Michigan Natural Features Inventory Program / a two year progress report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

kj
Coastal Zone
Information
Center

THE AHCI-ffGAN
NATURAL FFATURES I"EMORY
PROGRAM

A TWO YEAR
PROGRESS REPORT
ItNe

Up';k:ti J;.

April 1982

Mchigan Natural Features Inventory Program
Division of Land Resource Programs
Department of Natural Resources
Box 30028
Lansing, Mchigan 48909

THE

MICHIGAN NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY PROGRAM

A TWO YEAR PROGRESS REPORT

April 1982

Michigan Natural Features Inventory Program

Division of Land Resource Programs

k Department of Natural Resources

Box 30028

Lansing, Michigan 48909

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coaotal Services Center Library
2.10'41 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

Lawrence L. Master Program Coordinator/ Zoologist
Willard M. Rose Plant Ecologist
Susan R. Crispin Botanist
Stuart Ouwinga Data Manager
Janet Gereau Data Handler/Secretary
Mary Ann DeBoer Research Assistant

PREFACE

This technical report describes the purpose and progress of the Michigan Natural
Features Inventory Program. It has been prepared in fulfillment of contractual
obligations and as a basis for future discussion. The report is intended to serve
both as a reference document and as a proposal for future activities.

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory Program completes its initial two years
of operation in April 1982 with the submission of this document to the
Department of Natural Resources.

This progress report was prepared by the staff of the Michigan Natural Features
Inventory Program with the assistance of the National Office of The Nature
Conservancy. The report follows established formats used in preparation of
other State Heritage Program reports by The Nature Conservancy. We are
particularly indebted to the Arkansas, Arizona, and Ohio Natural Heritage
Programs for their fine reports, which served as our models. Comments on this
document would be appreciated and should be directed to the Director of
Heritage Operations of The Nature Conservancy or to the Michigan Natural
Features Inventory Program.

Inventory efforts will be continued into t983 through a grant from the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources Coastal Management Program, administered by
the Division of Land Resource Programs and a matching grant to The Nature
Conservancy from the C. S. Mott Foundation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory Program is the result of much more
than the efforts of its four full-time and two part-time staff members. The
number of persons who have contributed to the development of the Michigan
Natural Features Inventory is literally in the hundreds. Most will remain
nameless; others cannot be left unmentioned.

We are grateful for the untiring support expressed in all stages of program
development by current and former staff of The Nature Conservancy National
Of f ice and by the Michigan Field Of f ice.

We also acknowledge the support and guidance given the Michigan Natural
Features Inventory by various representatives of the State of Michigan. in
particular, we wish to acknowledge Dennis Hall, our liaison with the Land
Resource Programs Division of the Department of Natural Resources, Karl
Hosford, Chief of Land Resource Programs, and Sylvia Taylor and Vic Janson of
the Wildlife Division of the Department of Natural Resources.

To the Wilderness and Natural Areas Board, and in particular, Dr. Ronald Kapp,
we owe a sincere debt of gratitude for encouraging the State to undertake the
Inventory and for supporting the Inventory after its implementation.

This program could not have been possible without the financial support of the
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation of Flint, Michigan which was matched by a
grant to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources by the Land and Water
Conservation Fund of the U.S. Department of the Interior's Heritage Conserva-
tion and Recreation Service. Additional financial support was provided by a
grant from the National Speleological Society. Congressman John D. Dingell
donated a second set of USGS topographic maps to the program.

Lastly, we are grateful for the countless hours of support by contract workers
and by hundreds of persons who volunteered their time in all phases of program
development.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * ' * * * V
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Institutional Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Classification System and Element Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Natural/Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Special Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Special Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Geomorphic/Geologic Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Other Natural Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Definition of Element Occurrence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Element Ranking . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Data Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Uses of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Identification of Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Data Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
State Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Private . . . . . ' * ' * ' * ' ' * * ' ' ' * ' * * * * * 18
Academic Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
STATUS OF NATURAL DIVERSITY IN MICHIGAN . . . . . . . . . . . 20
General Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Natural Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Land Use History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Current Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Natural/Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Riverine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Lacustrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Palustrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Terrestrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Special Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Prioritization and Categorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Discussion of High Priority (A2-BI.2) Species . . . . . . . . 43
State Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Habitat Affinities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Phytogeographic Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Non-Vascular Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Bryophytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Lichens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Special Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Prioritization and Categorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Reptiles and Amphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Fishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Mollusks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Geomorphic/Geologic Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Other Natural Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Great Blue Heron Rookeries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Migratory Bird Concentration Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Bat Caves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Champion Trees and Shrubs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Chestnut Groves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
APPENDIX A. Procedures for Developing the Community
Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
APPENDIX B. A Classification of Natural Communities
in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
APPENDIX C. MNFI Special Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
APPENDIX D. MNFI Special Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 119
APPENDIX E. MNFI Geomorphic/Geologic Features
Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Nature Preserves in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2. High Priority W-B2.1) Special Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3. Status of Special Animals in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4. Status of High Priority (A2-B2) Birds in Michigan . . . . . . . . . 55
5. Status of Medium Priority (B3) Birds in Michigan . . . . . . . . . 56
6. Status of Great Lakes Coregonid Fishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7. Records of Nine Rare Michigan Fishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

8. Status of Michigan's Endangered, Threatened, and Rare
Unionid Mollusks (Mussels) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
9. Michigan Great Blue Heron Rookeries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
10. Migratory Bird Concentration Sites of Michigan . . . . . . . . . 68
I t. American Chestnut (Castanea dentata) Trees in Michigan 71

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Data Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. Element Ranking Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Components of the Michigan Natural Features Inventory 14
Program Data System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. An example of a computerized element occurrence record .. . . . . 17
5. Natural regions of the State .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

6. Counties with many element occurrences (computerized as of
14 April 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

7. Counties with few element occurrences (computerized as of
14 April 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

INTRODUCTION

Boreal forests and southern deciduous woods, remnant prairies and sculpted sand
dunes, inland lakes and streams by the thousands, the longest freshwater
shoreline of any state. Michigan's natural heritage embraces all of these and
more. Two hundred years of agriculture, industry, and urbanization, however,
have greatly altered the character of the land. Scattered in the fragments of our
once vast and undisturbed wilderness are natural communities that harbor many
rare and endangered plant and animal species; but unless we conscientiously
catalogue their occurrences, these habitats may be unwittingly destroyed.

The protection of these remaining natural areas has become increasingly
complex, even with existing laws and regulations, due in part to some basic
unanswered questions. For example, which areas within the State's landscape
deserve protection and which do not? And, how should those places be
protected? In the past few years, disagreement about these questions has cost
millions of dollars in litigation and delayed or aborted projects. It has also cost
our citizens in the loss of unknown, irreplaceable components of our natural
heritage.

As our State experiences population growth and continued economic develop-
ment, it is increasingly important that we protect the finest remaining areas of
natural significance. Once destroyed, Michigan's natural areas cannot be fully
restored. Their resource potential, their utility for education and research, and
their recreational, aesthetic, and cultural values could be forever lost to future
generations.

A balance can be achieved between our need to grow and our need to protect an
irreplaceable natural heritage. The Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Program provides one of the informational tools to help achieve this aim.

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory Program was established in 1980 as a
cooperative effort of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and The
Nature Conservancy. This comprehensive inventory of Michigan's ecological
resources provides a continuous process for identifying significant natural areas
and setting land protection priorities in the State.

The Inventory focuses on the elements or components of natural di versity-- those
natural features of particular interest because they are exemplary, unique, or
endangered on a state or national basis. Information on the status and
distribution of exemplary natural communities, rare and endangered plant and
animal species, and special geologic features is collected and stored in an
integrated data management system.

Our citizens can be proud that within Michigan's borders are found elements of
ecological diversity that occur nowhere else in the world. Although these may be
unfamiliar to the general public, they are precious parts of our State's natural
character--its natural heritage.

The protection of Michigan's natural heritage can be accomplished in harmony
with other human concerns if planning accompanies economic growth. Quite
often, the natural areas most desirable for protection have limited commercial

value. Some of the richest, most diverse areas are small in acreage, so
preserving Michigan's natural heritage need not entail setting aside large tracts.
The Natural Features Inventory facilitates the sound evaluation of lands by
providing an objective comparison of ecological resources in the State. Because
the system has been designed to answer a wide range of needs, it can be equally
beneficial to a wide range of decision-makers in both the public and private
sectors. Whether the issue is natural-area conservation or highway routing, the
inventory is an invaluable planning tool. By offering a scientific overview of
Michigan's natural environment, it enables our citizens to assess alternative
courses of action before commitments are made.

Natural areas provide refuge for native plants and animals and perpetuate
undisturbed or otherwise exemplary communities, scenic areas, and geological
features. By preserving a significant portion of our biotic diversity, they serve
to maintain genetic reservoirs that may be drawn upon in the future as new
sources of food, medicine or other products. Natural areas also serve as living
laboratories for the study of species interactions, population dynamics, nutrient
cycling, and many other natural processes. Finally, in many cases, they may
serve as refuges for people, providing needed contrasts to urban living.

In order to create a system for identification and protection of the most
significant natural areas in Michigan, the "Heritage Program" set out to develop
the following:

1. an operations center, consisting of maps, files, a library, etc.;

2. a data management system for storage of information in manual
and computer files;

3. classification systems for ecological diversity;

4. an operations handbook, detailing methodologies employed;

5. an inventory and analysis of selected components of Michigan's
natural diversity;

6. a progress report, summarizing the results of the initial data
gathering and analysis, together with recommendations for
future work.

Objectives 1-5 have been achieved and are functioning components of the
ongoing heritage inventory. The present document is presented in fulfillment of
objective 6.

Institutional Arrangements

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory Program was established in March 1980
as a cooperative effort of The Nature Conservancy and the Department of
Natural Resources of the State of Michigan. The Special Land Programs Section
of the Division of Land Resource Programs was the administrative overseer of
the Inventory Program during the pilot period, April t980 - April 1982. Federal
funds administered by the Department of Natural Resources and derived frorn

the Land and Water Conservation Fund of the Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service provided one-half the total Inventory Program budget. The
other half was donated to The Nature Conservancy by the Charles Stewart Mott
Foundation of Flint, Michigan. This blend of public and private support has
spelled strength and effectiveness for the Michigan Natural Features Inventory
Program.

Plans were made for a transfer of administration of the Inventory Program from
The Nature Conservancy to the State of Michigan at the conclusion of the pilot
period in April 1982. However, funding for the program was not made available
from the State to enable the transfer to take place at that time. Consequently,
The Nature Conservancy is now raising the entire amount necessary to maintain
the program at its present level through a contingency period, until October
1983.

ME7HODOLOGY

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory Program provides a comprehensive
system for identifying ecologically significant natural features in the State.
Based on the innovative methodology developed by The Nature Conservancy, the
"Heritage" system emphasizes features that are exemplary, unique, or endan-
gered on a statewide or national level. In Michigan, components or elements of
natural diversity include natural communities such as bog wetlands or southern
rnesic forests and species such as the bald eagle and the dwarf lake iris.

The element-based approach is an advance in the effort to ensure an objective,
thorough assessment of a state's ecological diversity. Unlike previous invento-
ries, which focused on sites rather than individual elements, the Heritage
inventory identifies little-known areas and clarifies the significance of better-
known sites. Whereas site-by-site inventories are conducted over a set time
period and are quickly outdated, the Michigan Natural Features Inventory is
ongoing, with an information base that can be readily updated.

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory process has three main facets for
identifying the portions of the landscape that best perpetuate the full range of
Michigan's natural diversity: classification, inventory, and data analysis.

Classification Systems and Element Lists

Michigan's natural diversity includes all its native plants and animals, its
terrestrial and aquatic communities, and its geologic structures and formations.
It would be impractical to gather information on each element individually.
Further, some elements are clearly more vulnerable to extirpation than others
and must be afforded special attention. For these reasons, two approaches to the
classification of natural diversity have been employed: a "coarse filter" and a
"fine filter."

The coarse filter approach is based on the fact that many plants and animals are
either closely associated with particular community types or are common enough
that they can be protected simply by maintaining the full range of community
types in the $tate. We assume that by preserving viable examples of these
community types, those species associated with them will also be preserved. Of
course, natural communities are complex, interacting units that ar-e significant in
their own right. Their protection is intended not only to preserve the diversity of
individual species but to protect the full range of plant communities as well. An
example of the course filter approach follows:

Mesic forests, dominated by maple and/or beech, are characteristic
features in the southern half of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Many
plants and animal-s that are common and widespread in Michigan
occur in these forests. The animals depend on these forests for nest-
sites, food, or shelter. Simply by protecting a good example of a
maple and/or beech forest, we will protect species that are closely
associated with it. In this way, we begin to fulfill a Heritage goal:

the protection of at least one population of each species of plant and
anirnal native to Michigan. This is a basic step in maintaining natural
diversity. To do this, we used a coarse approach--a plant community
approach-- whereby we worked with species assemblages rather than
individual species.

However, some of our flora and fauna pass through the coarse filter. They are
species not associated closely enough with a particular community type that they
can be adequately protected by preserving just any example of that community
type. These species, which are endangered, threatened, rare, peripheral,
endemic, or otherwise of special concern, belong to that fraction of biological
diversity which must still be dealt with on a species-by-species, or fine filter,
basis. An example of the fine filter approach follows:

Fewer than 20 pairs of piping plovers nest at a dozen or so sites on
beaches adjoining the Great Lakes. Piping plovers are closely
associated with fairly wide, sandy, unvegetated beaches with scat-
tered stones, but not all such beaches have piping plovers nesting on
them.

When The Nature Conservancy protected a dune complex and 500 feet
of sandy Lake Michigan shoreline (Lucia K. Tower Preserve in
Manistee County), habitat was preserved for typical dune succession
and for many plant and animal species, but not for piping plovers.
The plovers slipped through the coarse filter, the natural community
approach.

To protect the best population of piping plovers in Michigan, we must
work with this species individually. We must know where they occur,
what their needs are, and which of the habitats where they occur are
protectable. We must identify specific sandy beaches that still
support piping plovers. Then we can focus on determining which of
these habitats can be protected and how to do so. Note that
accomplishing fine-filter goals may often mean that a given coarse-
filter, natural community element is also protected, and vice versa.
Had the Lucia Tower Preserve contained piping plovers, the shorebird
would now be a lower priority fine-filter element. Our minimal goal,
the protection of at least one population of a species, would already
have been achieved.

Within the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) classification system, the
elements of natural diversity are grouped into five separate classes. Natural
communities make up one class in which individual community types are the
elements. The other classes presently in use in Michigan are special plants,
special animals, geologic features, and miscellaneous elements ("other") including
heron rookeries, bat caves, champion trees/shrubs and migratory bird concentra-
tion sites.

Natural/Plant Communities

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory community classification system is a
comprehensive treatment of the community types in the State. However,
emphasis is on those types that are persistent or rare. The system is designed
primarily for identification and protection of little-disturbed remnants of
presettlement community types.

PLANT COMMUNITIES are recurrent assernblages of species found in the
landscape. As such, they differ on a fundar,-.ental level from species. Plant
communities are generally recognized on the basis of particular dominant or
characteristic species and a certain range of environmental conditions; there is
some variation in species composition within most community types.

We cannot rely on PLANT COMMUNITIES to act as the sole coarse filter for
capturing diversity. One reason for this is that many areas cannot or should not
be named and defined by their vegetative cover. For instance, most aquatic
communities are difficult to characterize vegetationally, and, when they can be,
it is often not practical to do so because the vegetation is not a prominent
feature of the community. The same is true for many other habitats including
dunes, cliffs, and caves. For this reason we have chosen to supplement the plant
community classification with a habitat or ecologically based classification
called the NATURAL COMMUNITY classification.

The COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION used by MNFI is thus composed of two
complementary parallel classifications. Although each could be used alone, the
combination of the two provides more information and facilitates the entry of
'data into the system, especially in the early stages of the program. This will
create some redundancy where natural community elements and plant community
elements correspond (at least the resource inefficiency will be confined to
relatively inexpensive paper exercises rather than the very expensive land
protection endeavors themselves). For elements where the natural!plant
community correspondence is less, our ability to detect and document underpro-
tected ecological systems will be enhanced. Taken together, we employ the two
systems' relative strengths as cross checks to ensure adequate identification of
conservation priorities. Appendix A details procedures followed for developing
the community classifications.

Because of the diverse flora and vegetation found in North America and the
abstract nature of a plant community, a standardized plant community
classification system has not been accepted in the United States. However, most
general vegetation ecology texts state that the North American tradition of
classification is based on dominance. For this reason, we decided to rely on
dominance in the development of the plant community classification.

Other currently used classifications based on dominance include ones proposed
for use by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, the Federal
Interagency Classification proposed for use by Soil Conservation Service, Bureau
of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Service and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and those developed by the Society of American Foresters
(1940. Forest cover types of the Eastern United States), Daubenmire
(Daubenrnire, R. 1968. Plant communities: A textbook of plant synecology.
Harper & Row, N.Y.), Kuchler (1964. Manual to accompany the map Potential
Natural Vegetation of the conterminous United States. Amer. Geog. Soc.)., and
Brown, Lowe, and Pase (Brown, D., C. Lowe, and C. Pase. 1980. A digitized
systematic classification for ecosystems with an illustrated summary of the
natural vegetation of North America. General Tech. Rept. RM-73, Rocky Mt.
Forest and Range Exp. Sta., USFS, USDA.). The classification also needed to be
hierarchical to facilitate data management, incorporation of data into the
system (whether general or specific), and crosswalking to major classifications
such as Kuchler, the Society of American Foresters, and Daubenmire, which
differ in their level of detail.

In Michigan, fortunately, a fair amount of community work was done before the
Natural Features Inventory Program began. The work by the Wilderness and
Natural Areas Advisory Board, especially Dr. Ronald Kapp (Alma College), and
the reference, Vegetation of Wisconsin by J. T. Curtis (1959. Univ. Wisc. Press),
has provided us with a basic classification framework. In addition, years of
active work by ecologists at Michigan's universities and colleges and by the
Michigan Natural Areas Council served as a valuable source of information on
community types. All of this work was synthesized with our own field surveys to
produce the Michigan community classification system.

The information that the Natural Features Inventory collects on communities
ranges from general to specific. For example, a site may be reported as a high
quality stand of "virgin timber" but the dominant species may be unknown. A
different site may be reported to have a beech-maple (Fagus grandifolia-Acer
saccharum) community and a complete analysis of its composition may be
available. The Inventory's hierarchical community classification system deals
effectively -with this range of data specificity because it allows storage of
information at several different levels. The hierarchical system can be refined
as needed. For instance, as more field work is conducted and additional types
become evident, they will be coded and added to the system. The MNFI
Community Classif ication is presented in Appendix B.

Special Plants

Michigan's comprehensive endangered species law, Act No. 203, Public Acts of
1974, became effective September 1, 1974. It charges the Department of
Natural Resources with the responsibility to carry out scientific investigations
for the protection and enhancement of endangered and threatened species of
both animals and plants.

In accordance with the Act, special technical committees consisting of scientific
experts were appointed to advise the Department for six major groups--plants,
mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, fishes, and invertebrates. The
scientific advisory committees were charged with the task of assembling
proposed state lists of endangered and threatened species. With respect to
plants, no comprehensive listing of rare Michigan species was previously
attempted. The committees' initial lists were formally adopted as Administra-
tive Rules on November 18, 1976, following a lengthy public review process. The
plant list consisted of 16 species designated endangered and one designated
threatened, and was formally amended on January 22, 1980, following the first
biennial review process, to include 191 plant taxa designated threatened. (Five
species of dodder (Cuscuta) designated threatened by the technical committee
were deleted from the amended rule to avoid conflict with an existing weed
control act which includes all "dodders.11) Additional informal lists of rare and/or
peripheral ("special concern") species were also compiled by the technical
advisory committees, and 90 plant taxa, were included on this list. Twenty-five
plant species were also placed in the unofficial category of "probably extinct" in
Michigan.

No plant species have been listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as
federally endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
though at !east 20 have been candidates for listing at various times and one
species--the smaller whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides)--is currently proposed

f or listing. Sixteen Michigan plant species were listed by the Smithsonian
Institution as "Endangered and Threatened Plants of the United States" (Ayensu
and DeFilipps, 1978).

The initial Michigan Natural Features Inventory working list of special plants was
based on the technical committee's list, which was modified by consultation with
individual committee members and numerous field botanists throughout the
State. The working list has undergone continuous refinement based on current
species status and distribution data compiled especially from extensive field
work coordinated by the Michigan Natural Features Inventory during 1980 and
1981. In the 1981-82 biennial review process currently underway, the technical
committee has proposed revision of the administrative rule for endangered and
threatened plants consistent with the current working list presented in Appendix
C.

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory has also developed working lists of rare
Michigan lichens and mosses in consultation with state experts, most notably Dr.
Henry Imshaug (Michigan State University) for lichens and Dr. Howard Crum
(University of Michigan) for mosses. These lists are also presented in Appendix
C.

Special Animals

As for plants (see preceding Special Plants section), the initial state lists of
endangered, threatened, and rare animal species were compiled by the Technical
Advisory Committees under the guidance of the State's Endangered Species
Program. In 1980, prior to the start-up of the Michigan Natural Features
Inventory (MNFI) and following the first biennial review of the state lists, 103
animal species were listed as endangered, threatened, or rare/peripheral by the
Department of Natural Resources. Of these, six Michigan animal species are
also listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The first draft of the MNFI special animal list was developed after a systematic
review of all existing lists and after a review of the status and distribution of all
vertebrates, mollusca, and lepidoptera of Michigan. Mogens Nielsen, Executive
Secretary of the Michigan Entomological Society and one of the most
knowledgeable lepidopterists in the Midwest, compiled the lepidoptera list.
Initial drafts of the animal lists were reviewed by more than 75 scientists and
knowledgeable individuals. The initial lists have been continually refined,
especially following the 1981 field season and in conjunction with the second
biennial review (1981-2) of Michigan's endangered and threatened species rules
(lists). The current working MNFI animal lists are presented in Appendix D.

Geomorphic/Geologic Features

Michigan's geologic/geomorphic diversity was comprehensively documented in
the book Geology of Michigan (Dorr, J. A., Jr. and D. F. Eschman. 1977.
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor). However, no systematic inventory of
high quality examples of diversity was attempted previous to the efforts of the
Michigan Natural Features Inventory.

An initial classification of diversity was developed based upon Geology of
Michigan, in consultation with various state experts, and has undergone continual
refinement (see Appendix E). The classification organizes information on
occurrences of exemplary geornorphic/geologic features in Michigan, and reveals
gaps in our knowledge of these features. Several major divisions are based on
earth processes which shaped Michigan's landscape: glaciers, water (fluvial and
coastal), wind, karst, mass wasting, and weathering; secondary divisions
enumerate features formed by these processes. Other portions of the
classification encompass rock structure and stratigraphic earth history. Unusual
features of special importance and interest, such as fossils and minerals, are
included separately under a "miscellaneous" heading.

In developing the classification, we attempted to create categories which
differentiate between features of significance, such that if quality examples of
each feature were protected, preservation of Michigan's geomorphic/geologic
diversity would be ensured.

Other Natural Features

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory Program collected and will continue to
refine information on five distinct types of natural phenomena which, because of
their singular manner of refusing to fit within the major classifications, are
Jumped under the natural term OTHERS:

Bat "Caves"
Great Blue Heron Rookeries
Migratory Bird Concentration Sites
Chestnut Groves
Champion Trees and Shrubs

As there are f ew natural caves in Michigan, and most of these are too small to
support substantial bat populations, this category is based on the observations of
larger populations in abandoned mine shafts in the Upper Peninsula. The
occasional sighting of an uncommon species in these "caves" further justifies
their inclusion in the data base.

The great blue heron (Ardea herodias), although common and distributed
statewide, is a communal tree-nesting species of special concern to many
citizens. The Wildlife Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
has sporadically kept records of these rookeries for many years.

A few special areas of the State, because of their geographical configuration,
location within the migratory flight routes of various birds, and/or more subtle
avian tradition, were singled out as important concentration sites of migratory
birds. Although they are included in the system under one heading, the sites can
be further distinguished in their usage by waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, and
sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis).

The American chestnut (Castanea dentata) was once naturally distributed in the
extreme southeastern part of Michigan. Surviving specimens in that area are
now classified as state endangered. There were many attempts to establish the
species throughout the State. Where the climate was propitious, notably in the
northwestern part of the Lower Peninsula, many sizeable colonies flourished.

These extant "groves," repositories of a hypovirulent strain that is resistant to
the notorious chestnut blight, are of such considerable scientific, historical, and
aesthetic value as to be included in the data base as an "Other."

The continuing efforts of devoted Champion Tree champiens over many years
have resulted in enough evidence, they say, to proclaim Michigan the Big Tree
State (presumably with a greater variety of record size trees than most other
states). All species not native to Michigan are excluded and ascertainable
planted specimens (lawn localities) of fast-growing species are not given top
priority. For more accurate statistical purposes, these trees are classified as
either Federal or State Champions and (with characteristic botanical arbitrari-
ness) as trees or shrubs.

Inventory

Definition of Element Occurrence

The inventory phase of the program is a continuing process in which data are
collected and cornpiled into a usable form. The basic unit of data collection is
the Element Occurrence (EO), a location record of an element in the
classification system. Thus, an Element Occurrence is a site where an element
has been recently observed, collected, and/or reported in the literature.

Element occurrence criteria dif f er f rom element to element. For instance, if we
have a reliable report of boggy area in southern Michigan where the rare prairie
fringed orchid occurs, we can record this as an Element Occurrence; we feel
confident in doing so because orchids are relatively sedentary and the boggy area
is likely to contribute to the survival of the element. A sighting of a peregrine
falcon flying over suburban Detroit, on the other hand, does not qualify as an
Element Occurrence; there is nothing about suburban Detroit which can
significantly contribute to the survival of the peregrine falcon.

Data Acquisition

The first priority in data acquisition was to assemble existing information on
element occurrences. Much of the existing information was widely dispersed
throughout the files of agencies, universities, museurns, libraries, and knowledge-
able individuals. Early in the contract period, we emphasized those sources
expected to provide the greatest arnounts of reliable element occurrence data.

Data gathering and analysis are the principal functions of the Inventory program.
As data are compiled, their analysis continually identifies new sources of
additional information and, equally importantly, reveals gaps in information.
Poorly known localities and species are identified so that field work can be
carried out to gather data efficiently. Similarly, knowledge of work being done
by other biologists enables the staff to avoid duplication of their efforts. These
cycles of data acquisition, analysis, and further work are described in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Data Cycles.

Data Collection Data Storage Analysis of Infor- Data
Secondary Sources and Retrieval mation Needs Collection
- herbaria - map f ile - identify sites - field survey
- rnuseurns -computer file -identify - supplemental
- literature -manual files elements secondary
- scientists -identify geo- sources
-government graphic areas
agencies needing more
work

Stage 1, data collection. In the initial data-gathering phase, information is
compiled on as rnany significant elements as possible. Data on
Element Occurrences--- the reported localities of elements--are gather-
ed from herbarium records, museurn records, scientific literature, and
scientists.

Stage 2, data storage and retrieval. The Element Occurrence information is
recorded in the rnap file, computerized, and cross- r ef erenced in the
various manual files of the Natural Heritage Data System.

Stage 3, analysis of information needs. After a comprehensive list of Element
Occurrences is stored in the data system, (a) sites are identified that
support elements worthy of closer inspection and (b) elements are
identified that require further investigation to determine their
statewide status.

Stage 4, data collection. In this data-gathering phase, intensive field surveys
are conducted and secondary sources are searched for supplemental
data to fill the information needs identified in Stage 3.

Element Ranking

In our inventory and protection efforts, elements should receive attention
according to their relative rarity and endangerment throughout their entire
range. A species or community found only in Michigan and known f rom only one
or two places deserves attention before an element which, while rare enough in
the State to merit inclusion on the list, is common elsewhere. To rank elements
in the relative order of their range-wide importance, The Nature Conservancy
developed a ranking system which assigns each element to one of the following
categories:

Al = Critically endangered throughout range, e.g., Planorbella multivolvis (a
snail)

A2 = Endangered throughout range, e.g., smaller whorled pogonia 0sotria
medeoloides), Kirtland's warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii), alpine
community

AX = Apparently extinct throughout range, e.g., passenger pigeon (Ectopi
stes migratorius), longjaw cisco (Coregonus alpenae

BI = Threatened throughout range or critically State endangered, e.g., gray
wolf (Canis lupus), prairie f ringed orchid (Habenaria leucophaea , delta
wetlands

B2 = Other state endangered or critically State threatened, e.g., Kirtland's
snake (Clonophis kirtlandi), floating bladderwort (Utricularia inflata),
mesic prairie

B3 = Other state threatened, e.g., butterwort (Pinguicula vulgaris , bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), dry prairie

BU = Possibly in peril; need more information, e.g., red-shouldered hawk
(Buteo lineatus), boreal forest

BX = Apparently extirpated from State e.g., blackfin cisco (Coregonus
reighardi , crearin white indigo (Baptisia leucophaea), oak opening

C =Apparently secure in the State and throughout range, e.g., southern
bog lemming (Synaptomys cooperi , Ohio buckeye (Aesculus glabra ,
bog wetland

D =Demonstrably secure in State and throughout range, e.g., boreal chorus
frog (Pseudacris triseriata), mesic northern forest

These ranks are assigned through use of an Element Ranking Form (Figure 2).
Instructions for completing this form are provided in the Operations Manual. The
Element Ranking Form is actually a digest of a much longer form, the Element
Abstract, which is a key part of the inventory program. The Element Abstract
provides comprehensive information about the biology and ecology of each plant,
animal, and community for which the heritage program manages the information.
The Element Ranking Form was created as a convenient way to handle the
important task of element ranking.

Data Management
Efficient storage of data is necessary for retrieval and analysis. Figure 3
summarizes the components of the Michigan Natural Features Inventory data
storage systerns. These components are explained in detail in the Operations
Manual.

Figure 2
Element Ranking Form

State:

Element Name: Date:

Common Name: Prepared by:

Class: Element Code:

EO SPECIFICATIONS:

HABITAT OR COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION

TAXONOMIC DISTINCTNESS:

PERMANENCE OF EOIS:

FEDERAL STATUS: LE LT PE PT Cl C2 C AC N
Comments:

DEGREE OF LEGAL PROTECTION:

RANKING CONSIDERATIONS

Estimated Total E-Ols: A B C D
Comments:

Estimated State E01s: A B C D
Comments:

Total Range: Al A2 B C D
Comments

Estimated adequately protected EO's in State: U A B C D
Comments

Relative Threat of Destruction: A B C D
Comments:

F-cological Fragility: A B C D
Comments:

State Range: A B C D
Comments:

OVERALL ELEMENT PRIORITY RANK: Al A2 AX BI B2 B3 BU BX C D
Summarize reasons:

NUMBERS OF PROTECTED EOIS NEEDED IN STATE (include reasons):

OTHER PROTECTION/STEWARDSHIP NEEDS:

Figure 3.
Components of the Michigan Natural Features Inventory Program Data System

ELEMENTS ELEMENT OCCURRENCES MANAGED AREAS SOURCES

General Element Files Geographic Manual File (GMF) Managed Area File I. Contact/ Cor respon den ce
File I f older/element I folder/7.5' topo map contains 1 f older./area contains File
contains articles, area info., e.g., soils survey, general policy and (!or pers. comm., agencies,
photos, the element vegetation maps, field survey mgmt. planning info.; orgs., institutions)
abstract forms correspondence, etc. 2. Reprint File
3. Library
0 0 0 4. Slide File 0

Map I.-ounty-of 7.51 and 151 USGS topographic 7.51 and 151 USGS topos Contact/Correspondence
File 15istribution Map quad maps shares EO map file; File
I 8Y2" x I 111/element each EO is plotted, with boundaries of each is organized by county.
inventory-generated boundaries if available managed area are No other map file
range map 0 0 plotted on the maps 0 0

Abstract Element Abstract Element Occurrence Record (EOR) Source File
summary of natural I/EO includes: location, general catalogs all sources reviewed
history info., taxo- description, condition, dates, and to be reviewed. Usefulness,
nomy, best sources, sources, land ownership, etc. filing location, f ull citation,
mgmt. considerations, all noted
etc. C
Dther Element Ranking Element Occurrence Log Sheet KEY 0 Manual
Files Form I/element; locations of all
Forms parts of element occurrences of the element Computerized
abstract used to are listed
determine element C Partially Computerized
status (priority 0 0
rank)

Data Analysis

To be useful, the data must be analyzed as well as compiled. A considerable
portion of Michigan Natural Features Inventory staff tirne is spent on data
analysis and review. Data analysis serves (1) to reorder research priorities
(identify elements and areas needing more research), and (2) to identify natural
areas. This latter aspect is discussed below.

Uses of the Data

Identification of Natural Areas

One of the major goals of the inventory is to identify significant areas for the
most exemplary and endangered elements of natural diversity. This identif ica-
tion process involves element and site considerations.

Element considerations--The level of priority attached to protection of a given
element is determined primarily by its rarity throughout its entire range as well
as its rarity and protection status within the State (see Element Ranking).
Additional considerations include range, taxonomic distinctness, fragility, and
relative threat of destruction.

