CSd.Q'-/"

Wetlands
Value
Study
PHASE I

Fish, Wildlife, and Recreational Values
of Michigan's Coastal Wetlands

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation

http://www.archive.org/details/fishwildliferecrOOjawo

Fish, Wildlife, and Recreational Values
of Michigan's Coastal Wetlands

Prepared For

Great Lakes Shorelands Section

Division of Land Resource Programs

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

By

Eugene Jaworski and C. Nicholas Raphael

Department of Geography-Geology

Eastern Michigan University

Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197

This document was prepared through financial assistance provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 administered by the Office of Coastal
Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Q.
O

u

o
a

&

*

Printing compliments of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Region III, Twin Cities, Minnesota.

February 1978

PREFACE

Pursuant to the Shorelands Protection and Manage-
ment Act of 1970 (Public Act 245) , as amended, the
director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) may designate, as environmental areas, those coastal
wetlands necessary for the preservation and maintenance of
fish and wildlife. Accompanying the designation of en-
vironmental areas is the imposition of shoreland use
restrictions (i.e., General Rules, filed 27 Dec. 1973)
which the DNR deems appropriate for the preservation of
fish and wildlife. However, a local governmental agency,
or affected property owner, who contests the designation
or shorelands use regulations, will be granted due recourse
upon proper petition. At subsequent administrative hearings
and litigation, the Department must document the fish and
wildlife values of the designated area in question. Various
other state and federal programs requiring permits for
work in wetlands may also need to document wetlands values
and functions to justify permit application decisions.

At present, the Land Resource Programs Division
of the DNR is sponsoring a research program referred to
as the Coastal Wetlands Value Study. The goal of this
research activity, which is to be accomplished in several
phases by a university in Michigan acting as a third party,
is to collect and summarize existing data on the ecological
functions and economic value of Michigan's coastal wetlands.
These wetland data will be used to justify the environ-
mental area designations as well as the shorelands use
regulations, particularly at future hearings involving

li

coastal wetlands. Many other wetland-related programs
will benefit from this study, as well. The "Wetlands
Inventory Preparatory Study of Michigan" by EMU Wetlands
Team, 1977, discovered that a large percentage of the
questionnaire respondents are in need of wetlands data to
more effectively manage or protect natural resources.
The Wetlands Value Study is a beginning toward providing
people with improved wetlands data.

Phase One of the Coastal Wetlands Value Study,
which is concerned with the fish, wildlife and recreational
values, was initiated in February, 1977. In addition to
the analysis of selected ecological functions, including
fish spawning, shorebird use, furbearer production, and
waterfowl breeding and migration, several economic values
were documented for Michigan's 105,855 acres of coastal
wetlands.

Specifically, Phase One research consisted of a
literature review of available source materials concerning
wetlands values, analysis of data by geographic area, and
map comparisons to document the historical loss of depicted
coastal wetland vegetation. Because the study addressed
topics of large scope and because the time frame was
limited to four months , original research was a minor
part of this effort. Moreover, emphasis was placed on
annotating key references containing documented wetland
values and formatting these annotations to a computer
retrieval system. Over 200 references have been annotated.
The annotated bibliography is available from the Division
of Land Resource Programs. By thoroughly reviewing the
available literature, data gaps could be identified which
will be utilized to direct future research activities.

The authors employed general analytical techniques
which took advantage of available data in standard form,
e.g., the 1970 National Survey of Fishing and Hunting.
Economic values in this Phase One Report are based on

in

average annual expenditures by participants engaged in
fishing or hunting, or on estimated values of recreation
days. Other techniques including willingness to pay
models, which may yield less conservative economic values
for the coastal wetland resources, could be adopted to
the data presented herein. The economic values presented
are by no means inclusive because only fish, wildlife and
recreation values were examined. Furthermore, the values
are not meant to represent current real estate values of
the land, but rather dollar productivity of the state's
Great Lakes wetland resources.

In perspective, the data contained in this Phase
One report represent an interim product which will be com-
plemented by Phase Two and other research activity. For
example, the value of Michigan's coastal wetlands with re-
gard to water quality improvement and primary productivity
will be addressed in Phase Two (scheduled to be completed
May 31, 1978). It should be noted that the Phase One
literature review was hampered because the data sources
are widely dispersed among many agencies and institutions,
and that much of the material is unsummarized in agency
reports or otherwise inaccessible. Much of the DNR data
collection and presentation methods utilize a broad regional
basis as opposed to county or site-specific formats. Thus,
data on individual wetland areas were often not available.
Changes will be proposed to collect more site-specific wet-
lands data in the future. This study, although it has some
shortcomings, still constitutes a very important effort to
quantify and expand the wetlands data base and sets a
standard to build upon with additional research.

Chuck Wolverton

Wetlands Value Study Coordinator

IV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the research
assistance provided by Brooks B. Williamson and John M.
Worthington, Masters degree candidates in the Department
of Geography-Geology at Eastern Michigan University.
Robin Fox, an undergraduate, also contributed to this
report.

This research project was sponsored by the Divi-
sion of Land Resource Programs, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Lansing. Special thanks go to Chuck
Wolverton and Fred Clinton who provided valuable guidance
throughout this study. Gerald Martz and Leo Pospichal of
the Wildlife Division of the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources were also of assistance during the data
collection.

This publication was produced by Michigan's Coastal
Program through funding provided by the Coastal Zone Man-
agement Act of 1972, as amended, administered by the Office
of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce.

v

ABSTRACT

A survey of the existing literature pertinent to
Michigan's coastal wetlands reveals that these environ-
ments provide important ecological functions and economic
values to the general public. Compared to the state's
total, approximately 21 percent of the waterfowl harvest,
14 percent of the duck production, 11 percent of the
muskrat take, 15 percent (by value) of the commercial
fish landings, and a large proportion of the sport fishing
occurs in the coastal wetlands or adjacent shallow waters.
This is significant because a 1972 inventory revealed that
Michigan has 105,855 acres of coastal wetlands which repre-
sents only 3.5 percent of the state's to total wetland acreage.

In terms of average economic value for fish,
wildlife and recreation, Michigan's coastal wetlands con-
tribute an estimated $489.69 per wetland acre/year, for a
total of $51.8 million. Depending on site conditions
and recreational use, the annual economic return from
individual wetland parcels may vary considerably about
this average value. Specifically, these economic values,
in decreasing order of value, are: sport fishing ($286),
nonconsumptive recreation ($1 38 . 24 ) ,waterf owl hunting
($31. 2 3) , trapping of furbearers ($30 . 44) , and commercial
fishing($3. 78 ) per wetland acre/year. Inclusion of other
values, e.g., for waste assimilation and filtering of
suspended solids, as well as ecological values, e.g., use
of wetlands by endangered species, could increase the average
annual economic return per acre to over $3,000. Techniques
more comprehensive than those employed in thi-s study

VI

may yield even less conservative economic values for the
fish and wildlife resources .

Historical data reveal that Michigan, since the
mid-18001 s, has lost approximately 70 percent of its
original coastal wetlands. Moreover, available data sug-
gests that at least 20 percent of the existing coastal
wetlands may be developed by private interests within the
next decade. This projected wetland loss should be care-
fully evaluated in terms of previous losses, loss of
revenue provided by the coastal resources, and by the fact
that unsatisfied participant demand for waterfowl hunting
and sport fishing already exist in many coastal counties.
Waterfowl habitat projections to the year 2000 A.D. reveal
deficiencies for fall migration use in Saginaw Bay and
along the southeastern Michigan coast. Although detailed
information by individual wetland areas is generally
not available, wetlands in Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair,
Lower Detroit River, and along the western shore of Lake
Erie appear to be more significant economically, support
the heaviest recreational use, and are, in selected areas,
subject to the most intensive developmental pressures.

vn

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v

ABSTRACT vi

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES xv

CHAPTER ONE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1

CHAPTER TWO: LOSS OF COASTAL WETLANDS 11

Coastal Wetland Distribution 11

Wetland Environments 14

Wetland Loss .18

Lake Erie/Detroit River Wetlands 2 2

Lake St. Clair Wetlands 2 3

Saginaw Bay Wetlands 31

Wetland Losses in the Les Cheneaux Islands . .35

Little Bay de Noc Wetlands 38

Discussion 41

Prospects 45

Dollar Value of Wetland Losses 4 8

A Regional Perspective of Wetland Loss .... 49

CHAPTER THREE: VALUE OF COASTAL WETLANDS TO

WATERFOWL 51

Use of Coastal Wetlands for Migration 51

Fall Migration 5 5

Spring Migration 66

Economic Value of Waterfall Migration. ... 70

Loss of Migration Habitat 7 0

Use of Coastal Wetland as Breeding Habitat . . 7 5
Value of Waterfowl Hunting in Coastal

