility. TABLE 17-63 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 4.1, Michigan ITE24S 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 On-going Budgetsi $ 4,,790,4902 8,200,000 8,9oo,ooo Additional Capital ExpenditureS3 l8Y8OOJOOO 15,200,000 Other4 850.,000 1,000,000 1,750,000 TOTAL 24,44o,49o 24,4oo,ow 26,150,OW 'Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies forhabitat management, enforcement, research, etc., forwildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are included and are 17.5 percent of budget. 21ncludes State recreational bonding funds. @ltems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. @Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" items include: acquisition of10,000 acres ofsmall game habitat; acquisition of 10,000 acres of wetlands; development of 18,600 acres of wetlands; a waterfowl hunting museum and ecology training center; improved law enforcement; waterfowl identification training; development of target shooting facilities; and treatment of at least 80,000 acres of upland game habitat. Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 117 TABLE 17-64 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 2.4, Michigan ITEM 1971-198o 1981-2ooo 2001-2020 On-going Budgetsi $ 7,955,071 2 4,756,ooo 4,895,170 Additional Capital ExpenditureS3 4,6oo,ooo 6,500,000 6,2oo,ooo Other4 100,000 250oOOO 250,000 TOTAL 12,695;,o7i 11,5o6,wo 11,345,170 'Projection of annual budgets Of State agencies for habitat manage ment, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are included and are 17.5 percent of budget. 'Includes State recreational bonding funds. 'Items recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 4W ildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" include: acquisition of38,OOO acres ofdeer and upland habitat; acquisition ofl6,500 acres ofwetiands; Canada goose introduction; development of 18,500 acres of wetlands habitat; improved law enforcement; managed waterfowl hunting programs; waterfowl identification training; and protection of 1,000 acres of scarce habitat. TABLE 17-65 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 2.1, Michigan ITEM 1971-1980 1981-2000 2001-2020 On-going $ 2,093,0002 3,786.,ooo 318091000 Budgeti Additional Capital Expenditures3 3,100,000 .4,025,000 1,750,000 Other4 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 5,293,000 7,911,000 5,659,000 'Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies forhabitat management, enforcement, research, etc., forwildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are included and are 17.5 percent of budget. 2Includes State recreational bonding funds. 31tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 4W ildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" include: acquisition of 7,000 acres ofdeeryard; acquisition of 15,500 acres ofwetlands; development of 8,400 acres of wetiand; improved law enforcement. 118 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-66 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 1.2, Michigan ITEM 1971-1980 1981-2ooo 2001-2020 On-going Budgetsl $ 6,968,0002 7,321,000 7,664,6oo Additional Capital Expenditures3 2,429,000 4,ooo,,ooo 3,500,000 Other4 75,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 9,472,000 11,421,000 11,264,6oo @Projeetion of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman- Robertson funds am included and are 17.5 percent of budget. 21neludes State recreational bonding funds. 31tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing investments in wildlife management; etc. 4Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" include: acquisition of 15,500 acres of deer yards; acquisition of 46,000 acres of wetlands habitat; development of 13,000 acres of wetland; information and education programs and improved law enforcement programs. TABLE 17-67 Estimated State Expenditures, Planning Subarea 3.1, Michigan ITEM 1971-198o 1981-2000 2001-2020 On-going Budgetsi $ 4,867,1502 lo,,6ooooo 11,200,000 Additional Capital Expenditures3 6j,210,000 15,500,000 14,500,000 Other4 150,000 300,000 375.,000 TOTAL 111227,150 26.9 4oo,wo 26,075,000 @Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are included and are 17.5 percent of budget. @Includes State recreational bonding funds. 31tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 4Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc.' "Additional Capital Expenditures" include: acquisition of 30,000 acres of deer and upland game habitat; acquisition of 8,000 acres of wetlands; development of 12,000 acres of wetlands; 70,000 acres of upland habitat management; improvement of a conservation training school; and management of Kirtland's warbler habitat. Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 119 TABLE17-68 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Subarea 4.2, Ohio ITEM 1970 1980 2000 2020 On-going Budgetsi $ 5751000 678,500 929,500 1,273,4oo Additional Capital Expenditures2 275,000 21438,000 753,000 IA76,000 Other3 143,700 169,2oo 23214oo 318,300 TOTAL 993,700 3,285,700 11914,900 2@,667,700 'Projection ofannu a) budgets ofState agencies for habitat management, enforce ment, research, etc., for wildlife. Pitt man-Robertson funds are included and are 40 percent of budget. 21tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditure" items include: acquisition of 12,000 acres of wildlife areas; acquisition of 10,000 acres of Lake Erie marshes; acquisition of 3,000 acres of natural areas; development of the Lake Erie marshes for waterfowl production; private land wildlife management agreements; wildlife surveys and other resource inventories, information and education programs. Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $6,319,250; 1981-2000 , $16,605,500; 2001-2020 $22,200,950. TABLE17-69 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, Planning Subarea 4.3, Ohio ITEM 1970 1980 2000 2020 On-going Budgetsi $ 1851000 215)300 286,300 380,800 Additional Capital 2 Expenditures 617,.ooo 64iooo 969,ooo Other3 46,4oo 53,8oo 71,6oo 95,,200 TOTAL 231,000 94o,loo 998,900 1.,445,000 'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, rose arch, etc., for wildlife. Pittman -Robertson funds are included and are 44 percent of budget. 21tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" items include: acquisition of 8,000 acres for wildlife areas; acquisition of 6,500 acres of natural areas; private land management programs; wildlife surveys and other resource inventories; information and education programs. Estimated "On-going Budget" cumulative totals for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $2,016,650; 1981-2000 = $5,051,500; 2001-2020 = $6,718,250. 120 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-70 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 4.4, Pennsylvania ITR4 1970 1980 2000 2020 On-going Budgetsl $ 88,6oo 477,200 354,4oo 7o8,8OO Additional Capital Expenditures2 8;000 400,000 6oo,ooo 1,000,000 Other3 5,000 15,000 30,000 6o,ooo TOTAL lol,6oo 892,200 984,4oo 1,768,8oo 'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforce ment, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman -Robertson funds are included and are 25 percent of budget. 21tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" items include: acquisition ofl,000 acres ofwildlife lands; 7,000 acresoffarm game cooperative projects; waterfowl development on 700 acres; development of land around Corps of Engineers reservoirs; improved law enforcement; construction of hunter safety visitor centers. Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" include the following: 1971-1980 = $3,023,300; 1981-2000 = $8;254,600; 2001-2020 = $10,809,200. TABLE 17-71 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 4.4, New York ITEM 1970 1980 2000 2020 On-going Budgetsi $ 6o,ooo 100,000 200,000 300,000 Additional CaDital Expenditures2 30,000 IOOPOOO 150,000 200,000 Other3 5,000 15.,000 30,000 6o,ooo TOTAL 95,000 215,000 38o,ooo 56o,ooo 'Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are included and are 50 percent of budget. 21tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditures" items include: agreements to provide access to private land on 95,000 acres of public land; agreements to provide for wildlife development of 75,000 acres of State and private lands; lease or purchase of unique and critical wildlife lands; additional legislation for protection of wetlands and other unique lands; enforcement of air, noise and water pollution regulations and enactment of additional regulations as necessary; promotion of better I andowner- hunter relationships. Estimated cumulative "On-going Budget" for the target years are: 1971-1980 = $820,000; 1981-2000 = $3,050,000; 2001-2020 = $7,050,000. Alternatives for Satisfying Future Requirements 121 TABLE 17-72 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 5.1, New York ITEM 1970 1980 2000 2020 On-going Budgetsi $ 90,000 150,000 300,000 350.,000 Additional Carital Expenditures2 100,000 150,000 1751000 Other3 5,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 TOTAL 95,000 450,000 700,000 825,000 'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat man agement,enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are included and are 50-66 percent of budget. 2jtems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. @Wildlifc research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditure" items include: acquisition of 2,000 acres of wetlands; lease or purchase of 50,000 acres of unique and critical wildlife lands; acquisition of 4,400 acres of public hunting lands; management and development of 20,000 acres of State lands; agreement for access to 25,000 acres of private lands for hunting. Estimated cumulative "On-going Budget" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $1,230,000; 1981-2000 = $4,575,000; 2001-2020 $6,525,000. - TABLE 17-73 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 5.2, New York ITEM 1970 1980 2000 2020 On-going Budgetsi $ 255,000 3402000 4751000 61o.,ooo Additional Capital 2 500,000 475,000 4oo,ooo Expenditures Other3 55,000 70,000 95,000 120.,000 TOTAL 310,000 910,000 i,o45,000 1,130,000 'Projection ofannual budgets ofState agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. P ittma n -Robertson funds are included and are 50 percent of budget. @ltems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. 3Wildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditure" items include: acquisition of approximately 20,000 acres ofwettands; management and development of 15,000 acres of wetlands; purchase of access and hunting easements on 80,000 acres of private land; technical assistance provided for developing wildlife potential on 90,000 acres of private land; acquisition of 15,000 acres of game management lands; construction of trails, parking areas and related facilities on state lands. Estimated cumulative "On-going Budget" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $3,017,500; 1981-2000 = $8,217,500; 2001-2020 $10,917,500. 122 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-74 Estimated Annual State Expenditures by Target Years, PSA 5.3, New York ITEM 1970 198o 2000 2020 On-going Budgetsl $ 75,000 100,000 4oo,ooo 500,000 Additional Capital Expenditures2 11000,000 600,000 300,000 Other3 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 TOTAL 80,0W 1, 110, OW 1,015,000 820, OW 'Projection of annual budgets of State agencies for habitat management, enforcement, research, etc., for wildlife. Pittman-Robertson funds are included and are 40 percent of budget. 21tems recommended in the plan that cannot be funded through existing or foreseeable fund sources. SWildlife research conducted by State-supported universities; private investments in wildlife management; etc. "Additional Capital Expenditure" items include: public land acquisition and leasing programs emphasizing wetlands preservation totaling 45,500 acres; development and reh@bilitation of wetlands to realize their fish and wildlife production potential. Estimated cumulative "On-going Budgets" for the target years are as follows: 1971-1980 = $887,500; 1981-2000 = $5,150,000; 2001-2020 $9,050,000. SUMMARY There is a growing concern among natural tion is most intense. The highest value hab- resource managers about the effects of pro- itat, wetlands, is most affected because de- jected population increases. The future of struction of shore wetlands is proceeding at wildlife in particular is very dim if population an alarming rate. projections for the next 50 years materialize. Some trends in wildlife habitat and species Planning procedures intended to provide for levels are indirectly related to man's presence. wildlife will be paper exercises if the popula- Maturing forest succession in the northern tion of the Great Lakes Basin doubles. In planning subareas of the Basin is a result of terms of environmental quality and the basic fewer forest fires and low demand for timber human needs for water, air and food, optimal in remote areas. As the forest matures and human population levels have been reached in progresses toward a greater homogeneity, its some areas and far exceeded in many urban value to wildlife declines. Deer populations areas. are declining in many northern areas for these The problem of wildlife now and in the fu- reasons. ture is people. Unless the planning effort is Other trends that reduce the value of hab- directed toward methods of retarding popula- itat are not the result of structural modifica- tion growth (such as tax incentives, limits on tion or degradation, but are changes in land- the number of persons per square mile, and use practices. Clean farming is one of these, a strict zoning), rather than attempting to practice that diminishes the basic habitat re- accommodate and thereby encourage in- quirement of farm-game species by removal of creased population, attempts to provide for fence rows, trees, and odd areas to facilitate wildlife resources are utterly futile. Most