Site considerations--Once the most en danger ed/leas t protected elements have
been identified via the element ranking process, the individual occurrences of
these elements are evaluated for the quality, condition, viability, vigor, etc. of
individuals; or the age, maturity, productivity, diversity, number of alien species,
etc. for communities. Condition refers to the degree of habitat disturbance of
the Element Occurrence. Viability refers to the long-term prospects for
continued existence of the occurrence. And defensibility is the extent to which
the occurrence can be protected from extrinsic factors which might otherwise
degrade or destroy it, including both direct (e.g., vandalism) and indirect (e.g.,
pollution) impacts.

Information on element and site considerations are combined on the Natural
Diversity Scorecard. The scorecard presents highly condensed information about
elements of natural diversity, the certainty of their occurrences, the names of
the sites which contain these occurrences, the property tracts involved at these
sites, the degree to which each tract is currently protected, and the degree of
protection and/or management appropriate for each tract.

The Natural Diversity Scorecard provides information which allows readers to
monitor the progress achieved in protecting important elements of a state's
natural diversity. It helps conservationists to establish conservation priorities
and decide how to allocate time, money, and effort. The scorecard relates
ecological priorities to conservation efforts, thus providing a basis for protection
planning and also feedback as to whether conservation activities have been well
focused to date.

Environmental Review

In addition to its role in selecting priority preserves, the data base is designed to
be used by local, state, federal, and private land management organizations in
making informed land use planning and environmental assessment decisions. The
following section details the program's role in this environmental review process.

Data Users

The occurrence information stored in the Inventory's computer can be retrieved
in many different ways, including by element or by geographic area. A user
interested in the distribution of an element, such as an endangered animal or
once-common but now scarce plant community, could request a printout of all
the locations of that element in the State. An organization or individual involved
in a project with potential environmental impacts can request information on the
occurrence of elements within the project's area, whether it is an entire
watershed, a township, or a location defined exactly by map coordinates. Figure
4 illustrates the typical information available for a computerized occurrence, in
this case, a natural community in public ownership.

Requests for Inventory information vary considerably as to the detail of the
analysis required. Many times the user need only know whether or not sensitive
species are known or expected to occur in an area. Other times a more detailed
analysis is needed; for example, a list of the species occurring in the area, their
specific localities, their protection status, reasons why they are significant, or an
analysis of their biology and importance on a statewide or local basis. The
biological significance of the information provided is an absolutely essential
complement to the data themselves.

A screening process is used for requests, especially those involving information
about particularly rare or sensitive features. Users of the data base are required
to demonstrate a valid use for the occurrence information.

Requests for information frorn the Michigan Natural Features Inventory data
base have been received and acted upon since mid-1980. Individuals and
organizations seeking information fall into roughly the same groups as sources of
information: state and federal agencies, private foundations and organizations,
educational institutions, industry, consulting firms, and private individuals. The
following examples, while certinaly not an exhaustive review, should serve to
illustrate the range of uses for the Inventory's data.

Federal Agencles

1. Conducted intensive inventory of the 700 square mile Clinton River
watershed; used aerial photos to identify potential community sites, and
field checked these and other sites previously identified by the Natural
Features Inventory staff for historical occurrences of rare plant and animal
species, heron rookeries, etc. Produced a 240-page report on natural
features of the Clinton River watershed. Corps of Engineers (contract).

Figure 4. An example of a computerized element occurrence record.

EO-CODE: CTD0000000.010 EL-CODE: CTD0000000
NAME: MESIC NORTHERN FOREST

COMMON-NAME: CTDAFBAA00.007

IDENT: Y
MARG-NUM: 10
EO-RANK : A
EO-RANK-COMM: FIELD-EVAL-DATE: 1981-07-21
LAST-OBS: 1981-07-21 FIRST-OBS:
EL-RANK: D STATE: MI
ALL-COUNTY-CODES: MIO4B MI017 COUNTY-CODE: MI04B
ALL-COUNTY-NAMES: LUCE CHIP
ALL-QUAD-CODES: 4608552 4608553 QUAD-CODE: 4608552
ALL-QUAD-NAMES: TIMBERLOST BETSY LAKE SOUTH PRECISION: S
LAT: 463517 LONG: 0851400
S: 463352 N: 463541
E: 0851132 W: 0851605
TOWN-RANGE: T48N,R08W,S01,12 PLAN-REG: 11
WILD-DIST: 04 FOR-DIST: 42
QUAD-SCALE: 75 PHYS-PROV:
WATERSHED: 04020202 NAT-REGION: 2
DIRECTIONS: TAHQUAMENON FALLS NATURAL AREA. LOCATED AT UPPER TAHQUAMENON FALLS SOUTH OF THE PARKING LOT AND NEAR THE UPPER
FALLS AREA
GEN-DESC: FAGUS GRANDIFOLIA-ACER SACCHARUM. A NORTHERN HARDWOOD STAND WITH AMERICAN BEECH, SUGAR MAPLE AND YELLOW BIRCH;
WITH SCATTERED HEMLOCK.
ELEV: -11111 SIZE: 1602
EO-DATA: APPROXIMATELY 50% BEECH COVER, 30% SUGAR MAPLE AND 14% YELLOW BIRCH. LARGE INDIVIDUAL TREES; SOILS VARY FROM CLAY
TO SANDSTONE DEBRIS, MOSTLY LOAM.

COMMENTS: THIS IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF A MATURE BEECH-MAPLE STAND. IT IS ADJACENT TO THE BETSY LAKE NATURAL AREA.

OWNER-TYPE: S
OWNER: MICH. DNR - PARKS DIVISION MULT-OWNERS: N
MA: Y
MA-NAME: TAHQUAMENON FALLS NA (T. FALLS ST. PK.) NUM-OWNERS: 1
PROT-STATUS: 2 DESIG-STATUS: SPK DSS
OWNER-PROT: Y PROT-NEED: A
PROT-NEED-COMM:
BEST-SOURCE: LARSEN, W.C. 1981-07-21. MNFI SITE SURVEY.

ALL-SOURCE-CODES: F81LAR05 B79NAC71
BEST-SOIRCE-CODE: F81LAR05 DATA-SENS:
BOUNDARIES: Y PHOTOS:
QUAL-SURV: Y QUAN-SURV: Y
OWNER-INFO: TRANSCRIBER: WCL 81-11-09
EA-REV: CD-REV: Y
MA-EO-REV: MAPPER: ELH 81-11-09
QC: UPDATE: SJO 81-12-16

2. Initiated a survey of historical and potential cliff nesting sites for peregrine
f alcons in Michigan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (contract through
Michigan Department of Natural Resources).

3. Commented on populations and population trends for nine bird species of
regional concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (request to Department of
Natural Resources Office of Endangered Species).

4. Checked maps and provided information on occurrences of natural features
in a ten mile wide corridor for the North Country Trail from the western
Upper Peninsula to the Ohio border. National Park Service (request).

5. Checked maps and files for the presence of any natural features possibly
impacted by a marina development at Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore. National Park Service (request).

6. Provided information on endangered and threatened plant species recorded
or potentially present at 72 sites (mostly islands) in the State. Bureau of
Land Management (request).

State Agencies

1. Developed working criteria for listing endangered and threatened species in
Michigan and proposed extensive revision of the current State lists of
endangered, threatened, and special concern plant and animal species.
These recommended status changes were mostly accepted by the Technical
Advisory Committees for the Department of Natural Resources Program on
Endangered and Threatened Species. Wildlife Division, Department of
Natural Resources (request).

2. Assisted by color infrared aerial photos, pin pointed locations, and, through
the use of volunteers, f ield-checked many of the 185+ heronries in the State.
Living Resources Program, Department of Natural Resources (contract).

3. Conducted numerous project/permit reviews for presence '/absence of signif i-
cant natural features. Land Resource Programs, Wildlife, and Environ-
mental Enforcement Divisions, Department of Natural Resources; Environ-
mental Section, Department of Transportation (requests).

Private

1. Provided information on occurrences adjacent to a proposed marina
expansion. Gove Associates (request).

2. Provided occurrence information on an area of lakeshore in Emmet County.
Little Traverse Conservancy (request).

3. Provided occurrence information on special plants in Genesee County.
WAPORA (a consulting firm).

4. Provided print-out of occurrences in the Galien River watershed, Berrien
County. Ecological Research Services, Inc.

Academic Community

1. Provided information on the occurrence and significance of natural features
on Sugar Island, Michigan. University of Michigan Biological Station; Lake
Superior State College.

2. Provided occurrence information for a 3000-acre site in Leelanau County.
Kalamazoo College.

3. Provided information on status of birds observed in a natural area in Oakland
County. University of Michigan, Dearborn.

4. Provided occurrence information for three townships in Antrim County. Au
Sable Trails Institute.

STATUS OF NATURAL DIVERSITY IN MICHIGAN

General Overview

Natural Regions

Michigan can be divided into f our natural regions based on geologic-biotic-
climatic considerations (Figure 5).

Western UpRer Peninsula. The bedrock in this region is of very ancient
(Precambrian) origin. This area is generally of higher elevation, greater relief,
and has a thinner cover of unconsolidated sediments (drift) than the remainder of
the State. Presettlement forest was primarily Sugar maple-yellow birch-
hem lock-bass wood with limited pine, spruce-fir, and cedar stands. Mean winter
temperatures are low, and average annual snowfall is maximized in this area of
the State.

Eastern Upper Peninsula. The bedrock of this region is of early Paleozoic
(Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian) origins and largely covered by glacial drift,with
.extensive areas of glacial lake plain. Presettlement forest was a mixture of
maple-beech-birch-hemlock on the uplands with large areas of pine, spruce-fir,
and cedar. Mean annual temperatures are lower and growing degree days are
fewer than in the northern Lower Peninsula.

Northern Lower Peninsula. This area is similar physiographically to the eastern
Upper Peninsula. The bedrock is late Paleozoic (Devonian, Carboniferous) and
Mesozoic (Jurassic) origins with extensive glacial drift cover. Presettlement
forest was similar to the eastern Upper Peninsula but with larger areas of pine
and oak in the sandy interior soils. The straits of Mackinac separating the Upper
and Lower peninsulas are a barrier to many animal species including nine of
Michigan's 62 mammal species.

Southern Lower Peninsula. This area is separated from the former by a generally
recognized ecotone which crosses the center of the Lower Peninsula between
Townships 10 and 16 North. Many species meet their limits of distribution in this
area, the predominant soil type changes from sandy soil in the north to loamy soil
in the south, and there is a fairly sharp gradient in climate (temperature, snow
cover). Presettlement forest was dominated by maple-beech and oak-hickory
forests with areas of elm-ash-cottonwood.

Land Use History

Before it was permanently settled, Michigan was mainly covered with climax
deciduous and coniferous forests. Natural prairies and oak openings occurred in
the southern part of the Lower Peninsula. Because they offered the advantages
of cleared land plus the proximity to woodland resources, these comparatively
small grasslands were among the first areas of the State to be settled. The
seemingly endless wooded acreage around the settlements had survived centuries
of limited occupation by Native Americans, the French, the British, and early
American frontiersmen. In the nineteenth century, however, the attitude toward
this formidable wilderness barrier shifted. Governmental policy regarding
forests, coupled with the pioneer preoccupation with farming, virtually demanded
that the woodlands be cleared as soon as possible.

Figure 5. Natural regions of the State.

.8i
ss K7 8@@ 84 8.)

NI
'I- @51- 4

0- 4/

C@ G 20
-7
@Ce
scale of miles

Ina.

Em-et 10
@*Ommee
@.@ettcyqarl P,eoo,;e@ is-e
C
ar,

Mon:n1wency
Leelanau K3tkas,,a Crawtota Oscocla, ') Att:C@Ia

G'ano
Benzie T,i@e,s@
Man'stee Oqe@a.

Rosca

Masr:1 Ld@e,, Oscectia C;a,e Afenac

Bay
Oean3 Ne.-po M,a:ano
@Vecov] Isaop
we o oia Sd"'w'
4V#
two$ GIJI'01 sjqma.
so
Mus, Lao-
Kent
a-lftp
H C"Ij.d o'.j Llinton Snlawass-

Allegan da"y k.41U-) V,,g,,jm

VanBuferl KaOn'taZo. Lj@roul jack,on vvd@niena@ Way",

4 2

--- 77

In southern Michigan, this cutting was only slightly held back by the need for
forest products -- from wheel's and wagons to firewood for the home. This
accounts for the remnant woodlots on the "back forty," often relegated to poorly
drained lowlands where farming was impossible. Even these uncut woodlands did
not always escape the debilitating effects of livestock pasturage.

Beginning in the 1830's and climaxing in the 1890's, northern Michigan became
nationally prominent as the scene of forest exploitation so intense that it was
possibly unequalled at any other time and place in American history. By 1910,
the 11inexhaustable timber," mainly virgin white pine, was exhausted. The loggers
then turned their attention to the hardwoods. The original forest was practically
all harvested during the lumbering era and in many cases was severely damaged
by fires that followed. Underlying this devastation were the assumptions, voiced
in the State land policy, that private ownership was preferable to public
ownership and that virtually all of the land was potentially suitable for farming.

In a desperate attempt to recover from the loss of one of its greatest natural
resources and the attendant damage to its largest industry, the State created an
independent Forest Commission in 1887. This was followed by the Michigan
State Sportsmen's Association's demand for state parks in 1888, a Tax Homestead
Law in 1893, and a permanent Forestry Commission in 1899. Under the control
of the latter were placed, in 1903, "all deliquent state tax, homestead, swamp
and primary school lands" in a few specified areas. Finally, in the twentieth
century, the land policy allowed for both public and private ownership in the
state.

Mixed ownership remains a significant characteristic of Michigan's public lands.
Most of the publicly owned lands were acquired when owners failed to pay local
government taxes during the land depressions of the 1920's and 1930's.
Subsequent purchases by federal and state governments were usually of low
value; most of the better parcels--especially those with lake and stream
frontage--remained in private lands. Many cottage sites, hunting and fishing
cabins, and rural residences are scattered through the public forests.

Current Conditions

Information contained below is from the following sources: Santer, Richard A.
1977. Michigan: Heart of the Great Lakes. Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co., Dubuque,
Iowa.; and Sommers, Lawrence M., ed. 1977. Atlas of Michigan. Michigan State
University Press. Wm. B. Eardmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Michigan's 58,216 square miles (151,362 sq. km.) of land placed it 23rd in size
among the 50 states, and make it the largest state, except for Georgia, east of
the Mississippi River. By adding the 38,575 square miles of the Great Lakes
within its political boundaries, it surpasses Georgia in size. Unique among the
states is Michigan's 3,100 miles of freshwater shoreline.

A little more than half (50.7%) of the State's total land area is forested, and a
little less than a third (3t.9%) is agricultural land. The remaining area is divided
among inland waters (2.4%), recreation excluding forests (2.5%), urban (2.9%),
transportation (3.0%), and other uses (6.3%). The economy of the state depends
upon three major sources: manufacturing, agriculture, and recreation. The
automobile industry dominates, with about 31 percent of all U.S.-assembled autos
produced in Michigan. An abundance of lakes, woods, and snow support year-

round recreation, the second major industry. Agriculture, predominant along
with manufacturing in the southern part of the State, is varied. It ranges from
dairying through inixed Farming to highly specialized production: Michig,-An lCads
the nation in tart cherries, dry edible beans, blueberries, and pickling ckicumbers,
and in all produces over 50 agricultural commodities.

Michigan's three national forests (in five distinct sections), constitute the largest
area in the state (4,200 square miles), administered by the federal government (in
this case, the U.S. Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture). The
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, has three areas udder its
jurisdiction: Isle Royale Wilderness National Park (210 square miles), Pictured
Rocks National Lakeshore (40 square miles), and Sleeping Bear Dunes National
Lakeshore (95 square miles). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, administers 175 square miles divided among several
national wildlife refuges: Seney, Shiawassee, Lake St. Clair, and Wyandotte.
Michigan Island Wilderness and Huron Islands Wilderness also come under the
jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The State of Michigan, through the Department of Natural Resources, adminis-
ters more than 6,640 square miles of land on a multiple-use basis. The 29 state
forests comprise 5,860 square miles, the largest state forest -acreage in the
nation. 'State parks and recreation areas, numbering 94, cover 384 square iniles.
In 1946, the northern game areas were merged with the state forests;
consequently, most of the 59 state game areas and wildlife refuges (410 square
miles) are located in the southern part of the State.

There are approximately 180 square miles of local (city, county, township, and
regional) parklands in the state.

Although a large amount of Michigan's land area (20%) is under the jurisdiction of
the state and federal governments, only a small fraction of the land is protected
in "natural areas." Including those areas purchased and maintained by private
organizations, the total amount of land set aside solely for preservation
represents less than one percent of the state's total land acreage, as detailed
below (Table 1).

24,

Table 1. 1
Nature Preserves in Michigan.

Ownership/Administration No. Areas No. Acres

U.S. Government

U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Forest Service 5 9,119

U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 13 109,228
National Park Service 2 131,880

Subtotal: 20 250,227

State of Michigan -- Department of Natural Resources

Forest Management Division 7 3,123
Wildlif e Division 6 4,116
Parks Division 19 69 @ 827

Subtotal: 32 77,066

Major Conservation Organizations

The Nature Conservancy 20 4,163
Michigan Nature Association 68 3,628
Michigan Audubon Society 10 2,300

Subtotal: 98 10,091

Colleges and Universities 9 538

Local Governments 7 1,753

Other (local conservancies, private organizations) 10 18,175

Total: t76 357,623

Updated frorn Crispin, S. R. 1980. Nature Preserves in Michigan, t920-1979.
The Michigan Botanist 19:99-242.

Communities

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory (,MNFI) manages information on 6t
natural communities: 12 riverine, 5 lacustrine, 19 palustrine, 26 terrestrial, and
I subterranean. In addition, information is collected on each of the plant
community types that characterize the palustrine and terrestrial categories.
Emphasis is placed on exemplary occurrences of relatively undisturbed or rare
communities. Communities are assigned data collection and processing priorities
based on abundance and threat. The following discussion of communities is in the
order given in the Natural Community Classification (Appendix 13) and does not
reflect a priority system.

Riverine

A riverine (watercourse) community is characterized by naturally channelized
flowing open water, either devoid of vegetation or dominated by submerged
vegetation.

Great Lakes watercourses are unique large volume riverine systems that flow
from one Great Lake to another. The only Michigan examples are the etroit,
St. Mary's, and St. Clair Rivers. All three have been severely impacted b@ Great
Lakes shipping and the associated influences of channelization, urbanization, and
industrialization. Only relatively small sections of the St. Mary's River between
Lake Superior and Lake Huron, and the St. Clair River in the area of Harsen's
Island are somewhat undisturbed.

Six different watercourse types are defined by water temperature (coldwater and
warmwater as defined by the Michigan Water Resources Commission) and bottom
substrate (gravel, sand, silt). These factors create divisions that are biologically
meaningful. There are distinct differences in species that inhabit coldwater and
warmwater watercourses, and also watercourses with different flow rates as
represented by different bottom substrates.

Undisturbed watercourses are common in the Upper Peninsula and some occur in
the northern half of the Lower Peninsula. Many of these were heavily disturbed
by silting from lumbering operations in the 1800s but have recovered to near
pristine condition. The least disturbed watercourses occur in the Porcupine
Mountains, Huron Mountains, Sylvania Tract, and Tahquamenon Falls area.
Almost all of the watercourses in the southern half of the Lower Peninsula are
continually being disturbed from agriculture, industry, and urbanization. The
best examples of watercourses in this section of the State are the headwaters of
some river systems.

Brownwater watercourses are characterized by tea colored water which is a
result of dissolved organic and mineral acids. The dissolved acids and associated
pH of less than 7 originate from drainage of swamp (often cedar) or bog areas.
This systern appears secure, similar to the previous six riverine types, due to its
abundance in the northern part of the State. At least part of one exemplary
brownwater watercourse is protected in Tahquamenon Falls State Park. How-
ever, the scarcity of this community in the southern part of the State
demonstrates the influence of continued development and drainage of swamps for
agriculture. Research is needed to determine the full biological distinctiveness
of this community.

Spring/Brooks are perennial communities involving both the point of groundwater
surface issuance (spring) and the resulting watercourse (brook). They are distinct
systems with relatively constant flow, temperature, and chemical consistency
that frequently support exclusive flora and fauna. They are found throughout the
State but apparently are more common in the north. These springs have not been
associated with any economic needs and are therefore relatively secure from
development. Several are indirectly protected by inclusion in parks.

In contrast to the consistency of spring/brooks, ephemeral watercourses only
have water flowing during part of the year, usually spring and part of the
summer. Insects, crayfish, and other invertebrates with short life cycles are able
to use these while predators such as fish are not able to establish themselves.
These communities are distinct from other riverine communities in that they
lack persistent submerged flora. During water flow the flora is predominantly a
palustrine type capable of enduring both periodic inundation and drought.
Sometimes terrestrial vegetation appears as flow decreases. Ephemeral
watercourses are found throughout the State, with no apparent threats.

Waterfalls and rapids are an extremely harsh environment due to the tremendous
force of the water. Most references treat waterfalls as abiotic. However, even
in the most extreme conditions, such as hot springs, if water is present there is
usually a biotic tommunity. In fact, most harsh environments, including
waterfalls and rapids, support interesting species with unique adaptations. There
are approximately 150 waterfalls, mostly in the western and central Upper
Peninsula. Only the best examples, perhaps 20-40 will be entered into the MNFI
data base. These areas are generally unsuitable for uses other than scenic, and
several are protected in natural areas. Rapids are less common with less than 20
significant occurrences. Most occur in the western Upper Peninsula and a few
are located in the lower part of the State. The community processes in both
these types are not well understood, and additional general biological information
needs to be collected on these features.

Lacustrine

A lacustrine (lake) community has still, open water, usually exceeds four meters
in depth, is dominated by submerged vegetation, and frequently possesses a
prof undal zone.

Great Lakes include Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie, and St. Clair. These
immense bodies of freshwater exhibit complex ecological relationships. Remote
portions of the same lake can be biologically different. Data frorn the Michigan
DNR indicates that only Lake Superior and northern Lake Michigan and Lake
Huron are relatively natural in terms of species diversity and water quality. All
other areas have been drastically degraded. The entire system has been and is
still being altered in varying degrees by pollution of all types, overfishing, fish
restocking of nonnatural species, etc. Continued ecological studies should help
point to the value of this community. Preservation can only be accomplished by
major legislation involving state, federal, and Canadian governments.

Inland oligotrophic lakes include those with clear water, inorganic substrate,
little submerged vegetation, little nutrient cycling, and low productivity. This is
considered the juvenile stage in lake succession. Inland eutrophic lakes are
characterized by murky water, organic substrate, algal blooms, dense growth of

aquatic vegetation, high oxygen deficit, and productivity that exceeds consump-
tion. This is the senescent stage of lake succession. Inland mesotrophic lakes
are an intermediate equilibrium stage in lake succession. They have clear water,
diverse aquatic vegetation, and shoreline wetlands are common.

Undisturbed examples of all three types can be found distributed throughout the
State. They are least common in the southern part of the State because of the
desirability of lakeshores for housing. According to the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, large oligotrophic lakes (greater than 50 acres) are the least
common type with 106 examples. These are also the most scenic and the most
desirable for recreation, which puts thein under development pressure. There are
516 large mesotrophic lakes, making them the most common. This lake type is
also desirable for shoreline home develoment and recreational use. The
Department of Natural Resources lists 361 large eutrophic lakes but many of
these are a result of cultural eutrophication and would not be considered
exemplary occurrences. There is a need to continue surveying to ensure that the
best examples of each type are protected.

Inland marl lakes are high in total hardness, alkalinity, calcium, and magnesium.
The water in many of these lakes is an unusual deep blue-green color. Calcium
carbonate precipitates, especially on vegetation foliage, and eventually accumu-
lates as marl deposits on the bottom. Many of the nutrients are found in an
insoluble form, preventing plankton and common plants such as stonewort (,Chara)
from proliferating, thus extending the oligotrophy of the lake.

This particular lake process is unique and is restricted to areas underlain by
limestone or carbonate rich substrate. More occurrences are reported from
southern Michigan where they may constitute as many as 25 percent of all lakes.
The actual range is unclear and the number of undisturbed occurrences is
probably limited to around 50. Occurrence information should continue to be
collected during the future course of inventory work.

Palustrine

A palustrine community has hydric soils and is noninundated or inundated by less
than four meters of water (except for bog lakes). It is dominated by emergent,
floating-leaved, free floating, or submergent vegetation, and never possesses a
prof undal zone.

The first nine general palustrine community types are defined by the following
terms: insular -- not influenced by a river or lake; lacustrine -- lake influenced;
riverine -- river influenced; marsh -- dominated by herbaceous vegetation;
swarnp -- dominated by woody vegetation; mixed -- dominated by a mixture of
herbaceous and woody vegetation.

Insular marsh wetland peripheral lacustrine marsh wetland, and peripheral
riverine marsh wetland' are generally similar. They are domir,.@;ted by various
mixtures of cattails, sedges, grasses, rushes, and other submerged species.
Genera that have been documented as dominant or codominant in -marsh systerns
are cattail (Typha) sedge (ICarex, Dulichium and Cladium), spike rush
(Eleocharis), bulrush (Scirpus),-7-ush (J_u_n_c_u_sT,_reed (PITr-agmites), loosestrife
(Lythrum , blazing star TL-iatris). Although examples are very common and occur
throughout the State, their significance in terms of flood, silt and pollution
control, wildlife production, etc., should not be underrated. Generally this

community is undesirable for development; however, large expanses of these
types have already been lost. For example, the vast areas of marsh around Lake
St. Clair have been reduced to a few sites that are preserved as state game
areas.

Although not a high priority for data collection, information on outstanding
examples of these three communities should continue to accumulate as the
inventory progresses. The wild rice (Zizania) community is the only general
marsh type that appears to be uncommon and deserves directed attention. A
complete wetlands inventory of the State is being completed by the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources for the USFWS. This information should be
useful to the MNFI because most extant marsh types can quickly be checked for
disturbance on the available aerial photographs.

Insular mixed wetland, peripheral lacustrine mixed wetland, and peripheral
riverine mixed wetland are common, widespread, and have similar dominant
vegetation. They are significant and reasonably well protected, similar to
marshes. Again, these communities are not a high priority but information on
outstanding examples should continue to be collected during the inventory
process.

Distinct differences occur between the northern and southern M,.,ichigan Insular
Swamp wetland,. peripheral lacustrine swamp wetland, and peripheral riverine
swamp wetland. Northern swamp forests are often dominated by white cedar
UT-huia occidentalis) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea), with hemlock (Tsuga
canadeg,sis), yellow birch (Betula luteaT, and American elm (Ulmus americana)
being of some significance. These types are found throughout northern Michigan
with "cedar swamps" being one of the most common. There is some question,
however, about how many of these are actually undisturbed.

In the northern part of the State, three occurrences of insular swamp wetland,
four of peripheral lacustrine swamp wetland, and one peripheral riverine swamp
wetland have been documented. This small number represents past lack of
interest and study rather than the actual number of occurrences. Therefore, it is
important to increase their priority and collect data to accurately reflect their
true status. At present, the following plant communities have been recorded:
cedar, tamarack (Larix laricina)-cedar and cedar-balsam fir. These types are
fairly secure because of the small amount of development pressure on northern
swamp land.
Southern swamp forests are often dominated by black willow (Salix nigra) or
cottonwood (Populus deltoides) on the wettest sites and silver maple- (Acer
saccharin u m)-,-American elm, or black ash (Fraxinus nigra) on sites that are less
wet. These types are found throughtout the southern half of the Lower
Peninsula. An intensive inventory of the Clinton River watershed documented 3
occurrences of inland swamp wetland, I pf peripheral lacustrine swamp wetland,
and 19 of peripheral riverine swamp wetland. Similar to northern swamps, they
are not well studied, and, due to the prevalence of development, should be rated
a high priority for data collection to determine their actual status. Occurrences
of the following plant communities were documented: silver maple, silver
maple-red elm (Ulmus rubra), ash-silver maple, black ash-yellow birch, black ash-
yellow birch-red rr@a-p1e-__FA_cer rubrum), black ash-American elm, trembling aspen
(Populus tremuloides)-w111-ow CS-alix @22.), aspen-tamarack, and cedar. The most

common dominant species found were silver maple and black ash. Five examples
of cedar communities were found even though the northern species (cedar,
tamarack, aspen, yellow birch) are uncommon dominants in southern Michigan.

Ephemeral wetlands occur in areas where the water table fluctuates and the
habitat alternates seasonally or semi-annually from dry to inundated.. Amphi-
bians and invertebrates successfully use thesc areas to reproduce because
predators (fish) are not able to establish themselves. Banded shorelines are often'
present where vegetation once grew. This community is common throughout the
State with several examples protected in nature preserves. There are ten
occurrences listed in the MNFI data base. Some of these support rare coastal
plain disjunct plants. The community is unique in being able to function in the
alternating wet and dry cycle. Seasonal water tends to discourage other uses of
this community type. The dominant genera, such as cattail (Typha), sedge
(Carex), spike rush (Eleocharis), bulrush (Scirpus , and rush (Juncus), that
characterize ephemeral wetland plant communities, are typical of marsh habitat.

Oxbow wetlands are a result of the natural sedimentation that cuts off meanders
in low river floodplains resulting in shallow crescent shaped wetland ponds or
marshes. The species composition of this community is similar to other marsh
wetlands, but their origin, colonization, and functional relationships are unique.
The community is subject to change from a flowing water riverine system to a
standing water rnarsh still subject to flooding. The largest threat to this process
is development, where dams and dredging influence silting and river levels.
There are many occurrences scattered throughout the state but the extent of this
type is not precisely known. The lower 20 miles or more of floodplain along the
Manistique River contains numerous examples, sorne of which are on State land.
However, no oxbow wetlands are known to be specifically protected. Continued
identification of this community is recommended as information becornes
available. Aerial photographs and topographic maps can easily be used to locate
relatively undisturbed occurrences of oxbow wetlands.

Beaver pond wetlands develop in and around impoundments created by the
damming of a watercourse by beavers. The ponds are rich in aquatic vegetation
(compared with the watercourse) as a result of silt deposition and reduced
current. The species composition of this type is similar to other marsh habitats
but the formation process is unique. Once dammed, the community changes from
watercourse to wetland. As the water level rises, terrestrial vegetation is killed
and aquatic and wetland species begin to colonize. Undisturbed beaver dams
have an average life span of 10-20 years, after which the wetland may revert to
a watercourse. Lowering of the water level kills the wetland vegetation, and the
terrestrial vegetation reinvades. There are many beaver pond wetland
occurrences throughout central and northern Michigan. Remote examples should
continue to be added to the MNF1 data base as information becomes available.

Inland saline wetlands are a result of natural salt springs which expel water at
the ground surface creating wet soils. They are not a result of the process as
seen in the western United States where evaporation exceeds precipitation.
Inland saline wetlands are colonized by saline tolerant species, e.g., bulrush
(Scirpus olneyi and spike rush (Eleocharis parvula , some of which may be
disjunct from their normal range. This type is geologically, floristically, and
ecologically distinct from all other communities. Saline wetlands are a seral
community o-f long duration due to the unsuitability for other successional stages.

Historically, these areas were used by Indians and early settlers as a source of
salt and were called "deer licks", indicating their use by wildlife. Douglas
Houghton, the first Michigan geological surveyor, was assigned to locate and test
each salty wetland area as potential sites for salt works. His records indicate
that there were as many as 25 salt springs or wetlands occurring in the center
part of the Lower Peninsula from Detroit to Grand Rapids and north to Midland.
Only one occurrence is known to still exist. It contains two indicator species and
is dominated by sedge (Carex) with signficiant amounts of iris (Iris) and cattails
(lypha). It is located on a state game area but is not specifically protected. The
DNR's Wildlife Division has informally agreed to leave the area as it is. The
largest threat to this wetland, if its specific location is publicized, may be
overvisitation by people interested in seeing this rare community type. It is not
likely that others will be found because most were destroyed in the 1800s when
')rine wells were drilled. In summary, an inland saline wetland is the most
unusual wetland community in the State, and perhaps the region, because of its
saline characteristics and associated species. It is extremely rare in the
Midwest, with possible threats of destruction, and few sites, if any, that are
adequately protected. Permanent land preservation with stewardship and
scientific study is recommended for the one known Michigan site. An intensive
regional inventory should be conducted to locate additional occurrences.

Freshwater delta wetlands occur where a river flows into a lake or bay and silt is
deposited until it is above the water line. They are covered with substantial
wetland vegetation and often have natural river channels throughout. The delta
forming process is unique; however, the dominant vegetation is composed of
typical wetland species. Historically, there were at least five deltas known in
Michigan: two in Little Bay de Noc, one in Green Bay, and two in Lake St. Clair.
Two of these remain relatively undisturbed; one has been reduced to a small
remnant of natural vegetation; and the other two have been destroyed. Cattail-
sedge (Typha-Scirpus) and cattail-reed-loosestrife (Typha-Phragi-nites-Lythrum)
are the two plant community types found on these deltas. Large sections of the
St. Clair River delta are partially protected as part of a state game area.
Threats to these areas include dredging and recreational, residential, and
industrial development. Overall, there are only a few examples remaining and
they are not specifically protected as a unique wetland community. An intensive
inventory and ecological study should be conducted as a preliminary step to the
preservation of existing deltas.