Wetlands 8 8

CHAPTER FOUR: VALUE OF COASTAL WETLANDS TO

FURBEARERS 97

Muskrat Value 9 7

Raccoons 104

Conclusion 106

Vlll

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

CHAPTER FIVE: COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHING VALUES

OF THE COASTAL WETLANDS 108

Spawning of Fish in the Coastal Wetlands . . 108
Value of Coastal Wetlands to Commercial

Fishing 114

Value of Coastal Wetlands to Sport Fishing . 121

CHAPTER SIX: NONCONSUMPTIVE WETLAND VALUES .... 136

Unique Geomorphological and Biological

Values 137

Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species . . 137
Nesting and Migration of Shorebirds,
Passerines and Birds of Prey in Great

Lake Shorelands 150

Other Important Migratory Birds 153

Species Diversity 158

Other Fauna 159

Wetland Use by Nature Groups 160

Values of Coastal Wetlands for Non-
Consumptive Recreation Uses 161

Summary of Nonconsumptive Recreational

Use 170

Efforts to Protect Unique Coastal Sites for

Use 171

CHAPTER SEVEN: FISH AND WILDLIFE PRODUCTIVITY BY

GEOGRAPHIC REGION 174

Matrix of Coastal Wetland Values 179

An Overview of Wetland values 180

Key References 182

APPENDIX 191

REFERENCES CITED 192

IX

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. LINEAR MILES OF SHORELAND IN MICHIGAN 11

2. ACRES OF COASTAL WETLANDS IN MICHIGAN, 1972 ... 12

3. CORRELATION BETWEEN CIRCULAR 39 AND THE

NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY. . . 19

4. ACRES OF WETLAND LOSSES IN SELECTED COASTAL

AREAS 2 2

5. COASTAL WETLAND LOSSES AND GAINS IN LAKE ERIE

AND LOWER DETROIT RIVER 2 3

6. WETLAND LOSSES IN LAKE ST. CLAIR 2 8

7. COASTAL WETLAND LOSSES AND GAINS IN SAGINAW BAY . 34

8. WETLAND LOSSES IN THE LES CHENEAUX ISLANDS. ... 38

9. WETLAND LOSSES IN LITTLE BAY DE NOC 1910-1958 . . 41

10. PROBABLE CAUSES OF WETLAND LOSSES IN SELECTED
AREAS 4 2

11. EXISTING AND PROJECTED SHORELAND USE IN LINEAR
MILES 47

12. ESTIMATED ACQUISITION COST OF SELECTED COASTAL
WETLANDS IN MICHIGAN 5 2

13. DUCK, GOOSE, AND SWAN SPECIES WHOSE PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY MIGRATION CORRIDORS TRAVERSE THE STATE

OF MICHIGAN 5 7

14. WATERFOWL CONCENTRATION AREAS IN COASTAL WET-
LANDS FALL MIGRATION, IN MICHIGAN, 1976 58

15. ESTIMATED WATERFOWL DAY USE BY COASTAL WETLAND

IN MICHIGAN, 1955 60

x

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

16. SPECIES COMPOSITION OF WATERFOWL OBSERVED
DURING FALL MIGRATION LAKE ST. CLAIR, MI, OCT.

7 THROUGH DEC. 3, 1974 6 2

17. UTILIZATION OF PLANT FOODS BY 150 DUCKS AND

COOTS HARVESTED AT ERIE SHOOTING CLUB, 1959. . . 64

18. SPRING MIGRATION CALENDAR BY WATERFOWL SPECIES

IN MICHIGAN'S COASTAL WETLANDS 6 8

19. AERIAL SURVEY OF SPRING WATERFOWL MIGRATIONS
FISH POINT AND SEBEWAING BAY, 1967, 1969, 1971,
1977 69

20. LIST OF THREATENED COASTAL WETLANDS WHICH
FUNCTION FOR WATERFOWL MIGRATION, IN MICHIGAN,
1976 72

21. DEFICIENCIES IN FUTURE MIGRATION AND WINTERING
HABITAT IN MICHIGAN BY FLYWAY HABITAT REGION,
YEAR 2000 A. D. , IN 1000's OF WATERFOWL 74

22. SPECIES OF DUCKS NESTING IN THE COASTAL WETLANDS
AND IN FORESTED INTERIOR OF MICHIGAN, AND MAGEE
MARSH, N. OHIO 76

23. NUMBER OF BREEDING PAIRS OF DUCKS IN MICHIGAN,
1976 78

24. ESTIMATE PROPORTION OF MICHIGAN'S ANNUAL DUCK
HARVEST WHICH DERIVES FROM STATE-REARED WATER-
FOWL 7 9

25. AVERAGE SPECIES COMPOSITION OF RETRIEVED DUCK
SAMPLE STATE AVERAGE (1965-1974) vs. ST. CLAIR
FLATS SGA (1974-1975) 80

26. DUCK NESTING DENSITIES IN COASTAL WETLANDS OF
MICHIGAN, 1951-1966 81

27. DENSITY OF DUCK BROODS IN MICHIGAN WETLANDS,

1949 8 2

28. BIOLOGISTS' ESTIMATES OF NESTING PAIRS AND
DUCKLING PRODUCTION IN MICHIGAN COASTAL WET-
LANDS, 1975 83

XI

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

29. WATERFOWL BREEDING HABITAT IN COASTAL WET-
LANDS THREATENED BY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN

5 YEARS, MICHIGAN, 1976 8 7

30. ANNUAL WATERFOWL HARVEST IN MICHIGAN, 1971-

1975, DNR ESTIMATES 89

31. AVERAGE DUCK HARVEST IN THE COASTAL COUNTIES OF
MICHIGAN, 1961-1970 ANNUAL AVERAGE, U. S.

F AND W ESTIMATES 91

32. COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS TO NUMBER
OF AVAILABLE WATERFOWL HUNTING RESERVATIONS AT
FISH POINT, NAYANQUING POINT, AND ST. CLAIR

FLATS STATE WILDLIFE AREAS, 1976 93

33. FURBEARERS, TRAPPERS AND FUR VALUE IN

MICHIGAN (1971-1972) 98

34. MUSKRATS HARVESTED BY TRAPPERS, 1967-1971 IN
MICHIGAN 99

35. MUSKRAT TAKE IN SELECTED COUNTIES OF SOUTH-
EASTERN MICHIGAN, 1965-1970 100

36. MUSKRAT TAKE PER WETLAND ACRE AND PER CATTAIL
ACRE IN SELECTED COUNTIES OF SOUTHEASTERN
MICHIGAN 102

37. ESTIMATED RACCOON HARVEST IN MICHIGAN, 1971-

1975 104

38. FISH SPECIES SPAWNING IN COASTAL WETLANDS OF
MICHIGAN 109

39. COMMON FISH SPECIES UTILIZING THE COASTAL
WETLANDS OF MICHIGAN 114

40. FISH SPECIES INHABITING COASTAL WETLANDS WHICH
ARE TOLERANT TO TURBIDITY, SILTATION, AND
POLLUTION 115

41. VALUE OF COMMERICAL FISH LANDINGS FROM MICHIGAN
WATERS OF THE GREAT LAKES, BY LAKE AND BY
SPECIES, 1976 116

Xll

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

42. COMMERCIAL FISH LANDINGS IN SAGINAW BAY

(LAKE HURON) BY SPECIES, 1975 118

43. COMMERCIAL FISH LANDINGS FROM MICHIGAN'S

COASTAL WATERS OF LAKE ERIE, BY SPECIES, 1975 . .120

44. NUMBER OF SPORT FISHERMEN AND FISHING EFFORT

BY TYPE OF SPORT FISHING, IN MICHIGAN, 1975 . . .123

45. NUMBER AND RESIDENCE OF GREAT LAKES YELLOW

PERCH FISHERMEN BY REGION, IN MICHIGAN, 1975. . .124

46. SPORT FISH CATCH AND FISHING EFFORT IN SAGINAW

BAY BY SPECIES, 1975 128

47. MICHIGAN NON-SALMONID SPORT FISH CATCH AND
FISHING EFFORT, LAKE ST. CLAIR VS. OTHER

MICHIGAN GREAT LAKES WATERS, 1975 130

48. ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE OF COASTAL WETLANDS
TO SPORT FISHING, SELECTED COASTAL AREAS, IN
MICHIGAN, 1977 133