im- the operation of larger, more efficient farm portant is the problem of trying to provide equipment. environmental quality. The total 75 million acres of 1970 wildlife All wildlife problems are directly or indi- habitat were composed of 50 percent farm- rectly related to the population problem and game habitat, 49 percent forest-game habitat, will become more complicated and more seri- and one percent waterfowl habitat. ous as the population increases. In nearly all The white-tailed deer is the Basin's most of the Great Lakes planning subareas, de- important game species. Deer are found in all mands for consumptive and nonconsumptive of the planning subareas and are at high popu- wildlife uses are projected to be at least double lation levels in five planning subareas. the current demand. Considering the fact that The Basin's principal waterfowl areas are total Basin wildlife demand already exceeds shore and inland marshes of western Lake the supply (if quantified in acres of wildlife Erie; Lake St. Clair, Saginaw Bay, Michigan; habitat), and that the supply will be greatly Green Bay, Wisconsin; inland southern Wis- diminished in the future, expecting to accom- consin marshes including Horicon; Lake On- modate any multiple of the current demand is tario and St. Lawrence River marshes; St. absurd. All available wildlife habitat is Marys River; eastern inland Upper Michigan needed now, and it will not be greatly ex- Peninsula marshes and southwestern Michi- panded short of catastrophic geologic change gan marshes. such as drastic changes in lake levels and The ring-necked pheasant is an important, their related effects on lakeshore marshes. but declining game bird in the Basin. Its de- cline is closely tied to land-use changes. The eastern timber wolf, the Basin's most Status of Wildlife Resources (1970) colorful wildlife species, is considered rare and endangered. Other rare and endangered Accelerated attrition of habitat is occurring species include the greater sandhill crane, over most of the Basin. It is worse in the bald eagle, Kirtland's warbler, and the north- southern tier of Basin States where urbaniza- ern greater prairie chicken. 123 124 Appendix 17 Other species of interest and importance in- of assessing this percentage Basinwide would clude black bear, bobcat, Canada lynx, osprey, require a tremendous additional amount of snowshoe hare, pine marten, fisher, bobwhite work. It was estimated that these shifts in quail, common loon, mourning dove, prairie demand are self-balancing (particularly sharp-tailed grouse, turkey, moose, ruffed within the Basin) and that user projections grouse, woodcock and the cottontail rabbit. It will not be adversely affected. should be pointed out that the game and fur- Throughout the appendix, heavy emphasis bearer population trends and influencing en- has been placed on consumptive use of wild- vironmental factors were felt to be generally life, while it has been recognized that noncon- indicative of those for non-game species as- sumptive use is of equal or greater impor- sociated with similar habitat types. The use of tance. Current inform ation-gathering game and furbearers data throughout the re- methodology is attuned to hunter days and port reflects readily available data and is not harvest. Therefore nonconsumptive wildlife intended to emphasize this relatively small use information is difficult to obtain, and the group of wildlife species. best available index of this use is hunter in- Many facets of the Basin wildlife picture formation. give reason for hope that things can be better. In 1970 there were 5,048,600 wildlife users In spite of rising land costs, fish and game (consumptive and nonconsumptive combined) agencies are continuing impressive land ac- in the Basin. Huntable habitat base was quisition programs, and unique and scenic 46,469,100 acres, 11,361,750 of which were pub- areas are being purchased and protected in a licly owned, providing 9.2 acres per user. Dur- number of ways. Some wildlife species are at ing the 50-year study period, 4,138,700 acres of stable levels, some are more numerous than huntable habitat will be lost to urban expan- ever before. Wildlife research and manage- sion. During this period, wildlife users are pro- ment information is becoming more available, jected to increase to 6,655,200. Public lands and a great public concern for improving en- will increase by at least 600,000 acres during vironmental quality has developed. The first the same period. Acres per user at the end of sign of a trend away from more and bigger the study period (2020) are projected to be 6.4. structural projects by public works agencies is the interest in green belts and environmental corridors. If these should become important, General Basinwide Recommendations the benefits will be a reduction of river habitat destruction as well as preservation of open Recommended methods of solving Basin space. problems and meeting demands vary widely with the planning subareas. Management rec- ommendations for the northern, sparsely- Future Use of Wildlife Resources (1980 to 2020) settled planning subareas are closely related to habitat management plans, while the Section 3 presented procedures for pro- southern area recommendations are related jecting future Basin hunting gross demands, to human problems. net demands, and needed acres in the Basin, The single most important wildlife problem as well as procedures for estimating noncon- in the Great Lakes Basin is the continuing loss sumptive use. Projected license sales are con- of habitat. Especially critical is the loss of sidered the best indication of future demands. waterfowl habitat (wetlands) to natural Present license sales in the Basin are closely causes, through water level changes and related to the population density and to acres wind- and water-caused erosion, and to the of opportunity per person in each of the 15 progress of civilization through dredging and planning subareas. License sales projections filling for navigation, dumps, housing, indus- were therefore based on these two factors. tries, waste treatment facilities, and trans- A problem in the development of user pro- portation. It is the opinion of this work group jections that was not resolved was assessment that preservation and restoration of wetlands of Basin and inter-Basin ingress and egress. and their management as viable ecosystems Separate projections were made for each of in a manner that is most productive of fish and the 15 planning subareas. A significant. per- wildlife is in the mutual interest of both the centage of projected demands for one plan- humans and animals. Therefore, of the rec- ning subarea will actually be satisfied in ommendations in this report, the one recom- another, but development of a sound method mending acquisition and management of the Summary 125 remaining wetlands in the Basin should re- (Small Watershed Program) to include the cost ceive the highest priority by local, regional, of additional land rights