Prairie wetlands are situated on mineral soils, are devoid of woody vegetation,
and are usually dominated by grasses. Some of the dominant genera are reed
grass (Calamagrostis), cord grass (Spartina), bluestern (Andropogon), Indian grass
(Sorghastrum), and sedge (Carex). Human disturbance, natural succession, and
climatic change are responsible for the decrease in prairie wetland areas in
Michigan. These areas were never extensive in the past since Michigan is on the
periphery of prairie vegetation. There is a tremendous interest in prairies in
Michigan as shown by the activities of several nature preservation groups and the
formation of the Michiana Prairie Society. Eleven prairie wetlands have been
identified in the State, some of which are protected on nature preserves. Six of
these were part of an intensive study (funded in part by the MNFI) to better
define and explain prairie vegetation types. This study is still being compiled and
should be finished by the spring, 1982. Previous to this study, it w1as believed
that t I occurrences represented the vast majority of remaining examples in the
state. This study, however, revealed several previously unknown sites along
Saginaw Bay. An intensive search for additional prairie wetlands in this area will
be conducted during the summer, 1982.

The principle characteristics of a bog wetland are a substantial acidic peat
substrate (often greater than 20 feet thick) and a ground layer dominated by
moss (Sphagnum). Indicator species include ericaceous (heath-like) shrubs and
carnivorous plants. Lakes with floating mats are often associated with this type
and are treated as part of the bog community, regardless of depth. The most
common dominants are moss (Sphagnurn , sedge (Carex), leatherleaf (Chamae-
daphne calyculata), cranberry and blueberry (Vac-cinium), tamarack, and black
spruce (Picea mariana). Bog wetlands are circumboreal, very common, and well
studied. They are widespread and not presently threatened in Michigan,with
examples in almost every county. As many as 20 bogs are within nature
preserves in the state. Only occurrences that best exhibit all of a bog's unique
features should continue to be added to the MNFI data base.

Fen wetlands are dominated mostly by grasses, sedges, and/or calciphilic
(calcEim--Ioving) mosses, and occur on neutral or alkaline peat soil with an
internal flow of calcareous (containing calcium carbonate) water. The actual
range is unclear but they are circumboreal and are fairly widespread in Michigan.
There are 17 occurrences recorded in the data base, five of which are reported
on nature preserves. This community type is unsuitable for development, except
as a source of fuel grade peat, similar to bogs. After initial survey efforts during
the summer, 1981, it appears that fens are less common than originally thought,
especially grass-dominated examples. Because of these findings and ambiguous
reports confusing bogs and fens, a deliberate survey effort should be made to
locate more examples.

Interdunal wetlands form in low areas between lakeshore sand dune ridges, with
shallow pools often present. They are dominated by herbaceous, woody, and
mixed plant communities. These wetlands occur along the Great Lakes coasts,
particularly along the Lake Michigan shore, and usually have a high aesthetic
value. This community is ecologically distinct by being a juxtaposition of xeric
and hydric environmental extremes. Interdunal wetlands, as well as the entire
dune complexes, are fairly common in Michigan; however, this is one of the only
places in the world where they can develop. There are as many as 50
occurrences in the State, several of which are protected in nature preserves and
state parks. Dune systems are threatened by housing development, sand mining,
and recreat;onal use. Dunes and interdunal wetlands will be included as a high
priority during the 1982 inventory of Michigan's coast.

Strangmoor wetlands are usually large areas characterized by peat soil which is
arranged in strips perpendicular to the direction of drainage between two higher
areas (often former beach ridges). The vegetation is most often of a bog nature
but can also be fen-like. The peat is usually not as deep as in bogs or fens and
the strip pattern is thought to be a result of frost upheaval. Strangmoors are
found throughout boreal North America, reaching their southern limit in
Michigan. Only three examples are reported from, Michigan, all from the central
Upper Peninsula. -Vost of the strangmoor wetland at Seney National Wildlife
Refuge is declared a wilderness area. These three known examples probably
represent most of the occurrences in Michigan. The only potential threat is the
future use of this community for fuel grade peat. Inventory efforts should be
directed toward verifying leads as they become available. Aerial photography
can be used to identify and map strangmoors because of theh- distinctive peat
pattern.

Terrestrial

Upland communities are represented ip. the terrestrial category. They are
characterized by mesic to dry soils that are never inundated and are incapable of
existence under descriptions given for riverine, lacustlrine, and palustrine
categories. The first six terrestrial forest communities are divided between
those that occur north or south of the tension zone. Within these two areas the
forest types are further subdivided by soil moisture conditions: mesic (moist),
dry-mesic, and dry.

Mesic southern f orest is most of ten referred to as beech-maple forest. It was a
major type throughout southern Michigan prior to agricultural development.
Today, only scattered examples remain. These are for the most part well known
areas that have received considerable attention. They are aesthetically pleasing
because of the large trees, spring flora, and fall colors. Almost all of the
relatively undisturbed occurrences are represented in the 27 examples listed with
the MNFI. The most well known beech-maple forest, Warren Woods, is a
dedicated natural area within a state park andl! has been studied by numerous
researchers. The plant community cover types of the mesic southern forest, -As
determined by overstory dominance, include: American beech (Fagus &@andt-
folia)-sugar maple (Acer saccharum), American beech, sugar maple, American
beech-red oak (Quercus rubra), and sugar maple-red oak. The first type is the
most common but each of the others is also well represented. Over the past few
years, several occurrences were lost due to housing development, lumbering, and
wind storms. Inventory work on mesic southern forests is relatively complete.
The next step is to encourage additional protection for these occurrences.

The dry-mesic southern forest is a part of the oak-hickory forest region of the
eastern U.S. The most common dominants are white oak (Quercus alba), red oak,
and hickories (Cary ). Historically, it was also a major forest type of southern
Michigan, but today undisturbed examples appear to be very rare. Of the four
known undisturbed occurrences, two are dominated by oak-hickory and two by
oaks. The two oak-hickory types have some degree of protection. Dry-mesic
southern forests are rare probably because of both human intervention and
natural succession. It is urgent that active inventory work continue while
protection of the few remaining high quality occurrences is pursued.

Drier areas that are dominated by oaks such as black oak (Quercus velutina), bur
oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and white oak make up the dry southern forest. The
classification of this type is unclear because there are so few undisturbed
occurrences to study. Confusion also results from the gradation of this type with
the dry-mesic southern forest and the oak savanna. Similar to the dry-mesic
southern forest, this is a rare community that needs to be identified and studied,
and have its best examples preserved.

Mesic northern forest is dominated by sugar maple, hemlock, and yellow birch.
American beech is also dominant in the eastern Upper Peninsula and northern
Lower Peninsula, and basswood (Tilia americana) is locally abundant in the
western Upper Peninsula. Lumbering is still a serious threat to the undisturbed
examples of this forest that are scattered throughout the northern part of the
State. Mesic northern forests and many of its plant community dominance types
are protected in four macropreserves: Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State
Park, Sylvania Tract, Huron Mountain Club, and Tahquamenon Falls State Park.
These four areas may be large enough to not only protect the community but also

the entire ecosystem. The Huron Mountain Club and the Sylvania Tract have
been surveyed in part; however, information on all four should continue to be
collected to document the plant community types in each.

The dry-mesic and dry segments of the northern forest are found on sandy soils
and are dominated by pines. Dry-mesic northern forests are fairly distinctive in
having white pine (Pinus strobus) as a major dominant. This forest type also has
mixtures of maples, hemlock, and red pine (Pinus resinosa). White pine forests
covered large areas of northern Michigan priZ;r Fto lumbering, but are now reduced
to a few small tracts. Only ten exemplary occurrences are known in the State,
but three of the best examples are preserved at Estivant Pines, Hartwick Pines
State Park, and the Bois Blanc Island dedicated natural area. Historically and
aesthetically, this type has been of great interest and it would be surprising to
discover any significant new occurrences. The preserved areas should continue
to be studied and monitored, and new areas should be protected.

Dry northern forests are also distinctive in having red pine, jack pine (Pinus
banksiana), and oaks as a dominant. Similar to the white pine forest, red pine
also covered large areas of northern Michigan prior to lumbering. It appears that
this type is rarer than white pine. One representative example, the Roscommon
Red Pine Nature Study Area, is owned by the State and has been dedicated as a
natural area. The jack pine and jack pine-oak types are very common throughout
northern Michigan but the disturbance history of most of the stands is difficult to
discern. Thus we usually don't know whether the stands are of natural origin or
have developed in areas following cutting or other disturbance. Jack pine only
live to an average age of 70 years and regeneration is dependent on fire. With
the Kirtland's warbler management project burning large areas of jack pine, this
community is relatively secure. The Inventory should continue including
information on the best stands as it becomes available.

The boreal forest in Michigan is characterized by the presence of balsam fir
and/or white spruce (Picea glauca as a member of the dominant canopy. In some
stands, white pine, white cedar, and white birch (Betula papyrifera) are dominant
species. Boreal forests are common circumboreal communities with extensions
southward along the Rockies and Appalachians. Its southernmost occurrences in
this area are on the southwest corners of Lake Michigan islands. Apparently
these stands are related to prevailing cool moist winds coming off the lake. The
best development, although limited, is along the Lake Superior shore and in Isle
Royale National Park. Because of their scarcity, these communities are not
severely threatened by lumbering but the Inventory should continue to actively
search for leads to new occurrences.

Oak opening oak barren, and pine barren are all characterized as savanna-like
with less than 50 percent canopy cover. The oak opening and barren are found
south of the tension zone while the pine barren is found north of this zone. Oak
openings were described as occurring on mesic or dry-mesic soil with a
corresponding prairie component and scattered bur, white, and black oaks. This
community was typically found during presettlement times in great abundance
along prairie-forest borders. Today, it is rare throughout its range and may be
extirpated from Michigan due to agricultural development and natural succession
resulting from lack of fire. Only remnants of what might have been oak openings
have been found. The savanna quality of the oaks in one study area was
maintained by grazing which destroyed the natural prairie; in several other areas
it appears that natural succession has replaced the oak savanna by oak forests.

An intensive search for this community should be conducted and areas that are
discovered should be given highest priority for preservation. Considering the
unique problems associated with this type, the highest probability of finding an
occurrence will be in old cemetaries that were established in prairie areas. The
oaks may have been left and the prairie maintained by mowing.

Oak barrens occur on dry sandy soils with a corresponding prairie component and
scattered Hill's oak (Quercus ellipsoidalis) or black oak. This community was also
common along parts of the prairie-forest border but is presently rare. The best
remaining examples are limited but can be found along some of the original
prairie-forest border in Newaygo County. The extent of oak barren in this
county will be documented with a complete inventory of natural prairie and
savanna during the summer, 1982. Preservation of this type should be given a
high priority.

Pine barrens occur on dry sandy soil north of the tension zone with jack pine
present. Blueberry is one of the most prevalent groundlayer species in this
community. There appears to be a gradation between this type and the dry
northern jack pine forest. Searching for specific examples of this type has not
been a priority for the same reasons that the dry northern forest has not been a
priority.

There is only one example of alpine community in Michigan. It is an extremely
distinctive and unique community, characterized by existing on an exposed
mountain top (bald) with bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) and horizontal
juniper (Juniperus horizontalis) domin-ating, with scattered clumps of stunted
white pine, white cedar, and red oak. It appears that this community is adapted
to the harsh environment (wind and snow) of a ridge top along the Lake Superior
shore. Other ridges/mountain tops in the Keweenaw Peninsula, Huron Mountains,
and Porcupine Mountains were surveyed, but bald ridge tops in these areas were
not well developed or of secondary origin. The one example of alpine community
is presently the subject of a scientific study which should help to explain its
origin. This is a very rare community, probably the only example in the Midwest,
and it is privately owned. It is a very aesthetic community that offers a
beautiful scenic overlook but is subject to overuse by visitors. It is believed, that
a similar community existed on the Brockway Mountain ridge top prior to the
tourist road being developed along the ridge. Some stunted trees and open areas
are still visible along the road edge. Considering the factors of rarity,
uniqueness, and lack of protection, this should be, without question, the single
highest priority community for preservation.

Shrublands are natural shrub areas with blueberry, sweet fern (Myrica),
bearberry, new jersey tea (Caerothus), and sumac (Rhus), dominant. A study of
this community type needs to be conducted to determine whether it is a natural
occuring type or a community that has developed as a result of human
disturbance.

A prairie is defined as an open area, dominated by grasses with a mixture of
forbs and with less than one tree per acre. Prairies are located near or south of
the tension zone and were a part of the prairie peninsula that extended into
southern Michigan. Many of Michigan's prairies have been the subject of studies,
the most recent of which will be completed by the the spring, 1982, and will
provide information to properly classify different prairie types. Prairies have

attracted the interest of conservation groups which has led to the preservation of
examples of both mesic and dry prairies. However, some exemplary occurrences
of prairie are still threatened by agricultural development, railroad right of way
management, and natural succession in the absence of fire.

Mesic prairie sometimes referred to as tallgrass prairie, is characterized by
having dominants such as big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii and Indian grass
(Sorghastrum nutans) growing on deep black moist soil. This type is scattered
throughout the eastern portion of the North American grassland biome that
extends in the U.S. from Minnesota to east Texas. The 14 known occurrences in
Michigan of mesic prairie that are restricted to the two southern tiers of
counties. Some of these are of questionable quality and will be properly
designated as more information becomes available from research in progress.
Many of the mesic prairies that exist are probably known; however, new leads
should be treated as a high priority.

Dry-mesic prairies are an uncertain type in Michigan. As current studies are
completed the status of this type should become clear. At present, there is only
one prairie listed as dry-mesic.

Dry prairie is dominated by little bluestern (Andropogon scoparius) with mixtures
of other dominants such as sedge (Carex pensylvanica), moss (Polytichum and
lichen (Cladonia) growing on dry sandy soil. There are ten known occurrences,
four of which are in Newaygo County. Methods were developed and tested to
identify dry prairies using aerial photography. A prairie survey of Newaygo
County using aerial photography will be conducted during the summer, 1982.
Although good examples are protected in this area, some of the best are
threatened by plantings of pines.

Natural bracken-grasslands are reported from Wisconsin, north of their tension
zone, on a variety of soil types. There are no trees present and the community is
dominated by bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and native grasses. It appears
they were associated with grassy openings or prairies following fire during the
maximum expansion of prairies. They have now secondarily expanded into areas
that were logged and burned. These secondary bracken-grasslands in Michigan
have been described, but there are no leads to what could be considered natural
occurrences of this type. If they do exist in Michigan, they are probably not
seriously threatened except by long term succession. This community should
continue to be investigated to determine its origin in Michigan.

The remaining community types have no true soil development and the substrate
is sand, gravel, or bare rock. Vegetation is rather sparse in many of these and is
usually limited to specialized species selected by the specialized environmental
conditions of the site.

Great lakes dune communities include hills, ridges, and valleys that are formed
from active windblown sand along the Great Lakes. The plants of this
community type must be adapted to the extreme environmental conditions of
high temperature and light, and low soil moisture. The community differs from
oceanic dunes in not being influenced by salt spray. It is bordered by the shore
and by the inland forest. It is most often distinguished by the presence of beach
grass (Ammophila breviligulata) as the dominant vegetation. 'The best formations
occur along the east shore of. southern Lake Michigan. Michigan has the largest

concentration of freshwater sand dunes in the world. There are 18 occurrences
of dunes listed with the MNF1. Five of these are state park areas, four are
included in national parks, and two are nature preserves. Dunes, like the mesic
northern forests, are in preserves that are large enough to preserve the entire
ecosystem and not just a single plant community. Dune systems are threatened
by housing development, sand mining, and recreational use. To help complete the
inventory of Great Lakes dunes, they will be included as the highest priority
items during the 1982 MNFI survey of Michigan's coast.

The beach community is a re!atively flat sand and/or gravel site, moist in some
areas, and found along lake shores. Sea rock (Cakile edentula) and beach pea
(Lathyrus maritimus) are two characteristic species found on the Great Lakes
shore. Species of the mint family are prominent members along inland lakes.
The best occurrences are found in the least disturbed shorelines of the northern
Great Lakes and inland lakes. The beach community Is seriously threatened by
cottage develoment and recreational use, although some are protected in nature
preserves and parks. Beach community occurrence information should continue
to be collected as surveys are done on undisturbed inland lakes and during the
1982 MNFI survey of Michigan's coast.

Sand barrens are relatively flat, dry, sandy areas, found inland from the shores.
and supporting clumps of grasses and arid plants such as prickly-pear cactus
(Opuntia humifusa). This community appears to be related to dry prairie but is
on the drier end of the continuum. A study of sand barrens should be conducted
to determine whether they are a distinct community type of natural origin.

Calcareous pavement community is defined as having a horizontal, exposed
bedrock substrate that is calcareous and not associated with a cliff. The one
known exemplary occurrence of this type is on Drummond Island. At this time,
relatively little is known about this pavement community, but it is being studied
by our data handier/ secretary as a part of her Master's thesis. This community
should prove to be a very unique type. One other small area in the Upper
Peninsula is reported to be of this type but needs to be verified. It is strongly
recommended that the Drummond Island site be protected.

Noncalcaerous pavement communities are characterized as having a nearly
horizontal, exposed bedrock substrate that is noncalcareous and is not associated
with a cliff. It is common along the rocky shores of Lake Superior. Several
occurrences of this community are protected in nature preserves and in national
and state parks. Examples of this type will continue to accumulate in
conjunction with information collected on special plants associated with this
habitat. The prevalence of inland occurrences is uncertain.

The four cliff communities, calcareous open cliff, calcareous shaded cliff
noncalcareous open cliff and noncalcareous shaded cliff, are defined by whether
the substrate is calcareous ie., contains calcium carbonate, calcium, or
limestone) and whether they are shaded by forest cover. These types are
scattered throughout the Upper Peninsula. The most commonly found groups of
plants are ferns, mosses, and lichens. Examples of this community are protected
in national and state parks and in nature preserves. They are not under any
immediate threat but information should continue to be collected to better
document and understand the cliff communities.

A sinkhole community is a hole in the earth's surface with a relatively large
opening. It occurs in limestone areas and is caused by a cave-in and sinking of
the overlaying surface. Exposed verticle rock faces are usually present.
Sinkholes are found throughout the northeastern Lower Peninsula and the eastern
Upper Peninsula. Most of the occurrences of this type are not threatened. The
communities at the bottom of the sinkhole and on the exposed rock faces are
presumed to be somewhat different from the surface community. However, no
studies have been conducted to document the changes that occur in environ-
mental conditions and community composition. This type of study should be
completed as soon as possible to determine whether this community is a distinct
type. Occurrence information should be collected as it becomes available.

Subterranean

Caves are defined as hollows beneath the earth's surface with relatively small
openings to the surface. There are only three known caves in Michigan and very
little is known about them from a biological standpoint. A study should be
conducted to determine whether these have distinct cave ecosystems.

Summary

The once common oak openings, especially those with bur oak, are now rare
throughout their range and are probably extirpated from Michigan. The rarest
and most unique communities still in existence in Michigan are the alpine
community, the inland saline wetland, and the calcareous pavement community.
Their singular occurrence in Michigan may represent the only extant example of
each in the region, and none of them are guaranteed protection. The community
next in priority is freshwater delta wetland. There are a couple of examples of
this regionally significant community and only one is partially protected. Dry-
mesic and dry southern forest, true grass dominated fen wetlands and wild rice
dominated marsh types are all believed to be rare with no strongly protected
examples, making these important categories for future work to determine their
status. The dune community is of regional or possibly world-wide significance
and is common in the state with several examples protected to some degree.
Even though prairies are rare throughout North America, especially in Michigan,
many preserves have been established because of the large amount of interest
shown toward this community. Data collection should proceed to ensure that the
best examples of prairies are protected.

Special Plants

The Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) maintains data files on 334
special plant taxa considered endangered, threatened, extirpated, or of special
concern in the state. Recent inventory work has vastly increased our knowledge
of the status of rare plants in Michigan; in addition to extensive herbarium and
literature searches, field work efforts in 1981 included surveying some 800 sites
to collect information on over 500 special plant occurrences.

Prioritization and Categorization

Priorities for data collection and processing have been assigned to special plants
through the B2.1 level, as outlined in Figure 2. These rankIngs reflect species'
importance on a total-range (i.e., continental or world-wide) scale more than do
the state-listing categories of endangered, threatened, etc., which give special
emphasis to state rarity.

Furthermore, uniform criteria for the official state-listing of plant species were
developed in 1981 by the Department of Naturai Resources'. Plant Technical
Advisory Committee, and are presented below.

Endangered: A species "which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."

Criteria for endangered:

Extreme rarity in Michigan ( !5- two known viable populations) and at
least one of the following conditions:

A. Endemism or near-endemism to Michigan;

or B. Rarity throughout North America;

or C. Rarity in Michigan and the Great Lakes drainage basin with
demonstrable threat to all or most State populations;

or D. Special factors cause unusual vulnerability (e.g., disease, highly
specialized requirements, exceptional danger of exploitation).

Threatened: A species "which is likely to become an endangered species within
the f oreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range."

Criteria for threatened:

A. Extreme rarity in Michigan, but not meeting other endangered
criteria;

or B. Endemism or near-endemism to Michigan;

or C. State rarity ten known viable populations, or, if no current
population data are available, occurrence in _< five counties and
< 20 collection localities with known decline) AND at least one
of the following conditions:

1 rarity in the Great Lakes region;

or 2. demonstrable threat to all or most state populations;

or 3. disjunction of phytogeographic significance;

or 4. unusual habitat vulnerability (e.g., prairie, fen, lakeshore);

or 5. extremely localized state distribution ( @ two counties);

or 6. special factors (scientific importance, absence of recent
records);

or D. No populations known extant or recently reported.

Def initions:

Rarity: nowhere common; limits given on numbers of populations are
guidelines only and not intended to be rigid, artificial cut-offs.

Viable population: an actively reproducing population large enough to
maintain itself indefinitely in a natural community with minimal
disturbance.

The "Special Concern" category is without formal criteria, and serves to call
attention to species known or suspected to be sufficiently rare or declining on a
statewide basis for concern.

For a listing of all state special plants with official status designations, see
Appendix C . Those species assigned MNFI priority ranks of A2-Bl.2 are listed in
Table 2.

Table 2.
High-Priority (A2-B2.1) Special Plants

Species/Common Name Family Federal/State-MNFI Natural Habitat(s)
Status Status Rank Region(s)

Isotria medeoloides Orchidaceae PE SE A2 4 CTA
Smaller Whorled Pogonia
Chamaerhodos nuttalli var. keweenawensis Rosaceae SE BI I CTX
no common name
Habenaria leucophaea Orchidaceae CI SE BI 4 CPP, CPQ
Prairie Fringed Orchid
Lvcopodiurn sD. nov. Lycopodiaceae SC BI 4
(a) clubmoss
Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis Scrophulariaceae CI ST BI 2,3 CPH, CR
Michigan Monkey-flower
Orchis rotundifolia Orchidaceae SE BI 1, 2, 3 CPO, CPT
Small Round-leaved Orchis
Phyllitis scolopendrium var. americana Polypodiaceae C2 SE BI 2 CTD
Hart's-tongue Fern
Polygonaturn biflorum var. melleum Liliaceae SE B1 4 CTB
(a) solomon-seal
Antennaria rosea Asteraceae ST B2.1 1 CUB
(on theT-pussytoes
Arnica cordifolia Asteraceae ST B2.1 I CTE
Heart-leaved Arnica
Aster sericeus Asteraceae ST B2.1 4 CTP
Western Silvery (or Silky) Aster
Besseya bullii Scrophulariaceae C2 ST B2.1 4 CTP
Kitten Tails
Carex crus-corvi Cyperaceae ST B2.1 4 CPT
(a7 sedge I
Carex heleonastes Cyperaceae ST B2.1 2 CPT
Ta-7'sedge
Castanea dentata Fagaceae SE B2.1 I CTC
American Chestnut
Chelone obliqua Scrophulariaceae C2 SE B2.1 4 CPj
Purple Turtlehead
Cirsiurn pitcheri Asteraceae CI ST B2.1 2, 3, 4 CTR
Pitcher's Thistle

Species/Common Name Family Federal/ State- M NF I Natural Habitat(s)
Status Rank
Status Region s)
Disporum hookeri Liliaceae ST B2.1 I CTD
Fairy Bells
Dodecatheon meadia Primulaceae ST B2.1 4 CPP
Shooting-star
Draba cana Brassicaceae ST B2.1 2 CTV

no common name
Elcocharis atropurpurea Cyperaceae SE B2.1 4 CPK
(a) Spike-rush
Eleocharis caribaea Cyperaceae ST B2.1 4 CPK, CPD
V) Spike-rush
Eleocharis parvula Cyperaceae ST B2.1 4 CPN
\a) Spike-rush
Eleocharis radicans Cyperaceae ST B2.1 4 CPO
(aTSpike-rush
Gentiana alba Gentianaccae ST B2.1 4 CTP
Yellowish Gentian
Gerardia gattingeri Scrophulariaceae ST B2.1 4 CL
(a) Gerardia
Iris lacustris Iridaceae C1 ST B2.1 2,3
Dwarf Lake Iris
Juncus militaris Juncaceae ST B2.1 3 CPD, CPK
(a-)-Rush
Juncus vaseyi Juncaceae ST B2.1 1, 2
(a) Rush
Lemna valdiviana Lemnaceae ST B2.1 4 CL
(aTDuckweed
Lycopodium sabinaefolium Lycopodiaceae SE B2.1 2
Savin-leaved Clubmoss
Lygodium Dalmatum Schizaeaceae ST B2.1 4
Climbing Fern
Oplopanax horridus Araliaceae ST B2.1 I CTG
Devil's-club
Opuntia L@@lis Caclaceae ST B2.1 I CTX
Fragile PFic-kly-pear
Petasites @La@@ Asteraceae ST B2.1 2 CPA.
Sweet Coltsfoot

Species/Corhmon Name Family Federal/State-MNFI Natural Habitat(s)
Status Status Rank Regions)

Poa alpina Poaceae ST B2.1 I CUB
-(a) Grass
Poa canbyi Poaceae ST B2.1 I CTX
(a) G@-a s
Polygala incarnata Polygalaceae ST B2.1 4 CPP
Pink Milkwort
Polygonum careyi Polygonaceae ST B2.1 4 CPK
(a) Smartweed
Potamogeton capillaceus Potarnogetonaceae ST B2.1 4 CLD, CPK
(a) Pondweed
Potamogeton pulcher. Potarnogetonaceae ST B2.1 1., 2, 4 CL
(a) Pondw@ed
Sanguisorba canadensis Rosaceae ST B2.1 4 CPR
Canadian Burnet
Scirpus hallii Cyperaceae SE B2.1 4 CPK
(a) Bulrush
Scirpus olneyi Cyperaceae ST B2. i 4 CPN
(a) Bulrush
Scleria reticularis Cyperaceae SE B2.1 4 CPK
(a) Nut-rush
Sisyrinchium atlanticurn Iridaceae ST B2.1 4 CPK
(a) Blue-eyed-grass
Solidago decumbens Asteraceae Sc B2.1 I CTX
(a) Goldenrod
Solidago houghtonii Asteraceae ST B2.1 2,3 CTR
Houghton's Goldenrod
Utricularia inflata Lentibulariaceae SE B2.1 4 CPK
Floating Bladderwort
Wisteria frutescens Fabaceae ST B2.1 4 CPB
Wisteria

Discussion of High Priority (A2-B1.2) @@ies

Only one Michigan plant species -- the smaller whorled pogonia (Isotria
medeoloides) -- is endangered throughout its entire range. The sole State colony
of Isotria has declined from 20 to 2 individuals since its discovery in 1969, due at
least in part to exploitation. Its occurrence in a young second-growth forest--
formerly an orchard--suggests that it became established in the relatively recent
past, perhaps from a nearby seed source, and careful, timely searches may locate
other colonies in the area.

Four additional Michigan species are threatened throughout their ranges. The
hart's-tongue fern (Phyllitis scolopendrium var. americanum) is known from four
sites in the eastern Upper Peninsula on the dolomitic Niagaran escarpment,
apparently above the ancient shorelines of post-glacial Lake Nipissing. The
prairie fringed orchid (Habenaria leucophaea), once occurring in at least 22
southern Michigan countie-s, has declined to only I I known populations, with 7 of
those supporting fewer than 10 individuals each. Similarly, the heart-leaved
plantain (Plantago cordata) is known historically from seven Michigan counties,
but has not been collected in the State since 1925 and may be extirpated.
Potamogeton lateralis, a pondweed species that has been historically rare in its
limited range, is known in Michigan from an 1872 collection and has also not been
relocated.

Four Michigan taxa of extremely limited State distribution are likely endemic or
near-endemic. Chamaerhodos nuttallii var. keweenawensis (no common name)
occurs in a colony of 60-70 individuals on a windswept ridgetop that is heavily
visited by tourists. The distinctness of var. keweenawensis has been questioned,
however, on the basis of specimens with similar characters reported from
Manitoba.

The Michigan monkey flower (Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis) is considered
endemic to the Mackinac StriTits _regi6n, where two colonies are known extant.
Taxonomic uncertainty exists here also, however, as it is unclear whether there
is a morphological continuum between this and -che common variety freinontii.
Field work to be conducted by a study at the University of Michigan Biological
Station in summer, 1982 will hopefully resolve that uncertainty.

An endemic variety of solomon-seal, Polygonaturn biflorum var. melleum,
collected early this century in southeastern St. Clair County and adjacent
Ontario, is known only from those records. Locality data for the Michigan
collections are vague, however, and it has not been relocated, though careful
searches of open woods habitat in that area are yet to be conducted.

A new species of clubmoss, as yet unnamed, was discovered at one station in Van
Buren County. Though the taxonomic status of Lycopodium sp. nov. is still
unclear, it is considered endangered in the State.

Another high-priority special plant is the small round-leaved orchid (Orchis
rotundifolia), considered one of the rarest orchids in eastern North Americ-aTi-tis
primarily western and arctic). Over the past, ten years, several closely monitored
Michigan colonies have inexplicably died out, and there now remain only three
known occurrences, twoof them with fewer than five individuals.

The American chestnut (Castanea dentata) is endangered in Michigan due to the
chestnut blight fungus (Endothecia parasitica , which has nearly eliminated it as
a naturally-occur ring species in the State. Only a few native occurrences
remain, but groves of cultivated and naturalized trees persist--some surviving
hypovirulent strains of the parasite--and- have been inventoried under the "other"
category.

In addition to these critically endangered taxa, other high-ranking special pl,ants
include:, (1) those endemic to the shores of the Great Lakes (with approximately
95% of their world populations in Michigan)--e.g., dwarf lake iris (Iris lacustris),
Houghton's goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii), and Pitcher's thfs'tle _(Cirslum
pitcheri); (2) those which are endangered both in Michigan and regionally-Ct-hough
not in the main part of their ranges)--e.g., Canadian burnet (Sanguisorba
canadensis) and pink turtlehead (Chelone obliqua); and (3) those both extremely
rare and strikingly disjunct in Michig ian--e.g., Hall's bulrush (Scirpus hallii),
floating bladderwort (Utricularia inflata), devil's-club (Oplopanax horridus), and
heart-leaved arnica (Arnica cordifolia).

Twenty-six plant species appear to be extirpated from the State; however, two
which were thus categorized, snow trillium (Trillium nivale) and a spike-rush
(Eleocharis parvula , have been rediscovered since 1979, and more will hopefully
be relocated.

State Distribution

In terms of Michigan's four natural regions, 12 high-priority plant species occur
in the western Upper Peninsula. Among those are Chamaerhodos nuttallii var.
keweenawensis, Poa canby,*, devil's-club (0 1 anax horridus), @eart-leaved
X02 ------
arnica (Arnica cordifo_1_ia_T5nd fairy bells ( isporum hookeri. The greatest
concentrations occur on Isle Royale and the Keweenaw Peninsula, with 15 state-
threatened species known from the Isle Royale islands alone.

In the eastern Upper Peninsula, 11 high-priority species occur, including hart's-
tongue fern (Phyllitis scolopendrium), arctic sedge (Carex heleonastes), Michigan
monkey flower (Mimulus glabratus var. michiganens7is @,and a draba, Draba cana.
Small though significant concentrations are found on the Maxton Plains of
Drummond Island (Chippewa County) and in the bogs south of Shingleton
(Schoolcraf t County).

The northern Lower Peninsula supports the fewest high-priority species, with six.
Among them, however, are Michigan monkey flower (Mimulus glabratus var.
michiganensis), bayonet rush (Juncus militaris), and small round-leaved orchid
(Orchis rotundifolia).

Thirty-two high-priority species are known from the southern Lower Peninsula,
including our only A2 species, the smaller whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides),
and three BI species, the prairie fringed orchid ( 'Habenaria leucophaea), heart-
leaved plantain (Plantago cordata), and the solomon-seal (Polygonatum biflorum
var. melleum). TTis relati-v-e-ly-TTi-gh concentration of Michigan's most endangered
plants is partly attributable to extensive land development which has greatly
reduced native habitats in southern Michigan, and to more intensive botanizing
here.

Habitat Affinities

Michigan's special plants occur mostly in terrestrial and palustrine habitats,
where vascular plant diversity is greatest; relatively few inhabit riverine and
lacustrine communities. High-priority special plants in each of the MNFl-
designated community subclasses are discussed below, along with several natural
communities richest in special plants.

Riverine (CR) - Only two of Michigan's high-priority special plants -- the
Michigan monkey flower (Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis) and heart-
leaved plantain (Plantago cordata7 -- typically occur in riverine communities.
The latter, though not found in the State since 1925, may still persist on little-
developed and little-explored rivers in southern Michigan, especially the Black
River in St. Clair County, where it was once collected and should be searched for
again. Extensive water pollution, siltation, riparian development, and channeliz-
ation have destroyed this species' habitat in the seven counties it once inhabited.