49. PROJECTED ANGLER PARTICIPATION IN SPORT FISHING
IN MICHIGAN, RESIDENT DEMAND VS. TOTAL DEMAND,

BY SUBAREA, 1980. 135

50. ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND RARE FAUNA IN GREAT
LAKES COASTAL WETLANDS 140

51. ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND RARE FLORA IN GREAT
LAKES SHORELANDS 146

52. HABITATS OF PROBABLY EXTINCT, ENDANGERED, AND
THREATENED PLANTS IN MICHIGAN 151

53. AVIFAUNA IN THE COASTAL GREAT LAKES 152

54. COASTAL MIGRATION SITES OF SHOREBIRDS,
PASSERINES AND RAPTORS 155

55. WETLAND USE BY NATURE GROUPS (NUMBER OF PEOPLE) . 162

56. NON-HUNTING VS. HUNTING USE OF PUBLIC WATER-
FOWL GAME AREAS 164

Xlll

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

57. NON-HUNTING AND HUNTING USE OF ST. CLAIR FLATS
WILDLIFE AREA PRELIMINARY DATA FOR LOWER

HARSENS ISLAND 167

58. UNSATISFIED PARTICIPATION IN NONCONSUMPTIVE
USE OF WILDLIFE HABITAT BY PLANNING SUBBASIN
IN MICHIGAN, FOR SELECTED YEARS, IN 1800' S OF

MAN DAYS 170

59. PROPOSED NATURAL COASTAL AREAS UNDER CONSIDER-
ATION BY THE DNR 173

60. POTENTIAL AVERAGE ANNUAL COASTAL FISH AND
WILDLIFE PRODUCTION 175

61. POTENTIAL AVERAGE ANNUAL ECONOMIC VALUE OF

FISH, WILDLIFE, AND NONCONSUMPTIVE RECRE-
ATIONAL RESOURCES OF COASTAL WETLANDS IN
MICHIGAN BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, 1977 177

62. MATRIX OF PAGE NUMBERS FOR DOCUMENTED VALUES

OF COASTAL WETLANDS IN MICHIGAN 184

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. DISTRIBUTION OF COASTAL WETLANDS IN MICHIGAN . . 13

2. THE LACUSTRINE ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM, WETLANDS
CLASSIFICATION 16

3. THE PALUSTRINE ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM, WETLANDS
CLASSIFICATION 17

4. DISTRIBUTION OF RAISIN RIVER WETLANDS IN 1915. . 24

5. DISTRIBUTION OF RAISIN RIVER WETLANDS IN 1974. . 25

6. COASTAL WETLANDS OF SOUTHERN MONROE COUNTY IN
1901 26

7. COASTAL WETLANDS OF SOUTHERN MONROE COUNTY IN
1974 27

8. COASTAL WETLANDS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, 1873 .... 29

9. COASTAL WETLANDS IN LAKE ST. CLAIR, 1973 .... 30

10. SAGINAW BAY WETLANDS IN 1857 3 2

11. SAGINAW BAY WETLANDS IN 1963-1973 33

12. THE LES CHENEAUX WETLANDS IN 1904 36

13. THE LES CHENEAUX WETLANDS IN 1964 3 7

14. THE LITTLE BAY DE NOC WETLANDS IN 1910 39

15. THE LITTLE BAY DE NOC WETLANDS IN 1958 4 0

16. PROJECTED COASTAL LAND USE FOR LAKE HURON AND
LAKE ERIE 46

17. FALL MIGRATION CORRIDORS OF DIVING DUCKS ACROSS
MICHIGAN 52

xv

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure Page

18. FALL MIGRATION CORRIDORS FOR DABBLING DUCKS
ACROSS MICHIGAN 5 3

19. FALL MIGRATION CORRIDORS FOR CANADA GEESE

ACROSS MICHIGAN 54

20. FALL CONCENTRATION AREAS FOR MIGRATORY WATER-
FOWL, IN MICHIGAN, 1977 (MICHIGAN'S COASTAL
WETLANDS) 5 6

21. THREATENED MIGRATION HABITATS IN THE COASTAL
WETLANDS OF MICHIGAN 7 3

22. SPORT FISHING AREAS IN THE COASTAL WETLANDS OF

THE ST. CLAIR DELTA 129

23. VEGETATION TRANSECT ON HARSENS ISLAND, ST.

CLAIR RIVER DELTA 138

24. MIGRATION SITES OF SHOREBIRDS, PASSERINES AND
RAPTORS, IN MICHIGAN 154

25. PROPOSED NATURAL AREAS IN COASTAL MICHIGAN. . .172

xvi

CHAPTER ONE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions have been determined in
this study.

Coastal Wetland Loss. According to the 19 7 2
shoreland inventory, the state has 105,855 acres of
coastal wetland or 3.3 percent of Michigan's total wet-
lands. Historically, Little Bay de Noc, Les Cheneaux
Islands, Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair, and the Detroit
River/Lake Erie (Monroe County) had 70,125 acres of
coastal wetlands. These areas now total 28,522 acres. In
these investigated areas, the wetland loss totalled 41,550
acres. Based on the present market price, the value of
the dollar loss totals $45,133,687. This loss however,
does not include dollar losses for fish, wildlife and non-
consumptive recreation which is estimated to be 4)20,346,619.

In the past, significant wetland losses have occur-
red because of land being drained for agricultural pur-
poses. More recently, urbanization to include industrial
expansion, has been responsible for wetland losses.
Future projections indicate that residential, industrial
and commercial expansion in the state's shorelands will
continue to increase.

Use of Coastal Wetlands by Migratory Waterfowl. Be-
cause the main flyway corridor of several species, including
the whistling swan, Canada geese, canvasback, bufflehead, rud-
dy duck, hooded merganser and American goldeneye traverse
Michigan, these waterfowl are dependent upon Michigan's coastal
wetlands and shallow water habitats for resting and feeding.
A number of coastal wetlands, in particular those along
Portage Bay, St. Martins Bay, Saginaw Bay, Lake St. Clair,

lower Detroit River, and coastal Monroe County, function
as concentration areas during fall and spring migrations.
The economic value of concentration areas for these con-
tinental waterfowl populations cannot be measured.

Projection of migratory waterfowl habitat needs
indicate that southeastern Michigan is exhibiting habitat
deficiencies for fall and spring migration and for winter-
ing of waterfowl. Likewise, at Saginaw Bay-Thumb area,
habitat deficiency for fall migration in year 2000 A.D.
has been projected. At present, an estimated 32,645 acres
of coastal migration habitat, particularly in southern
Michigan, is threatened by private development within the
next decade. This amounts to 31 percent of the total coastal
wetland area.

Value of Coastal Wetlands to Waterfowl Breeding.
The mute swan nests in the Grand Traverse Bay area, and the
redhead duck, which breeds in Michigan only in restricted
areas, nests in the St. Clair delta. The most common water-
fowl species nesting in the coastal wetlands besides coot,
in ranked order, are mallards, blue-winged teal, and black
ducks. High-density breeding areas include Nayanquing Point,
Tobico Marsh, St. Clair Flats, Arcadia Marsh, Quanicassee,
Portage Entry Marsh (Houghton County) , and Portage Marsh
(Delta County) .

The coastal wetlands produce an average of 0.31
flying ducklings per acre, or 32,815 total ducks annually.
This production contributes an estimated 14 percent of the
annual duck production within the state. Though the number
of Canada geese reared within the state is relatively small,
state-produced geese are expanding in numbers and are
making an increasing contribution to the annual goose
harvest. Even though the coastal wetlands are of limited
extent, production of ducks and coots is comparatively
high. Unfortunately, an estimated 18,362 acres of coastal
waterfowl breeding habitat are threatened by development

within the next 5-10 years. This acreage amounts to 17
percent of the total coastal wetlands area.

Standard Values for Economic Assessment of Wetland
Values . The economic value of the fish, wildlife and non-
consumptive recreational resources were based on estimates
of sport and commercial harvests, average annual expendi-
tures by participants engaged in fishing and hunting, and
on values of recreation days. (See table of standard values
on the next page). This methodology was employed to esti-
mate the average annual dollar value generated directly
from an acre of Michigan's coastal wetlands.