together with the cost State, and Federal agencies. of development for wildlife use for mitigation Some of the major recommendations of this as a construction cost to be cost-shared at the report are: same rate as the structural measures creating (1) habitat management programs in the need for mitigation northern planning subareas to retard forest (9) continuation and improvement of the succession Crop Land Adjustment Program (CAP) and (2) strict regulation of off-road vehicles to the Rural Environmental Assistance Pro- prevent damage to fragile habitats gram (REAP) of the U.S. Department of Ag- (3) intensive management of the timber riculture wolf and reintroduction into suitable habitat (10) provision of better legislation to pre- (4) immediate purchase of all high value vent stream and lakeshore filling wetlands (11) provision of more public access to pri- (5) protection of wetlands and other vate land unique areas through other means where pur- chase is not possible (12) improvement of the dissemination of (6) acquisition or protection of all other wildlife research information in order to facili- critical habitat tate planning (7) enactment of better water pollution (13) extension of State or Federal protec- laws and provision of more strict enforcement tion.to all wildlife species not now protected (8) amendment of Public Law 83-566 such as reptiles and amphibians GLOSSARY actual hunters-resident, non-resident correlation-the degree of interdependence of licensed hunters and unlicensed hunters. two or more variables. agriculturalized-conversion of undeveloped cropland-land currently tilled, including land to crop or livestock production. cropland harvested, crop failure, summer fallow, idle cropland, cropland in cover crops base year-1970. or soil improvement crops not harvested or pastured, rotation pasture, and cropland big game-a general term used for large being prepared for crops or newly seeded mammals, such as white-tailed deer, elk, and crops. black bear, declared legal game by State government and regulated by seasons dabbling duck-habitually feeds off bottom in and/or permits. shallow water by tipping forward and sub- merging head and part of body; rarely dives bog-an area of soft, wet, spongy ground con- for food. sisting chiefly of decayed or decaying moss and other vegetable matter. In the Great density-the number of animals per acre or Lakes States there are commonly peat bogs square mile in a given population as used in that most frequently occur in basins rep- Tables 17-2 through 17-23. It is the density resenting sites of former lakes, or as forma- of a species relative to conditions in each tions partially or completely surrounding planning subarea and does not have uni- existing lakes. form meaning across the Basin. channelization-the process of mechanically diving duck-habitually feeds by diving com- altering natural stream characteristics to pletely under in deep water to obtain food. increase the water-carrying capacity by clearing, excavating, enlarging, realigning, deer yard-a well-defined area, usually in lining, and reshaping a channel and its conifers where deer concentrate during banks; also known as "channel modifica- times of heep snow, forming well-used travel tion." lanes. This condition usually results in overbrowsing of the vegetation. clean farming-more intensive farming prac- tices which utilize all available crop produc- demand (wildlife)-the estimated desire for ing land by removing fence rows, field wind- the use of wildlife resources, usually ex- breaks, hedgerows, and "odd" areas to pressed in man-days. facilitate maneuvering of larger machines. densities (wildlife)-the relationship between climax forest-the final or stable forest plant- wildlife and space, often measured in units community in a successional series; a self- per acre or units per square mile. perpetuating forest community which is in equilibrium with the physical environment; environmental corridor-a strip of land de- in the northern portion of the Great Lakes signed to maintain the natural characteris- Basin, a spruce-fir combination is the tics of an area, usually adjacent to urban climax type, while in the south a beech- areas or bordering streams and rivers. maple combination is considered the climax type. farm game-wildlife species that are princi- pally associated with semi-open land areas consumptive use-the use of awildlife resource with a variety of vegetative cover, such as which results in a decrease of the supply (see the cottontail rabbit, ring-necked pheasant harvest). and mourning dove. 127 128 Appendix 17 1 farm-game habitat-land that contains a vari- be adequately represented by a straight line ety of vegetative types such as cropland, when plotted. pasture, idle land, and small woodlots. man-day-a unit of use attributed to an indi- fauna-the animal species of a given region. vidual partaking in an experience during any part of a 24-hour day. flora-the plant species of a given region. marsh-a treeless swamp in which the vegeta- forest game-wildlife species that are princi- tion is predominantly grassy or reedy and pally associated with wooded areas, such as which may or may not have standing water. the ruffed grouse, white-tailed deer and black bear. mean-an average; the sum of a given set of values divided by the number of values. furbearers-wildlife species that are economi- cally important due to the value of their fur, median-a value in a given set of values below such as muskrat, mink, fox and beaver. and above which there are the same number of values. green belt-an area of land around or in a city or town where development is severely re- monoculture-agricultural practice of grow- stricted to maintain the natural character ing only one crop on large tracts of land year of the country. after year. gross demand-total demand generated by multiple regression-the degree to which one wildlife users during a given calendar year, dependent variable increases or decreases usually expressed in man-days. with the change in two or more independent variables. habitat-the natural environment of an ani- mal; the area where it lives. natural area-an area which contains unique or representative flora and fauna of a re- harvest-total annual take of game from a gion. given area. needs-unsatisfied demands or deficit in op- hunter day-any part of a day spent hunting portunity; also known as net demand. by an individual. net demand-the difference between projected hunting-the act of pursuing game for sport or gross demands and projected opportunity, food. usually expressed in man-days. land-use change-the conversion of land from nonconsumptive use-use of wildlife habitat one use to another, such as from crops to which does not involve the act of killing residential or forest to crops. game and furbearing animals. It usually means the observing or photographing of latent demand-that desire to hunt or enjoy wildlife and its habitat. nature which is inherent in the total popula- tion, but is not fulfilled