Lacustrine (CL) - Two of our four high-priority plants which inhabit the waters of
Michigan's inland and Great Lakes -- a duckweed, Lemna valdiviana and a
pondweed, Potamogeton lateralis -- have not been verified in recent years and
may be extirpated. These, plus a third -- Potamogeton capillaceus -- range in
the southern Lower Peninsula, where extensive shoreline development and
pollution of lakes has d:minished lacustrine habitat quality. Careful field work in
that area of the State may result in relocating those inobtrusive species now
thought extirpated.

Palustrine (CP) - Wetland habitats support the largest number (24) of high-
priority special plants. Those natural palustrine communities richest in special
plants are discussed below.

Ephemeral wetland and peripheral lacustrine marsh (CPK, CPD) - A large
assemblage of special plants, many of them with Atlantic coastal plain affinities
(discussed later) inhabit the peripheries of inland seepage lakes with annually and
seasonally fluctuating water ievels. Most grow on lake or pond-bottoms exposed
by a lowered water table. These habitats are concentrated near Lake Michigan
in the southwestern Lower Peninsula, but also occur s?arsely in southeastern
Michigan and in Cheboygan and Schoolcraft counties. Nine species belong to this
assemblage and include the purple spike-rush (Eleocharis atropurpurea), Hall's
bulrush (Scirpus hallii), reticulate nut-rush (SJI-eria reticularis), and inflated
bladderwort Utricularia inflata). The greatest coricentrations of these species
are found at very local sites in Muske-on, Allegan, and Berrien counties.

Bog and strangmoor wetlands (CPQ, CPT) - Boggy habitats throughout
Michigan provide habitat for a significant number of special plants, including
four high-priority species -- the arctic sedge (Carex heleonastes), Eleocharis
radicans, small round-leaved orchid (Orchis rotundifol-ia F, and prairie fringed
orchid (Habenaria leucophaea) (which inhabits bogs as well as wet prairies in this
portion of its range). The strangmoor wetlands of northwestern Schoolcraft
County support two plants found nowhere else in Michigan.

Riverine swamp (CPH) - Swampy river floodplains iupport three high-
priority special plants and a number of lesser-priority species. The pink
turtlehead (Chelone obliqua) and wisteria (Wisteria frutescens) are each known
from only a few indMd als at sites in Was tenaw and Cass counties,
respectively. The third, raven's-foot sedge (Carex crus-corvi), has not been
verified in the State since 1956, and field work is needed to relocate populations
still extant. Two medium-priority species, the false petunia (Ruellia strepens)
and wild-hyacinth (Camassia scilloides), occur only along the rivers o -Eenawee
County, which are little explored and may yield other species new to the State.

Inland saline wetland (CPN) - Michigan's one salt marsh community
supports two high-priority plants which, due to their saline habitat requirements,
are extremely rare in the Midwest and known from. nowhere else in Michigan.
They are Eleocharis parvula, a spike-rush, and Olney's bulrush (Sc.@ us olneyi).
@.p _
The threatened hedgi--hysso6 (Gratiola lutea) was also reported from the site in
1982 - it is otherwise known only from several small lakes near the Michigan-
Wisconsin border in Gogebic County.

Rock or cliff communities (CTU-Y, CUB) - Relatively unusual habitat types
throughout much of Michigan's glacial drift-covered landscape, rock com-
munities, where they occur, support a rumber of extremely rare plant species.
High-priority plants of rock habitats are Chamaerhodos nuttallii var.
keweenawensis, Solidago decumbens (a goldenrod F,_ Draba cana, f ragile prickly
pear (Opuntia fragilis), and a grass, Poa canbyi. Three species collected in rock
habitats are thought extirpated -- western wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum),
mountain spleenwort (Aspleniurn montanum.), and prairie rush grass (rAuhlenbergia
cuspidata) --and two others, mountain timothy (Phleum alpinum), and mountain
speargrass (Poa alpina), have not been found in rec-ent years and may also be gone
from the MIES-19an flora. Since most rock communities are concentrated in the
poorly botanized western Upper Peninsula, their floras are still not well known,
and in need of further exploration. Keweenaw County "mountaintops" and rock
shores support the greatest concentrations of rock species.

Forest communities (CTA-G) - Seven high-priority plant species inhabit
Michigan's diverse To-rest communities. Those of northern mesic forests include
hart's-tongue fern (Phyllitis scolopendrium), fairy bells (Disporurn hookeri),
devil's club (Oplopanax horridus), and heart-leaved arnica (Arnica coraif-5-11-aT. -in
dry to mesic southern forests are smaller whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides),
solomon-seal (Polygonaturn biflorurn var. melleum), and American chestnut
(Castanea dentata).

Phytogeographic Relationships

Michigan's location in the heart of the Great Lakes Region places it under a
number of floristic influences. Many species occur in Michigan at the margins of
their contiguous ranges, or as isolated outliers. In addition, the geologic/floristic
history of the State and the presence of certain unique habitats have resulted in
major disjunct plant occurrences. Primary among the floristic influences
responsible for many rare plants in Michigan are arctic/boreal, western
(Corditteran), Atlantic coastal plain, Appalachian, southern, and Great Plains.

Nine high-priority special plants and many medium-priority species have strong
arctic/boreal affinities. Many of those species are at their southern-most
occurrences on the Lake Superior shores, more or less disjunct from James Bay
to the north. They are most concentrated on the shores of the Keweenaw
Peninsula and Isle Royale, but are also scattered across the Upper Peninsula in
general. Among the most important of these boreal species are the arctic sedge
(Carex heleonastes), mountain timothy (Phleurn alpinum), mountain speargrass
(Poa aipina), sweet-coltsfoot (Petasites sagittatus), and small round-leaved orchid
(-Orct;Ts rotundifolia).

Closely allied phytogeographically with the boreal element and sometimes
difficult to distinguish is the western or Cordilleran element. Species which are
mark,edly disjunct 'in Michigan from either the Black Hills or farther west include
the heart-leaved arnica (Arnica cordifolia), devil's club (Oplopanax horridus),
wild-lilac (Ceanothus sanguineus), blue-eyed mary (Collinsia parviflora), Alaska
orchid (Ha6e--naria unalascensis) and pire-drops (Ptero-spora andromedea) (with the
latter four also occurring in the St. Lawrence region). In Michigan, these and
similarly disjunct species are concentrated in the western Upper Peninsula, with
sporadic occurrences eastward and southward to the tension zone.

Another striking and major component of Michigan's rare flora is the Atlantic
coastal plain element. Four state-listed endangered plant species -- floating
bladderwort (Utricularia inflata), Hall's bulrush (Scirpus hallii), purple spike-rush
(Eleocharis atropurpurea and reticulated nut rush Scleria reticularis) -- are
disjunct from the coastal plain at extremely local sites in southwestern Michigan.
Nine other high-priority plants, including bayonet rush Juncus militaris, the
spike-rush Eleocharis parvula, and the pondweed Potamogeton capillaceus, may
-s.
also be classified as coastal plain disjunct

Species of Appalachian floristic affinities comprise a relatively small but
important contingent of special Michigan plants. Among them are the climbing
fern (Lygodiurn palmatum), bowman's root (Porteranthus trifoliatus) --- both
known from only one Michigan locality -- and painted trillium (Trillium
undulatum).

Most notable among the many special plants with southern affinities are the
purple turtlehead (Chelone obliqua), raven's-foot sedge (Carex crus-corvi), and
Wisteria frutescens. Great Plains species enter Michigan mostly in the prairie
peninsula, but also range sparingly into the western Upper Peninsula uplands.
They include high-priority species western silvery aster (Aster sericeus),
yellowish gentian (Gentiana alba), prairie buttercup (Ranunculus rhomboTd-eus)
and fragile prickly-pear (Op6 raiilis.).

Nonvascular Plants

No official State lists exists for nonvascular plants, and heace they are afforded
no legal protection. However, the MNFI has developed lists of mosses and
lichens of special concern in the State (see Appendix C), in order to efficiently
direct inventory drid research acti'vities--and protection efforts, if need be--on
this component of Michigan's natural diversity. Lists for nonvascular plants are
based on highly selective criteria compared to the vascular plant list, since much
less work has been done on nonvascular piants and consequently, our know!edge
of their occurrence is presumably more incomplete.

Bryophytes

The MNFI list of special mosses consists of 34 species of particular significance
in Michigan because they are either: (D- endemic to the Great Lakes region, (2)
rare on a continenta! or world wide basis, (3) western Cordilleran disjuncts, or (4)
arctic-boreal disjuncts.

Only one moss species in Michigan is considered endemic to the Great Lakes
region. Grimmia hermannii has been found at two sites in Keweenaw County,
and also occurs rarely in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Nineteen Michigan mosses are rare throughout their ranges. Barbula
michiganensis occurs on the Pictured Rocks in Alger County, and is otherwise
known from one collection in Chihuahua, Mexicc, with questionable reports from
Canada's Northwest Territories. Gyroweisia tenuis occurs in Marquette and
Houghton counties, and at isolated localities in Iowa, Manitoba, and Canadian
Northwest Territories. Other species deemed rare though their ranges are of
broader total distribution, as typical for spore-bearing and readily wind-dispersed
nonvascular plants.

The phenomenon of bryophyte Cordilleran disjunct occurrences in Michigan
parallels that of vascular plants, discussed earlier. The nine moss species which
are strikingly disjunct from montane western North America are Dryptodon
patens, Fontinalis neo-mexicana, Grimmia hartmanii var. anoma!a, G. tenerrima,
Orthotrichum alpestre, 2. pallens, 0. rupestre, Pseudoleskea patens, and Tortula
norvegica.

Two moss species are notably disjunct in Michigan from an arctic-boreal range.
They are Mnium andrewsianum and Tetraplodon angustatus.

Comprehensive herbarium data for special moss species still need to be
assembled from major Michigan collections, so that occurrence information can
be entered into the MNFI data management system. Also, special liverworts are
yet to be incorporated into the bryophyte list, and consultation with appropriate
experts, some outside Michigan, is required.

Lichens

The Michigan list of special lichens includes only foliose (leaf-like) and fruticose
(shrubby or hair-like) species--not crustose (close-adhering)--and was assembled
according to the same criteria given for the bryophyte list. In addition to the
categories listed there, however, lichens are of one additional type--species of
Appalachian, St. Lawrence, and northern Great Lakes distribution which inhabit
rich mesic forests and have become rare through loss of forest cover and
associated humidity. These include Parmotrema stuppeum, Stereocaulon
pileaturn, and Usnea angulata.

One lichen -- Cetraria ericetorum -- was recently described as a species endemic
to, and of scattered occurrence on, the sandy shores of the Great Lakes,
paralleling the distribution of our three endemic vascular plant species. Lichen
species rare throughout their North American ranges include Physcia phaea,
Placynthium aspratile, Ramalina farinacea, and Sticta fuliginosa.

At least six rare Michigan lichens are strikingly disjunct from the western
Cordillera. Among them are Dermatocarpon moulinsii, D. reticulaturn, Melanelia
substygia, and Parmelita stictica. Xanthoparmelia centrifuga is an arctic-boreal
lichen that is disjunct in Michigan.

MNFI herbarium data on lichens are not yet complete, with the University of
Michigan collection yet to be searched. When this is done, data will be processed
into MNFI computer and map files.

Special Animals

The Natural Features Inventory manages information, on approximately 200
special animal species, about half of which are vertebrates, as detailed in
Appendix D and summarized in Table 3. Special animal species are those whose
populations in Michigan are endangered, threatened, rare, severely depressed
from former levels, per;.pheral, or of unknown status. This list includes
peripheral species which may be common elsewhere in North America. Some
taxa are borderline cases, and so the special animal list is inclusive rather than
exclusive. From a conservation viewpoint, it is safer to learn that an animal is
abundant after working for its protection than to learn that it is extinct after
ignoring it.

Table 3.
The status of special animals in Michigan.

Approx. No. No.
Species MNFI Endangered or
Animal Currently Special Threatened No. Species Ranked
Group Breeding Animals Species
Michigan Extant No. ig AX-BX Al-A2 Bl-B2 B3-BU
in MI

Vertebrates 472 103 34 7 12 2 16 23

Mammals 62 13 4 6 4 0 3 2
Birds 230 43 14 6 1 1 6 11
Reptiles 29 7 2 7 0 0 2 2
Amphibians 25 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fishes 126 35 14 11 7 1 5 8

Invertebrates

Butterf lies 150 30 0 0
Moths 1300 47 0 0
Mussels 43 11 9 21 ? 4 3 4
Snails/Slugs 250 13 2 1 ? I I ?

TOTALS 204 45 12+ 7 20 27+

Prioritization and Categorization

Listed animals are assigned data collection and processing priorities based on
criteria outlined in Figure 2, including estimated number of total and State
occurrences, taxonomic distinctness, range, number of protected occurrences in
the State, ecological fragility, and relative threats of destruction.

A set of semi-quantitative working criteria were also developed to assist in the
process of state-listing animal species as endangered, threatened, rare or watch,
and peripheral. Definitions and criteria for these terms are presented below.

Endangered: A species "which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.

Criteria for endangered:

A. Considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be endangered in
the United States (e.g., all endangered mammals, two endangered
birds, and two endangered fish);

or B. Known recently (last 20 years) from 20 or fewer sites in its
entire range (e.g., all endangered mollusks and some endangered
f ish);

or C. Has declined seriously and noncyclically throughout the major
portion of its range and

1. is estimated to be extant at three or fewer breeding sites
(breeding populations separated by areas of unfavorable
habitat) in Michigan (e.g., some endangered fish);

or 2. there are estimated to be fewer than 50 breeding individuals
in the State (e.g., some endangered birds and reptiles).

Threatened., A species "which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Criteria for threatened:

A. Is not endangered by one of the above criteria;

but B. Considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be threatened in
the United States;

or C. Known recently from 60 or fewer sites in its entire range;

or D. Has declined seriously and noncyclically at least regionally (e.g.,
Great Lakes region or throughout its nonperipheral Michigan
range) and

1. is estimated to be extant at ten or fewer breeding sites in
Michigan;

or 2. there are estimated to be fewer than 3CO breeding indivi-
duals in the State;

or 3. special factors cause this species to be especially vulnerable
to extirpation regionally (e.g., recent low reproductive
success and dependence on two threatened nesting sites for
S
commor, terns, @terna hirundo; long time to maturity and
fishing pressures for lake sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens.

A 52

Rare or Watch: This list includcs a species:

1) that, though widespread and habitually rare, is nonperipheral and
sufficiently uncommon that any reduction in its population or habitat
conditions would threaten the species ex.stence in Michigan.

or 2) that is nonperipheral and appears to have undergone a serious,
noncyclic decrease in Michigan, such that the species could become
threatened if the decline continued unchecked.

Peripheral: A peripheral species is one that is in Michigan at the periphery of its
range, which extends only a s'nort ways into the State; numbers are usually
scarce, and occurrence may only be sporadic and limited to one or two counties
or watersheds. Such species will be designated "endangered" or "threatened" only
if and when they become endangered or threatened in the main extent of their
range. These are species known recently from five or fewer sites in the State.

Anima'.s listed as endangered or threatened in Michigan are afforded legal
protection as detailed in Act No. 203, the Endangered Species Act of 1974.
Listing of animals as rare/watch or peripheral is an unoffic;.al way of drawing
attention: (1) to species which should be monitored as they are rare and/or
declining in the State and may become threatened in the future, and (2) to
species, which, although very rare in Michigan, are here at the periphery of their
range and are reasonably common elsewhere. These last two categories,
rare/watch and peripheral, might be lumped under the heading "special concern"
as has been done for plants and in some other states for animals (e.g., Indiana).

A cursory examination of Appendix D reveals, not surprisingly, a rough
equivalency between the overall element priority rank and the proposed State
status for each animal species (excluding Lepidoptera which have not been
ranked) as outlined below.

Overall Element Priority Rank
Proposed State Status At A2 BI B2 B3 BU AX/BX/C/D

Endangered (23) 1 5 7 6 4
Threatened (22) 1 4 15 2
Rare/Watch (44) 1 1 2 8 32
Peripheral (42) 42

As can be seen, the overall element priority rank serves to fine-tune the
proposed state status, especially for proposed endangered species.

The present status and conservation needs for each of the groups of MNFI-Iisted
animals (not Lepidoptera) are discussed in the next sections.

Mammals

Mammals, proportionally, have suffered the greatest loss of species of any group
of vertebrates in the State. Seven species, as a result of uncontrolled
hunting/ trapping, have been extirpated from Michigan in the last 200 years,
including the following:

� Marten (Martes americana)
� Fisher (Martes pennanti)
Wolverine (Gulo gulo)
Mountain Lion Wells concolor)
� Elk (Cervus elaphu7s
Caribou TR-angif er tarandus)
Bison (Bison bison)

Three of these seven species, marked with an asterisk, have apparently been
successfully reintroduced into the State. The Michigan Natural Features
Inventory (MNFI) is collecting occurrence information on two of these species,
marten and elk. The marten is state- threatened because of low population size
and uncertain success of the most recent (1980-81) of three reintroduction
attempts for this species in the Upper Peninsula. The fisher, reintroduced into
western Upper Peninsula counties in the early 1960's, is now apparently fairly
common in the western Upper Peninsula and is spreading eastward. Seven elk,
derived from stock largely imported from, western Wyoming, were released in
1918 in the Pigeon River State Forest. This small planting apparently gave rise to
the present Pigeon River "herd" of approximately 600 animals. This herd has
numbered as high as 3500 animals and was the subject of a controlled harvest in
1964-65 (Moran, R. J. 1973. The Rocky Mountain Elk in Michigan. Mich. DNR,
Res. and Dev. Rept. No. 267).

Three other mammals, gray wolf (Canis lupus), lynx (Felis lynx), and moose
(Alces alces), formerly occurred throughout the state but have been nearly
eliminated. A protected and closely monitored population of approximately 14
wolves occurs on Isle Royale. A reintroduction attempt on the Michigan
mainland in 1974 failed due to illegal persecution, but recent track sightings in
the western Upper Peninsula and extreme eastern Chippewa County indicate that
wolves may yet reestablish themselve5 from neighboring packs in Wisconsin aind
Ontario. Moose, simEarly, occur on Isle Royale and s?oradically on the Michigan
mainland. In recent years, repeated track sightings in several areas in the
eastern Upper Peninsula indicates the existence of at least eight small population
nuclei. Increased protection from illegal shooting and, possibly, reintroductions
into areas of favorable habItat with low deer (and brainworm) populations may be
necessary to ensure this species' future presence on the Michigan mainland. No
known populations of lynx exist in Michigan at present, although reports of
scattered individuals persist, especianlly follo@,,,.,ing snowshoe hare population
crashes in adjacent Ontario every 11 years or so.

In addition to the wolf, Michigan's other federally endangered mammal is the
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Th.s species, evidenced from recent summer records
of lactating females, probably nests colonially in relatively undisturbed riparian
situations throughout the southern four tiers of counties. To date, however, we
have no records of summer nursery sites. This species is primarily threatened by
the loss of suitable winter hibernacula, outside Michigan; but loss of breeding
habitat may also be a contributing factor to this species decline.

The other MNFI listed mammals, all ranked no higher than 11C,11 are either
habitually rare (hoary bat, 1-asiurus cinereus) or they occur in Michigan on the
periphery of their ranges and are common outside the State in the main portion
of their ranges. These latter species include smoky shrew (Sorex furneus), least
shrew (Cryptotis parva , eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus suEf-lavus), -evenin-g bat

(Nycticeius humeralis), prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster), and woodland vole
(Microtus pinetorum). The smoky shrew was first discovered in the State in 1981
by the MNFI zoologist. Five other mammals, listed below, also reach the edge of
their ranges near the Michigan border, but these five species have not yet been
recorded in Michigan.

Hairy-tailed Mole (Parascalops breweri)
Small-footed Myotis (Myotis leibii)
Franklin's Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus franklinii)
Heather Vole (Phenacomys intermedius)
Rock Vole (Mf-c-rotus chrotorrhinus)

Two mammal species, currently listed as state threatened, but proposed for
removal from the State list, have been found recently to be more common than
recently believed. Research conducted by the MNFI zoologist and others have
demonstrated that the southern bog lernming (Synaptomys cooperi) is an
uncommon, albeit difficult to trap, resident throughout the State. Additional
research, initiated by the MNFI and co-sponsored by the Living Resources
Program, has more than tripled the number of known localities for the pigmy
shrew.(Sorex hoyi) in Michigan's Lower Peninsula.

Birds

The highest priority MNFI-Iisted vertebrate is a federally endangered, "A211
species which nests only in Michigan, the Kirtland's warbler (Dendroica
kirtlandii). After declining from 432 and 501 singing maies counted in the 1951
and 1961 decennial censuses, respectively, to a low of 167 in 1974, the birds have
been making a gradual comeback, due in large part to intensive management,
including selective habitat burning and cowbird control, by state and federal
personnel. In 1981, 232 singing males were counted in 21 noncontiguous colonies,
with the four largest colonies, all former burns, containing 62.5 percent of the
singing males. For the MNFI data base, the ecological boundaries of all colonies
were delineated through the use of 1:24,000 color infrared aerial photos.
Continued management will be necessary to ensure this species survival.

The second highest priority bird is the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), also a
federally listed endangered species. Peregrines are known to have nested at
eight eyries (predatory bird nesting sites) in Michigan, most recently in the early
1970's along the shore of Lake Superior. This is the last known natural nesting of
this species east of the Mississippi. This species is the object of an ongoing
study, coordinated by the MNF1 and funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
to determine if and where peregrines might still nest in Michigan. All historic
and 17 additional potential cliff nesting sites will be checked in 11982. Despite
reports in recent years of summering birds, it is unlikely that any nesting
peregrines will be found. A number of sites in the State, however, would be very
suitable for reintroduction attempts which have been successfully carried out in
several eastern states.

Table 4 summarizes the status and conservation needs of the six highest priority
birds, including four species which have all declined seriously in recent years and
are state proposed endangered: greater prairie chicken, piping plover, barn owl,
and loggerhead shrike.

Table 4.
Currently Estimated
Known 1981
Active State Probable
Michigan Wide Factors Conservation
Breeding Population Causing Needs*
Species Rank Sites Individuals) Decline

Kirtland's Warbler, A2 21 460 winter habitat mgmt. ,
,Dendroica kirtlandii weather, cowbird control,
habitat research
loss,
cowbirds

Peregrine Falcon, BI 0 0 pesticides reintroduction
Falco peregrinus

Piping Plover BI 14 36 human restrict human
Charadrius melodus distur- access to nest-
bance, beaches, habitat
habitat protection
loss

Greater Prairie B2 1 20 habitat habitat con-
Chicken, loss, servation/
Tympanuchus farming management ,
cupido practices, predator
predation, management
competi-
tion?

Barn Owl, B2 1 20 shortage nest box pro-
Tyto alba of suit- vision in areas
able nest of suitable
sites, habitat
habitat
loss

Loggerhead Shrike, B2 1 40 pesticides, inventory,
Lanius ludovicianus habitat research
loss,
winter
weather?

*In addition to continued careful population monitoring.

Table 5 summarizes the st;E@tus of eight medium-priority (B3) species, all proposed
state threatened, and one "BU" species, the black-crowned night heron.

Table 5.
Status of medium priority (133) birds in Michigan

Estimated
Currently Known 1981
Active Michigan Statewide
Species Breeding Sites Popu!ation Recent Population
Estimated) pairs) rends

Double-crested Cormorant 8 356 rapidly increasing
Phalacrocorax auritus (700% since 1973)

Bald Eagle, 111 105 stable through 1970's;
Haliaeetus leucocephalus increased in 1981

Osprey, 101 125 increasing since 1976
Pandion haliaetus

King Rail, 1 1-00 decreasing
Rallus elegans

Common Tern, 43 2100 stable over last 4 years;
Sterna hirundo down since early 1960's

Caspian Tern, 5 1900 stable
Sterna caspia

Short-eared Owl, 10 too decreasing?
Asio flammeus

Lark Sparrow, 0 10 decreasing
Chondestes grammacus

Black-crowned Night H4on 4-11 200 ?
Nycticorax nycticorax

For these species, there is a critical need for up-to-date information on
populations statewide. Eagles and ospreys are routinely inventoried every year
by state and federal personnel. In 1982, the MNFI will coordinate a statewide
inventory of cormorants, black-crowned night herons, and common and caspian
terns. Information is also being sought on king rails and short-eared owls, birds
whose current status is not well understood. Lark sparrow, formerly a
widespread and uncommon nesting species in the lower four tiers of counties,
may be extirpated from Michigan.

Other MNFI listed birds (Appendix D) includes species which are thought to be
declining but are still relatively common in comparison with the species
discussed previously. These included common loon (Gavia immer) and red-
shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). Although occurrence information is

accumulated for these species, the data is not processed into the MNFI map or
computer files at present.
Other MNFI listed birds include habitually rare nesting species showing no stron;j
evidence of recent declines, including yellow rail (Coturnicops noveborace
and long-eared owl (Asio otus).

A final category of MNFI listed birds includes peripheral species which are each
known currently from five or fewer nesting sites in the State. These species,
some of them recent immigrants to Michigan, are often common in the main
portion of their ranges and would not be candidates for "threatened" or
liendangered" status in Michigan. Nevertheless, because of their restricted
distribution in the State, they are species of interest.

The 5-year Michigan Breeding Bird Atlas, with which the MNFI will share
information, will get underway in 1983. The Atlas project is expected to add
substantially to our knowledge of breeding bird distributions in the State.
Additional "peripheral" species such as cattle egret (Bubulucus ibis), black rail
(Laterallus jamaicensis), summer tanager (Piranga Lubra), an -hll e grosbeak
(Guiraca caerulea) may be found to be nesting in Michigan, and the status of rare
and declining species should be further clarif led.

Reptiles and Ampkdbians

Only two "herps" (reptiles/amphibians) are currently proposed for state listing:
the copperbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta) and the Kirtland's
snake (Clonophis kirtlandi). -R-nown Eistorically (19-3-3---8-1Ffrom six scattered
localities in the lower three tiers of counties, the copperbelly water snake has
only been collected at one location in the State since 1963, a pond on the Ohio
border where the snake is subjected to collecting pressure. This species is now
considered -,hreatened elsewhere in its limited and discontinuous midwestern
range.

Kirtland's snake is known historically (1879-1981) from ten localities in the lower
three tiers of counties but has only been collected twice in Michigan since 1965.
A 1981 specimen was brought into a high school biology teacher in Benton Harbor
who happened also to be working under contract to the MNFI. This snake is
particularly difficult to census as it lives underground much of the year, often
hiding in crayfish burrows and coming out at nignt to feed. It is normally
collected only in the spring months when it may be found hiding under cover,
ofter near small streams, marshes, or ditches. Inventory work, especially in the
relatively unknown biologically, lower tier of counties, is needed in order to
identify sites for both the copperbelly water snake and Kirtland's snake.

Currently state threatened but proposed for de-listing is the eastern fox snake
(Elaphe vulpina gloydi) and the black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta). The
black rat snake still occurs fairly commonly in the southern tier of counties and
is common in tae bulk of its range south of Michigan. The fox snake has a very
limited range in Michigan, Ohio, and Ontai7io, where it occurs only in marshes
adjoining the Great Lakes and inland only along the Shiawassee and Saginaw
rivers. Recent survey work by the Ohio and Michigan Heritage Programs has
revealed significant protected populations of this species at a number of sites in
both states. Over 20 populations are -low thought to be extant in Michigan.
Per."odic monitcring of these popula@@-ions wifl be necessary to ensure their
protection against threats @;uch as c3liectingfor the pet trak'e.

Occurrence information is accumulated by the MNFI for three species of turtles:
spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata), wood turtle (Clemmy@ insculpta), and eastern
box turtle (Ti-r-repene 6a-rolina carolina). All these species have declined
significantly in the State in the face of habitat destruction and collecting, but all
these species are still sufficiently widespread and even locally common to
preclude intensive inventory and/or protection efforts at this time.

The other MNFI listed herps (Appendix D) are five peripheral amphibians which
are all relatively common in the main parts of their ranges outside of Michigan.
No other amphibians are thought to be endangered, threatened, or even rare in
Michigan.

"Potentially peripheral" are four additional species of reptiles which cccur within
50 miles of Michigan in Indiana but have not yet been recorded in the State.
These species are listed below:

Six-lined Racerunner (Cnemidophorous sexlineatus sexlineatus)
Western Slender Glass Lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus attenuatus)
Eastern Plains Garter Snake (Thamnophis radix radix)
Western Ribbon Snake (Thamnophis proximus proximus)

Fishes

Ten of 42 MNFI listed fish species are ciscoes or chubs of the genus Coregonus
(Salmonidae). Of 11 currently recognized "species" found in Michigan, two are
extinct, two are extirpated, three are locally extirpated or proposed state
threatened, two are endemic to one lake each, and two are still common but
declining locally. The status of each species is summarized in Table 6.

Despite evidence for some long-standing genetic differentiation within
Coregonus, morphological and biochemical variability, much of it environ-
mentally induced, does not support the recognition of more than two species, L.
artedii and C. clupaeformis in the Great Lakes basin (T. Todd, G. R. Smith, and
others, unpTblished). The-above named species (Table 6) are thus stocks of
uncertain taxonomic status which are somewhat isolated by different spawning
times and places. As R. M. Bailey and G. R. Smith (1981. Origin and Geography
of the Fish Fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin. Can. J. Fish. & Aquat.
Sci. 38:1539-1561) point out, this taxonomic uncertainty has hampered effective
management and conservation of the stocks. Commercial fishermen, converging
upon local concentrations of these fish, have caused severe depletions of these
local coregonine populations. Depletion of stocks by overfishing causes increased
vulnerability to extinction of the now rare forms which tend increasingly to be
attracted to, to hybridize with, and to be exploited with common forms spawning
at adjacent times or places. This scenario may be the prime reason for the
extirpations detailed in Table 6. Prioritization and implementation of effective
conservation measures for this important group of fishes will require additional
research into the systematics and behavior of the stocks that remain including
the local endemic varieties physically isolated in Ives and Siskiwit Lakes.

Two federally endangered fish occur in Michigan, the longjaw cisco (C. alpenae)
and the blue pike (Stizostedion vitreurn glaucum). Both of thesi fishes are
believed to be extinct. The longjaw ciscols last known occurrence was in
Georgian Bay, Ontario in 1975. The blue pike, endemic to and formerly common

Table 6.
The status of Great Lakes coregonid fishes
(adapted from Todd, T., unpublished).

Coregonus MNF1 State
Species Rank Proposed Comments

C. alpenae AX E Endemic to Great Lakes; extinct; formerly
lakes E, H, & M
Cjohannae AX Endemic to Great Lakes; extinct; formerly
lakes H, M
C. nigri2innis BX E Extirpated from Great Lakes; formerly
Lakes H, M
C. reighardi BX E Endemic to Great Lakes; extirpated from
Michigan; extant only in Georgian Bay,
Lake Huron, Ontario; formerly Lk. M
C. bartletti A2 R Endemic to Siskiwit Lake, Isle Royale
C. hubbsi BI R Endemic to Ives Lake, Huron Mountains,
Marquette County
C. zenithicus B2 T Common in Lake Superior; formerly
Lks. H & M
C_ B3 R Endemic to Great Lakes; abundant in
Lk. S; formerly Lks. 0, H, & M
C. artedii BU T Common in Lk. Superior and in many in-
land lakes; declining in Lk. M.; rare in
Lk. H.; endangered in Lks. 0 & E
C. hoyi C R Endernic to Great Lakes; abundant in
Lk. S.; common in Lks. F1 & M;
extirpated from Lk. 0
C. clupeaformis C Abundant in Lks. 5 & M; common in
Lk. H.; declining in Lks. 0 & E

lGreat Lakes: E=Erie, H=Huron, M=Michigan, O=Ontario, S=Superior

in Lakes Erie and Ontario, has been considered by some to be a distinct species
and by others to be but a color morph of the walleye and unworthy of subspecific
status.

Of the 14 fishes proposed as threatened in Michigan, two species are extinct,
seven species are large lake or lower river species which are difficult to protect
other than by carefully regulating the fishery, and five species are small
river/stream fishes. The latter five species are numerically the rarest of the 12
extant listed fishes in Michigan, and they are also perhaps the easiest to protect
by controlling upstream sources of sil-ration and pollution. All five of these
species are known in the State only from the southeastern counties. In the last
few years, almost all of the -.rnajor drainages possibly containing or from which
there are historic records of these species have been searched (e.g., the Clinton,
Huron, and Raisin drainages@, The Maumee drainage, which enters Michigan in
Monroe, Lenawee, and Hillsdale counties and for which there are historic (pre-
1950) records for four of these species (Table 7), is the only major recently

unsurveyed drainage system which might still retain @hese listed species. With
the financial assistance of Michigan's Living Resources Program, the MNFI will
coordinaTe a fish survey of the Michigan tributaries of the Maumee in the
summer of 1982.

Table 7.
Records of nine rare Michigan fishes.