Value of Coastal Wetlands to Waterfowl Hunting.
Because waterfowl tend to concentrate, during migration, in
the coastal wetlands and because large areas of wetlands
have been set aside for public hunting, approximately 21
percent of the annual harvest of ducks occurs therein.
Waterfowl hunting in the coastal wetlands, which centers
on dabbling ducks, contributes $3,305,913, including carcass
value, to the economy of Michigan. This economic assess-
ment is based on $130.25 per waterfowl hunter per year and
$1.13/pound of waterfowl carcass value, resulting in a value
of approximately $30.00 per retrieved waterfowl, or $31.23
per wetland acre/year. An estimated annual harvest of
85,9^0 waterfowl or 0.81 birds/acre/year has been calculated
for the coastal wetlands. A proportion of the waterfowl
reared in Michigan's coastal wetlands also provide hunting
opportunities in other states as well.

The annual harvest of waterfowl at the Fish Point
and St. Clair Flats Wildlife Areas is exceptionally high.
Present waterfowl hunting participation and latent demand
in southeastern Michigan and in the Saginaw Bay-Thumb
area indicate a deficiency of hunting opportunities, parti-
cularly at high-quality hunting areas during preferred times.

Value of Coastal Wetlands to Furbearers . The
principal furbearers in the coastal wetlands are raccoons

and muskrats. The number of muskrats trapped increases
from north to south with 11 percent of the state's harvest
recorded in the coastal counties of Region III. Given an
average harvest of three muskrats per acre and a combined
pelt and carcass value in 1977 of $8 . 70/animal , muskrats
generate a value of $26 . 10/wetland acre/year. In the cat-
tail marshes, the average annual value for muskrats is
$29.75/acre. Raccoons, wiiicn average 0.11 furbearers per
wetland acre and $39 . 40/animal , yield a dollar value of
$4 . 34/wetland acre/year. Together these two mammals pro-
duce an average annual return of $30 . 44/wetland acre/year.

Value of Coastal Wetlands as Fisn Spawning,
Nursing and Feeding Habitat. The coastal wetlands of
Michigan provide spawning habitat for northern pike,
yellow perch, carp, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass,
bluegill, bullheads, and several other species including
forage minnows. Loss of habitat due to agricultural and
residential encroachment and water quality deterioration due to
agricultural, urban and agricultural runoff have greatly frag-
mented and degraded many coastal spawning areas , especially
along western Lake Erie, lower Detroit River, and Saginaw
Bay. A deficiency of spawning habitat may exist for
wetland dependent species, e.g., the northern pike. Three impor-
tant wetland spawning areas are located in Lake St. Clair,
St. Marys River, and Little Bay de Noc.

Value of Coastal Wetlands to Reptiles and
Amphibians . Turtles, snakes and frogs are important pred-
ators as well as a food source for higher wetland predators.
Turtles are particularly significant as scavengers. Though
not well researched, this group represents an important
link in the wetland food web, adds species diversity, and
provides non- consumptive recreation.

Value of Coastal Wetlands to Commercial Fishing.
Because of environmental deterioration and subsequent
decline in fish stocks, and the restriction on many high-
value species such as walleye and northern pike, commercial
fishing in the coastal wetlands focuses on medium- to -low-
value, warmwater species, e.g., carp, yellow perch, channel

catfish, and freshwater drum. In 1977, the total harvest
by 33 fishermen amounted to approximately 1,810,000 pounds,
which was valued at about $400,000. Most of the fishing
activity occurs in Saginaw Bay, with small commercial
landings also in the St. Marys River and along western
Lake Erie.

The catch in the coastal wetlands contributes 12
percent of the total weight of the statewide harvest, and
approximately 15 percent of the total value. Given
105,855 acres of coastal wetland, the harvest therein on
the average amounts to 17.1 pounds per acre/year, for an
economic value in 1977 of $3.78 per wetland acre/year.
However, if carp are raised in wetland ponds, the return
is estimated to be $30 . 85/wetland acre/year. If all of
Michigan's Great Lakes commercial fish catch was considered
to be wetland dependent , then the average value would amount
to approximately $30.00 per wetland acre/year.

STANDARD VALUES FOR ESTIMATING ANNUAL ECONOMIC RETURN
FROM MICHIGAN'S COASTAL WETLANDS

Wetland Uses or Products

Average Annual Waterfowl Hunter's Expenditures

Waterfowl Hunting Day

Average Annual Freshwater Fisherman's Expenditures

Angler Day (Freshwater Sport Fisherman)

Source: U.S. Dept . of Interior, 1972, "1970 National Survey of Fishing
and Hunting", Resource Pub. 95, Wash., D.C. , 108 pp. Extra-
polation from 1970 to 1977 based on 1.542 cost-of-living factor.

1977 Value

$130.

,25

15.

,00

196,

,10

9,

.72

Commercial Fish (Wholesale Price to Fishermen)

Average for Warmwater Coastal Fish $0.22/ lb.

Furbearers

Muskrat - Pelt $7.00 each

Carcass (average 1% lb. /animal) 1.13/lb.

Raccoon - Pelt $31.50 each

Carcass (average 7 lbs. /animal) 1.13/lb.

Waterfowl Carcass Values:

Duck (average 1 lb. /bird) $1.13/lb.

Goose (average 4 lbs. /bird) 1.13/lb.

Coot (average 1 lb. /bird) 1.13/lb.

Source: Current Files, Fisheries Division and Wildlife Division, Michigan

Dept. of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI. Furbearer carcass and
waterfowl carcass values were extrapolated from 1975 to 1977 using
a 1.129 cost-of-living factor.

Nonconsumptive Recreation:

Average Annual Participant Expenditures $200.75

Recreation Day 23.12

Source: Based on Payne B. B. and R. M. DeGraaf , "Economic Value Associated
with Human Enjoyment of Nongame Birds", General Technical Report
No. WO-1, Wash., D.C, USDA, Forest Service, 1975, pp 6-10.

Value of Coastal Wetlands to Sport Fishing. Some
of the Great Lakes non-salmonid sport fishing in Michigan,
which amounts to 4.4 million angler days per year and is
valued at $43.4 million annually, occurs in coastal wet-
lands. Because many of the warmwater species which com-
prise most of Great Lakes sport fishery, such as northern
pike and yellow perch, spawn in or are otherwise dependent
on coastal wetlands, the coastal environments contribute to
the fishery even though much of the actual catch may not
take place directly in wetlands. Yellow perch is the
species of primary importance to Great Lakes non-salmonid
fishermen.

Lake St. Clair and Lake Huron account for 75
percent of the Great Lakes non-salmonid fishing effort and
81 percent of the total yellow perch catch. Lake St.
Clair, including its deltaic wetlands, is probably the
most valuable sport fishing area in the Great Lakes. The
economic value of sport fishing in the coastal wetlands
varies considerably, but on the average amounts to $286
per wetland acre/year. Proximity to large urban centers
is a major factor influencing use rates. At present,
Lake St. Clair and Saginaw Bay are receiving heavy hook
and line fishing pressure. Current and projected angler
demand indicate that a lack of sufficient inland fishing
opportunities in southern Michigan is being compensated
to some extent by the exporting of demand to Lake St.
Clair, Saginaw Bay, and to northern Michigan.

Value of Coastal Wetlands to Nonconsumptive Uses.
Coastal wetlands are utilized for nesting and concentration
areas by endangered, threatened, and rare fauna and flora
as well as by the many abundant species of shorebirds, pas-
serines, and birds of prey. Recreational non-hunting and
non-fishing activity hours greatly exceed hunting activities
and this demand is increasing. The economic value of non-
consumptive recreational use is estimated to be $138.24/
acre/year .

Summary of Wetland Values Per Acre. The economic
value of Michigan's wetlands with regard to fish, wildlife
and nonconsumptive recreation uses totals $477 . 78/acre/year
and is divided as follows:

Sport Fishing $286 . OQ/acre/year

Nonconsumptive Recreation $138.24

Waterfowl Hunting $ 31.23

Trapping of Furbearers $ 30.44

Commercial Fishing $ 3.78

TOTAL $4 89. 6 9/ acre/year

Non-economic values, e.g.,
use by endangered species.

According to a 1972 survey, the coastal wetlands in
Michigan total 105,855 acres. Employing an average annual
return of $489.69 per acre, fish, wildlife and nonconsump-
tive recreation generate a direct annual gross value of
$51,836,137 to the State of Michigan and its users. Most
of the annual economic return in this economic assessment
are public values as opposed to an average income a private
landowner might expect from his property. Thus, provided
the public has access to the wetlands and multiple use is
made of the available resources, wetlands may generate
several hundred dollars worth of gross annual return per
acre .