because of lack of non-resident hunter-a person who resides facilities, leisure time, or other pertinent outside the State in which he hunts. factors. latent hunter-those persons with an inherent opportunity-land upon which an individual desire to hunt, but prevented from hunting may gain access to and expect to realize a for one or more reasons such as lack of time, consumptive or nonconsumptive wildlife money, or available facility. experience. linear regression-the degree to which a de- other land-farmsteads, farmlanes, idle land, pendent variable will increase or decrease ditchbanks, fencerows, and other areas not with a unit change of an independent vari- classified as cropland, pasture, forest and able, resulting in an association which can woodland, and urban and built-up areas. Glossary 129 participant-an individual who enages in the supply-the amount of wildlife or habitat uses of wildlife resources for consumptive or available for either hunting or nonhunting nonconsumptive purposes. use. participant rate-the number of times per year swamp-an area where the soil is saturated that an individual actually participates in a with water throughout most of the year, but hunting or a nonconsumptive wildlife use not actually submerged. It usually has experience. woody as well as herbaceous plants. pasture land-land in grass or other long-term target years-1980, 2000, 2020. forage that is used primarily for grazing. unique area-an unusual, extraordinary, or prey species-animals which serve as food for rare example of a natural occurrence includ- other animals. They are usually the smaller ing geologic formations, lakeshores, unique and more numerous species such as mice wildlife habitats and unique plant com- and rabbits. munities. plant succession (ecological succession)-the unique ecological area-see unique area. orderly process of plant community change from a pioneer stage to a relatively stable unlicensed hunters-sportsmen who are and mature community (climax). Typically, exempted in some States from license re- there are five stages: bare field, grassland, quirements including landowners hunting grass shrub, intermediate forest, climax on their own land, active duty servicemen, forest. On prairie soil, grass is the climax and disabled persons. stage and only four successive stages are involved. wading birds-any of the long-legged birds that wade the shallows and marshes seeking potential hunters-actual hunters plus latent food, such as herons and egrets. hunters. waterfowl-usually confined to the swimming projections-a forecast based on certain as- water birds such as ducks, geese and swans. sumptions. wetlands-lowlands covered with shallow and raptorial birds-birds of prey, eagles, hawks sometimes temporary or intermittent wa- and owls. ters. They are divided into eight types in our region: Type 1-seasonally flooded basins or resident-a person who hunts within the State flats; the soil is covered with water, or is in which he resides. waterlogged, during variable seasonal periods but usually is well-drained during scenic area-a picturesque natural area which much of the growing season; Type 2-inland is considered pleasing to the eye. fresh meadows; the soil usually is without standing water during most of the growing shorebirds-any of a number of birds that fre- season, but is waterlogged within at least a quent the shores of bodies of water, such as few inches of its surface; Type 3-inland the sandpipers, woodcock, phalaropes and shallow fresh marshes; the soil is usually others. waterlogged during the growing season; often it is covered with as much as six inches significant-used for stating results in an ap- or more of water; Type 4-inland deep fresh propriate statistical test. When the proba- marshes; the soil is covered with six inches bility of the occurrence of a particular event to three feet or more of water during the is 19 in 20 or more (P = 0.95), the probability growing season; Type 5-inland open fresh is termed significant. When the probability water; shallow ponds and reservoirs where is 99 in 100 or more (P = 0.99), it is termed water is usually less than 10 feet deep and is highly significant. fringed with a border of emergent vegeta- tion; Type 6-shrub swamps; the soil is usu- small game-small animals hunted for sport or ally waterlogged during the growing season, food, such as cottontail rabbits, gray squir- and is often covered with as much as six rels and ring-necked pheasants. inches of water; vegetation includes alders, 130 Appendix 17 willows, buttonbush, dogwoods and ally waterlogged and supports a spongy cov- swamp-privet; Type 7-wooded swamps; the ering of mosses; bogs occur mostly in shal- soil is waterlogged at least to within a few low lake basins on flat uplands, and along inches of its surface during the growing sea- sluggish streams. son, and is often covered with as much as one foot of water; trees include tamarack, ar- borvitae, black spruce, balsam, red maple wildlife-wild game and all other animal life and black ash; Type 8-bogs; the soil is usu- existing in a wild state. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bechtold, Hilde L., "Waterfowl Relationships "Various Data Con- on the Great Lakes," United States Depart- cerning Wildlife Resources," Springfield, Il- ment of the Interior, Bureau of Sport linois. Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1971. Illinois Soil and Water Conservation Needs Committee, "Illinois Soil & Water Conserva- Bellrose, Frank C., "Waterfowl Migration tion Needs Inventory," University of Illinois, Corridors East of the Rocky Mountains in the College of Agriculture, Champaign-Urbana, United States," Biological Notes No. 61, Ur- Illinois, August 1962. bana, Illinois, Illinois Natural History Survey, June 1968. Indiana Department of Conservation, "41st Annual Report," Springfield, Illinois, June Boyce, Arlow P., "Results of the Cropland Ad- 1959. justment Program First Year in Michigan," Lansing, Michigan, Michigan Department of Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Conservation, Game Division, 1967. "Master Plan for Acquisition and Develop- ment, Supplement Number One," In- Dahlgren, R. B., and Linder, R. L., "Eggshell dianapolis, Indiana, July 1965. Thickness in Pheasants Given Dieldrin," Journal of Wildlife Management, 34 (1), 1970. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Game, "Various Data Gillett, James W., (Editor), "The Biological Concerning Wildlife Resources," Indianapolis, Impact of Pesticides in the Environment," Indiana. Environmental Health Sciences Center, Cor- vallis, Ore., Oregon State University, 1970. Lindsey, Alton A., Nichols, Stanley A., and Schmelz, Damian V., "Natural Areas in In- Great Lakes Basin Commission, Great Lakes diana and Their Preservation," Indiana Basin Framework Study, Appendix 16, Natural Areas Survey, Department of Biolog- Drainage, Ann Arbor, Michigan. ical Sciences, Lafayette, Indiana, Purdue University, April, 1969. Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, Appendix 19, Economic Loucks, Orie L., "Scientific Areas In Wiscon- and Demographic Studies, Ann Arbor, Michi- sin," Wisconsin Academy Review, Spring, gan. 1967. Hamilton, Max and Hyer, Russell, "Wetlands MacMullan, Ralph A., "The Case Against of Northern Indiana," Indiana Department of Hard Pesticides," Michigan Conservation, Natural Resources, Pittm an- Robertson Proj- January-February, 1968. ect 2-R, Indianapolis, Indiana. Mann, Grady E., "Wetlands Inventory of Min- Hickey, J. J., and Anderson, D. W., "Chlori- nesota," Minneapolis, Minnesota, Office of nated Hydrocarbons and Eggshell Changes in River Basin Studies, April 1955. Raptorial and Fish Eating Birds," Science, 162 (3850), 1968. "Wetlands Inven- tory of Wisconsin," Minneapolis, Minnesota, Illinois Department of Conservation, "Out- Office of River Basin Studies, February, 1955. door Recreation in Illinois," Springfield, Il- linois. Martin, Alexander C., Nelson, Arnold and Zim, 131 132 Appendix 17 it Herbert S., "American Wildlife and Plants, A Various Data Con- Guide To Wildlife Food Habits," New York, cerning Wildlife' Resources," St. Paul, Min- Dover Publications, Inc. 1951. nesota. McCloskey, John W., "Correlation and Regres- New York Conservation Needs Committee, sion Techniques," Analysis Note 67-1, "New York State Soil and Water Conservation Washington, D.C., Office for Laboratory Man- Needs Inventory," Albany, New York, 1962. agement, Office of the Director of Defense Re- search and Engineering, October 1967. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Game, Mikula, Edward J., "Importance of Celeron Is- "Various Data Concerning Wildlife Re- land to Waterfowl," Lansing, Michigan, sources," Avon and Watertown, New York. Michigan Department of Conservation, Game Division, March 13, 1968. New York State Conservation Department, "New York State Fish and Game Law," Al- Michigan Conservation Needs Committee, bany, New York, 1969. "An -Inventory of Michigan Soil and Water Conservation Needs," East Lansing, Michi- Ohio Department of Natural Resources, "Ohio gan, October 1962. Fishing and Hunting Locations," publication 77, Columbus, Ohio, October 1968. Michigan Department of Conservation, "Re- turning the Pine Marten to Michigan," Report Division of Wildlife, No. 2199, Lansing, Michigan, September "Various Data Concerning Wildlife Re- 1958. sources," Columbus, Ohio. "20th Biennial Re- Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Study port 1959-1961," Lansing, Michigan, 1961. Committee, Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Survey, Appendix G, Fish and Wildlife Re- "24th Biennial Re- sources, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. Army Engineer port 1967-1968," Lansing, Michigan, 1968. Division, Ohio River, Undated. , "25th Biennial Re- Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Needs port 1969-1971," Lansing, Michigan, 1971. Committee, "Ohio Soil and Water Conserva- tion Needs Inventory," Columbus, Ohio, De- Michigan Department of Natural Resources, cember 1961. "Michigan Recreation Plan: 1970," Lansing, Michigan, Office of Planning Services, 1970. Palmer, Walter L., "An Analysis of the Public Use of Southern Michigan Game and Rec- "Various Data Con- reation Areas," Research and Development cerning Wildlife Resources," Lansing, Michi- Report No. 102, Lansing, Michigan, Michigan gan. Department of Conservation, March 1967. Minnesota Conservation Needs Committee, Panzner, Robert E., "Wetlands Inventory of "Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation Michigan," Minneapolis, Minnesota, Office of Needs Inventory," St. Paul, Minnesota, Min- River Basin Studies, March 1955. nesota Agricultural Extension Service, 1962. Pennsylvania Conservation Needs Commit- Minnesota Department of Conservation, "A tee, "Pennsylvania Soil and Water Conserva- Deer Management Program for Minnesota," tion Needs Inventory," Harrisburg, Pennsyl- St. Paul, Minnesota. vania, Pennsylvania Association of Soil Con- servation Districts Directors. "Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Plan 1968," St. Paul, Minnesota, "Various Data Con- June 1969. cerning Wildlife Resources," Harrisburg and Franklin, Pennsylvania. "Minnesota Plan- for Emergency Winter Care of Deer and for Pennsylvania Game Commission, "Hunting in Deer Yard Improvement," St. Paul, Min- Northwestern Pennsylvania," reprinted from nesota,1965. Pennsylvania Game News, 1967. Bibliography 133 Porter, R. D. and Wiemeyer, S. N., "Dieldrin "Narrative Report, and DDT: Effects on Sparrow Hawk Eggshells Nicolet National Forest," Milwaukee, Wiscon- and Reproduction," Science, 165 (3889), 1969. sin. Radtke, Robert and Byelich, Jon, "Kirtland's "Report for Great Warbler Management," Lansing, Michigan, Lakes Basin Study, Hector Land Use Area, U.S.D.A. Forest Service and Michigan De- New York," Milwaukee, Wisconsin. partment of Conservation, February 1963. , "Superior National Risebrough, R.W., Florant, G.L., and Berger, Forest Narrative Report, Fiscal Year 1969," D.D., "Organochlorine Pollutants in Pere- Milwaukee, Wisconsin. grines and Merlins Migrating through Wis- consin," Canadian Field Naturalist, 84 (3), U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 1970. Wildlife Service, "Fish and Wildlife as Related to Water Quality of the Lake Erie Basin," July Rounds, Burton W., "Wetlands Inventory of 1967. Ohio," Minneapolis, Minnesota, Office of River Basin Studies, April 1955. "Fish and Wildlife as Related to Water Quality of the Lake Huron Shaw, Samuel P. and Fredine, C. Gordon, Basin," June 1969. "Wetlands of the United States," Circular 39, United States Department of the Interior, "Fish and Wildlife as Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of River Related to Water Quality of the'Lake Michi- Basin Studies, 1956. gan Basin," March 1966. Stickel, L. F., Chura, N. J., Stewart, P. A., Men- , "Fish and Wildlife as zie, C.M., Prouty, R.M., and Reichel, W.L., Related to Water Quality of the Lake Ontario "Bald Eagle Pesticide Relations," Transac- Basin," December 1969. tions of the 31st North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 1966. "Fish and Wildlife as Related to Water Quality of the Lake Superior Stuewer, F.W., "Endangered Species Pro- Basin," June 1970. gram," Lansing, Michigan, Michigan De- partment of Conservation, July 1969. "Water Levels of the Great Lakes," September 1963. U.S. Bureau of Census, "County and City Data Book, 1967, A Statistical Abstract Supple- U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and ment," Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries Printing Office, 1967. and Wildlife, "National Wildlife Refuges in the North Central Region, Region 3," Refuge U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser- Leaflet 96-R2, May 1968, vice, "Annual Wildlife Report, Narrative Sec- tion, Chequamegon National Forest, Fiscal "Fish and Wildlife Year 1969," Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Resources, Genesee Basin." , "Annual Wildlife United States Department of the Interior, Na- Report, Narrative Section, Eastern Region tional Park Service, "Our Fourth Shore," (9). Fiscal Year 1969," Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Great Lakes Shoreline Recreation Area Sur- vey, 1959. "Areas Under Forest Administration, Great Lakes Basin "Remaining Shore- Study, Great Lakes Region, as of June 30,1969 line Opportunities in: Minnesota, Wisconsin, by Subarea and County," Milwaukee, Wiscon- Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsyl- sin. vania, New York," Great Lakes Shoreline Recreation Area Survey, 1959. 