State
MNFI Proposed Current Michigan Distribution
@cie@___ Rank Status and Recent Collections

Northern Madtom, BI E A short stretch of the Huron River;
Noturus stigi-nosus one 1978 specimen -@rom the Detroit
River.
Bigeye Chub, B2 E Tributaries of the Maumee River
Hybopsis amblops in Hillsdale & Lenawee counties?,
not collected since 1941 in Michigan.
Eastern Sand Darter, B2 T Five short stretches of the Huron
Ammocry2ta pellucida River; possibly Lk. St. Clair &
Maumee tributaries.
.Lake Sturgeon, B3 T Statewide but locally common only
Acipenser f ulvescens in Cheboygan County.

Redside Dace, B3 T One specimen in 1970 from upper
Clinostomus elongatus Rouge where probably now extir-
pated; possibly Maumee tributaries.
River Redhorse, B3 T One specimen fro-n lower Grand
Moxostoma carinatum River in 1978.

Channel Darter, B3 T Lake Huron drainages, but no
Percina copelandi records since 1957.

Pugnose Shiner, BU R Locally in the northern L.P.; 36
Notropis anogenus historic L.P. occurrences, but since
1964 only in Cheboygan County.
Silver Shiner, BU T A short stretch of the Raisin R.,
Notropis photogenis and possibly tributaries of the
Maumee.

The MNFI also manages information on an additional 5 fish species which are
believed to be declining, and 14 species which occur in Michigan at the periphery
of their ranges and are common outside the State in the main portions of their
ranges (Appendix D).

Moflusks

The most diverse freshwater mollusk fauna in the world, over 1000 species, exists
in eastern North America. Approximately half of the world's known species of
freshwater bivalves (mussels or naiads of the family Unionidae), some 500
species, are endemic to this region. Despite the utilization of enormous
quantitites of these mussels for food by Indians and by predators such as
muskrats, raccoons, mink, and others, the mussel fauna apparently changed little
during the 6-8000 years Drior to pioneer settlement. In the past 150 years,
however, pollution (agricuitural, industrial, domestic), damming, channelization,
fish management, and commercial over-harvesting for the button and cultured
pearl industries have combined to decimate much of the fauna. In the Ohio River
syste.-n, 40-50 percent of the naiad species are either extinct or in danger of
becoming so in the foreseeable future (Stansbery, D. H. 1970. Malacologia 10:9-
22).

Mussels are proportionately the most endangered of Michigan's animal species
(cf. Table 3), with 21 percent of the fauna considered to be endangered or
threatened. Several aspects of naiad life cycles make them especially vulnerable
to chemical pollution and siltation (Stein, C. B. 1971. In S. E. Jorgensen and R.
W. Sharp, eds., Proceedings of a symposium on rare and endangered mollusks
(naiads) of the United States. U.S. Dept. Int., F. & W. Serv., Bur. Sport Fisheries
& Wildlife, Twin Cities, MN). Mussels are beathic filter feeders, and those
species which are adapted to highly oxygenated riffle areas are particularly
sensitive to siltation and pollution. Moreover, they are acutely intolerant of even
low levels of potassium (Imlay, M. Ibid). And, although long-lived, most species
are obligate parasites on one or more species of fish during their early
development, and do not mature for several years.
Table 8 summarizes the status of I I rarest mussels in Michigan.
All but 1 of the 11 species in Table 8 are known, at least historically, from
southeastern Michigan, and 8 of the 11 species are restricted in Michigan to this
part of the State. In 1981 and 1982, the MNFI is coordinating efforts to survey
key streams in southeastern Michigan for occurrences of rare mussels. With
support from the Living Resources Program, several areas will be surveyed in the
summer of 1982, and additional funding is being sought from other sources (FWS,
Corps of Engineers, etc.). Because of the paucity of field work which has been
conducted on mollusks in Michigan since the 1940's, it is crucial to undertake a
comprehensive survey of the remaining molluscan fauna of southeastern
Michigan. Several species for-nerly found here are likely to go completely extinct
if efforts are not made to identify and protect extant populations. In addition to
inventory work, conservation of these species will also require research into their
ecological and life history requirements, particularly the identification of host
species. Scientists have only begun *@o investigate the potential of mussels as
pollution monitors, and for research in pharmacology, parasitology, etc.

Other mollusks for which the MNFI is collecting information are snails
(gastropods). Less well known than the bivalves, this group contains at least two
species which are endemic to Michigan. Planorbella multivolvis is an aquatic
snail known only from one lake in the Huron Mountains, from which it has not
been collected since 1906. We failed to fi,;--.d this species in a search of -the
shallow waters of the lake in 1981, but it is probably a deep water species and
hence difficult to collect. S-cagnicola contracta Is another deep water endemic

Table 8.
The status of Michigan's endangered, threatened, and rare
Unionid mollusks (mussels).

State
MNFl Proposed Distribution & Status
Species Rank Status in Michigan

Simpsoniconcha (Simpsonaias), A2 E SE Michigan; not collected
ambigua, Salamander Mussel alivein over 50 years.

Pleurobema clava, A2 E St. Joseph of the Maumee
no common name (Hillsdale Co.); still pre-
sent in late 19701s.

Carunculina (Toxolasma) A2 E SE Michigan, now restricted
glans, Little Purple to a short stretch of the
Clinton River.

Dysnomia (Epioblasma) A2 E SE Michigan; not collected
sulcata, White Cat's Paw alive in over 50 vears.
Pearly Mussel

Dysnomia (Epioblasma) BI E SE Michigan; not collected
torulosa, Northern Riffle alive in over 50 years.
Shell

Anodonta subgibbosa, B2 T Endemic to several lakes in
no common name Muskegon & Ottawa counties;
questionable species; not
collected alive in over 50
years.

Villosa f abalis, B2 E SE Michigan; collected alive
no common name recently only in the Clinton
River.

Obovaria subrotunda B3 T SE Michigan; collected
(leibii), no common name recently only in Belle River.

Dysnornia (Epioblasma) B3 T Southern LP; collected at 9
triquetra , Snuf f box sites in 5 drainages in past
30 years.

Cyclonaias tuberculata, BU R Southern LP; collected at 2
Purple Warty- or Pimple-back sites in past 30 years.
Lampsilis fasciola, BU R SE Michigan; collected at 12
no common name sites in 5 drainages in past
30 years.

snail, known only from four lakes in the northern Lower Peninsula. An additional
four aquatic snails and seven land snails are thought to be rare and/or declining
in the southern Lower Peninsula (van der Schalie, H. 1975. An ecological
approach to rare and endangered species in the Great Lakes region. Michigan
Academician 8:7-22.).

Geomorphic/Geologic Features

Inventory efforts by MNFI have located approximately 275 occurrences of unique
or exemplary geomorphic and geologic features in M_; -higan. Occurrence data
were first compiled from literature (especially Dorr, J. A. and D. F. Eschman.
1970. Geology of Michigan. University of Michigan Press, Ann i@rbor.), then
additional recommendations and information were solicited by letter and
interview from experts, primarily educators, throughout the state. Many
occurrences in the Inventory represent sites used by these educators to
demonstrate geologic principles, processes, and products to their students, and
are therefore of proven value for education and study.

Large size is a characteristic peculiar to many geologic element occurrences
which not only complicates the inventory procedure -- especially boundary
definition -- but precludes preservation by standard methods. However,
landforms of such dimensions are generally not fragile, and the goal of inventory
and evaluation may be to simply call attention to their exemplary nature and
educational value, rather than to actively protect them. For instance, roadside
pulloffs with interpretive signs are particularly effective in calling attention to
outstanding vantage points from which classic geologic features can be observed.
This serves both to publicly mark the features as unique and valuable, and to
increase public awareness, appreciation, and understanding of natural values and
diversity in general.

We attempted to collect information on exemplary occurrences of all elements in
the classification. However, because some are obviously widespread and common
in the state, and others very restricted and unusual, we concentrated inventory
efforts on the latter. For example, for relatively common features (moraines,
outwash, meanders), we solicited recommendations only of particularly out-
standing examples, but we sought information on all exemplary occurrences of
relatively rare features (karst, drumlins, spits, tombolos). It was typically left to
the recommender's discretion as to what constitutes an "exemplary" occurrence.

Based on the inventory, two occurrences rank as significant on a worldwide sca-!e.
One is the Mason Esker, once 20 miles in length, but mined so extensively for
gravel that virtually the-only remaining portions lie in a municipal cemetery and
golf course in Lansing. This esker (a winding ridge deposited by a river within a
glacier) was widely recognized as one of the best-developed in the world, and the
unfortunate fact that so little of it remains demonstrates that physical features
are not invulnerable to degradation or destruction.

Michigan's other occurrence of worldwide importance is the St. Clair River
Delta. The largest freshwater delta in the world, it was mostly formed by glacial
meltwaters and is still growing, though at a much slower rate. A considerable
portion of it, especially the very wet outer reaches, is in public ownership.

Many occurrences of particular state importance were indicated by the
inventory. Seventeen (including the two described above) were identified as
sorne of the most outstanding examples of Michigan's geomorphic and geologic
diversity, based on comparison with other occurrences and comments from state
experts. They are described below in order of their appearance in the
classif ication.

Delaware Esker (Keweenaw County.) - A linear ridge about two miles long and
200 feet wide with steeply sloping sides, formed from the bed load of a river
which flowed inside a glacier.

Mason Esker (Ingham Co.) - Described above.

Irish Hills (Lenawee, Jackson, Washtenaw Cos.) - An area of extensive
interlobate karne and kettle topography, characterized by large glacially-built
mounds or hills, and deep depressions left by melting glacial ice blocks.

Unnamed kettle (Leelanau Co.) - An inverted cone-shaped glacial kettle over 100
feet deep, probably associated with karst activity (bedrock solution and collapse)
beneath the glacial drift. (This site was discovered by MNFI.)

Platte Embayment (Benzie Co.) - The largest and most complex embayment on
Lake Michigan, h excellent preservation of previous lake stage features.

Glacial Potholes (Sanilac Co.) - Numerous potholes, up to 20 inches in diameter
and two feet deep, in sandstone bedrock.

Sturgeon River Gorge (Baraga Co.) - The best-developed gorge in the State.

St. Clair River Delta (St. Clair Co.) - Described above.

Tawas Spit (losco Co.) - An actively-developing complex hooked spit, the largest
in Michigan and perhaps in the Great Lakes.

South Manitou Dunes (Leelanau Co.) - An extensive, mini mally- disturbed dune
complex perched 200 feet above Lake Michigan on a glacial moraine. One of the
best-developed in the State and in North America.

Grand Sable Dunes (Alger Co.) - The largest, least-disturbed complex of perched
dunes in the Sta and in perhaps in North America. It also includes areas of
windswept gravelly morainal plateau unique in the State.

El Cajon Bay (Alpena Co.) - Contains two underwater sinkholes (created by
dissolved and collapsed limestone); the lar'sest is 200 feet in diameter and 80 feet
0
deep, and the source of -che State's largest spring.

Bottleneck Sinkhole (Presque Isle Co.) - An hourglass-shaped sink, approximately
100 feet deep, a waterfall which enters above the bottleneck and falls 80
feet; some dripstone is present.

Fiborr. Karst (Mackinac Co.) - Michigan's test developed karst drainage system,
with sinkholes, gorges, caves, disappearing and reappearing streams, and
underground waterfalls.

Mystery Valley (Presque Isle Co.) - A large karst collapse area (approximately
one mile long) with a sinkhole at one end which periodically drains the lake
occupying the area. Large bed,ock cracks also occur on the valley margin.

Dehring Sinks (Alpena Co.) - Four classic sinkholes with sheer bedrock walls and
good exposures of fossiliferous limestone.

Brockway Mountain Overlook (Keweenaw Co.) - An outstanding vantage point for
the conglomerate linear ridges of the Keweenaw Peninsula.

Karst (dissolved and collapsed calcareous bedrock) is the only element type
determined from the Inventory to be in need of active protection efforts because
of the relative rarity, fragility of, and threat to karst features in the State. No
high quality karst features are currently in public ownership, and some have
suffered damage from refuse dumping. For this reason, karst features were
heavily emphasized in the inventory process, as indicated by the five outstanding
occurrences listed above.

In terms of preservation, it is noteworthy that 8 of the 17 high-quality
occurrences listed above are wholly or substantially in public ownership.
Federally-owned areas are the Platte Embayment, South Manitou Dunes,. and
Grand Sable Dunes. State-owned sites are the Irish HIM (in part), El Cajon Bay,
Glacial Potholes (in part), St. Clair River Delta (in part), and Tawas Spit.

Work yet to be done includes assembling more specific information on
occurrences identified as outstanding, and also focusing inventory efforts on
several categories covered inadequately by the initial inventory (e.g., fossil and
mineral sites, unperched dunes).

Other Natural Features

Great Blue Heron Rookeries

The first attempted statewide survey of great blue heron rookeries was
conducted by the Department of Natural Resources in 1941. Most (91%) of these
rookeries have since been destroyed or relocated. The Department's Wildlife
Division initiated a new inventory in 1978 by querying wildlife field biologists and
accumulating reports. By 1980, this inventory had accumulated information on
119 rookeries whose locations were known to the nearest section (square mile).
With supplemental funding from the Living Resources Program, the Natural
Features Inventory took over this effort in 1980. Through the use of color
infrared (CIR) aerial photos, literature searches, volunteer field workers, and
data gleaned from knowledgeable persons, we now have information on 176
rookeries believed to be extant in Michigan. This information is summarized
below In Table 9.

Table 9.
Michigan great blue heron rookeries.

Number of Rookeries
reported known from located with ground
to be DNR surveys on 1978 information surveyed
recently of CIR air since in
Region____ extant 1941 1978 __Rh o 1978 1981

Western U. P. 30 7 14 18 12 2
Eastern U. P. 40 15 22 19 28 2
Northern L.P. 52 26 33 25 17 2
Southern L.P. 50 50 31 30 14

State Totals 176 82 119 93 87 20

In May 1980, Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFl) discovered a novel
technique for precisely locating heronries and mapping them on topographic
maps: the use 3f 1:24,000 color infrared aeria! transparencies. On such
transparencies, great blue heron nests, generally situated in the canopy, show up
under a 3-6 power ocular or stereo-viewer as small white circular dots against a
reddish (leafy) background. They can usually be distinguished from other small
white dots by their size, shape, raised (canopy) aspect when viewed under a
stereoscope, conglomeration in one area, and often, proximity to water. This
method underestimates the number of nests in the rookery by 0-88 percent
(median = 43%, n = 29), because, from a fixed aerial viewpoint, some nests are
invariably obscured by vegetation or other nests, particularly in large rookeries.
To date, 93 of 176 known rookeries have been located on the color infrared
transparencies, taken in 1977 and 1978 (approximately 32 rookeries have not yet
been looked for on the transparencies). One-third of the rookeries could not be
located on the color infrared transparencies (cf. Table 9), due to several factors
including: (1) poor photo quality, especially overexposures; (2) too few (less than
5) nests actually present to positively identify the rookery against the usual

assortment of other white spots; (3) photos taken in the fail when the leaves
lacked chlorophyll, -ausing additional confusing reflectance; (4) abandoned
@er;-s. Hence, not finding a rookery on the color infrared
rookeries; (5) new roo
aerial transparencies is not cause for considering the site to be abandoned or
destroyed.

An effort was made in 1981 to have as many rookeries as possib!e field surveyed
by MNFlIs statewide network of volunteers. Due to the lateness of this effort,
only a few colonies were surveyed, and those mostly in the southeastern portion
of the State where many rookeries are routinely surveyed (e.g., Oakland County).

A concentrated effort is being made in 1982 to survey all known rookeries in the
State in order to determine (1) the number of active and inactive nests, (2) exact
locations of nest trees, (3) -habitat including types and conditions of nest trees,
(4) surrounding land use, (5) threats, and (6) landowner sympathies. This
information should permit more effective conservation of this important natural
resource.

Migratory Bird Concentration Sites

Twenty-three areas have been identified to date as exemplary migratory bird
concentration sites. These areas are listed below (Table 10).

Table 10.
Migratory bird concentration sites of Michigan.
Location and Site Notable Species

Western U.P.
Brockway Mountain raptors

Eastern U.P.
Whitefish Point raptors, waterfowl, land birds
Garden Peninsula raptors
St. Mary's River waterf owl
Rudyard - Fibre area sandhill cranes, raptors, owls
Limestone sandhill cranes
Ensign sandhill cranes
Birch Farm sandhill cranes

Northern L.P.
Waugoshance Point shorebirds, land birds
Straits of Mackinac raptors
Tawas Point land birds
Nayanquing Point Wildlife Area waterfowl, marsh birds

Southern L.P.
Fish Point State Wildlife Area waterfowl, esp. swans
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge waterf owl
St. Clair River & St. Clair Flats W.A. waterfowl, gulls
Detroit River waterf owl
Pt. Mouillee State Game Area raptors, waterfowl, shorebirds
Woodtick Peninsula & Erie Marsh waterfowl, raptors, herons
Maple River State Game Area waterf owl
Muskegon Wastewater Treatment Lagoons waterfowl, shorebirds
Allegan State Game Area waterfowl, esp. geese
Bernard W. Baker Sanctuary sandhill cranes
Phyllis Haehnle Memorial Sanctuary sandhill cranes

Bat Caves

Only a handful of caves exist in Michigan, and none of these contain significant
bat populations. In the copper range of the western Upper Peninsula, bats have
taken to hibernating in abandoned copper mines. Four mines have been identified
to date as locations of large concentrations of over-wintering bats. At least one
mine is estimated to contain up to 200,000 over-wintering little brown myotis
(Myotis lucifugus). Other chiroptera using the mines include much smaller
numbers of Keen's myotis (Myotis keeni), big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), and
eastern pipistrelles (Pipistrellus sul;f-lavus).

Champion Trees and Shrubs

The most recent discussion of champion trees and shrubs in Michigan is found in
Michigan Trees - A Guide to the Trees of Michigan and the Great Lakes Region
(Barnes, B. V. and W. H. Wagner, Jr. 1981. University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor). Under the heading of "Size and Form," the initial discussion of each
species, the authors have included, if known, some of the metrical statistics for
each record specimen (e.g., for Pinus strobus, Michigan Big Tree: girth 6.0 m,
diameter 192 cm, height 34 m, Keween@_w -County).

This information was gathered mainly from the many years' work of Paul W.
Thompson (Cranbrook Institute of Science) as embodied in Russell McKee's
"Michigan Giants" (1979. Michigan Natural Resources 48:40-47). McKee's article
includes locations (sometimes rather vague) and a few other noni-netrical
statistics (e.g., crown spread) which Barnes and Wagner chose to omit.

These two sources, plus occasional newspaper and newsletter articles, comprise
the basic data from which the MNFI records were transcribed. Local maps and
plat books helped narrow down some of the vaguer locations.

Barnes and Wagner (1981), in an important but easily overlooked statement, note
that "the girth alone of a tree determines the 'Michigan Big Tree'; the national
champion for each species is determined on a point system by adding the girth
(inches), the height (feet), and one-fourth of the average crown spread (feet)." In
a cautionary conclusion, the authors maintain that gigantism in these woody
subjects is the result of extremely favorable growing conditions and (usually)
unusual age. Many yard and garden specimens were planted out of their typical,
competitive habitat; sorne, both native and exotic, are quite far from their
natural range. A famous example is the national champion northern catalpa
(Catalpa specios) on the grounds of the State Capitol Building in Lansing. More
true to its type and State, the "Leaning Giant," a white pine, towers over a
pristine pocket in the northernmost part of the Upper Peninsula. It is such
occurrences that the MNFI will, of course, be most concerned with.

It has been suggested, quite logically, that the reason Michigan has so many
champion trees is because so many people are interested in looking for them.
Nevertheless, all woody things considered, the statistics will be accepted until
disproved. The program will not actively pursue this low priority issue, but
rather, once the basic data is entered, will accept changes and modifications as
they are passively encountered in the pursuit of -nore important matters.

The assignment of an ambiguous species to the "tree" or "shrub" category follows
that used by Barnes and Wagner. The results follow:

National Champion Trees 52
State Champion Trees 45
National Champion Shrubs 17
State Champion Shrubs -4
Total: 118

American Chestnut (Castanea dentata) Groves

American chestnut groves are defined as groups or individuals of chestnut trees
that originated from plantings outside of their native southeastern Michigan
range. Naturally occurring chestnut trees were abundant in southeastern
Michigan but'today are rare because of the chestnut blight f ungus (Endothia
parasitica). The disease spread throughout the entire U.S. range in less than 50
years, eliminating the tree as a commercial species. Stump sprouts continue to
perpetuate chestnut but the disease usually prevents them f rorn reaching
maturity.

Planted chestnut trees are now f ound throughout the western Lower Peninsula
outside of their native range. These "unnatural" occurrences are included in the
MNFI because of the number of blight free individuals that they contain and the
confirmation in two groves of a hypovirulent strain of the chestnut blight fungus
(Table 11). The hypovirulent strain is presently being studied as a possible way to
counteract the effects of the virulent strain and allow the tree to develop to
maturity.

Table 11.
American chestnut (Castanea dentata) trees in Michigan.

number of stands within the native range.

Number of Stands with
Trees Less than 6 Inches DBH

No. of Trees Blight Free Blighted Healing
in Stand

5- 30 18 (1) 29
31 - 150 7 11
1500 - 3000 2 1

Number of Stands with
Trees Greater than 6 Inches DBH

No. of Trees Blight Free Blighted Healing
in Stand

I - 3 117 (4) 380) 14
4 - 10 10 8 6
11 - 25 7 1 5
26 - 50 1 3 1

1. Taken from Brewer, L. 1982. The present status and future prospect f or the
American chestnut in Michigan. Mich. Bot. 21 (in press).

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Boreal forests and southern deciduous woods, remnant -prairies and sculptered
sand dunes, inland lakes and streams by the thousands, `the longest freshwater
shoreline of any state-- Michigan's diverse natural heritage embraces all of these
features. Two hundred years of agriculture, industry, and urbanization, however,
have greatly altered the character of the land. Scattered in the fragments of our
once vast and undisturbed wilderness are relatively undisturbed natural communi-
ties, some harboring rare and endangered plant and animal species. But unless
we conscientiously catalogue the occurrences of these natural features, they may
be unwittingly destroyed. Once destroyed, Michigan's natural areas cannot be
fully restored, and their resource potential, their utility for education and
research, and their recreational, aesthetic, and cultural values are forever lost to
future generations.

To meet this need, the Michigan Natural Features Inventory was established in
1980 as a cooperative effort of the' Michigan Department of Natural Resources
and The Nature Conservancy. The goal of the Inventory is to develop a
continuously updated information base that contains the location and status of
the host of natural features on the Michigan landscape, including not only
features considered to be endangered, threatened, or of unusual significance, but
also best examples of more common natural features. This report marks the
completion of an initial two-year pilot period, during which time the Inventory
staff has been collecting, condensing, and recording information about hundreds
of.natural communities, rare plant and animal species, geologic features, and
other natural occurrences such as heron rookeries, champion trees, and migratory
bird concentration sites. All the information is stored in manual files, on
topographic maps, and in a computer.

As a result of the Inventory, Michigan has, for the first time, a single,
comprehensive and authorative repository of information on the State's natural
diversity. This information is available to public and private conservation
agencies, the scientific and educational community, land managers, environ-
mental consultants, developers, planners--to anyone, in fact, who can demon-
strate a valid use f or the data.

Yet, because of Michigan's size and ecological diversity, this Inventory ef fort has
only begun to adequately survey the natural communities and rare and
endangered plant and animal species scattered over the landscape. Moreover,
because of the constantly changing, dynamic nature of the communities and
species being inventoried (communities change, new discoveries and extirpations
occur, and animals move about from year to year), the data must be continually
refined and updated to remain current and become increasingly accurate.

Although work still lies ahead, much has been accomplished during the initial two
years of the Natural Features Inventory Program's operation. Some of these
accomplishments are detailed below.

A. Scientific Accomplishments

1. Systematic searches were made of all in-state (40+) and the major out-
of-state museums and herbaria and of the zoological and botanical
literature (800+ articles, books, theses, and unpublished documents) for
records of rare plant and animal species and communities.

2. Developed a community classification system and rare lichen, bryo-
phyte, and butterfly/moth (Lepidoptera) lists.

3. Papers detailing our work with natural communities and rare plant and
animal species were presented by the three staff scientists at the 1981
and 1982 meetings of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and
Letters.

4. Compiled abstracts detailing the status and ecological requirements of
the communities and rare species for which the program is inventorying.

5. Identified approximately 275 occurrences of high quality geologic and
geomorphic features in the state.

6. Mapped approximately 4300 element occurrences of which approxi-
mately 2500 have been computerized for rapid and efficient retrieval of
information.

7. Verified in the field the existence or destruction of many of the State's
rarest communities and species at locations where they were known to
occur in the past (e.g., 600 rare plant occurrences were surveyed during
the 1981 field season); attempted successfully to loca-ce new sites for
some of these species and communities. The following are some
highlights from the field work.

a. Discovery of a new mammal for the State, only the second new
mammal found in the past 'i")alf century in Michigan.

b. Finding of two new plant species in Michigan, one of which is new
to the contiguous United States.

c. Discovery of populations of two nationally endangered mollusks
(mussels), each species known from less than 20 sites in the past 20
years in their entire ranges.

d. Finding of one intact inland saline wetland, a community previously
unknown from Michigan.

e. Documentation of I very rare alpine community, 4 delta wetlands,
36 prairies, 18 dune communities, 27 mesic southern forests, and
many other formerly common but now rare commun-*ties.

f. Verification of the status of many of Michigan's heron rookeries
after discovering a novel technique for precisely locating such
rookeries through the use of color infrared aerial photographs.

g. Performance of an in-depth natural features inventory of the
Clinton River watershed for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

h. Discovery that several believed rare species are more common than
previously thought, and vice versa.

B. Applications and Uses of the Data Base

1. Proposed extensive revision of the current state lists of endangered,
threatened, and rare plant and animal species. For plants, status
changes were recommended for 103 species (328 currently listed). For
animals, 58 status changes were recommended (66 species are currently
listed as endangered or threatened) with a net decrease of over 30
percent in the number of animal species considered to be endangered or
threatened in Michigan. Ninety-five percent of the proposed changes
were accepted by the Technical Advisory Committees for the DNR's
Program on Endangered and Threatened Species.

2. Assembled in one central location, data on all known occurrences, past
and present, of endangered, threatened, and rare plant and animal
species in the State. This information is mapped and largely computeri-
zed to permit ready access by government and private decision makers.
The information will also be added to the computerized data base of the
Michigan Resource Inventory Act, 1979, P.A. 204.

3. Information on occurrences of natural diversity elements has been
provided upon request to developers, environmental consultants, and
government agencies for use in environmental impact assessment. This
information has also been included in the Division of Land Resource
Programs' permit coordination and review computer process (CIWPIS)
for use in examination of all land/water projects.

4. Program staff have begun working with land managers within the DNR
and federal agencies in providing information on the location of
occurrences of rare species and exemplary communities on public lands
to ensure that management decisions can be based upon the full
knowledge of their existence. Staff are also providing data to The
Nature Conservancy's Michigan Field Office and to other conservation
groups on privately owned areas containing unique features which should
be protected.

C. Public Involvement

1. Hundreds of biologists and knowledgeable individuals throughout
Michigan, the -Great Lakes region, and elsewhere were contacted to
obtain additional information on element occurrences.

2. Public presentations were made to numerous groups including Audubon
societies, botanical clubs, university classes, state land management
agencies, private conservation organizations, and other interested
groups.

3. Produced a brochure and an illustrated 3-panel display to further inform
interested citizens about the Inventory.

4. Successfully solicited over 200 volunteers statewide who assisted with
the office and field work.

5. Initiated a natural area newsletter (Michigan Natural Area News),
sponsored by the Michigan Natural Areas Council, to foster statewide
communication on natural area and endangered species preservation
among all active individuals and organizations.

D. Contributions to the National Program

1. Tested the latest procedures and interactive computer methodology
developed by the Conservancy's national office staff to accumulate and
store natural diversity information.

2. Developed new formats, since adopted by the Conservancy's national
office, for recording museurn/herbarium search and field survey data.

Recommendations

During the two years the Natural Features Inventory has been in operation, it has
proven to be one of the most cost-effective and successful of all the state
heritage programs. But despite the accomplishments of the Inventory staff to
date, much remains to be done. It is simply impossible for a five person staff,
even with the assistance of many volunteers and contractees, to completely
inventory natural diversity in a state the size of Michigan in just two years. This
fact was borne out by the Program's intensive inventory of the Clinton River
watershed, which alone yielded over 60 new occurrences for the Inventory's data
base. The State's Coastal Management Program recognized the need for
additional work along the Great Lakes shorelines and is providing the inventory
with $ 50,000 in 19 82 to continue the ef fort specifically in that area of the state.

Additional inventory work is urgently needed in many areas. Only 25 percent of
the occurrences in the Inventory's data base have been confirmed extant in
recent years. Thus, verification of the existence or destruction of elements at
their historic localities will continue to occupy a considerable portion of the
Inventory's staff time.

A breakdown of element occurrences by county (Figures 6 and 7) illustrates
considerable variation in the number of occurrences, primarily because of a
region's proximity and attract iveness to previous researchers. The greatest
number of occurrences is in Keweenaw County, followed by Berrien, Oakland,
Kalamazoo, Washtenaw, Marquette, Monroe, and Wayne counties (Figure 6). A
particularly strong influence on the distribution of occurrences has been exerted
by researchers at the University of Michigan (southeast Michigan), the University
of Michigan Biological Station (Straits of Mackinac area), Western Michigan
University (Kalamazoo County), the Cranbrook Institute of Science (Oakland
County), Northern Michigan University and the Huror Mountain Club (Marquette
County), Michigan Technological University (Kewee-L-,aw County), and individual

Figure 6. Counties with many element oc,@urrences (computerized as of
14 April 1982).

HOUGHTON
ONTONAGON i- I
BARAGA
LUCE

GOGEBIC
IRON ALGER
MCKINSON C ... [email protected]
DELTA
RZ

MENOMINEE;

E ISLE
C

OTSEGO
i M
ANTRIM E CY

A1C.NA
KALKASKAj CRAWFORDI OSC..A
'RAND I
13ENZIE TRAVERIE1
MANISTEE WEXFORD MISSAUKEFtROS6CWi;WY.N.' OGEMAW IOSCO

MASON LAKE SCE.1-A CLARE LADWI. A.ENAC

HURON

BA@
40 69 occurrences OcEiANA j NIWAYGO MECOSTA ISABELLA MIDLAND
TUSCOLA SANILAC
@A I--
iA61WT1Ci-Lm -.F-GRATIOT S GINAW
I
LAPEE'R-1.
GENESEE
0 AWA IONIA CLINTON ISHIAWASSEEj
70 200 occurrences

ALLEGAN BAWRY EATON INGHAM LIVINGSTON

VAN BUREN CALHOUN JACKSON

BRANCH HILLSDAL-E'

Figure 7. Counties with few element occurrences (computerized as of
14 April 1982).

ap
KEWEENAW

HOUGHTON

ONTONAGON
BARAGA
LUCE

MARQUETTE ALGER C."'.

SCHOOLCRAFT
KANSO MIACKINAC L
DELTA I

D
ICHEBOYGAN

10
CH PRESQUE ISLE
OTSEGO MMON7 ALPENA
ORENCY

UEELANAU CRAWFORD OSCODA

BENZIE

ROSCOMMON

HURON

BAY
6 10 occurrences NEWAYGO

TUSCOLA

MUSKE-ONJ -'AGINAW

KiNT

OTTAWA IONIA ST. CLAIR
5 occurrences

A OA LAND COM
ARRY EATON INGHAM LIVINGSTON
ALLEGAN

WASHTENAW
VAN BUREN KALAMAZQ0 CALHOUI JACKSON WAYNE

BERRIENi CASS ST. JCSEPH BRANC4 HILLSDALE L@NAWEE MONROE

researchers active in Keweenaw (including Isle Roya,!e) and.Berrien counties.
Only a few occurrences are recorded in many counties across the middle of the
Lower Peninsula and in some Upper Peninsula counties (Figure 7). This paucity
of occurrences is more a reflec-lion of inadequate research than of reduced
diversity in many of these counties (e.g., Menominee, Antrim, Alcona, and Clare
counties). Additional field work in these undersampled areas will undoubtedly
add many new occurrences to the Inventory's data base (and result in deletions as
some communities and species are found to be less rare than currently believed).

The current status and inventory needs are summarized below for each of the
element classes.

Communities

In general, exemplary, relatively undisturbed communities are rare in Michigan
compared to their presettlement distribution. Agriculture, urbanization and
lumbering are responsible, in large part, for this reduction. Among the
terrestrial and wetland communities, one is believed to be extirpated from the
State, three types are limited to only one occurrence, and six others have been
reduced to less than five examples of each. Information on 17 additional
community types raises concern for their future protection. On the pesitive side,
15 types appear to be relatively secure and 3 types are preserved in large
ecosystem preserves.

Eveh though significant accompfishments have been made in the identification
and prioritization of communities, there is still much work to do. Data should
continue to be collected on all types considering that the status of each
community may change as new information becomes available. Only 8 out of 45
palustrine and terrestrial natural communities are considered, at this time, to be
adequately studied.