These economic values do not represent all the
economic values of an acre of coastal wetland. At the
National Wetland Symposium (Washington, D.C., June 6-8,
1977) many investigators suggested that the role of wet-
lands with regard to pollution-absorbing capabilities
greatly exceeds the dollar value of wildlife and agricu-
lture. It has been determined that the dollar value per
wetland acre for phosphrous removal, secondary and tertiary
waste treatment may be $3 , 730 /acre/year (Sullivan, 1976,
p. 4).

Potential Wetland Value by Geographic Region. By
multiplying the total estimated wetland value per acre
($489.69) by the acreage of wetland, the potential average
annual return per geographical region was calculated.

Wetland

Dollar Value

Percent of

Acreage

of Wetlands

Grand Total

Lake Superior

1,200

$ 587,628

1.1

St. Marys River

11,978

5,865,507

11.3

Lake Michigan

29,846

14,615,288

28.2

Lake Huron, excl.

Saginaw Bay

5,686

2,784,378

5.4

Saginaw Bay

33,380

16,345,851

31.5

Lake St. Clair

& St. Clair R.

15,630

7,653,854

14.8

Detroit River

1,420

695,361

1.35

Lake Erie

6,715

3,288,270

6.35

TOTALS

105,855

$51,836,137

100.0%

The Lake St. Clair wetlands, because of its intense
sport fishing and high potential nonconsumptive recreational
use, probably comprises Michigan' s most valuable coastal
wetland. Saginaw Bay wetlands appear to rank second. Both
areas are in close proximity to large urban centers , have
the highest latent participation demand for sport fishing,
waterfowl hunting, and nonconsumptive recreation, and exhi-
bit forecasted habitat deficiency for migratory waterfowl.

Data Availability and Sources. Most data used in
this report were obtained by the Fisheries Division and
Wildlife Division of the Michigan DNR. The data in gen-
eral consisted of typed or xerox reports and were often
presented on a region or at best, county level. In many
cases , the data were collected by counties through the
mid-1950' s. The data on file since that time were reported
by region. There were only fragmentary data available by
wetland location.

Since the DNR may be required to protect wetlands
in the near future, it is recommended that a file be pre-
pared for each of the state's wetlands. With the present

10

organization of the data, it is not possible to promptly
obtain wetland information on a specific wetland. Because
of the potentially high value per wetland area, sport
fishing and nonconsumptive recreation should be emphasized
in value assessments.

11

CHAPTER TWO
LOSS OF COASTAL WETLANDS

In recent years, with record high lake levels, a
great deal of concern, research, and funding has been con-
centrated on coastal erosion problems in the Great Lakes.
Most investigations by state and federal agencies concen-
trated their efforts on bluff erosion and coastal flooding
(Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1975b; Bryan, 1976). The
concern for wetland losses, although perhaps more signifi-
cant because of their vital link between terrestrial and
aquatic habitats has not been adequately identified,
mapped, or addressed. In this chapter an overview of
coastal wetland changes is presented based upon the avail-
able literature and the mapping of selected wetlands in
the state of Michigan.
COASTAL WETLAND DISTRIBUTION

Michigan has some 2,138 miles of mainland shoreline
(Table 1) which is composed of a variety of geologic
materials such as bedrock, glacial debris and finer lake
plaii. sediments.

TABLE 1
LINEAR MILES OF MAINLAND SHORELINE IN MICHIGAN

Lake

Total Shore
(miles)

Wetlands
(miles)

63.8

1
Wetlands

Superior/St. Marys River

580.8

11.0

Michigan

845.0

80.3

9.5

Huron

565.0

163.2

28.9

St. Clair and St. Clair
and Detroit Rivers

115.0

18.1

15.7

Erie

32.5

14.3

44.0

Total Miles

2,138.3

339.7

Source: Great Lakes Basin, Commission, 1975,
and Erosion, Appendix 12, Section 5.

Shore Use

12

Coastal wetlands occupy only 340 miles or 16 percent of
the State ' s shorelands. The highest percentage of
Michigan's wetland communities occur on low, clay plains
on Lake Erie and Lake Huron. However, significant con-
centrations occur in protected embayments surrounded by
bedrock or thin glacial deposits such as in Little Bay de
Noc, Potagannissing Bay, and Munuscong Bay.

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of coastal
wetland acreage in Michigan. As determined by these data,
a total of 105,855 acres of coastal habitat existed in
1972. As noted in Table 2, the habitat concentration is
greatest in Lake Huron. Four counties (Huron, Tuscola,
Bay, and Arenac) adjacent to Saginaw Bay account for
34,726 acres or 33 percent of the state's total coastal
wetland acreage. In the Upper Peninsula, significant wet-
land areas occur in eastern Chippewa County (11,978 acres)
Most of the 29,785 acres in Lake Michigan are located in
lakes and estuaries landward of Lake Michigan such as the
estuary of Grand River, Lake Macatawa, and Muskegon Lake.

TABLE 2
ACRES OF COASTAL WETLANDS IN MICHIGAN, 1972

Lake Acres

Lake Huron 39,107

Lake Michigan 29,785

Lake St. Clair, Detroit and St.

Clair Rivers 17,050

Lake Superior 13 , 198

Lake Erie 6,715

Total 105,855

Source : Michigan DNR, Shorelands Inventory, 1973

13

FIGURE 1- -Distribution of coastal wet lands in Michigan

Source: Department of Natural Resources, (1973c).
*Other sources indicate this acreage should be 590 acres.

14

WETLAND ENVIRONMENTS

In Michigan's coastal zone, wetlands occur in four
primary environmental settings. These settings are:

1) deltas (e.g., St. Clair River, Whitefish River);

2) shallow shelves (e.g., Wildfowl Bay, Fish Point);

3) sheltered bays and estuaries (e.g., St. Martin Bay,
Portage Bay); and 4) barrier/ lagoons (e.g., Tobico Marsh,
Nayanquing Point) .

1. Delta Coasts occur where river sediments are
introduced into a lake and coastal currents
and wave action are too weak to remove the
sediment. As sediments accumulate at the
river mouth, deltas expand and the wetland
habitat is increased. Such habitats are
diverse and support abundant waterfowl, fish,
mammals, and reptiles.

2. Shallow Shelves generally support linear
coastal wetlands paralleling the shoreline.
Such wetlands normally occur between the beach
and the 6-foot submarine contour, and are
protected from strong wave action. The adja-
cent land areas (e-g. Saginaw Bay) are most often
composed of ancient clay-like plains.

3. Sheltered Bays and Estuaries are relatively
shallow areas protected from wave action and
strong currents. Wetlands in these areas are
often discontinuous and occur in isolated
localities and on the leeside of small islands.
Examples include the St. Marys River, Lake
Michigan and Mismer Bay.

4. Barrier/Lagoon Complexes commonly support
dense wetland communities. Wetlands occur
behind sand barriers and may be extensive,
particularly during lower water periods.
During high water periods and storms, the

15

unstable barrier may be breached or destroyed,
exposing the adjacent wetlands to erosion such
as at the Erie State Game Area.
Based on the proposed National Wetland Classifica-
tion (Cowardin & Carter, 1975), as updated in April, 1977,
the coastal wetland habitats of the state may be tenta-
tively classified within the Lacustrine or Palustrine
Ecological System. The Lacustrine System includes all
habitats where a wave- formed (beach or barrier) or bedrock
shoreline feature forms all or part of the boundary.
Where such a topographic or geologic feature is present,
the habitats lakeward of it are included in the Lacustrine
System regardless of the density of the vegetation.
Figure 2 represents the hierarchy for the Lacustrine Eco-
logical System.

The Palustrine Ecological System includes a wet-
land where adjacent wave-generated or bedrock features
are absent. As now defined, the wetlands associated with
this system are not subjected to intensive wave or current
action. The hierarchy of this system is presented in
Figure 3 .

With regard to Michigan's coastal wetlands, the classes
(Figures 2 and 3) which appear to be most significant in
each system are the "Submergent Bed" and "Emergent Wet-
land" categories. Dominant emergent aquatics are the
sedges (Carex spp) , bulrushes (Scirpus spp) and cattails
(Typha spp) . In terms of a state-wide distribution, based
on the 1972 DNR coastal inventory, the following acreages
have been determined: sedges, 10,823; bulrush, 42,153;
cattail, 30,809; and Potamogeton, 22,338 acres.

Since the Lacustrine and Palustrine Ecological
Systems of the pending National Wetland Inventory are
associated with landf orms , and wave and current conditions,
the systems may be related to the environmental settings
as outlined above. The Littoral Subsystem

16

LU

CO
LU

c/>

U

<

o.