44 Hiawatha National Forest Narrative Report 1968-1969, Annual Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Wildlife Report," Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Basin Study Coordinating Committee, Upper 134 Appendix 17 Mississippi River, Comprehensive Basin Recreation Plan," Madison, Wisconsin 1968. Study, Appendix L, Fish and Wildlife, 1969. Wisconsin Scientific Areas Preservation Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Council, "Wisconsin Scientific Areas," 1968. "Various Data Concerning Wildlife Re- sources," Madison, Wisconsin. Young, Howard, "A Consideration of Insec- ticide Effects on Hypothetical Avian Popula- "Wisconsin Outdoor tions," Ecology, 49 (5), 1968. ADDENDUM Methodology Hunting Demand Our projections of hunting demand (hunter days) and wildlife land needed (acres) are based on mathematical calculations in which the starting points are human population density and acres of wildlife habitat. Through a process of statistical analysis, an 0 equation was developed for converting inventory data into gross and net hunting demand using a combination of numerical constants and estimated parameters. The following equation, Y = constant - constant (Xi) + constant (X2) Y = .094879 - .0006771 Xi + .006208 X2 is the result of a computerized multiple regression analysis, based on population density and acres of habitat per capita, where Y = the number of resident licensed hunters per capita; X1 = the population per square mile; and X2 = the acres of habitat per capita. The following outline of data showing how this methodology was applied in Planning Subarea 4.2 will serve as an example for all planning subareas in the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study. Basic Data For Planning Subarea 4.2 Population in 1960 1,566,000 City and County Data Book, 1967 Projected population in 1980 1,963,000 GLBFS Tech. Report No. 19-11-P-2, Preliminary Economic Projections for OBE Economic Areas and Great Lakes Basin Commission Planning Subareas for the Great Lakes Region, May 1969 Projected population in 2000 2,474,000 Ibid. Projected population in 2020 3,116,000 Ibid. Area, square miles 8,515 City and County Data Book, 1967 1960 Resident licensed hunters 161,336 Compiled from data supplied by each State in planning subarea 1960 Nonresident licensed 1,182 0.73 percent of the resident licensed hunters hunters in this planning subarea in 1960 1960 Unlicensed hunters 6,453 4 percent of the resident hunters in this planning subarea in 1960 1960 Acres of wildlife habitat 5,777,500 Soil and Water Conservation Needs In- ventory (for each State) Projected acres of wildlife 5,688,800 Preliminary information provided by habitat in 1980 Economic Research Service, USDA Projected acres of wildlife 5,587,200 Ibid. habitat in 2000 Projected acres in wildlife 5,480,500 Ibid. habitat in 2020 135 136 Appendix 17 Acres of hunting opportunity 14,649 Preliminary information supplied by added 1970-2020 representatives of State Depts. of Natu- ral Resources Acres of hunting opportunity 297,000 Preliminary information provided by lost 1970-2020 Economic Research Service, USDA Computations Computation of projected X1 and X2 factors Xi (Pop./sq. mi.) X2 (Habit at/c apita) Year 1980 1,963,000 = 230.53 5,688,800 = 2.898 acres 8,515 1,963,000 Year 2000 2,474,000 = 290-55 5,587,200 = 2.258 acres 8,515 2,474,000 Year 2020 3,116,000 = 365.94 5,480,500 = 1.759 acres 8,515 3,116,000 Computation of adjustment factor Correction of projected 1960 resident licensed hunters based on actual 1960 hunters from Sample License Table. X, = 1960 Population = 1,566,000 = 183.91 Acres, Sq. Miles 8,515 X2 = Acres Habitat in 1960 = 5,777,500 = 3.689 Population in 1960 1,566,000 Y = .094879 - .00006771 X, + .006208 X2 Y = .094879 - .00006771 (183.91) + .006208 (3.689) Y = .105330 1960 actual Y = .103 .103 - .98095 .105 Computation of number of 1980, 2000, and 2020 resident licensed hunters Year 1980 Y = [.094879 - .000,06771 (230.53) + .006208 (2.898)] .98095 Y = [.094879 - .015607 + .017991].98095 Y = .0954101 Y X 1980 projected population 1980 resident licensed hunters .0954101 x 1,963,000 187,290 Year 2000 Y = [.094879 - .00006771 (290.55) + .006208 (2.258)] .98095 Y = [.094879 - .019670 + .0140181 .98095 Y = .087527 Y x 2000 projected population = resident licensed hunters .087527 x 2,474,000 = 216,542 Year 2020 Y = [.094879 - .00006771 (365.94) + .006208 (1.759)] .98095 Y = [.094879 - .024774 + .0109201 .98095 Y = .079481 Y X 2020 projected population = resident licensed hunters .079481 x 3,116,000 = 247,662 Addendum 137 Computation of Latent Demand The percent of latent demand in 1960 (15.72%) was considered to be constant for the projection years. To compute this percentage, a factor of .0162 was borrowed from the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Survey. Year 1960 .0162 x year population = number of latent demand hunters .0162 x 1,566,000 = 25,369 latent demand hunters 25,369 (latent hunters) - 15.72 percent 161,336 (resident licensed'hunters) Year 1980 187,290 resident licensed hunters X.1572 percent latent 29,442 1980 latent hunters Year 2000 216,542 resident licensed hunters X.1572 percent latent 34,040 2000 latent hunters Year 2020 247,662 resident licensed hunters x.1572 percent latent 38,932 2020 latent hunters Computation of Unlicensed Hunters (4 percent of resident licensed hunters) Resident licensed hunters x .04 = number of unlicensed hunters 1960 161,336 x .04 = 6,453 1980 187,290 x .04 = 7,492 2000 216,542 x .04 = 8,662 2020 247,662 x .04 = 9,906 Computation of Nonresident Hunters (.73 percent of resident licensed hunters) 1960 161,336 x .0073 = 1,178 1980 187,290 x .0073 = 1,367 2000 216,542 x .0073 = 1,581 2020 247,662 x .0073 = 1,808 Computation of Net Change on Opportunity [Acres lost per target year x use/acre] - [Acres gained x use/acre] NetChange Year 1980 88,700 x .3555 - 4,883 x 4.13 31,533 - 20,166 = 11,367 Net Change (loss) Year 2000 101,600 x .3555 - 4,883 x 4.13 36,119 - 20,166 = 15,953 Net Change (loss) Year 2020 106,700 x .3555 - 4,883 x 4.13 37,932 - 20,166 = 17,766 Net Change (loss) 138 Appendix 17 TABLE 17-75 Sample License Table Un- Non- Partic- Licensed Licensed Resident Latent Actual Potential ipation Gross 4 Net 5 Year Hunters Hunters Hunters Hunters Hunters Hunters2 Rate3 Demand Demand 1960 161,336 6,453 lJ82 ------ 168,971 ------- 10.92 1,844,071 --------- 1980 187,286 7,491 1,367 29,441 196,144 225,585 10.70 2,413,760 581,056 2000 216,534 8,661 1,581 34,039 226,776 260,815 10.50 2,738,558 921,807 2020 247,653 9,906 1,809 38,931 259,776 298,299 10.30 3,072,480 1,273,495 lActual hunters = total resident licensed hunters + unlicensed hunters + nonresident hunters. 