The following is a description of communities that are in most need of additional
inventory and protection efforts. There should be an intensive regional search
for inland saline wetlands and calcareous pavement communities, plus scientific
investigations and protection efforts. Inventorying for oak openings should be
the single highest priority in Michigan. Combining the activities of searching
historic records (original land survey reports and published literature), locating
cemeteries established' in prairie areas, and using aerial photography will
increase the chances that an oak opening will be found. The usual situation that
leads to the development of extensive freshwater delta wetlands is rare;
therefore, all occurrences within the region should be documented as a first step
in protecting this community type. Because of the unique status of Michigan's
dune communities, a relatively complete survey of most dune and interdunal
wetland occurrences will be conducted during summer, 1982. The discovery of
several previously unknown examples of dry and wet prairie during 1981 led to
the development of a project to inventory Newaygo County and the Saginaw Bay
area for additional occurrences. The data on dry mesic and dry southern forests,
grass dominated fen wetlands, wild rice dominated marsh wetlands, and southern
swamp wetlands are incomplete, but these types appear to be rare and deserving
of additional attention. Information is also needed on oak barrens, boreal
forests, and ephemeral wetlands, but not as urgently. At some point, studies of
shrublands, bracken grasslands, sinkholes, and caves should be conducted to
determine whether they are distinct community types.

The completion of the work that is listed here is a long-term project. During
1982 shoreline and prairie projects will occupy most of the plant ecologist's time.
However, future work on the other priorities is just as important to the
protection and wise use of Michigan's natural communities.

Special Plants

Nearly ten percent of Michigan's flora is endangered or threatened with
extirpation in the State. Twenty-four species appear to have already been lost,
due largely to reduction of natural habitats from extensive development and
agriculture. However, two species previously thought extirpated have been
recently rediscovered (and protected), and others may be likewise relocated or
even re-introduced. As protection efforts become more focused on those species
most critically endangered, we are becoming more effective in preventing
extirpations and the resulting improverishment of Michigan's flora. Also, our
growing understanding of species' biology and habitat requirements greatly
facilitates effective conservation programs.

These efforts must be sustained, however, to ensure protection of Michigan's
endangered and threatened plant species. Approximately ten high-priority plants
have not been recently verified extant in Michigan, and searches need to be
conducted for these species. Others need work to determine their validity as
distinct taxa; among those are two BI species, Chamaerhodos nuttallii var.
keweenawensis and the Michigan monkey-flower, Mimulus glabratus var.
michiganensis, both of which are purported as varieties endemic to Michigan.
Taxonomic work is also needed to describe the newly-discovered clubmoss,
Lycopodium sp. nov.

Several species almost certainly occur at more sites than our records currently
indicate. For instance, the sweet coltsfoot, Petasites sagittatus, was just
discovered in a remote and relatively unbotanized part of the central Upper
Peninsula, and likely grows at other sites in the general area. Caref ul
correiation of known habitat requirements, topographic maps, aerial photographs,
and soil maps would also be likely to locate new stations for kitten taiis (Besseya
bullii) and the prairie fringed orchid (Habenaria leucophaea).

To detect population trends and possible extirpations of highly sensitive species
such as the prairie fringed orchid, Hall's bulrush (Scirpus hallii), and purple spike-
rush (Eleocharis atropurpurea), occurrences will need to be monitored by periodic
surveys

Spf!@jal Animals

Two hundred years of development have taken their toll on Michigan's fauna. At
least 15 vertebrates (3 percent of the fauna) have been extirpated. These include
7 mammals, I bird, and 7 fishes. An additional I bird, I fish, and 3 mussels are
probably extirpated. Commercial overexploitation appears to be largely
responsible for these losses, but pollution and siltation in our rivers have exerted
their toll on the mussels and fish, many of which are restricted to southeastern
Michigan where impacts on water quality are most severe. Yet, there is room
for cautious optimism. Three of the extirpated mammals have been successfully
reintroduced, and attempts will likely be made soon to reintroduce at least two
more extirpated species. The problems that beset the ciscos are now better

1! 1

understood, and enlightened management may preven",* further extirpations of
these fish. If increased efforts can be made to clean up our rivers, particularly
in southeastern Michigan, the -,n'usse'ls and fish that once inhabited these waters
may yet persist and repopulate their former habitats. Most importantly,
continued funding for research (e.g., inventory, population monitoring), for
habitat management (e.g., Kir-11-land's warbler), and for protection of the best
sites for these endangered species is essential to the conservation of Michigan's
rare and endangered animals.

At this point in time, continued inventory work is critical. For only 2 (pipin
plover, Kirtland's warbler) of Michigan's 16 highest priority (AI-B1 rankedl
animals do we have reasonably accurate information on the true size and status
of populations statewide. For 6 of these species, there are no recorded
occurrences in Michigan in over 30 years, primarily because no one seems to have
seriously looked for these species. In 1982 and 1983, the Michigan Natural
Features Inventory plans to coordinate intensive searches for at least 13 of these
16 priority species, continuing work that was begun in 1,081.

The status of most medium priority (132-133 ranked) animals is even less well
known, but at least 21 of these 26 species will be intensively searched for by
MNFI staff, contractees, and volunteers in 1982 and 1983.

Others

A statewide heronry inventory, initiated in 1981, will continue. It is planned that
all known heronries in the State (approximately 180) will be surveyed in 1982 by
volunteers under the direction of the Natural Features Inventory staff.

As records of occurrence for natural diversity elements (exemplary natural
communities, endangered, threatened, and rare plant and animal species, and
other natural features such as heron rookeries) are continuously accumulated,
updated, and refined, the Natural Features Inventory expects to become an
increasingly important tool for the protection of natural diversity in Michigan.
By expeditiously providing a wide range of users and decision-makers with the
information needed to balance maximum protection of our natural heritage with
necessary economic development, alternative courses of action can be wisely
assessed before commitments are made and conflicts arise. The data base is
already used on a daily basis for environmental review by the Department of
Natural Resources, by the Department of Transportation, by utilities, etc.
Conservation organizations such as The Nature Conservancy are now relying on
the Program's data base to identify the finest remaining examples of biological
diversity in Michigan.

Finally, it is imperative that the Program be integrated into the Department of
Natural Resources with adequate funding to ensure its continuance. The private
and federal funds which currently extend the Program until March, 1983 will not
be available again. Of the 23 other state "heritage" programs started before
1981, 20 have been incorporated into or are now supported by state government
following their initial two year.pilot periods, including programs in nearby Ohio,
Indiana, and Minnesota. Within state government, these programs have assumed

significant, cost-effective roles in environmental review, in planning, in research
(inventory), and as biological clearinghouses for current, up-to-date information
on the status of natural diversity in their states. In order to provide these
important services, state funding for support of a core staff is essential.

APPENDIX A

PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING THE COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION

The following coding structure is used for the Community Classi-LIJ cation:

Natural Community Classification

Plant Community Classification

byte 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Community Type

Cover Type

Cover Class

System

Natural Community

Natural Community Type

Class

CLASS (byte 1)
Class simply means class of element, and for communities is always a "C". Other
classes include P=Plants and A=Animals.

NATURAL COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION

The Natural Community Classification is comprised of the Natural Community
Type and the Natural Community.

NATURAL COMMUNITY TYPE (byte 2)
The Natural Community Type is the most general level in the classification and
represents habitats that share the influence of similar hydrologic, geomorpholo-
gic, chemical, or biological factors. The values for this level in the classification
have been standardized. The values, codes, and definitions follow.

Value Code Def inition

Lacustrine L Lentic waters of natural topographic depressions
lacking persistent emergent vegetation except
around perimeter.

Riverine R Natural lotic waters from source or origin
downstream to limits of tidal influence, and
bounded by channel bank.

Palustrine P(Q) Non-tidal perennial wetlands characterized by
emergent vegetation.

Terrestrial T(U) Above ground areas lacking perennial wetlands or
standing water.

Subterranean S Below ground areas.

Since coding is alphabetic (A-Z minus I and 0), the codes in parenthesis are used
if there are more than 24 Natural Communities within a Natural Community
Type.

NATURAL COMMUNITY (byte 3)
A Natural Community is a distinct and reoccurring assemblage of populations of
plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi naturally associated with each other and
their physical environment. Natural Communities are characterized and defined
by a combination of physiognomy, vegetation structure and composition,
topography, substrate, and soil moisture and reaction. A Natural Community is
named by its most characteristic features, biotic or abiotic, such as delta
wetland, interdunal wetland, mesic southern forest, and limestone pavement.

PLANT COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION

The Plant Community C-1 lassif i cation is coded independently of the Natural
Community classification. The PC classification is comprised of System, Cover
Class, Cover Type, and Community Type. In the description of the Plant
Community classification, the following definitions are used.

Canopy = That portion of the vegetation that first intercepts
solar radiation. That portion of the vegetation that is
seen when viewed vertically from above.

Canopy Cover = That portion of the ground covered by the canopy. In
closed vegetation the canopy cover is always 100%.

Canopy Species = Those species which contribute to the canopy within a
stand.

Codominant Species = A species whose relative canopy coverage is 20-49%.

Dominant Species = A species whose relative canopy coverage is 50% or
greater.

Growt'h Forms The artificial categories into which the plant kingdom is
divided in this PC classification. These categories are
trees, shrubs, herbs, bryophytes, lichens, and algae.

SYSTEM-
The System is based on the structure of the canopy. A major advantage of using
structure here is that a stand can be identified to the System without any
knowledge of species identification. The following systems along with their
codes and definitions are used.

System Code Def inition

Angiosperm Forest A All dominants and codominants are
angiosperm trees.

Gymnosperm Forest B All dominants and codominants are
gymnosperm trees.

Mixed angiosperm - C All codominants are angiosperm and
gymnosperm forest gymnosperm trees.

Mixed tree - D Codominants include both trees and
non-arborescent canopy species of other growth forms.

Mixed non-arborescent E Codominants include more than one
canopy canopy growth form but no trees.

Shrub canopy F All dominants and codominants are
shrubs.

Herb canopy G All dominants and codominants are
herbs.

Bryophyte canopy H All dominants and codominants are
mosses and/or liverworts.

Lichen canopy H All dominants and codominants are
lichens.

Algal canopy K All dominants and codominants are
algae.

Non-vegetated L Absolute canopy cover less than
approximately 10%. This System is
used with Natural Communities which
cannot or should not be characterized
by Plant Communities, e.9-9 dunes,
beaches, mudflats, cliffs, rock out-
crops, etc.

Open water M Perennially flooded areas having an
absolute canopy cover less than
approximately 10%. This System is
used with Natural Communities within
the Estuarine, Lacustrine, and
Riverine Natural Community Types
which cannot be characterized by
Plant Communities.

COVER-CLASS (byte 5-6)
The Cover Class is derived from and named after the dominant genus or
codominant genera in the canopy. The Cover Classes are assigned alphabetic
codes, unique to a System. Within a System, up to 576 Cover Classes can be
code@ (AA, AB, AC .... ZZ). It is suggested that when more than three genera are
codominant, or there are no dominants or codominants, genera should not be
listed in the name but instead called "Mixed," e.g., Mixed Mesophytic, Mixed
Hardwoods. Scientific names are always used in naming the Cover Class.

Codominant genera within the same stratum are listed alphabetically and
separated by a dash (-) with no spaces. Codominant genera within different
strata are listed in order of height and separated by a greater-than sign (::-) with
no spaces. The Cover Class coding system is open-ended with newly named
Cover Classes receiving the next available code within the appropriate System.
COVER-TYPE (byte 7-8)
The Cover Type is derived from and named after the dominant or codominant
species in the canopy. This rule is followed whenever possible for consistency.
There are a few exceptions: (1) If within a dominant genus there are no dominant
or codominant species, or there are too many to list conveniently, the Cover
Type can be named by using the term "mixed" followed by the name of the genus
and, if needed, an ecological modifier. For example, a Mixed Quercus Swamp
means that within the Quercus Cover Class there is a Cover Type restricted to
swamps where there are many species of oaks, none of which are dominant. (2)
When the Cover Class is mixed, a descriptor can be added. For example, the
Mixed Hardwoods Cover Class could contain a Mixed Northern Hardwoods Cover
Type.

Cover Types are assigned alphabetic codes, unique to a Cover Class. Within a
Cover Class, up to 576 Cover Types can be coded. Codominant species within
the same stratum are listed alphabetically and separated by a dash (-) with no
spaces. Codominant species within different strata are listed in order of height
and separated by a greater-than sign (;:1 with no spaces. The Cover Type coding
system is open-ended with newly named Cover Types receiving the next available
code within the appropriate Cover Class.

COMMUNITY-TYPE (byte 9-10)
The Community Type is the lowest level of the cla3sification and will often
require quantitative sampling procedures for its determination. The Community
Type represents a homogeneous stand of vegetation developing in an environment
whose physical components (soil, topography, micro-climate, etc.) are fairly
unif orm. Rarely will the Plant Community Classification be standardly
subdivided this finely. Often, variation within the Cover Type can simply be

handled in the Element Abstract. The Community Type will be of most
importance in regions where canopy vegetation Is uniform over large areas.

The name of -the Community Type is derived from the names of the dominant or
codominant species beneath the canopy, added to the Cover Type names.
Occasionally names can include characteristic species. These are .species that
have low cover (not dominant or codominant) in the stand, but are virtually
always present, and are good indicators of that community. Characteristic
species can occur within the canopy or beneath it. Characteristic species should
be starred M in community names. The Community Types are assigned
alphabetic codes unique within a Cover Type.

APPENDIX B

A CLASSIFICATION OF NATURAL COMMUNITIES IN MICHIGAN

Willard M. Rose
Plant Ecologist
and
Donald H. Les
Aquatic Ecologist
Michigan Natural Features Inventory

C Community

CR Riverine (Watercourses)

CRA Great Lakes Watercourse
CRB Coldwater Gravel-Bottom Watercourse
CRC Coldwater Sand-Bottom Watercourse
CRD Coldwater Silt-Bottom Watercourse
CRE Warmwater Gravel-Bottom Watercourse
CRF Warmwater Sand-Bottom Watercourse
CRG Warmwater Silt-Bottom Watercourse
CRH Brownwater Watercourse
CRJ Spring/Brook Watercourse
CRK Ephemeral Watercourse
CRL Waterf all
CRM Rapids
CRN Other

CL Lacustrine (Lakes)

CLA Great Lake
CLB Inland Oligotrophic Lake
CLC Inland Mesotrophic Lake
CLD Inland Eutrophic Lake
CLE Inland Marl Lake
CLF Other

CP Palustrine (Wetlands)

CPA Insular Marsh Wetland
CPB Insular Swamp Wetland
CPC Insular Mixed Wetland
CPD Peripheral Lacustrine Marsh Wetland
CPE Peripheral Lacustrine Swamp Wetland
CPF Peripheral Lacustrine Mixed Wetland
CPG Peripheral Riverine Marsh Wetland
CPH Peripheral Riverine Swamp Wetland
CPJ Peripheral Riverine AAixed Wetland
CPK Ephemeral Wetland
CPL Oxbow Lake Wetland

CPM Beaver Pond Wetland
CPN Inland Saline Wetland
CPV Freshwater Delta Wetland
CPP Prairie Wetland
CPQ @3og Wet!and
CPR Fen Wetland
CPS Interdunal Wetland
CPT Strangmoor Wetland
CPU Other

CT Terrestrial

CTA Mesic Southern Forest
CTB Dry-Mesic Southern Forest
CTC Dry Southern Forest
CTD Mesic Northern Forest
CTE Dry-Mesic Northern Forest
CTF Dry Northern Forest
CTG Boreal Forest
CTH Oak Opening
CTJ Oak Barren
CTK Pine Barren
CTL Alpine Community
CTM Shrubland
CTN Mesic Prairie
CUA Dry-Mesic Prairie
CTP Dry Prairie
CTQ Bracke n- Grassland
CTR Great Lakes Dune Community
CTS Beach Community
CTT Sand Barren
CTU Calcareous Pavement Community
CUB Noncalcareous Pavement Community
CTV Calcareous Open Cliff Community
C- T WCalcareous Shaded Cliff Community
@-TX Noncalcareous Open Cliff Community
Noncalcareous Shaded Cliff Community
CTZ Sinkhole Community
C, U ZOther

CS Subterranean

CSA Cave Community
CSZ Other

A KEY TO THE NATURAL COMMUNTIJES IN MICHIGAN

The term "natural community" refers to biological communities of a natural
origin, which have retained their "pre-settlement" characteristics and are
relatively unaltered by cultural infuences. Nearly all areas possess some degree
of human disturbance. Communities with other superficial impacts (e.g.,
footpaths, litter, fishing, canoeing, etc.) are still considered to be "natural".
More obvious impacts (e.g., dwellings, foundations, non-indigenous plants or
animals, stumps, roads, fences, excavations, abandoned agricultural land, etc.)
tend to decrease the natural aspect of a community. Areas in which obvious
impacts severely detract from the original features of the community are not
considered "natural. 11

There are four subclasses of the community class recognized in the Michigan
Natural Features Inventory. The first three subclasses, Riverine, Lacustrine, and
Palustrine, represent "aquatic" communities. An aquatic community is defined
as an indicative plant community capable of perpetuating its life cycles and
cor@_Tinu_ing its existence in still or flowing st-anding water, ar upon inundated or
non-inundated hydric soils. Riverine refers to communities which occur in
watercourses. It has a restricted application to the open water portion of a
watercourse, and not to the vegetated margins. A Riverine community is defined
as a community which is characterized @y channelized, flowing, open water,
devoid of vegetation or dominated @y submerged y@at@ion and supportive of
few other vegetational jy2Ss. Examples of watercourses include straits, rivers,
streams, creeks, and brooks. Lacustrine refers to communities which occur in
lakes. It also has restricted application to the open water portion and not to the
shoreline vegetation. A Lacustrine community is defined as a community which
is characterized by non-channeled, open water, typiCafly exceeding 4.0
raeters in depth, dominated by submerged vegetation, and frequently possessing a
profundW zone. Lacustrine does not include shallow bodies of water (pondsl
which are vegetated throughout, even if the dominant vegetation is submergent.
An exception to the definition occurs with bog lakes which, regardless of depth,
are included as a portion of the bog wetlands in the Palustrine subclass.
Palustrine refers to communities which are commonly referred to as wetlands. A
Palustrine community is defined as a community which is characterized by hydric
7us!j @1) less than 4.0 meters of water
non-inundated or inundated by
(except for bog lakes EtjSh pal be @eeper), an dominated @y emergent,
floating-leaved, free-floating, ar submergent vegetation, often a combination of
these four IX22s, and never possessing a profundal zone. The fourth subclass,
Terrestrial, represents all "upland" communities. A Terrestrial community is
defined as a community EtjSh is characterized by mesic to dry @@ that are
never jLunia-fe-d-
, and ja@of existence under conditions described for
aquatic community.

Be aware that a certain amount of discretion is necessary in determining the
appropriate subclass for a community. This is also true for using the following
key to natural community types:

I
RIVERINE COMMUNITIES: KEY "Aft
LACUSTRINE COMMUNITIES: KEY "Bit
PALUSTRINE COMMUNITIES: KEY "CII
TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES: KEY "D"

KEY A: RIVERINE COMMUNITIES

I.a. Community occuring in the Detroit, St. Mary's or St. Clair rivers ............
a
......................................... o................. ...CRA Great Lakes Watercourse

b. Community occurring inland .............................................. o ..... o........... 2.

2.8. Community of perennial water regime ................................................. 3.

b. Community of an intermittent water regime..Ir-PK Ephemeral Watercourse

3.a. Community occuring in a spring or its brook..CRJ Spring/Brook Watercourse

b. Community not a direct result of the issuance of groundwater ................ 4.

4.a. Community occurring in a watercourse which is brown-stained due to
its presence of dissolved organic acids and similar materials ......................
............................................................ CRH Brownwater Watercourse

b. Community in clear water or water colored only by the presence of sus-
pended particulate matter, or colored other than brown ........................ 5.

5.a. Community of waterfalls or rapids ............................................... o ....... 6.

b. Community in watercourse uninterrupted by waterfalls or rapids ............ 7.

6.a. Waterfall communities .................................................. CRL Waterfall

b. Rapids communities ............................ o........................... .CRM Rapids

7.a. Coldwater communities ....... o....................................... o ..................... 8.
b. Warmwater communities 2 ................................ o .................................. to.

8.a. Substrate predominantly of coarse material (rock & gravel) ...................
................................ o.......... CRB Coldwater Gravel-Bottom Watercourse

b. Substrate predominantly of finer materials .................. o ........................ 9.

9.a. Substrate predominantly of sand ... CRC Coldwater Sand-Bottom Watercourse

b. Substrate predominantly of silt .... CRD Coldwater Silt-Bottom Watercourse
10.a. Substrate predominantly of coarse material (rock & gravel) ...................
,oo,,,oe,,ooo ... so .... o,,oooo,o ... so ... CRC Warmwater Gravel-Bottom Watercourse

b. Substrate of finer materials ........................................................ o ........ It.

I I.a. Substrate predominantly of sand ............... ................................... o .......
........ o................................. CRF Warmwater Sand-Bottom Watercourse

b. Substrate predominantly of silt ................. o ..........................................
......... I.................................. CRG Warmwater Silt-Bottom Watercourse

lRefer to list of coldwater watercourses, Michigan Water Resources
Commission, Michigan DNR, designated use maps.
2Refer to list of warmwater watercourses, Michigan Water Resources
Commission, Michigan DNR, designated use maps.

KEY B: LACUSTRINE COMMUNITIES

I.a. Community occurring in lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, Superior, or
St. Clair .................................................................. CLA Great Lake

b. Community of inland lakes ................................................................... 2.

2.a. Lakes with an obvious marl character due to severe encrustations on
hydrophytes, deep blue color, chemical analysis, or other aspects ...........
..............................I...................................... CLE Inland Marl Lake

b. Marl character of take lacking or not apparent ..................................... 3.

3.a. Lakes with clear water, predominantly inorganic substrates, and sparce
growths of submerged vegetation ............. CLB Inland Oligotrophic Lake

b. Lakes with either murky water, relatively organic substrates or considerable
growths of submerged vegetation ......................................................... 4.

4.a. Lakes with clear water, mixed (organic/ inorganic) substrates, and a
balanced population of submerged vegetation ........................................
..................................................... - .... CLC Inland Mesotrophic Lake

b. Lakes with murky water, predominantly organic substrates and "weedy"
growths of submerged aquatic vegetation..CLD Inland Eutrophic Lake

KEY C: PALUSTRINE COMMUNITIES

1.a. Community specialized (categories CPK-CPT)..................... ......... 2.

b. Community unspecialized (categories CPA-CPJ).......................... 12.

2.a. Community occurring on peat soil..................... ................. 3.

b. Community occurring on mineral soil .... ............................... 5.

3.a. Peatland patterned into parallel bands of ridges (strangs) and hollows
(flarks) which occur perpendicular to the direction of drainage ..............
..................... CPT Strangmoor Wetland

b. Peatland not patterned in parallel bands................................... 4.

4.a. Community principally a bog, i.e., dominated by Sphagnum moss and
ericaceous shrubs, pH acidic (less than 6), and possessing typical bog
species such as carnivorous plants ............................. COP Bog Wetland

b. Community principally a fen, i.e., dominated by sedges and grasses or
non-sphagnum moss, circumneutral or alkaline pH (greater than 6), and
possessing typical fen species including carnivorous plants .....................
......................................... CPR Fen Wetland

5.a. Community possessing a saline substrate ......... CIN Inland Saline Wetland

b. Community entirely on a freshwater substrate ....................... 6.

6.a. Community developing in a beaver dammed impoundment ......................
............................................. CPM Beaver Pond Wetland

b. Community origin not due to beaver damming ......................... 7.

7.a. Community developing in a cut-off meander of a riverine system ............
................................................ CPL Oxbow Lake Wetland

b. Community not developing in an oxbow .............................. 8.

8.a. Community developing in a river delta ............... CPV Delta Wetland

b. Community not developing in a river delta.......................... 9.

9.a. Community dominated by wet or wet-mesic prairie species ....................
.................... ....................... CPP Prairie Wetland

b. Community not dominated by prairie indicator species........... 10.

10.a. Community developing between sand dune ridges.CPC Interdunal Wetland

b. Community not developing between sand ridges .................. 11.

1 I.a. Community with a history of fluctuation in the water table so that
inundation occurs only during some years/seasons and near dryness
occurs in other years/seasons ............................. CPK Ephemeral Wetland

b. Community with an essentially stable hydrological regime .................... 12.

12.a. (Unspecialized types) Community physically isolated from or not signi-
ficantly influenced by the proximity of a riverine or lacustrine system
(insular types, Figure A.) ..................................................................... 13.

b. Community significantly influenced by and adjacent to either a riverine
or a lacustrine system (peripheral types, Figures B., C.) ........................ 15.

13.a. Vegetation over 75% herbaceous ..................... CPA Insular Marsh Wetland

b. Vegetation less than 75% herbaceous .................................................. 14.

14.a. Vegetation over 75% woody plants .................. CPB Insular Swamp Wetland

b. Vegetation a mixture of herbaceous and woody plants ...........................
........................ 11 .......................................... CPC Insular Mixed Wetland

15.a. Community adjacent to a watercourse (peripheral riverine types,
Figure B.) .......................................................................................... 16.

b. Community adjacent to a lake (peripheral lacustrine types, Figure C) ..... 18.

16.a. Vegetation over 75% herbaceous .... CPG Peripheral Riverine Marsh Wetland

b. Vegetation less than 75% herbaceous ..................................................... 17.

17.a. Vegetation over 75% woody plants. CPH Peripheral Riverine Swamp Wetland

b. Vegetation a mixture of herbaceous and woody plants ............................
...................................................... CPJ Peripheral Riverine Mixed Wetland

18.a. Vegetation over 75% herbaceous...CPD Peripheral Lacustrine Marsh Wetland

b. Vegetation less than 75% herbaceous ................................................... 19.

19.a. Vegetation over 75% woody plants ... CPE Peripheral Lacustrine Swamp Wetland

b. Vegetation a mixture of herbaceous and woody plants ............................
.......................................I ....... CPF Peripheral Lacustrine Mixed Wetland

KEY D: TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES

l.a. Mat-ire trees present ................................ .......................... ................. 2.

b. Mature trees absent, woody plants, if any, are stunted trees or shrubs .... 11.

2.a. Trees form a closed forest canopy, greater than 50% cover .................... 3.

b. Trees form an open canopy, savanna like, less than 50% cover ................ 9.

3.a. Forests south of the tension zone, hardwood trees only ........................... 4.

b. Forests north of the tension zone, hardwoods dominant with conifers
often present or conife@s dominant ....................................................... 6.

4.a. Forests on mesic soils, beech and/or maple often dominant ....................
................................................................... CTA Mesic Southern Forest

b. Forests on dry-mesic or dry soils, other species dominant ....................... 5.

5.a. Forests on dry-mesic soils, white oak, red oak, hickory often dominant .....
............................................................. CTB Dry-Mesic Southern Forest

b. Forests on dry soils, other oaks often dominant ... CTC Dry Southern Forest

6.a. White spruce and/or balsam fir dominant, forests of far northern counties
or Great Lakes shore .................................................. CTG Boreal Forest

b. Other conifers and/or hardwoods dominant ............................................ 7.

7.a. Forests on mesic soils, sugar maple, beech, hemlock, and/or yellow birch
dominant .................................................... CTD Mesic Northern Forest

b. Forests on dry-mesic or dry soils, pines often dominant, oaks dominant
in some cases ...................................................................................... 8.

8.a. Forests on dry-mesic soils, white pine often dominant ............................
........................................................... CTE Dry-Mesic Northern Forest

b. Forests on dry soils, jack pine, red pine, or hill's oak dominant ...................
....................................................................... CTF Dry Northern Forest

9.a. North of the tension zone, very dry soils, major tree species is jack pine,
shrub understory possible ............................................. CTK Pine Barren

b. Major tree species are oaks, south of or close to the tension zone ........... 10.

I O.a. Mesic or dry-mesic soils, major tree species are bur, white, or black oak
often with a prairie component .................................... CTH Oak Opening

b. Very dry sandy soils, major tree species are hill's or black oak with a dry
prairie component or shrub understory .......................... CTJ Oak Barren

1 I.a. Closed communities, close to 100% vegetation cover .............................. 12.

b. Open communities, areas of bare sand or exposed rock ........................... 17.

12.a. Shrubs dominant .................................................................................. 13.

b. Grasses dominant, in some cases mixed with bracken fern ...................... t 4.

13.a. Exposed tops of mountains, balds, bearberry and horizontal juniper dominant,
with stunted trees in scattered clumps .................... CTL Alpine Community

b. Other natural shrub areas, blueberry, sweet fern, bearberry, New Jersey
tea, sumac dominant ........................................................ CTM Shrubland

14.a. North of the tension zone, grasses, such as brome and wild oat grass, and
bracken fern codominant ...................................... CTQ Bracken-Grassland

b. South of the tension zone for the most part, grasses dominant ................ 15.
15.a. Deep mesic soils, big bluestem, indian grass, and/or panic grass dominant 1,2
........................................................................... CTN Mesic Prairie

b. Grassland on drier and sandier soil ........................................................ 16.

192
16.a. Dry sandy soils, little bluestern dominant ....................... CTP Dry Prairie
1229
b. Deeper dry-mesic sandy soils ............................ CUA Dry-Mesic Prairie

17.a. Open sand communities, some mats or clumps of vegetation ................... t 8.

b. Open, exposed rock communities, some mats or clumps of vegetation or
extensive lichen communities ............................................................... 20.

18.a. Inland sand dune area, often fairly level topography, composites and grasses
most often dominant, other arid plants common, e.g., prickly pear cactus
.................................................................................... CTT Sand Barren

b. Sand system along the Great Lakes shore, developed as a result of the
present lake levels, or strands along inland lakes ................................... 19.

19.a. Area of relatively flat topography, low moist sand in some areas, sea rocket
and beach pea common along Great Lakes; in addition, mint family common
along inland lakes ................................................... CTS Beach Community

b. Topographical relief as much as 300 feet, beach grass dominant, reed grass,
wormwood, wild pea common, shrubs and trees, scattered ...........................
....... I....................................................................... CTR Dune Community

20.a. Exposed rock as part of the normal earth surface ................................... 21.

b. Exposed rock below the normal earth surface ........................................ 26.

21.a. Near horizontal, exposed bedrock ............................................ ............ 22.

b. Near vertical bedrock, cliff and ledge .................................. ................ 23.

22.a. Calcareous substrate ........................ CTU Calcareous Pavement Community

b. Noncalcareous substrate .............. CUB Noncalcareous Pavement Community

23.a. Calcareous substrate ........................................................................... 24.

b. Noncalcareous substrate ....................................................................... 25.

24.a. Forest cover not on or over the cliff ... TCV Calcareous Open Cliff Community

b. Shaded by forest cover on or over the cliff ............................................
................................................. CTW Calcareous Shaded Cliff Community

25.a. Forest cover not on or over the cliff .....................................................
............................................. CTX Noncalcareous Open Cliff Community

b. Shaded by forest cover on or over the cliff ............................................
........................................... CTY Noncalcareous Shaded Cliff Community

26.a. A hole in the earth's surface, relatively large opening, vertical rock face
usually exposed, caused by a cave-in and sinking of the overlaying surface
....................................................................... CTZ Sinkhole Community

b. A hollow beneath the earth's surface (Subterranean Community Type),
relatively small opening at the surface... ............ CSA Cave Community

IThompson, P. W. 1975. The floristic composition of prairie stands in southern
Michigan. In Wali, M. K. (ed.) Prairie: A Multiple View: The University of
North Dakota Press, Grand Forks.
2Curtis, J. T. 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin
Press, Madison.

APPENDIX C

MNFI SPECIAL PLANTS

Monocotyledons
Dicotyledons
Pteridophytes
Bryophytes
Lichens

Federal and State status codes are as follows:

SE state endangered
ST state threatened
SC state special concern
PE federally proposed endangered
Cl federal candidate, category I
C2 federal candidate, category 2

See text for a discussion of MNFI ranking codes.