H

H
H

-J

L

o

H

H
W

u

CO

£

Tj

<U

C

DC

TO

U

rH

0)

4-)

n

QJ

U-)

!2

A

u

M

TO

TO

0.)

pq

PQ

>^

CD

^

!-i

O

O

0

X

Pi

CO

4-1

TO

P-i

O
•H

4-1 T3

cd cu<

d pq
cr

o

,u
4J

O

CJ PQ
P

a
o

&
o

4-J
4-)
O

PQ

CJ
•H

4-J

CO Tj

3 CD

cr pq
<

o

CO

o
o

C PQ
P

M I

CJ 4->
O 4->
Pi O

PQ

CO
CO

Nonpersistent

r Sand

L Cobble/Gravel

E Boulder
Bedrock

t

Pontederia cordata

Chenopodium rub rum

Vegetated

Organic

Mud

Sand

Cobble/Gravel

Floating Spirodela polyrhiza

Floating-leaved Nymphoides aquatica

Submergent Moss Drepanocladus f luitans

Submergent Vascular Utricularia vulgaris

Submergent Algal — Nitella

Organic
Mud
■ Sand
Cobble/Gravel

Boulder

Bedrock Spongilla

Floating Lemna minor

Floating-leaved Nuphar variegatum

Submergent Moss ■ Fissidens adiantoides

Submergent Vascular Ruppia maritima

Submergent Algal Chara

Organic

Mud ■ Pisidium

Sand ■ Physa

Cobble/Gravel Gammarus

Boulder
Bedrock

CO
CO

cd

i-H

a

CO

Spon

gilla

CD

CO

O

CD

C

i-H

rd

CD

CX

C

(X

£

•H

>,

cO

s

H

X

o

W

p.

v— '

s

H

CO

>-*

CO

I— I
ctf

H
CO

p

CJ>

<n
p

w
a

H

o

S3

o

H

S

H
pn
H
CO
CO

<

CJ)

w

pi

H
p4

o

o
p

CN

CD

txO

•H

Pn

CD
<4-l

X)

C
CO

en
TJ

(3

TO
iH

4-J
CD

JS

lW
0

e
o

■H
4-1

TO

cj

•H
M-l
•H
CO
CO
TO
(H

o

i-H

■H

^3

P
CO

•H

Pn

CO

cri

a

•H
T3
5-4

TO

o

C_)

CO
CD
4-J

TO

4-)
CO

TJ
CD
4J

•H

p

CD
P

+J

"4-1
O

CO
•U

CO

4-)

•H

TO
P

5-4

CD
4-J

TO

ts

I

ex

CD

CD
R

CX

ex

o
o

o

Q

C
o

4-J

60

a

•H
P
CO
TO

17

H3

T3

CU

c

4->

CO

CO

«-i

CU

4J

M

CU

O

[s

Pn

rd

3

M

T3

X!

c

CO

co

— «.

rH

rQ

+J

3

0)

M

^

o

CO

4J

T3

c

d

cu

03

M <H

V)

4-J

CU

CU

6

ts

W

n

CU

X

nd

o

c

*H

crj

hJ

tH

4J

CO

CU

co

IS

o

£

4->

CO

Pn

a

•H
■ CO CU

cr

<

e

o
■p

+j
o

13

U 4->

' O 4J

Ut, o

pq

Dead

Needle- leaved Evergreen Picea mariana

Broad-leaved Evergreen —
Needle-leaved Deciduous —
Broad-leaved Deciduous Acer rubrum

Magnolia virginiana
Taxodium distichium

Dead

Needle-leaved Evergreen —

Broad-leaved Evergreen —

Needle-leaved Deciduous Larix laricina

Broad-leaved Deciduous Alnus rugosa

Chamaecyparis thyoides
Leucothoe axillaris

Nonpersistent
Persistent —

Peltandra virginica
Typha latifolia

Lichen Cladonia

Moss Sphagnum

Vegetated Eleocharis acicularis

•Organic

Mud
-Sand

Cobble/Gravel

Floating Salvinia rotundifolia

Floating-leaved Brasenia schreberi

■Submergent Moss ■ Fissidens julianus

■Submergent Vascular Ceratophyllum demersum

Submergent Algal Nitella

Organic

Mud Chironomus

■Sand Gammarus

■Cobble/Gravel

C Boulder
Bedrock

H

CO

W
M

Pi

CO

P-<

o

w

H

X

S3
O
h-i

%

CO
CO

u
W

t-i-t

H
O

M
Q

co
cu

00
•H
f=4

J-i

0>

u
cd
&

ex

0>
CU
Q

T3

CO

CO

e

CO

T-l.

CU

!s

O

c
o

•H

4-J
CO
O
•H
4-1
•H

co

CO

CO
>H
CJ

ci
O
4->
t>0

a

•H

TO

crj

a>
o

>

u

0)
CO

CU
M-l
•H

CO

#»

CO

r~^

CU

r^

■u

o\

CO

.H

■4-J

CO

«S

•

T3

iH

CU

CO

4-»

•H

4-J

c

CU

3

«

CU

s

X

4->

hJ

<4-4

o

»1

c

CO

•H

4-»

X)

CO

5-i

4-1

CO

•H

S

,0

o

CO

o

ffi

a
a

o
o

iH

CO
CO
cO
iH
U

CO
CO
CO
.H
O

CO

CU

H CO
(U

CU rH

O Ou

C 6

cfl cO

C X

•H W

s ^
o
Q

18

of the Lacustrine System, characterized by beach deposits
and current action, is associated with wetlands adjacent to
barriers such as coastal Tuscola County and selected areas
of Lake St. Clair. Shoals associated with some delta
regions (e.g., St. Clair) and shallow shelves (e.g., Fish
Point) support aquatic habitats because of weaker cur-
rents and lower wave energies, and are generally within the
Palustrine (vegetated) System. The sheltered bays and
estuaries probably occur in both categories on a state-
wide scale. If, for example, the head of an embayment
is occupied by a beach deposit, the adjacent marsh would
be lacustrine. If, however, a protected bay is composed
of glacial laRe-plain deposit extending out into the lake,
the wetland would be categorized as palustrine.

Elsewhere in this report, wetland habitats are
identified according to the classification of Shaw and
Fredine (1956). Based on that classification, the wet-
land types which are most significant with regard to
coastal Michigan are Types 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. A com-
parison of wetland types in Circular 39 by Shaw and
Fredine with the proposed National Wetland Classification
is presented down to Class/Subclass in Table 3 as deter-
mined by Cowardin and Carter (1975) . To adequately type
the wetland habitats in detail, each wetland must be
investigated and mapped on a large scale (e. g. , 1:24,000)
and additional data on water regime modifiers , water chem-
istry, soil type (organic or mineral) and special modi-
fiers (e.g., diking, farming, etc.) must be included.
WETLAND LOSS

With the use of old maps and modern U.S. Geological
Survey topograhic maps a comparison of past and present wet-
land distributions were made in selected localities. The
coastal areas include the four principal environmental set-
tings discussed above and hence a diversity of wetland types
were chosen. The coastal areas selected were:

19

1

cd

0

•H

c+-l

73

•H

CU

CO

CO

PQ

CO

CO

td

T3

n3

TJ

cd

cd

C

C

C

T3

C

rH

l-l

cd

cd

cd

T3 0)

cd

O

0

rH

rH

r-t

<1) >

T3

rH

rQ

4-1

4J

•U

PQ cd

c

4->

X>

2

0)

0)

CD

1 CU

cd

CU

fi

>>

CO

>

£

£

4-J rH

rH

^

cd

n

*■*<.

C •

4-1

iH

0

CO

4-)

4->

4-J

(U W)

CU

TJ

4->

4J

CO

c

a

a

bOC

rs:

CU

CU

e

cd

0

CD

0)

J^-rM 0

4.)