2Potential hunters = actual hunters + latent hunters. 3Participation rate is taken from The National Survey of Hunting and .Fishing and from Appendix K, Fish and Wildlife, Grand River Basin Michigan Comprehensive Water Resources Study. 4Gross demands are potential hunters.x participation rates. 5Net demand is adjusted from gross demand. It represent� needed days of hunting opportunity that must be supplied per target year in addition to the expected increases in hunting opportunity and is cumulative over the study period. The following are examples of the years 1980, 2000, and 2020 using Planning Subarea 4.2 computations for arriving at the net demands for hunting opportunity. Year 1980 (See sample calculation at end of page-) 1980 Gross Demand - 1960 Gross Demand + Net Change of Opportunity 1960-1980 = 1980 Net Demand 2,413,760 - 1,844,071 + 11,367 = 581,056 Year 2000 2000 Gross Demand - 1980 Gross Demand + 1980 Net Demand + Net Change of Opportunity = 2000 Net Demand 2,738,558 - 2,413,760 + 581,056 + 15,953 = 921,807 Year 2020 2020 Gross Demand - 2000 Gross Demand + 2000 Net Demand +Net Change of Opportunity = 2020 Net Demand 3,072,480 - 2,738,558 + 921,807 + 17,766 = 1,273,495 Sample Calculation for Year 1980: The net change in opportunity is the result of the increases plus the decreases in opportunity as follows: Increases--total acreage gained per target year x use per acre (man-days) on intensively managed hunting areas [4,883 x 4.13 = 20,1661 Decreases--total acreage lost per target year x use per acre (man-days) on unmanaged private land (taken from the Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Survey) [88,700 x .3555 = 31,5331 Thus net change of opportunity 1960-1980 = 31,533 - 20,166 = 11,367 TABLE 17-76 Sample Supply Areas Table, Planning Subarea 4.2 Year and Resource Potentially Huntable Land Year and Resource Potentially Huntable Land Land Use Base' Percent Acres Land Use Basel Percent Acres 1966-67 2000 Cropland 4,735,100 15% 710,265 Cropland 4,599,800 15% 689,970 Pasture 213,800 90% 192,265 Pasture 207,700 90% 186,930 Forest 453,400 100% 453,400 Forest 440,500 100% 440,500 Other 349,300 40% 139,720 Other 339,300 40% 135,720 1,495,805 1,453,120 1980 2020 Cropland 4,683,400 15% 702,610 Cropland 4,511,900 15% 676,785 Pasture 211,500 90% 190,350 Pasture 203,700 90% 183,330 Forest 448,500 100% 448,500 Forest 432,100 100% 432,100 Other 345,500 40% 138,200 Other 332,800 40% 133,120 1,479,660 1,425,335 lAppendix 13, Land Use and Afemagenzent, Great Lakes Basin Frmnework Study, first draft Addendum 139 Determination of the Acreage Needs of the Wildlife User Traditionally, in comprehensive surveys, hunter factor is required even though hunter wildlife needs have been based on projections numbers are low. Each planning subarea de- of hunter use expressed in hunter days by serves individual attention to determine the target years. This approach is useful in show- most logical acreage demands figure. ing trends and gives the planner the opportu- The base data for determination of the sup- nity to recognize requirements that must be ply of huntable acres available from the re- met if needs are to be fulfilled. Quantifying source base were taken from Appendix 13, these needs on an acreage basis is considered a Land Use and Management. In that appendix, difficult task. Nevertheless, an effort has been all land is classified by target year, 1980, 2000, made in this appendix to determine the acre- and 2020, as either cropland, pasture, forest or age of wildlife habitat needed by target years other. Acres of land in each classification were to satisfy hunting opportunity needs. then multi-plied by the percent considered The rationale used to compute the acreage huntable. These data were then totaled to ar- needs of the wildlife user by planning subarea rive at the acres of supply of huntable land for is as follows. It is recognized that by fixing a each target year. Supply represents the acres figure for acreage needed per hunter and ap- of wildlife habitat projected to be available for plying it Basinwide, the result may indicate hunting and nonconsumptive use. either needs greater than the existing plan- Determination of acres of habitat needed for ning subarea wildlife habitat 'acreage or each target year was based on the increase in surplus acreages. Therefore, the Wildlife the number of hunters from one target year to Work Group fqels that an estimate of acres the next. In Planning Subarea 4.2, for exam- needed per hunter should be applied for each ple, the increase in the number of hunters be- planning subarea, based on its circumstances tween 1970 and 1980, the first target year, was and acres available in 1970. This judgment 31,200 (196,000 hunters in 1980 minus 165,000 should be based on the type of habitat and the hunters in 1970). This increase was then mul- type of hunting. For example, it is postulated tiplied by ten acres, an estimate of the mini- that farm-game habitat can support a greater mum number of acres needed for each hunter density of hunters than can forest-game in this planning subarea. The number of acres habitat. The net Basinwide effects are an ad- of wildlife habitat required by target year is justment of the needed acres between high the sum of the acres of supply and the acres and low demand areas. In northern planning needed (net demand). subareas where forest-game hunting is the Following is an example of how these com- dominant wildlife use, a higher acreage per putations were made in Planning Subarea 4.2. 140 Appendix 17 Determination of Needed Acres in Planning Subarea 4.2 196,200 Number of hunters in 1980 -165,000 Number of hunters in 1970 -@-1,200 Increase in hunters 1970-1980 X 10 Acres needed per hunter 312,000 Total acres additional needed by 1980 226,800 Number of hunters in 2000 -196,200 Number of hunters in 1980 30,600 Increase in hunters 1980-2000 X 10 Acres needed per hunter 306,000 Total acres additional needed 1980-2000 259,400 Number of hunters in 2020 -226,800 Number of hunters in 2000 32,600 Increase in hunters 2000-2020 X 10 Acres needed per hunter 326,000 Total acres additional needed 2000-2020 Total acres needed by 1980 = 312,000 Total acres needed by 2000 = 618,000 Total acres needed by 2020 = 944,000 Additional Year Acres of Supply Acres Needed Total Acres Needed 1970 1,495,805 1,495,805 1980 1,479,660 312,000 1,791,660 2000 1,452,120 618,000 2,070,120 2020 1,425,335 944,000 2,369,335 4 '7* p A Air DATE DUE On Awk. r Yf Agriculture 6f the Army eip,prtmentl D 40 of Commerce =rr f4m" 6nt of :r-E=4 weva"k ousing Urban pment Department -4 the Interior 971@@ of Ja ice S SM Rrl-@@t of e Department of Transportation Environmental Ootection Agency Federal Commission Gre at Lakes el@ `7 19 4 aai