98
IM ON 'D C OT YD 0 N S Sta,@us/Rank
Species/.Common name Fairily Federal-State-MNFI
ECHINODORUS TENELLUS AL.ISM0,TACEAE ST BX
DWARF BURHEAD
SACITTARIA MONTEVIDENSIS ALISMATACEAE ST
(AN) ARROWHEAD
COMMELINA ERECTA COMMEL.INACEAE ST BX
(A) DAY-FLOWER
TRADESCANTIA BRACTEATA COMMELINACEAE ST
(A) SPIDERWORT
TRADESCANTIA VIRGINIANA COMMELINACEAE Sc
(A) SPIDERWORT
CAREX ALBOLUTESCENS CYPERACEAE sc,
(A) SEDGE
CAREX ARCTA CYPERACEAE Sc
(A) SEDGE
CAREX ATRATIFORMIS CYPERACEAE ST
(A) SEDGE
CAREX CONCINNA CYPERACEAE Sc
(A) SEDGE
CAREX CRUS-CORVI CYPERACEAE Sl*-B2.1
(A) SEDGE
CAREX DAVISII CYPERACEAE sc
(A) SEDGE
CAREX DECOMPOSITA CYPERACEAE ST
(A) SEDGE
CAREX FESTUCACEA CYPERACEAE Sc
(A) SEDGE
CAREX FRANKII CYPERACEAE sc
(A) SEDGE
CAREX GRAVIDA CYPERACEAE sc
(A) SEDGE
CAREX HAYDEN11 CYPERACEAE Sc
(A) SEDGE
CAREX HELEONASTES CYPERACEAE ST B2.1
(A) SEDGE
CAREX HYALINOLEPIS CYPERACEAE SCI
(A) SEDGE
CAREX SUBIMPRESSA CYPERACEAE SC
(A) SEDGE
CAREX MEDIA CYPERACEAE ST
(A) SEDGE
CAREX OLIGOCARPA CYPERACEAE sc
(A) SEDGE
CAREX PALLESCENS CYPERACEAE Sc
(A) SEDGE
CAREX PLATYPHYLLA CYPERACEAE ST
(A) SEDGE
CAREX RICHARDSONII CYPERACEAE Sc
(A) SEDGE
CAREX ROSSII CYPERACEAE ST
(A) SEDGE
CAREX SCIRPOIDEA CYPERACEAE ST
(A) SEDGE
CAREX SEORSA CYPERACEAE ST
. (A) SEDGE
CAREX SQUARROSA CYPERACEAE Sc
(A) SEDGE

CAREX STRAMINEA CYPERACEAE sc
(A) SEDGE
CAREX SYCHNOCEPHALA CYPERACEAE ST
(A) SEDGE
CAREX TRICHOCARPA CYPERACEAE Sc
(A) SEDGE
CAREX TYPHINA CYPERACEAE Sl'
(A) SEDGE
CYPERUS FLAVESCENS CYPERACEAE scl,
(A) SEDGE
ELEOCHARIS ATROPURPUREA CYPERACEAE SE B2.1
(A) SPIKE-RUSH
ELEOCHARIS CARIBAEA CYPERACEAE ST B2.1
(A) SPIKE-RUSH
ELEOCHARIS COMPRESSA CYPERACEAE ST
(A) SPIKE-RUSH
ELEOCHARIS ENGELMANNIX CYPERACEAE Sc
(A) SPIKE-RUSH
ELEOCHARIS MELANOCARPA CYPERACEAE ST
(A) SPIKE-RUSH
ELEOCHARIS TRICOSTATA CYPERACEAE ST BX
(A) SPIKE-RUSH
ELEOCHARIS PARVULA CYPERACEAE ST B211
(A) SPIKE RUSH
ELEOCHARIS RADICANS CYPERACEAE ST B2.1
(A) SPIKE--RUSH
F71MBRISTYLIS PUBERULA CYPERACEAE Sl'
(A) S)EDGE
FUIRENA SQUARROSA CYPERACEAE ST
UMBRELLA-GRASS
HEMICARPHA MICRANTHA CYPERACEAE Sc
(A) SEDGE
PSILOCARYA SCIRPOIDES CYPERACEAE ST
(A) BALD RUSH
RHYNCHOSPORA GLOBULARIS CYPERACEAE s*r Bx
(A) BEAK-RUSH
RHYNCHOSPORA MACROSTACHYA CYPERACEAE Sc
(A) BEAK-RUSH
SCIRPUS OLNEYI CYPERACEAE ST B2.1
(A) BULRUSH
SCIRPUS HALLII CYPERACEAE SE B2.1
(A) BULRUSH
SCIRPUS TORREYI CYPERACEAE scl,
(A) BULRUSH
SCLERIA PAUCIFLORA CYPERACEAE ST
(A) NUT-RUSH
SCLERIA RETICULARIS CYPERACEAE SE B2.1
(A) NUT-RUSH
IRIS LACUSTRIS IRIDACEAE Cl ST B2.1
DWARF LAKE IRIS
SISYRINCHIUM ATLANTICUM IRIDACEAE ST B2.1
(A) BLUE-EYED-GRASS
SISYRINCHIUM FARWELLII IRIDACEAE ST BX
(A) BLUE-EYED-GRASS
SISYRINCHIUM HASTILE IRIDACEAE ST BX
(A) BLUE-EYED--GRASS

100

SISYRINCHIUM STRICTUM IRIDACEAE sc
(A) BLUE--EYED-GRASS
JUNCUS BRACHYCARPUS JUNCACEAE ST
(A) RUSH
JUNCUS BIFLORUS JUNCACEAE sc
(A) RUSH
JUNCUS MILITARIS JUNCACEAE ST B2.1
(A) RUSH
JUNCUS SCIRPOIDES JUNCACEAE 30T
(A) RUSH
JUNCUS STYGIUS JUNCACEAE ST
(A) RUSH
JUNCUS VASEYI JUNCACEAE ST B2.1
(A) RUSH
LUZULA PARVIFLORA JUNCACEAE ST
NO COMMON NAME
LEMNA VALDIVIANA LEMNACEAE ST B2.1
(A) DUCKWEED
ALLIUM SCHOENOPRASUM LILIACEAE ST
CHIVES
CAMASSIA SCILLOIDES LILIACEAE ST
WILD-HYACINTH
DISPORUM HOOKERI LILIACEAE ST B2.1
FAIRY BELLS
DISPORUM MACULATUM LILIACEAE ST BX
NODDING MANDARIN
POLYGONATUM DIFLORUM VAR. MELLEUM LILIACEAE SE Ul
(A) SOLOMON-SEAL
TOFIELDIA PUSILLA LILIACEAE ST
(A) FALSE ASPHODEL
TRILLIUM UNDULATUM LILIACEAE ST
PAINTED TRILLIUM
TRILLIUM NIVALE LILIACEAE ST
SNOW TRILLIUM
TRILLIUM RECURVATUM LILIACEAE ST
PRAIRIE TRILLIUM
TRILLIUM SESSILE LILIACEAE ST
TOADSHADE
TRILLIUM VIRIDE LILIACEAE ST
(A) TRILLIUM
ORCHIS ROTUNDIFOLIA ORCHIDACEAE SE BI
SMALL ROUND-LEAVED ORCHIS
ARETHUSA BULBOSA ORCHIDACEAE sc
ARETHUSA OR DRAGON'S MOUTH
CALYPSO BULBOSA ORCHIDACEAE ST
CALYPSO OR FAIRY-SLIPPER
CYPRIPEDIUM ARIETINUM ORCHIDACEAE SC
RAM'S HEAD LADY-SLIPPER
CYPRIPEDIUM CANDIDUM ORCHIDACEAE ST
WHITE LADY-SLIPPER
CYPRIPEDIUM CALCEOLUS VAR, PARVIFLORUM ORCHIDACEAE sc
SMALL YELLOW LADY-SLIPPER
ISOTRIA MEDEOLOIDES ORCHIDACEAE PE SE A2
SMALLER WHORLED POGONIA
ISOTRIA VERTICILLATA ORCHIDACEAE SC
WHORLED POGONIA

101

LISTERA AURICULATA ORCHIDACEAE C2 SC
AURICLED TWAYBLADE
HABENARIA UNALASCENSIS ORCHIDACEAE ST
ALASKA ORCHID
HABENARIA CILIARIS ORCHIDACEAE ST
ORANGE FRINGED ORCHID
HABENARIA FLAVA ORCHIDACEAE SC
TUBERCLED ORCHID
HABENARIA LEUCOPHAEA ORCHIDACEAE Cl SE Bl
PRAIRIE FRINGED ORCHID
SPIRANTHES CASEI ORCHIDACEAE SC
(ONE OF THE) LADIES' TRESSES
SPIRANTHES LUCIDA ORCHIDACEAE SC
SHINING LADIES' TRESSES
SPIRANTHES MAGNICAMPORUM ORCHIDACEAE sc
(ONE OF THE) LADIES' TRESSES
SPIRANTHES OVALIS ORCHIDACEAE ST
LESSER LADIES' TRESSES
SPIRANTHES TUBEROSA ORCHIDACEAE ST
LITTLE LADIES' TRESSES
TIPULARIA DISCOLOR ORCHIDACEAE ST
CRANEFLY ORCHID
TRIPHORA TRIANTHOPHORA ORCHIDACEAE ST
THREE BIRDS ORCHID,NODDING POGONIA
AGROPYRON SPICATUM POACEAE ST FiX
BLUEBUNCH WHEATGRASS
ARISTIDA DICHOTOMA POACEAE ST
(A) THREE-AWNED GRASS
ARISTIDA NECOPINA POACEAE ST
(A) THREE-AWNED GRASS
ARISTIDA LONGISPICA POACEAE ST
(A) THREE-AWNED GRASS
ARISTIDA TUBERCULOSA POACEAE ST*
(A) THREE-AWNED GRASS
BECKMANNIA SYZIGACHNE POACEAI*.*-. ST
(A) SLOUGH GRASS
BOUTELOUA CURTIPENDULA POACEAE ST
SIDE-OATS GRAMA
BROMUS PUMPELLIANUS POACEAE ST
(A) DROME GRASS
CALAMAGROSTIS LACUSTRIS POACEAE ST
(A) REED GRASS
CALAMAGROSTIS STRICTA POACEAE ST
(A) REED GRASS
UNIOLA LATIFOLIA POACEAE ST
WILD-OATS
DANTHONIA INTERMEDIA POACEAE Sc
(A) WILD OAT GRASS
DIARRHENA AMERICANA POACEAE ST
(A) GRASS
PANICUM SPRETUM POACEAE ST
(A) PANIC GRASS
PANICUM LEIBERGII POACEAE ST
(A) PANIC GRASS
PANICUM MICROCARPON POACEAE Sc
(A) PANIC GRASS

102.

DIGITARIA FILIFORMIS POACEAE ST BX
(A) GRASS
ELYMUS GLAUCUS POACEAE SC
(A) WILD RYE
ELYMUS MOLLIS POACEAE sc
(A) WILD RYE
.ERAGROSTIS CAPILLARIS POACEAE sc
(A) LOVE GRASS
ERAGROSTIS PILOSA POACEAE SC
(A) LOVE GRASS
FESTUCA SCABRELLA POACEAE ST
ROUGH FESCUE
POA ALPINA POACEAE ST B2.1
(A) GRASS
POA CANBYI POACEAE ST B2.1
(A) GRASS
POA PALUDIGENA POACEAE C2 SC
(A) GRASS
MUHLENBERGIA CUSPIDATA POACEAE ST BX
(A) MUHLY GRASS
MUHLENBERGIA RICHARDSONIS POACEAE ST
(A) MUHLY GRASS
ORYZCPSIS CANADENSIS POACEAE ST
(A) RICE GRASS
PANICUM PHILADELPHICUM POACEAE sc
(A) PANIC GRASS
PANICUM VERRUCOSUM POACEAE ST
(A) PANIC GRASS
PHLEUM ALPINUM POACEAE ST
MOUNTAIN TIMOTHY
SPOROBOLUS HETERCLEPIS PDACEAE ST
PRAIRIE DROPSEED
STIPA COMATA POACEAE ST
(A) PORCUPINE' GRASS
TRIPLASIS PURPUREA POACEAE ST
SAND GRASS
TRISETUM SPICATUM POACEAE Sc
(A) GRASS
ZIZANIA AQUATICA VAR. AQUATICA POACEAE ST
(A) WILD-RICE
ZIZANIA AQUATICA VAR, INTERIOR POACEAE ST
(A) WILD-RICE
GLYCERIA ACUTIFLORA POACEAE ST
(A) MANNA GRASS
POTAMOGETON CONFERVOIDES POTAMOGETONACEAE ST
(A) PONDWEED
POTAMOGETON CAPILLACEUS POTAMOGETONACEAE ST B2.1
. (A) PONDWEED
POTAMOGETON HILLII POTAMOGETONACEAE C2 ST
(A) PONDWEED
POTAMOGETON LATERALIS POTAMOGETONACEAE C2 ST BX
(A) PONDWEED
POTAMOGETON PULCHER POTAMOGETONACEAE ST B2.1
(A) PONDWEED
POTAMOGETON VASEYI POTAMOGETONACEAE ST
(A) PUNDWEED

103
I

SMILAX HERBACEA LILIACEAE SC
(A) CARRION-FLOWER
RUPPIA MARITIMA RUPPIACEAE ST
DITCH-GRASS.

104
D T C. rl TYU@__DONS

JUSTICIA AMERICANA ACANTHACEAE ST
(A) WATER-WILLOW
RUELLIA HUMILIS ACANTHACEAE ST
(A) RUELLIA OR WILD-PETUNIA
RUELLIA STREPENS ACANTHACEAE ST
(A) RUELLIA
ERYNGIUM YUCCIFOLIUM APIACEAE ST
RATTLESNAKE-MASTER
BERULA PUSILLA APIACEAE ST
CUT-LEAVED WATER PARSNIP
OSMORHIZA DEPAUPERATA APIACEAE Sc
(A) SWEET CICELY
OPLOPANAX HORRIDUS ARALIiACEAE ST B2.1
DEVIL'S-CLUB
PANAX QUINQUEFOLIUS ARALIACEAE ST
GINSENG
ARISTOLOCHIA SERPENTARIA ARISTOLOCHIACEAE ST
VIRGINIA SNAKEROOT
.ASCLEPIAS HIRTELLA ASCLEPIADACEAE ST
(A) GREEN MILKWEED
ASCLEPIAS OVALIFOLIA ASCLEPIADACEAE ST
(A) MILKWEED
ASCLEPIAS SULLIVANTI1. ASCLEPIADACEAE ST
SULLIVANT'S MILKWEED
AGOSERIS GLAUCA ASTERACEAE ST
PALE AGOSERIS
ANTENNARIA ROSEA ASTERACEAE ST B2.1
(ONE OF THE) PUSSYTOES
ARNICA CORDIFOLIA ASTERACEAE ST B2.1
HEART-LEAVED ARNICA
ASTER MODESTUS ASTERACEAE ST
(AN) ASTER
ASTER NEMORALIS ASTERACEAE Sc
BUG ASTER
ASTER SERICEUS ASTERACEAE ST B2.1
WESTERN SILVERY (OR SILKY) ASTER
BOLTUNIA ASTEROIDES ASTERACEAE Scl
(A) BOLTONIA
CACALIA PLANTAGINEA ASTERACEAE ST
PRAIRIE (TUBEROUS) INDIAN-PLANTAIN
CIRSIUM HILLII ASTERACEAE Scl,
HILL'S THISTLE
CIRSIUM PITCHERI ASTERACEAE Cl ST B2.1
PITCHER'S THISTLE
COREOPSIS PALMATA ASTERACEAE ST
PRAIRIE COREOPSIS
ECLIPTA ALBA ASTERACEAE Sc
YERBA-DE-TAJ0
ERIGERON HYSSOPIFOLIUS ASTERACEAE ST
(A) FLEABANE
EUPATORIUM SESSILIFOLIUM ASIERACEAE ST
UPLAND BONESET
SOLIDAGO REMOTA ASTERACEAE ST
(A) GOLDENROD
HELIANTHUS HIR.SUTUS ASTERACEAE Sc
(A) SUNFLOWER

105

HELIANTHUS MICROCEPHALUS ASTERACEAE ST,
SMALL WOOD-SUNFLOWER
HELIANTHUS MOLLIS ASTERACEAE ST
DOWNY (OR SOFT) SUNFLOWER
LACTUCA PULCHELLA ASTERACEAE ST
(A) BLUE LETTUCE
LIATRIS PUNCTATA ASTERACEAE ST BX
(A) BLAZING-STAR
PETASITES SAGITTATUS ASTERA(.-,EAE ST B2.1
SWEET COLTSFOOT
POLYMNIA UVEDALIA ASTERACEAE ST
LEAFCUP
RUDBECKIA SULLIVANTII ASTERACEAE S(,.,
(A) CONEFLOWER OR BLACK-EYED-SUSAN
SENECIO CONGESTUS ASTERACEAE ST Bx
MARSH--FLEABANE
SENECIO INDECORUS ASTERACEAE ST
(A) RAGWORT
SILPHIUM INTEGRIFOLIUM ASTERACEAE ST
ROSINWEED
SILPHIUM LACINIATUM ASTERACEAE ST
COMPASS-PLANT
SILPHIUM PERFOLIATUM ASTERACEAE ST
CUP-PLANT
SOLIDAGO LEPIDA ASTERACEAE ST
(A) GOLDENROD
SOLIDAGO HOUGHTONII ASTERACEAE ST B2.1
HOUGHTON'S GOLDENROD
SOLIDAGO DECUMBENS ASTERACEAE sc B2.1
(A) GOLDENROD
TANACETUM HURONENSE ASTERACEAE ST
LAKE HURON TANSY
JEFFERSONIA DIPHYLLA BERBERIDACEAE SC
TWINLEAF
MERTENSIA VIRGINICA PORAGINACEAE ST
VIRGINIA BLUEBELLS
ARABIS MISSOURIENSIS BRASSICACEAE sc
(A) ROCK-CRESS
ARABIS PERSTELLATA BRASSICACEAE ST
(A) ROCK-CRESS
ARMORACIA AQUATICA BRASSICACEAE ST
LAKE-CRESS
BRAYA HUMILIS BRASSICACEAE ST
NO COMMON NAME
DENTARIA MAXIMA BRASSICACEAE ST
LARGE TOOTHWORT
DRABA ARADISANS BRASSICACEAE ST
NO COMMON NAME
DRABA CANA BRASSICACEAE ST B2.1
NO COMMON NAME
DRABA INCANA BRASSICACEAE ST
NO COMMON NAME
SUBULARIA AQUATICA BRASSICACEAE ST
AWLWORT
OPUNTIA FRAGILIS CACTACEAE ST B2.1
FRAGILE PRICKLY-PEAR

106

ARENARIA MACROPHYLLA CARYOPH)'LLACEAE ST
(A) SANDWORT
SAGINA NODOSA CARYOPHYLLACEAE ST
PEARLWORT
SILENE STELLATA CARYOPHYLLACEAE ST
STARRY CAMPION
SILENE VIRGINICA CARYOPHYLLACEAE ST
FIRE PINK
STELLARIA CRASSIFOLIA CARYOPHYLLACEAE ST
(A) CHICKWEED OR STARWORT
STELLARIA LONGIPES CARYOPHYLLACEAE Sc
(A) CHICKWEED OR STARWORT
LECHEA MINOR CISTACEAE Sc
(A) PINWEED
LECHEA LEGGETTII CISTACEAE ST
.(A) PINWEED
CALLITRICHE HERMAPHRODITICA CALLITRICHACEAE Sc
(A) WATER-STARWORT
CALLITRICHE HETEROPHYLLA CALLITRICHACEAE SCI
(A) WATER-STARWORT
CUSCUTA GLOMERATA CONVOLVULACEAE Sc
(A) DODDER
CUSCUTA CAMPESTRIS CONVOLVULACEAE sc
(A) DODDER
CUSCUTA INDECORA CONVOLVULACEAE sc
(A) DODDER
CUSCUTA PENTAGONA CONVOLVULACEAE SC
(A) DODDER
CUSCUTA POLYGONORUM CONVOLVULACEAE sc
(-A) DODDER
LONICERA INVOLUCRATA CAPRIFOLIACEAE ST
(A) FLY-HONEYSUCKLE
VIBURNUM EDULE CAPRIFOLIACEAE ST
SQUASHBERRY OR MOOSEBERRY
DROSERA ANGLICA DROSERACEAE SC
(A) SUNDEW
EMPETRUM NIGRUM EMPETRACEAE ST
BLACK CROWBERRY
CHIMAPHILA MACULATA ERICACEAE Sc
PIPSISSEWA OR SPOTTED WINTERGREEN
PTEROSPORA ANDROMEDEA ERICACEAE ST
PINE-DROPS
VACCINIUM ULIGINDSUM ERICACEAE ST
ALPINE BLUEBERRY
VACCINIUM VITIS-IDAEA ERICACEAE ST BX
MOUNTAIN-CRANBERRY
AMORPHA CANESCENS FABACEAE SC
LEADPLANT
BAPTISIA LEUCANTHA FABACEAE ST
WHITE OR PRAIRIE FALSE INDIGO
BAPTISIA LEUCOPHAEA FABACEAE ST BX
CREAM WILD INDIGO
PETALOSTEMUM PURPUREUM FABACEAE ST BX
RED (OR PURPLE) PRAIRIE CLOVER
GYMNOCLADUS DIOICA FABACEAE sc
KENTUCKY COFFEE-TREE

107

STROPHOSTYLES HELVOLA FABACEAE sc
(A) WILD BEAN
WISTERIA FRUTESCENS FABACEAE ST B2.1
WISTERIA
CASTANEA DENTATA FAGACEAE SE B2.1
AMERICAN CHEsTNUT
GENTIANA ALBA GENTIANACEAE ST B2.1
YELLOWISH GENTIAN
GENTIANA LINEARIS GENTIANACEAE ST
(A) CL OSE D GENTIAN
GENTIANA PUBERULA GENTIANACEAE ST BX
DOWNY GENTIAN OR PRAIRIE GENTIAN
GENTIANA SAPONARIA GENTIANACEAE ST BX
SOAPWORT GENTIAN
SABATIA ANGULARIS GENTIANACEAE ST
ROSE-PINK
MYRIOPHYLLUM ALTERNIFLORUM HALORAGACEAE SC
(A) WATER-MILFOIL
MYRIOPHYLLUM FARWELLII HALORAGACEAE ST
(A) WATER MILFOIL
PHACELIA FRANKLINII HYDROPHYLLACEAE ST
(A) PHACELIA
CARYA LACINIOSA JUGLANDACEAE sc
BIG SHELLBARK HICKORY OR KING--NUT
@PYCNANTHEMUM VERTICILLATUM LAMIACEAE Sc
(A) MOUNTAIN-MINT
SCUTELLARIA PARVULA VAR. LEONARDII LAMIACEAE sc
(A) SKULLCAP
TRICHOSTEMA BRACHIATUM LAMIACEAE ST
FALSE PENNYROYAL
TRICHOSTEMA DICHOTOMUM LAMIACEAE ST
BLUE CURLS OR BASTARD PENNYROYAL
LINUM SULCATUM LINACEAE sc
(A) FLAX
LINUM VIRGINIANUM LINACEAE sc,
(A) FLAX
PINGUICULA VULGARIS LENTIBULARIACEAE ST
BUTTERWORT
UTRICULARIA INFLATA LENTIDULARIACEAE SE B2.1
FLOATING BLADDERWORT
ROTALA RAMOSIOR LYTHRACEAE sc
TOOTH-CUP
HIBISCUS PALUSTRIS MALVACEAE sc,
SWAMP ROSE-MALLOW OR MARSH MALLOW
RHEXIA VIRGINICA MELASTOMATACEAE Sc
MEADOW BEAUTY
NELUMBO LUTEA NYMPHAEACEAE ST
AMERICAN LOTUS
NUPHAR MICROPHYLLA NYMPHAEACEAE ST
(A) YELLOW POND-LILY
NYMPHAEA TETRAGONA NYMPHAEACEAE ST
(A) WATER-LILY
EPILOBIUM PALUSTRE ONAGRACEAE Scl
(A) WILLOW-HERB
LUDWIGIA ALTERNIFOLIA ONAGRACEAE ST
SEEDTROX

108

LUDWIGIA SPHAEROCARPA ONAGRACEAE ST B2.1
NO COMMON NAME
OROBANCHE FASCICULATA OROBANCHACEAE ST
(A) BROOM-RAPE
OXALIS VIOLACEA OXALIDACEAE ST BX
VIOLET WOOD-SORREL
ADLUMIA FUNGOSA FUMARIACEAE sc
CLIMBING FUMITORY
CORYDALIS FLAVULA FUMARIACEAE ST
PALE CORYDALIS, YELLOW FUMEWORT
POLYGALA CRUCIATA POLYGALACEAE sc
(A) MILKWORT
POLYGALA INCARNATA POLYGALACEAE ST B2.1
PINK MILKWORT
POLYGONUM CAREY1 POLYGONACEAE ST B2.1
,(A) SMARTWEED
POLYGONUM VIVIPARUM POLYGONACEAE ST
ALPINE' BISTORT
RUMEX MARITIMUS POLYGONACEAE sc
GOLDEN DOCK
PHLOX BIFIDA POLEMONIACEAE ST
CLEFT PHLOX
PHLOX MACULATA POLEMONIACEAE ST
WILD SWEET WILLIAM@ SPOTTED PHLOX
POLEMONIUM REPTANS POLEMONIACEAE ST
JACOB'S LADDER OR GREEK VALERIAN
LITTORELLA AMERICANA PLANTAGINACEAE sc
NO COMMON NAME
PLANTAGO CORDATA PLANTAGINACEAE Cl ST BX
HEART-LEAVED PLANTAIN
DODECATHEON MEADIA PRIMULACEAE ST B2.1
SHOOTING-STAR
CLEMATIS VERTICILLARIS RANUNCULACEAE Sc
PURPLE CLEMATIS
HYDRASTIS CANADENSIS RANUNCULACEAE ST
GOLDEN-SEAL
RANUNCULUS AMBIGENS RANUNCULACEAE ST
(A) SPEARWORT
RANUNCULUS LAPPONICUS RANUNCULACEAE ST
LAPLAND BUTTERCUP
RANUNCULUS MACOUNII RANUNCULACEAE ST
(A) BUTTERCUP
RANUNCULUS RHOMBOIDEUS RANUNCULACEAE ST
PRAIRIE BUTTERCUP
THALICTRUM REVOLUTUM RANUNCULACEAE ST
WAXY MEADOW-RUE
THALICTRUM VENULOSUM RANUNCULACEAE ST
(A) MEADOW-RUE
CEANOTHUS SANGUINEUS RHAMNACEAE ST
(A) WILD-LILAC
CHAMAERHODOS NUTTALLII VAR. KEWEENAWENSIS RCSACEAE SE Bl
NO COMMON NAME
CRATAEGUS DOUGLASII ROSACEAE sc.-
(A) HAWTHORN
DALIBARDA REPENS ROSACEAE ST
FALSE VIOLET OR DEWDROP

109

FILIPENDULA RUBRA ROSACEAE ST
QUEEN-OF-THE-PRAIRIE
GEUM TRIFLORUM ROSACEAE ST
PRAIRIE SMOKE
GEUM VERNUM ROSACEAE SC
(AN) AVENS
PORTERANTHUS TRIFOLIATUS ROSACEAE ST
BOWMAN'S ROOT
POTENTILLA PENSYLVANICA ROSACEAE ST
(A) CINQUEFOIL
PRUNUS ALLECHANIENSIS VAR, DAVISII ROSACEAE SC
(AN) ALLEGHANY PLUM
RUBUS ACAULIS ROSACEAE ST
DWARF RASPBERRY
SANGUISORBA CANADENSIS ROSACEAE ST B2.1
CANADIAN BURNET
POPULUS HETEROPHYLLA SALICACEAE ST
SWAMP OR BLACK COTTONWOOD
SALIX PELLITA SALICACEAE sc
(A) WILLOW
SALIX PYRIFOLIA SALICACEAE scl,
BALSAM-WILLOW
PARNASSIA PALUSTRIS VAR, NEOGAEA SAXIFRAGACEAE sc
(A) GRASS-OF-PARNASSUS
RIBES OXYACANTHOIDES SAXIFRAGACEAE Sc
(A) WILD GOOSEBERRY
SAXIFRAGA AIZOON SAXIFRAGACEAE ST
YELLOW MOUNTAIN SAXIFRAGE
SAXIFRAGA TRICUSPIDATA SAXIFRAGACEAE ST
(A) SAXIFRAGE
GERARDIA GATTINGERI SCROPHULARIACEAE ST B2.1
(A) GERARDIA
BESSEYA BULLII SCROPHULARIACEAE C2 ST B2.:l
KITTEN TAILS
BUCHNERA AMERICANA SCROPHULARIACEAE ST BX
BLUE-HEARTs
CASTILLEJA SEPTENTRIONALIS SCROPHULARIACEAE ST
(AN) INDIAN PAINTBRUSH
CHELONE OBLIQUA SCROPHULARIACEAE C2 SE B2.1
PURPLE TURTLEHEAD
COLLINSIA PARVIFLORA SCROPHULARIACEAE ST
SMALL BLUE--EYED MARY
EUPHRASIA ARCTICA SCROPHULARIACEAE ST
EYEBRIGHT
GRATIOLA LUTEA SCROPHULARIACEAE ST
HEDGE-HYSSOP
LINDERNIA ANAGALLIDEA SCROPHULARIACEAE SC
FALSE PIMPERNEL
MIMULUS ALATUS SCROPHULARIACEAE ST
(A) MONKEY--FLOWER
MIMULUS GLABRATUS VAR, MICHIGANENSIS SCROPHULARIACEAE Cl ST BI
MICHIGAN MONKEY-FLOWER
AUREOLARIA AURICULATA SCROPHULARIACEAE ST PX
(A) FALSE FOXGLOVE
CELTIS TENUIFOLIA ULMACEAE SIC
DWARF HACKBERRY

110

VALERIANA CILIATA VALERIANACEAE, ST
(A) VALERIAN
VALERIANELLA CHENOPODIFOLIA VALERIANACEAE ST
(A) CORN-SALAD
VERBENA SIMPLEX VERBENACEAE Sc
(A) VERVAIN OR VERBENA
HYBANTHUS CONCOLOR VIOLACEAE sc
GREEN VIOLET
VIOLA LABRADORICA VIOLACEAE Sc
(A) VIOLET
VIOLA PEDATIFIDA VIOLACEAE ST
PRAIRIE BIRD'S-FOOT VIOLET

PTERTDOPHYTES

CRYPTOGRAMMA ACROSTICHOIDES POLYPODIACEAE ST
AMERICAN ROCK-BRAKE
CRYPTOGRAMMA STELLERI POLYPODIACEAE SCI
SLENDER CLIFF-BRAKE
PELLAEA ATROPURPUREA POLYPODIACEAE ST
PURPLE CLIFF-BRAKE
ASPLENIUM MONTANUM POLYPODIACEAE ST BX
MOUNTAIN SPLEENWORT
CAMPTOSORUS RHIZOPHYLLUS POLYPODIACEAE SC
WALKING FERN
ASPLENIUM RUTA-MURARIA POLYPODIACEAE ST
WALL-RUE
PHYLLITIS SCOLOPENDRIUM VAR, AMERICANA POLYPODIACEAE C2 SE BI
HART'S-TONGUE FERN
ASPLENIUM VIRIDE POLYPODIACEAE SC
GREEN SPLEENWORT
DRYOPTERIS CELSA POLYPODIACEAE ST
LOG FERN
DRYOPTERIS ASSIMILIS POLYPODIACEAE SC
(A) SHIELD-FERN
DRYOPTERIS FILIX-MAS POLYPODIACEAE ST
MALE FERN
GYMNOCARPIUM XHETEROSPORUM POLYPODIACEAE SC
(AN) OAK--FERN
WOODSIA ALPINA POLYPODIACEAE ST
NORTHERN WOODSIA
WOODSI A OBTUSA POLYPODIACEAE ST
BLUNT-LOBED WOODSIA
WOODSIA X ABBEAE POLYPODIACEAE SC
(A) WOODSIA
WOODWARDIA AREOLATA POLYPODIACEAE ST BX
NETTED CHAIN FERN
EQUISETUM TELMATEIA EQUISETACEAE ST BX
GIANT HORSETAIL
EQUISETUM XLITORALE EQUISETACEAE SC
(A) HORSETAIL
LYCOPODIUM APPRESSUM LYCOPODIACEAE ST
(A) CLUDMOSS
LYCOPODIUM COMPLANATUM LYCOPODIACEAE Sc
TRAIL-ING CHRISTMAS--GREEN
LYCOPODIUM SABINAEFOLIUM LYCOPODIACEAE SE B2.1
SAVIN-LEAVED CLUBMOSS
LYCOPODIUM SELAGO LYCOPODIACEAE SC
FIR CLUBMOSS
LYCOPODIUM SP. NOV. LYCOPODIACEAE SC Bi
(A) CLUBMOSS
OPHIOGLOSSUM VULGATUM VAR. PYCNOSTICHUM OPHIOGLOSSACEAE ST
SOUTHEASTERN ADDER'S-TONGUE
LYGODIUM PALMATUM SCHIZAEACEAE ST B2.1
CLIMBING FERN

112

Notes on Sped'ai Moss List

Special mosses were selected by searching Crum and Anderson (1981), Crum
(1976), and Darlington (1964) for species reported frorn three or fewer Michigan
counties and/or described as "rare," "rare and local," etc. Dr. Howard Crum
(University of Michigan) was consulted in compiling this list.

Those moss species selected generally fall into one of the four categories listed
below. (Before each species name is a number indicating the appropriate
category for that species.) Those species that are peripheral and fairly common
in areas adjacent to Michigan were not considered.

1) Cordilleran disjuncts

2) Great Lakes region endemics

3) Arctic-boreal disjuncts

4) Species rare throughout their North American ranges

Highest priority species are generally those in category 4 and those disjuncts
which are rarest.

Nomenclature follows that of Crum and Anderson (1981).

References

Crum, H. A. Curator, Cryptogamic Herbarium, University of Michigan. North
University Building. Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109.

1976. Mosses of the Great Lakes Forest. University of Michigan
Herbarium, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 404 p.

and L. E. Anderson. 1981. Mosses of Eastern North America. 2
vols. Columbia University Press, New York. 1328 p.

Darlington, H. T. 1964. The Mosses of Michigan. Cranbrook Inst. Sci. Bull. 47.
212 p.
Grout, A. J., ed. 1928-1936. Moss Flora of North America, North of Mexico. 3
vols. Privately published, Newfane, Vermont.

113

Rare Mosses in Michigan*

4 Barbula michiganensis Steere

This species is reported froin ore locality in Michigan (Pictured Rocks, Alger
County) and from one other site in North America (Chihuahua, Mexico).
There is a questionable occurrence in the Northwest Territories of Canada.