13

0)

rH

toO

U)

bO

(DUO

&

CO

t-4"

>

O

^

n

J-i

g cd 4J

^

CU

rH

•

<

c

cu

cu

CU

^3 04J

U

J-I

cd

ON

53

rH

a

e

0

3HO

&

O

C

r^

O

w

w

W

CO fa PQ

C/J

fa

O

1

M

rH

•H

00

H

cd

4-J

r^

<

C

cd

53

O

•H

53

fa

W

•P

CU

fa

£

cd

25

4-)

^

cu

CD CU

a> a>

CU CU

CU

CU

•

Q

0

cs

C C

e e

1 C ti

C

c

<W

U

525

a)

•H

•H «H CU

•^ «r-l CU

•H 'A <U

•r<

1 «H

O

^>H

4->

M

U u c

J-l J-l C

1 U J-l C

}-l

J-l

0

<*{

CO

4J

4-J 4-> «H

4-) 4-1 tH

4-> 4-J «H

4J

4J

CO

Q

a\ 0

{*

CO

CO CO J-l

CO CO u

CO CO 5-1

CO

CO

bC

CO H

CO

d

3 2 cu

2 2 CU

3 3 cu

3

^

C

•>

S3

rH

i-H O >

I-l 0 >

1-1 a >

rH

rH

•H

C

CO fa W

cd

cd cd •!-!

cd cd«H

cd cd -h

cd

cd

T3

0

fa h2 Z

fa

fa hJ fa

fa ,Jfa

fa hJ fa

fa

fa

CU
CU

4J
50

r-4 |3H

0

c

PQ O

0

■r-l

< fa Q

J-l

^c

H H JZ
0<3

fa

CO

cd

tJ

-5

53 H

m

W fa

CO

ON (X

§

C

£

rH 0

E-n

O

0

rG

fa

•H

♦d

•> CO

PQ

4J

cd

cd

J-IAJ

CU J-l

53

4J

X

S

^5

O

a>

O CO

CO

CO

4-> £2

rH

bO

43

rH CU

(U

CO

Pu

cd

H

O)

CO

H,r:

a,£

C J-i

a

&

CO >^

3

>

CU

cd CO

0) CO

0) CU

s

cd

J-<

J-l

,£ n

0) u

fa4->

cd

^

O

fx]

fa

co cd

P cd

O cd

^

CO

•• 4-)

2

ON

S

s

1 15

C/3

J^ C

fa

CO

X)

x>

T3

T3

TJ

CU CU

O

C

C^

CG

Cfi

rQ

CU

■P >

u

5-i

cd

cd CO

cd co

cd co

3

'd

^ c

cd

rH

rH CU

1-1 a)

r-l CU

>-4

1 0

cd M

H

c

C M

C u

C ^

^J

0

3

H

M fx«

M fa

M fe

CO

13

X>T3

a

cu c

u

•H cd

■H

CH

CJ

cu
0.

H

: Modi
tion

C

CN

CO

<!■

LO

vO

r>>

CU

cd

a

rH

j-i

4->

0

a)

0

CO

20

Monroe County to St. Clair County
Huron County to Tuscola County
Bay County to Arenac County
Delta County (Little Bay de Noc)
Eastern Mackinac County

Specifically mapped sites were selected by older
map availability and scale. In most cases the premodern
wetland vegetation was planimetered from U. S. Army Engi-
neers field survey charts with map scales between
1:10,000 to 1:20,000. The identical areas were then map-
ped on modern topographic maps, the majority of which had
a scale of 1:24,000, and the wetland acreage difference
recorded.

The following charts obtained from the Submerged
Lands Section of the Michigan Department of National
Resources (DNR) were used to determine historical wetland
acreages of the areas outlined above:

Lake Erie and Detroit River

J. C. Sanford, 1915, Lower Detroit River, Chart
No. 1-1311, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1:20,000.

M. M. Patrick, 1916, West End of Lake Erie, Chart
No. 1-1312, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1:20,000.

F. G. Ray, 1919, Head of Detroit River, Chart No.
1-1392, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1:10,000.

Lake St. Clair

J. R. Mayer, 1868, Lake St. Clair, Chart No.
1-412, U. S. Army of Engineers, 1:16,000.

A. Molitor and F. M. Towar, 1868, West Shore of
Lake St. Clair, Chart No. 1-413, U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers .

W. F. Raynolds and C. B. Comstock, 1873-74, Lake
St. Clair, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1:50,000.

21

Saginaw Bay

G. C. Meade, 1857, Part of the South East Shore
of Saginaw Bay, Chart No. 1-165, U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1:16,000.

J. N. Macomb, 1859, South Shore of Saginaw Bay,

Chart No. 1-153, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1:16,000.

G. C. Meade, 1857, South East Shore of Saginaw
Bay, Chart No. 1-166, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1:16,000.

W. H. Hearding, 1856, West Shore of Saginaw Bay,
Chart No. 1-154, U S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1:16,000.

G. C. Meade, 1857, West Shore of Saginaw Bay,
Chart No. 1-169, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1:16,000.

Little Bay de Noc

W. L. Fisk, 1904-5, Little Bay de Noc, and Ap-
proaches to Green Bay, Chart No. 718, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers , 1:40,000.

Les Cheneaux Islands

W. L. Fisk and E. E. Haskell, 1904, Les Cheneaux
Islands. Brulee Point to Government Bay, Chart
No. 1041, U. S . Army Corps of Engineers ,
1:10,000.

The best accuracy was obtained with map scales of 1:10,000

to 1:20,000. Therefore, the planimetering in the lower

5reat Lakes is more representative of the actual wetland

acreage because of tne ±arger scale maps. Another reason

for more accurate evaluation in the lower peninsula is

that the modern topographic maps are more detailed and

more recent than in the upper peninsula. Topographic maps

available in Bay de Noc area were at a scale of 1:62,500

whereas all other areas were mapped since 1958 at a scale

of 1:24,000.

Table 4 represents wetlands losses of selected

areas planimetered. Considering all areas investigated,

there has been a total wetland loss of between 50 to 77

percent. In sum, 41,608 acres of wetland were lost to

natural or cultural causes. However, it must also be

22

noted that some areas (e.g., Wildfowl Bay), have gained
wetland vegetation. In the subsections below, the above
areas are tabulated and discussed individually.

TABLE 4
ACRES OF WETLAND LOSSES IN SELECTED COASTAL AREAS

Area

Lake Erie/Detroit R.
Lake St. Clair
Saginaw Bay
Little Bay de Noc
Les Cheneaux

TOTAL

Wetland

Date

Wetland

Date

Loss

%
Loss

10,109

1916

3,871

1967-73

6,240

61

18,001

1873

5,007

1973

12,999

72

37,437

1856

17,818

1963-73

19,620

53

2,931

1910

1,458

1958

1,473

50

1,652

1904

374

1964

1,278

77

70,130

28,522

41,608

LAKE ERIE/DETROIT RIVER WETLANDS

Table 5 presents, in detail, the coastal wetland
losses of Monroe and Wayne Counties. As noted, most of
the data are based on years between 1916 and 1973. Most
wetland acreage, particularly in coastal Lake Erie, is
located in lagoons behind sand barriers. Adjacent to
wetlands at Point Mouillee, (i.e., Erie Marshes and the
Monroe/La Plaisance area) the land in 1916 was often in
pasture suggesting that many fields were already drained
or were used extensively during lower water periods.

Water levels in Lake Erie during 1915 and 1916
averaged 570.3 feet, slightly below the 1900 to 1976
average of 570.54 feet. Therefore, the wetland distri-
bution represents average conditions. The modern wetland
acreage in Table 5 represents conditions approaching
record high lake levels (573.30 feet in 1973) which
accounts for zero acreage at Humbug Marsh in 1973 and
smaller acreages in other sites investigated

23

TABLE 5

COASTAL WETLAND LOSSES AND GAINS IN LAKE ERIE AND

LOWER DETROIT RIVER

Location

Acres

Date

Acres

Date

Net

Change

Erie Marshes

2

,285

1916

1

,329

1967

-

956

Toledo Beach

354

1916

182

1967

-

172

Monroe/La Plaisance

3

,666

1916

408

1973

-2

1,258

Stony Point

147

1916

41

1973

-

106

Swan Creek

698

1916

323

1973

-

375

Stony Creek

55

1916

10

1973

-

45

Pointe Mouillee

1

,376

1916

1

,040

1973

-

336

Milleville Beach

146

1916

18

1973

-

128

Lower Detroit River

and Marsh Creek

441

1916

263

1973

-

178

Grosse Isle

541

1916

63

1973

„

656

Humbug

144

1916

U

1973

-

144

Stony Island

105

1916

113

1973

+

8

Celeron Island

152

1916

80

1973

72

TOTAL

10

,110

3

,870

Significant losses due to construction are known
to have occurred throughout the western Lake Erie shore-
line. The development of the city of Monroe has had a
particularly significant impact on the coastal wetlands
and only 408 acres remain physically unaltered today. A
comparison of Figures 4 and 5 reveals that filling by
public, as well as private, concerns are responsible for
losses. A comparison of the Woodtick Peninsula (Figures
6 and 7) demonstrates that losses have occurred in areas
of less industrial /commercial pressure.
LAKE ST. CLAIR WETLANDS

The wetlands of Lake St. Clair are nationally
known for their waterfowl and fish habitats. In 1868-1873

24

FIGURE 4- -Distribution of Raisin River Wetlands in 1915
(after Jaworski and Raphael, 1976).