4 Barbula reflexa (Brid). Brid.

Occurring in Michigan from Drummond Island, Chippewa County, this species
is uncommon throughout its North American range (Newfoundland; Michigan,
Ontario, and Vermont to Virginia, North Carolina, and T ennessee; British
Columbia, Alberta, and Wyoming).

4 Buxbaumia minakatae Okam.

This "great rarity" has been reported from one locality near Galesburg in
Kalamazoo County, Michigan. This occurrence appears to be on the western
fringe of its North American range (Massachusetts, Michigan, New York,
Nova Scotia, Vermont, Virginia, North Carolina, and Newfoundland).

4 Calliergidium pseudostramineum (C.M.) Grout

This moss has been reported frorn Delta County, Michigan. Occurrences in
Maine, New Hampshire, Labrador, and Alaska are the only other North
American reports thus far.

4 Dicranum fragilifolium Lindb.

This "rare" moss occurs on Isle Royale (Keweenaw County) and in Ontario and
New Brunswick; Alaska and northwestern Canada to British Columbia,
Saskatchewan, and northern Manitoba. Michigan is at the southern edge of its
range.

I Dryptodon patens (Hedw.) Brid.

This disjunct species, reported from Keweenaw and Marquette counties in
Michigan, occurs in western North America from the Aleutian Islands and
southeastern Alaska to Alberta and south to Oregon, Montana, and California.
Elsewhere in eastern North America, it has been reported from
Newf oundland.

4 Fissidens exilis Hedw.

In Michigan, this species has been found in Eaton and Washtenaw counties.
Described as "rare and local" throughout its range, Fissidens exilis has been
reported from Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania.

*Compiled largely from Crum and Anderson (1980; all quotations taken from
that source. Range descriptions contain. only N!orth American iocalities.

114

I Fontinalis neo-mexicana Sull. & Lesq.

In Michigan, this species has been reported from Manistee (?) and Houghton
counties, disjunct from its more extensive western range (Aleutian Islands and
islands of southeastern Alaska south to California and inland to Alberta,
Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico).

I Grimmia hartmanii Schimp. var. anomala (Hampe ex Schimp.) Monk.

This species, disjunct and "very rare in the Lake Superior region," has been
reported from Marquette and Keweenaw counties in Michigan and from
Ontario. To the west, in the main part of its range, this moss occurs from
southeastern Alaska to Alberta south to California and Colorado.

2 Grimmia hermannii Crum

In Michigan, this regionally endernic moss has been reported from two
localities in Keweenaw County. It also occurs in Minnesota and several
localities in Wisconsin, suggesting a very limited range in the Great Lakes
region.

I Grimmia tenerrima Ren. & Card.

This montane species has been reported in Michigan from Isle Royale
(Keweenaw County). Elsewhere, it occurs in the White Mountains of New
Hampshire; Gaspe (according to Grout's Moss Flora); Newfoundland,
Greenland, British Columbia to Wyoming, south to California and Colorado.

4 Gyroweisia tenuis (Hedw.) Schimp.

"One of our rarest species," Gyroweisia tenuis has been reported froin
Marquette and Houghton counties in Michigan. Other scattered North
American localities are in Iowa, Canadian Northwest Territories, and
Manitoba.

4 Mielichhof eria mielichhof eri (Funck ex Hook.) Loeske

This "unquestionably rare but widely scattered" species has been reported
from Alger and Keweenaw counties in Michigan. It ranges south into
Labrador, Maine, Ontario, Michigan, New York, Tennessee and North
Carolina, Colorado, and British Columbia.

3 Mnium andrewsianum Steere

This arctic species occurs from Greenland to Alaska in the Western
Hemisphere, and has been reported far to the south in Colorado, Ontario, and
Michigan (Alger County).

I Orthotrichum alpestre Hornsch. ex BSG

This moss species is disjunct in Michigan (Keweenaw County) frorn a broad
western range (Yukon to California, Arizona, and New Mexico; South Dakota).

I Orthotrichum RLIleris Bruch ex Brid.

This Cordilleran western SDec'es is found disjunctively in Michigan in Alpena
and Keweenaw counties. It ranges throughout the West, from the Yukon to
northern Manitoba and south to Colorado and Arizona; Mexico; and scattered
in South Dakota, Minnesota, northern Michigan, Ontario, Quebec, and
Newf oundland.

I Orthotrichum rupestre Schleich. ex Schwaegr.

This species has been f ound on Isle Royale (Keweenaw County), in addition to
other Lake Superior localities in Minnesota and Ontario; also single localities
in Newfoundland, New Hampshire. Rare eastern North American occurrences
of this species are disjunct from a broad western range of southern Alaska
and the Yukon south to California and New Mexico and east to South Dakotals
Black Hills.

4 Pohlia filiformis (Dicks.) Andr.

This rare montane species occurs in Michigan in Alger, Gogebic, and
Keweenaw counties. It ranges from Labrador and New Brunswick to
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan and disjunct to Missouri, south in the
mountains through New England, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, and
Tennessee; the Aleutian Islands; British Columbia and Colorado; Greenland.

I Pseudoleskea patens (Lindb.) Kindb.

This alpine species, found in Keweenaw County, Michigan (Lookout Mountain),
also occurs sporadically in New Hampshire, Ontario, Newfoundland, and Nova
Scotia. It is disjunct from a broad western range including the Aleutians and
southeastern Alaska to California and inland to Alberta and Montana.

4 Physcomitrella 2atens (Hedw.) BSG

This species has been found in Michigan in Wayne County (Crum, pers.
comm.). Although widely distributed, it is "uncommon" in eastern North
America, from Quebec to Michigan (and, according to Grout, Minnesota),
south to South Carolina and Louisiana; British Columbia.

4 Physcomitrium immersum Sull.

Occuring in Washtenaw County (Crum, pers. comm.), this species, "rare and
scattered in distribution," ranges from New Brunswick to Minnesota, south to
New Jersey, Maryland, Kentucky and Louisiana; Washington, Oregon and
Colorado; also from British Columbia and Texas.

4 Schistostega pennata (Hedw.) Web. & Mohr

This species is quite rare within its wide range. In addition to occurring in
Michigan (Alger, Gogebic, and Luce counties), it has been reported from
British Columbia, Alberta, Washington, Montana, and Newfoundland to
Ontario, Michigan, and Wisconsin, south to Rhode Island, New York, and Ohio.

116

4 Sphagnum pulchrum (Lindb. ex Braithw.) Warnst.

In Michigan, the rare Sphagnum pulchrum has been collected in Mackinac and
Emmet counties. It ranges from Newfoundland to Quebec and the -Maritime
Provinces of Canada, south mainly along the coast to New Jersey, also inland
in New Hampshire, New York, Ontario, Michigan, and, according to Andrews,
Wisconsin.

4 Sphagnum riparium Angstr.

This species, although scattered and rare, ranges widely from Newfoundland
and Labrador across Canada to Alaska south to Connecticut, New York,
Michigan (Cheboygan and Emmet counties), Wisconsin, Minnesota, and
Washington.

4 Sphagnum subfulvum Sjors

This "scattered and uncommon" species has been reported from Michigan's
Upper Peninsula in Luce, Chippewa, and Mackinac (Crum, pers. comm.)
counties, New York, Maine, Newfoundland (and reportedly, Greenland),
northern Quebec and Ontario, Northwest Territories, and Alaska.

4 Splachnurn rubrurn Hedw.

This very rare dung moss, probably found only in the range of the moose,
occurs on Isle Royale (Keweenaw County) in Michigan, and scattered
localities in Alaska, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick,
Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Maine.

4 Tetradontiurn brownianum (Dicks.) Schwaegr.

This "very rare" species has been reported from the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan. Other northeastern U.S. and adjacent Canada localities are in
Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Maine, New Hampshire,
New York, Quebec, Ontario, and disjunct in Washington.

3 Tetraplodon angustatus (Hedw.) BSG

Found in Michigan's Upper Peninsula in Mackinac County (Crum, pers.
comm.), this rare species of northern and montane distribution ranges from
Greenland and Newfoundland across the continent to Alaska, south to British
@-olumbia, the Great Lakes region, New York and New England.

I Tortula norvegica (Web.) Wahl. ex Lindb.

This species is widely disjunct in Michigan (Delta County) from its western
montane range of southeastern Alaska and the Aleutians to California and
inland to Alberta and Colorado.

117

4 Trichodon cylindricus (Hedw.) Schimp.

"Very rare in eastern North Arnerica," Trichodon cylindricus occurs in
Michigan's Keweenaw County. It also has been reported from Quebec, New
Brunswick, New Hampshire, Ne-wfoundland, and Labrador; arctic Alaska and
Yukon south to Oregon and Montana; California.

Compiled by:

Janet Gereau and Susan Crispin
Michigan Natural Features Inventory
15 March 1982

Rare Mosses of Michigan

(Occurring in 4 - 5 Counties)

4 Bryum uliginosurn (Brid.) BSG

Although this species has a broad range, it still is a great rarity in eastern
North America. Besides localities in Michigan (Cheboygan, Kalarnazoo,
Mecosta, and Presque Isle counties), it ranges from Labrador and New
Brunswick to Manitoba and south to New York, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Iowa, and Nebraska, with apparent disjunctions in British Columbia and
Colorado (Andrews, in Grout's Flora, gave a broader range).

Sphagnum subnitens Russ. & Warnst. ex Warnst.

Reported from Cheboygan, Emmet, Roscommon, and Keweenaw counties
(Mackinac County; Crum, pers. comm.), Sphagnum subnitens occurs in upland
New York and, in the West, from British Columbia south to California.
(Reports from Greenland to New Jersey may represent S. subfulvum
occurrences.)

4 Splachnum ampullaceurn Hedw.

In Michigan, this species has been collected in Cheboygan, Emmet,
Keweenaw, and Presque Isle counties. This "rare" species ranges from British
Columbia, Alberta, and Newfoundland to Ontario and Michigan, south to
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts.

118

Lichens

The following list was developed with the assistance of Dr. Henry Imshaug of
Michigan State University. Non-vascular plants do not presently have any state
or federal designations; MNFI status codes will be assigned when sufficient data
has been compiled.

Anzia colpodes (Ach). Stizenb.
Bryoria lanestris (Ach.) Brodo & Hawks. (Alectoria 1.)
Cetraria arenaria Karnef.
Cetraria aurescens Tuck.
Cetraria ericetorum Opiz.
Dermatocarpon moulinsii (Mont.) Zahlbr.
Dermatocarpon reticulaturn Magn.
Evernia prunastri (L.) Ach.
Heterodermia leucomelaena (L.) Poelt
Hypotrachyna revoluta (Flk.) Hale (Parmelia r.)
Lobaria scrobiculata Scap. DC.
Melanelia substygia (Ras.) Essl. (Parmelia s.)
Parmelia stictica (Del.) Nyl.
Parmotrema reticulaturn (Tayl.) Choisy (Parmelia r.)
Parmotrema stuppeurn (Tayl.) Hale (Parmelia s.)
Physcia phaea (Tuch.) Thom.
Placynthiurn aspratile (Ach.) Henss.
Platismatia glauca (L.) Culb. & Culb.
Polychidiurn muscicola (Sw.) S. Gray
Ramalina farinacea (L.) Ach.
Solorina spongiosa (Sm.) Ach.
Stereocaulon pileatum Ach.
Sticta fuliginosa (Dicks) Ach.
Teloschistes chrysophthalmus (L.) Th. Fr.
Teloschistes flavicans (Sw.) Form.
Usnea angulata Ach.
Usnea rubicunda Stirt.
Xanthoparmelia centrifuga (L.) Hale (Parmelia c.)

Additional species:

Ramalina thrausta (Ach.) Nyl.
Menegazzia terebrata (Hoffm.) Mass.
Umbilicaria torrefacta (Lightf.) Schrad.

Note: Nomenclature follows that of M. E. Hale. 1979. How tonow the Lichens.
Wm. C. Brown Co., Dubuque.

119

APPENDIX D

MNFI SPECIAL ANIMALS

For each species, presented by group (mammals, etc.), the scientific and common
names, family, federal and state proposed endangerment statuses, and MNFI rank
(for ranked species), are presented. Unranked species will mostly be ranked "C"
or "D."

Federal and State status codes are as follows:

FE = f ederally endangered
FT = f ederally threatened
SE = state endangered
ST = state threatened
SR = state rare/watch
SP = state peripheral

See text for a discussion of these statuses and ranks.

A separate listing of extinct or extirpated species is also provided.

120

MAMMALS*

Federal State MNFI
Status Status Rank

SORICIDAE. Shrews
Sorex furneus Miller, Smoky Shrew SP C
Cryptotis parva (Say), Least Shrew SP C

VESPERTILIONIDAE. Vespertilionid Bats
Myotis sodalis Miller and Allen, Indiana Bat LE SE BI
Pipistrellus subflavus (Cuvier),
Eastern Pipistrelle SP C
N_ycticeius humeralis (Rafinesque), Evening Bat SP C

CRICETIDAE. New World Rats and Mice
Microtus ochrogaster (Wagner), Prairie Vole SP C
Microtus pinetorum (LeConte), Woodland Vole SR C

CANIDAE. Canids
Canis lupus Linnaeus, Gray Wolf LE SE BI

MUSTELIDAE. Mustelids
Martes americana (Turton), Marten ST B3

FELIDAE. Cats
Felis lynx Linnaeus, Lynx ST B2

CERVIDAE. Cervids
Cervus elaphus Linnaeus, Wapiti or Elk SR C
Alces alces (Linnaeus), Moose SR C

*Names in accordance with: Jones, J. K., Jr., et at. 1979. Revised checklist of
North American Mammals North of Mexico, 1979. Occ. Pap. Mus. Texas Tech.
Univ. 62:1-17.

121

NESTING BIRDS*

Federal State MNFI
Status Status Rank

GAVIIDAE. Loons
Gavia immer (Brunnich), Common Loon SR BU

PODICIPEDIDAE. Grebes
Podiceps grisegena (Boddaert), Red-necked Grebe SP C

PHALACROCORACIDAE. Cormorants
Phalacrocorax auritus (Lesson),
Double-crested Cormorant ST B3

ARDEIDAE. Herons and Bitterns
Ardea (Casmerodius) alba (Linnaeus), Great Egret SP C
Ny ticorax nycticorax (Linnaeus),
Black-crowned Night Heron SR BU
Nyctanassa violacea (Linnaeus),
Yellow-crowned Night Heron SP C

ANATIDAE. Swans, Geese and Ducks
Aythya americana (Eyton), Redhead SR C
Aythya valisineria (Wilson), Canvasback SP C
Aythya affinis (Eyton), Lesser Scaup SP C
Ox.yura jamaicensis (Gmelin), Ruddy Duck SP C

ACCIPITRIDAE. Hawks and Harriers
Accipiter cooperi (Bonaparte), Cooper's Hawk SR BU
Buteo lineatus (Gmelin), Red-shouldered Hawk SR BU
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Linnaeus), Bald Eagle LT ST B3
Circus cyaneus (Linnaeus), Northern Harrier SR BU

PANDIONIDAE. Ospreys
Pandion haliaetus (Linnaeus), Osprey ST B3

FALCONIDAE. Falcons
Falco peregrinus Tunstall, Peregrine LE SE BI
Falco columbarius Linnaeus, Merlin ST B3

TETRAONIDAE. Grouse
Tympanuchus cupido (Linnaeus),
Greater Prairie Chicken SE B2

*Narnes in accordarce with: Payne, R. B. 1982. A checklist of Michigan birds.
Manuscript in preparation, which mostly follows current manuscript revision
(Dec. 1981) of the AOU Check-list Committee, except for herons.

122

Federal State MNFI
Status Status Rank

RALLIDAE. Rails and Coots
Rallus elegans Audubon, King Rail ST B3
Coturnicops noveboracensis (Gmelin), Yellow Rail SR C

CHARADRIIDAE. Plovers and Turnstones
Charadrius melodus Ord, Piping Plover SE BI

PHALAROPODIDAE. Phalaropes
Phalaropus tricolor Vieillot, Wilson's Phalarope SR C

LARIDAE. Gulls and Terns
Larus minutus Pallas, Little Gull SP C
Sterna forsteri Nuttall, Forster's Tern SR C
Sterna hirundo Linnaeus, Common Tern ST B3
Sterna caspia Pallas, Caspian Tern ST B3

TYTONIDAE. Barn Owls
Tyto alba (Scopoli), Barn Owl SE B2

STRIGIDAE. Typical Owls
Surnia ulula (Linnaeus), Hawk Owl SP C
Strix nebulosa Forster, Great Gray Owl SP C
Asio otus (Linnaeus), Long-eared Owl SR BU
Asio f lam meus (Pontoppidan), Short-eared Owl ST B3

PICIDAE. Woodpeckers
Picoides arcticus (Swainson),
Black-backed Three-toed Woodpecker SR C
Picoides tridactylus (Linnaeus),
Northern Three-toed Woodpecker SP

TYRANNIDAE. Tyrant Flycatchers
Tyrannus verticalis Say, Western Kingbird SP C

TROGLODYTIDAE. Wrens
Thryomanes bewickii (Audubon), Bewick's Wren SP C

LANIIDAE. Shrikes
Lanius ludovicianus Linnaeus, Loggerhead Shrike SE B2

VIREONIDAE. Vireos
Vireo bellii Audubon, Bell's Viero SP C

PARULIDAE. Wood Warblers
Dendroica dorninica (Linnaeus),
Yellow-throated Warbler SP C
Dendroica kirtlandii (Baird), Kirtland's Warbler LE SE A2

123

Federal State MNFl
Status Status Rank

ICTERIDAE. Meadowlarks, Blackbirds, and Orioles
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus (Bonaparte),
Yellow-headed Blackbird SR C

FRINGILLIDAE. Grosbeaks, Finches, Sparrows, and Buntings
@@ americana Gmelin, Dickcissel SR BU
Pinicola enucleator (Linnaeus), Pine Grosbeak SP
Chondestes grammacus (Say), Lark Sparrow ST BU

124

REPTILES*

Federal State MNFI
Status Status Rank

EMYDIDAE. Box and Water Turtles
Clemmys guttata (Schneider), Spotted Turtle SR BU
Clemmys insculpta (LeConte), Wood Turtle SR BU
Terrapene carolina carolina (Linnaeus),
Eastern Box Turtle SR BU

COLUBRIDAE. Colubrids.
Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta (Conant),
Copperbelly Water Snake SE BI
Clonophis kirtlandi (Kennicott),
Kirtland's Snake SE B2
Elaphe vulpina gloydi Conant, Eastern Fox Snake SR BU
Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta (Say), Black Rat Snake SR BU

*Names in accordance with: Collins, J. T., et al. 1978. 5tandard common and
current scientific names for North American Amphibians and Reptiles. Soc. for
Study of Arnph. and Rept., Misc. Publ., Herp. Circular No. 7, 36 pp.

125

AMPHIBIANS*

Federal State MNFI
Status Status Rank

SIRENIDAE. Sirens
Siren intermedia nettingi Goin,
Western Lesser Siren SP BX

AMBYSTOMATIDAE. Mole Salamanders
Ambystoma opacum (Gravenhorst),
Marbled Salamander SP BX
Ambystoma texanum (Matthes),
Smallmouth Salamander SP C

PLETHODONTIDAE. Lungless Salamanders
Eurycea bislineata bislineata (Green),
Northern Two-lined Salamander SP BU

HYLIDAE. Treefrogs and their Allies
Pseudacris triseriata maculata (Agassiz),
Boreal Chorus Frog SP D

*Names in accordance with: Collins, J. T., et al. 1978. Standard common and
current scientific names for North American Amphibians and Reptiles. Soc. for
Study of Amph. and Rept., Misc. Publ., Herp. Circular No. 7, 36 pp.

126

FISHES*

Federal State MNFI
Status Status Rank

ACIPENSERIDAE. Sturgeons
Acipenser fulvescens Rafinesque, Lake Sturgeon ST B3

LEPISOSTEIDAE. Gars
Lepisosteus oculatus (Winchell), Spotted Gar SP C

HIODONTIDAE. Mooneyes
Hiodon tergisus LeSueur, Mooneye SP B3

SALMONIDAE. Trouts
Coregonus artedii LeSueur, Cisco or Lake Herring ST BU
Coregonus Ua--rtletti (Koelz), Siskiwit Lake Cisco SR BI
Coregonus J@u-bbsi (Koelz), Ives Lake Cisco SR BI
Coregonus gEi 7Koelz), Kiyi SR B3
Coregonus zenithicus (Jordan and Evermann),
Shortjaw Cisco SE B2

CYPRINIDAE. Minnows and Carps
Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland), Redside Dace ST B3
Hybopsis inesque), Bigeye Chub SE B2
Hybopsis 9=irtland), Silver Chub SP C
Notropis anogenus Porbes, Pugnose Shiner SR BU
Notropis chalybaeus (Cope), Ironcolor Shiner SP C
Notrop:is emiliae (Hay), Pugnose Minnow SP C
NotropLis photogenis (Cope), Silver Shiner ST BU
Notropis texanus (Girard), Weed Shiner SR BU
Phoxinus erythr gaster (Rafinesque),
Southern Redbelly Dace SP C

CATOSTOMIDAE. Suckers
Erimyzon oblongus (Mitchill), Creek Chubsucker SP C
Ictiobus cyprinellus (Valenciennes),
Bigmouth Buffalo SP C
Ictiobus njg@r (Raf inesque), Black Buffalo SP C
Moxo;-t-oma carinaturn (Cope), River Redhorse ST B3
Moxostoma duquesnei (LeSueur), Black Redhorse SR BU
Moxostoma valenciennesi Jordan, Greater Redhorse SR BU

ICTALURIDAE. Catf ishes
Noturus miurus Jordan, Brindled Madtom SR BU
Notur@Ls stigmosus Taylor, Northern Madtom SE B I

*Names in accordance with: Robins, C. R. et at. 1980. A list of common and
scientific narnes of fishes from the United States and Canada. Amer. Fisheries
Soc., Spec. Publ. No. 12.

127

Federal State MNFl
Status Status Rank

CYPRINODONTIDAE. Killifishes
Fundulus notti (Agassiz), Starhead Topminnow SP C

CENTRARCHIDAE. Sunfish
Lepomis humilis (Girard), Orangespotted Sunfish SP C

PERCIDAE. Perches
Ammocrypta pellucida (Putnam),
Eastern Sand Darter ST B2
Etheostoma spectabile (Agassiz),
Orangethroat Darter SP C
Etheostoma zonale (Cope), Banded Darter SP C
Percina copelandi (Jordan), Channel Darter ST B3
Percina shumardi (Girard), River Darter SP C

COTTIDAE. Sculpins
Cottus ricei (Nelson), Spoonhead Sculpin SR BU

128

MOLLUSKS*

Federal State MNFI
Status Status Rank
PELECYPODA

UNIONIDAE
Cyclonaias tuberculata (Rafinesque),
Purple Warty Back SR BU
Pleuroberna clava (Lamarck), Club Shell SE A2
Anodonta subLylbbosa (Anthony), no common name ST BI
Simpsoniconcra (Simpsonaias) ambigua (Say),
Salamander Mussel SE A2
Carunculina (Toxolasma) glans (lividus) (Lea),
Little Purple SE A2
Dysnomia (Epioblasma, Plagiola) sulcata (obliquata)
(Lea), White Cat's Paw Pearly Mussel LE SE A2
Dysnomia (Eploblasma, Plagiola) torulosa
(Rafinesque), Northern Riffle Shell SE BI
Dysnomia (Epioblasma, Pj@!@Ia) triquetra
TR-afinesque), Snuilb-ox ST B3
Lampsilis fasciola (Rafinesque), no common name SR BU
Obovaria subrotunda (leibii) (Rafinesque),
no common name ST B3
Villosa fabalis (Lea), no common name SE B2

GASTROPODA
(no common names for listed species)

HYDROBIIDAE
Fontigens nickliniana (Lea) SR BU
Pyrgulopsis letsoni (Walker) SR BU

POMATIOPSIDAE (HYDROBIIDAE)
Pomatiopsis cincinnatiensis (Lea) SR BU

LYMNAEIDAE
Stagnicola (Lymnaea) contracta (Currier) ST BI
Acella (Ly haldemani (Deshayes) SR BU

PLANAORBIDAE
Planorbella (Helisoma) multivolvis (Case) SE Al

PHILOMYCIDAE
Philomycus carolinianus (Bosc) SR BU

*Narnes adopted from: Burch, J. B. 1975. Freshwater Unionacean Clams
(Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America. Malacological Publications, Hamburg,
Michigan. 204 pp.

129

Federal State MNFI
Status Status Rank

ENDODONTIDAE
Anguispira kochi (Pfeiffer) SR BU
Discus patulus (Deshayes) SR BU

ZONITIDAE
Mesomphix cupreus (Rafinesque) SR BU

POLYGYRIDAE
Triodopsis denotata (Ferussac) SR BU
Mesodon elevatus (Say) SP BU
Mesodon sayanus (Pilsbry) SR BU

.130

BUTTERFLIES*
S-t-at-us"
HESPERIIDAE. True Skippers
Erynnis horatius (Scudder & Burgess), Horace's Dusky Wing ... P
.Erynnis baRtisiae (Forbes), Wild Indigo Dusky Wing ............ P
Pyrgus centaureae wyandot (Edwards), Grizzled Skipper ......... R
Oarisma poweshiek kParker), Poweshiek Skipper ................. R
@-esperia ottoe Edwards, Ottoe Skipper ............ ............ R
Poanes zabulon (Boisduval & LeConte), Zabulon Skipper ......... U
@up@@yes dukesi (Lindsey), Dukes' Skipper ...................... P

PAPILIONIDAE. Swallowtails
Battus philenor (Linnaeus), Blue or Pipe Vine Swallowtail ..... P
Eurytides marcellus (Cramer), Zebra Swallowtail ............... P

PIERIDAE. Whites and Sulphurs
Pontia protodice (Boisduval & LeConte), Checkered White ....... R
Euchloe ausonides (Lucas), The Large Marble ................... P

LYCAENIDAE. Gossamer Winged Butterflies
Epidemia epixanthe michiganensis (Rawson), Bog Copper ......... R
Incisalia irus (Godart), Frosted Elfin ....... R
Incisalia f@enrici (Grote & Robinson), Henry's Elfin ........... R
Incisalia 2er hon Boisduval), Western Elfin .................. P
T - -ra-@- t a__yp h s
( wa
Fo I e a Edward ), Early Hairstreak ....................... R
Everes am ntula (Boisduval), Western Tailed Blue .............. P
argyrognomon nabokovi Masters, Northern Blue ........ U

RIODINIDAE. Metalmarks
Calephelis muticum McAlpine, Swamp Metalmark .................. R

LTBYTHEIDAE. Snout Butterflies
Libytheana bachmanii (Kirtland), Snout Butterfly .............. P

NYMPHALIDAE. Brush Footed Butterflies
Speyeria idalia (Drury), Regal Fritillary ..................... R
P-ro-c-To-ssiana eunomia dawsoni (Barnes & McDunnough),
Bog Fritillaq.... ................ I............... I......... U
Clossiana frigga (Thunberg), No Common Name ................... U
Clossiana freija (Thunberg), Freija Fritillary ................ U
Charidryas qorgone (Hubner), Gorgone Checkerspot .............. P
Polygonia gracilis Grote & Robinson, Hoary Comma .............. R
Polygonia satyrus (Edwards), Satyr Angle Winq ................. R

SATYRIDAE. Satyrs and Wood Nymphs
Neonympha mitchellii French, Mitchell's Satyr ................. R
Erebia discoi-dalis-CKirby), Red Disked Alpine ................. U
Ue-neis macounii (Edwards), Macon's Arctic ..................... P

Names are in accordance with: Miller, L. D. and F. M. Brown. 1981.
A catalogue/checklist of the butterflies of America north of
Mexico. The Lepidopterists Society, Memoir No. 2. 280 pp.

R = rare, P = peripheral, U = unknown

131

MOTHS

Status
SPHINGIDAE. Sphinx or Hawk Moths
Sphinx luscitiosa Clemens, Clemens' Hawkmoth ................... R
Sp Ili
:nx canadensis.Boisduval ........................... R
Hemaris
gracilis Grote & Robinson, The Graceful Clearwing ...... R
Proserpinus flavofasciata Walker, The Yellow-banded Day-sphinx. U

SATURNIIDAE. Giant Silkworm Moths
Hyalophora columbia (Smith), Columbian Silk-moth ............... P,
Hemileuca lucina Henry Edwards ................................. U

CITHERONIDAE. Royal Moths
Sphinqicampa bisecta (Lintner) ................................. U
Eacles imperialis Rj!jj_ Mitchner ................................ R

ARCTIIDAE. Tiger Moths
Pygarctia spraguei Grote ....................................... U
Parasemia plantaginis scudderi (Packard) ....................... U

NOCTUIDAE. Noctuid Moths
Acronicta falcula Grote ........ R
Acronicta funeralis Grote & Robinson ........................... R
Polia nevadae canadensis Smith ................................. R
Polia radix Walker ............................................. R
Polia rugosa Morrison .......................................... R
Polia pulverulenta Smith ....................................... R
Oncocnemis piffa_@_di Walker ..................................... 1j
Platypolia anceps Stephenson ................................... U
Septis mixta Grote ............................................. U
Papaipema astuta Bird .......................................... U
Papaipema cerussata Grote ...................................... Ij
Papaipema nelita Strecker ...................................... U
Papaipema appassionata Harvey .................................. R
Parapamea buffaloensis Grote ................................... R
ChYtonix chlorostigma Harvey ................................... U
Basilodes pepita Guenee ........................................ P
Exyra rolandiana Grote ......................................... R
Autographa psepdo0amma Grote .................... .............. U
Autographa flagellum Walker .................................... U
Autographa mappa Grote & Robinson .............................. R
Syngrapha altera (Ottolengui) .................................. U
Syngrapha selecta (Walker) ..................................... R
Syngrapha abstrusa Eichlin & Cunningham ........................ U
Syngrapha cryptica Eichlin & Cunningham ........................ U
Syngrapha montana (Packard) .................................... R
Autographa rubida Ottolenqui ............... :*** .... *****'**'*** R
Catocala robinsoni Grote, Robinson's Underwing ................. R
Catocala angusi Grote. Angus' Underwing ........................ P
Catocala lacrymosa Guenee, The Tearful Underwing ............... P
Catocala nebulosa Edwards, The Clouded Underwing ............... R
Catocala illec5-Walker, The Magdalen Underwing ................ P
Catocala junctura Walker ....................................... P
Zale calycanthata Abbott Smith ............................... R

132

MOTHS (cont.)

Status
NOTODONTIDAE. Prominents
Ichthyura brucei Henry Edwards ................................. R
Heterocampa subrotata Harvey ................................... P

LASIOCAMPIDAE. Tent Caterpillars and Lappet Moths
Heteropacha rileyana Harvey .................................... P

GEOMETRIDAE. Geometer Moths
Leucobrephos brephoides Walker ................................. R

M. C. Nielsen
9/11/80

133

Extinct and Extirpated Animal Species

MNF1 Rank

Mammals

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) BX
Mountain Lion (Felis concolor BX
Caribou (Ran iffer arandus) BX
so BX
Bison (Bison bison

Birds

Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) AX

Fishes

Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula I BX
Longjaw Cisco (Coregonus alpenae) AX
AX
Deepwater Cisco (Coregonus johannael
Blackfin Cisco (Coregonus nigripinnis), BX
Shortnose Cisco (Coregonus reighardl)- BX
Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) BX
Blue Pike (Stizostedion vitreum laucum AX

IFederally Endangered Species.
2State endangered species.

134

APPENDIX E

GEOMORPHIC-GEOLOGIC FEATURES CLASSIFICATION
Michigan Natural Features Inventory

1. GEOMORPHIC FEATURES E. KARST

A. GLACIAL F. MASS WASTING

1. Moraine G. WEATHERING
2. Drumlin
3. Stagnation Topography H. MISCELLANEOUS
4. Outwash
5. Ice Contact Features 1. Spring
a. Esker 2. Peatland
b. Kame
c. Kettle ILSTRUCTURE
d. Pitted Outwash
e. Ice Block Valley A. TECTONIC
6. Abrasion Feature
7. Glacial Lake Plain 1. Fold
8. Glacial Drainage Channel 2. Fracture
9. Glacial Embayment 3. Tilted Bedrock
10. Glacial Misc.
B. IGNEOUS
B. FLUVIAL
1. Instrusive
1. Floodplain 2. Extrusive
2. Meander
3. Terrace C. SEDIMENTARY
4. Waterf all/Rapids
5. Gorge I . Primary
6. Delta 2. Secondary

C. COASTAL 111. EARTH HISTORY

1. Modern A. EARLY PRECAMBRIAN
a. Baymouth Bar B. MIDDLE PRECAMBRIAN
b. Spit C. LATE PRECAMBRIAN
c. Cliff /Stack/ Arch D. CAMBRIAN
d. Tombolo E. ORDOVICIAN
e. Bluff F. SILURIAN
2. Ancient G. DEVONIAN
a. Abandoned Shoreline H. MISSISSIPPIAN
b. Miscellaneous ACF I. PENNSYLVANIAN

D. EOLIAN IV. MISCELLANEOUS

1. Dune A. UNCONFORMITIES
a. Perched Dune B. SPECIAL OUTCROPS
b. Unperched Dune C. F SSI S
US Department of CO &IN@EALS
NOA,A Coastal Services Center Lib
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charlesto,:4 SC 29405-2413

JOAA COASIAL SERVICES CTR LWRARY
3 6668 14111552 9