25

FIGURE 5 --Distribution of Raisin River Wetlands in 1974
(after Jaworski and Raphael, 1976).

76

FIGURE 6- -Coastal Wetlands of Southern Monroe County in
1901 (after Jaworski and Raphael, 1976).

LAKE ERIE

4V
47'

83° 25'

27

FIGURE 7--Coastal Wetlands of Southern Monroe County in
1974 (after Jaworski and Raphael, 1976).

41° 4 7

LAKE ERIE

41°45-

83°25'

28

the U. S. portion of Lake St. Clair supported 18,000 acres
of wetland vegetation (Table 6) . By 1973 this habitat
dwindled to 5,000 acres. Significant losses not only
occurred on the St. Clair delta and St. Johns Marsh, but
on the entire margin of the lake as well. Gaukler Point
(St. Clair Shores) supported 462 acres of wetlands and the
Clinton River had over 3200 acres of wetlands at its
mouth .

TABLE 6
WETLAND LOSSES IN LAKE ST. CLAIR

Location

Acres

Date

Acres

in 1973

Losses

St. Clair Flats

13,547

1873

4

,403

9,144

Swan Creek

185

1868

4

181

Mar sac Point

149

1868

5

144

New Baltimore

52

1868

0

52

Salt River

400

1868

44

356

Clinton River

3,206

1873

546

2,660

Gaukler Point

462

1873

0

462

TOTAL

18,001

5

,002

12,999

Some coastal areas, particularly north of the
Clinton River, appear to have been converted to agricul-
ture by the 1860's suggesting that prior to that time the
wetlands were more extensive. In 1973, a total of 16,220
acres of coast were occupied by residential, recreational
(i. e., marinas) , and commercial uses, as compared to the
area in 1873 (Figures 8 and 9) . Attempts in recent months
to expand residential development in the Clinton marshes
have been stopped by the courts (U. S. vs. Riverside
Bayview Homes, Inc. and Allied Aggregate Transportation
Company) .

29

u

CD

4-J

IW

cd

v_ /

CO

r-*

00

rH

•S

m

•H

cd

rH

O

4-»

W

CD

^

cd

hJ

C

•H

•

^\

CO vO

t3 r^

GO*>

cd i-h

.-H

■P

~

CD rH

^

Qi

cd

^^

cd

a

■U

cd

CO

tf

cd

OT3

U

c

i

cd

oo

•H

r*

a

CO

u

p

O

e>

Z

M

cd

Pn "-0

30

31

SAGINAW BAY WETLANDS

Navigation charts published in 1857 were used to
map wetland vegetation extending from Sand Point south-
westward to Garner Road in Tuscola County. Additional
charts extend from one-half mile east of Knight Road in
Bay County northward to Point Au Gres. The wetland south
of Gordon Road in Arenac County was included as part of
the Au Gres wetland.

The wetland vegetation as planimetered on the
1857 charts totalled 37,437 acres. By 1963-73 these wet-
lands totalled 17,816 acres (Figures 10 and 11). As
noted in Table 7, increases in wetlands were recorded in
the offshore islands of the Wildfowl Bay Wildlife Area,
the offshore marshes of Huron and Tuscola Counties, par-
ticularly southwest of Sebewaing and the wetlands of Au
Gres. Elsewhere, wetland acreage declined.

Permanent losses have occurred in Huron/ Bay
Counties and in the Kawkawl in /Saginaw River area. On
the 1857 charts a wetland paralleled the shoreline and
extended inland 7,000 feet. Based on U. S. Geological
Survey topographical maps of this area (Fish Point Quad. ,
1973) the elevations here are less than 585 feet; an ele-
vation nearly equal to that of the modern shoreline. The
area has been drained for agriculture and the fields have
been tiled. In 1857, the wetland landward (south) of the
coastal barrier occupied 11,701 acres. By the 1960's,
the entire wetland had been drained.

A wetland separated from Saginaw Bay by a coastal
barrier extended from the Kawkawlin River southeastward
beyond the Saginaw River to the Quanicassee Wildlife Area
The wetland lakeward of the 585 foot contour covered
3,313 acres in 1857. Due to draining and urban and com-
merical growth, this marsh was reduced to 721 acres by
1973.

32

33

en

ON

r-H

I

CO

OS

c

•H

CO

-X)

C

CO

■P

>^
PQ

•H

W)

cti

en

I

I

p

o

H

34

TABLE 7
COASTAL WETLAND LOSSES AND GAINS IN SAGINAW BAY

Location

Wildfowl Bay Wildlife Area
(Offshore Islands)

Sand Point to Fish Point
Wildlife Area to Garner
Road (Quanacassee Wildlife
Area)

a) Lakeward of barrier

b) Landward of barrier

SUBTOTAL

Saginaw River /Kawkawl in
Area (^ mile east of
Knight Road)

Tobico Marsh

Linwood

Nayanquing Point

Pinconning River Reach

Saganing River

a) Lakeward

b) Landward

Pine River

Rifle River (Wigwam Bay)
(To Greeks Point)

Au Gres (Greens Point to
Gordon Road)

TOTAL

Acres in 1857 Acres

1,578

2,281
9,420

11,701

3,076

Net
Date Change

1970 +1,498

6,903
0

6,903

1963-73
1963-73

-4,798

3,313

721

1973

-2,592

1,040

599

1973

- 441

352

60

1973

- 292

2,023

952

1973

-1,363

1,765

689

1973

-1,076

1,383
786

489
0

1973
1973

-1,970
- 786

4,913

424

1967

-4,489

5,620

586

1967

-5,034

2,963

3,318

1966

+ 355

37,437

17,817

Reduction of wetland habitat at Tobico Marsh
attributed to residential encroachment and erosion of the
coastal, barrier . Dwellings occupy the entire barrier and
additional filling appears to have occurred especially at
Tobico Beach. With the exception of Au Gres, the wetlands
north of Tobico have deteriorated. A 352 acre wetland
just south of Linwood has been drained and only 60 acres
remain. Most of the remaining wetland acreage with the

35

exception of Nayanquing Point and Au Gres, occurs on

shallow shelves in Saginaw Bay.

WETLAND LOSSES IN THE LES CHENEAUX ISLANDS

The wetland losses for a portion of the Les
Cheneaux Islands and the mainland of southern Mackinac
County were determined. The area investigated extends
from Government Island westward to Brulee Point (Figures
12 and 13) . The lakeward limit of this site was latitude
57° 29' north and included the northern half of Marquette
Island. Many of the wetlands with the exception of Mismer
Bay, Hessel Bay, and Mackinac Bay appear to be offshore
or within the Palustrine Ecological System. Table 8 rep-
resents wetland losses between 1904 and 1964.

The wetlands of the Les Cheneaux Islands are
scattered and occupy embayments protected from strong
wave action. The largest intact wetland acreage is in
northern Mismer Bay at the mouths of the Steele and Law
Creeks (140 acres) . The Les Cheneaux area is unique
because of the specific areas of wetland loss. Based on
the 1904 survey approximately one-half of the wetland
acreage was situated between the shoreline and the minus
6- foot submarine contour. During the summer of 1902 and
1903 when the mapping was probably done, Lake Michigan
was at 578.7 feet above sea level. In the 2-year period
from 1962-63, lake level ranged from 575.8 to 577.9 feet;
considerably lower than the 1902-1903 levels. Thus,
despite the lower levels of the 1960's, lacustrine wet-
land loss had occurred. Human disturbance due to agri-
cultural and urban encroachment appears to have been min-
imal in the areas examined. The only exception is in
Mackinac Bay east of Hessel, where artificial drains
have been excavated, probably, for agricultural expan-
sion.

36

37

c

•H
CO

c

cd

r-l
■U
CD

J3B

cd
cu

a

cd

43
O

CO
CD
►J

CU
43
H

l

8

!=>
O

fa

38

TABLE 8
WETLAND LOSSES IN THE LES CHENEAUX ISLANDS

Location

1904 Acreage

1964 Acreage

Loss

Mismer Bay

232

140

- 92

Hessel Bay

128

51

- 77

Mackinac Bay

276

29

-247

Sheppard Bay

62

0

- 62

Cedarville Bay

100

0

-100

Flowers Bay

133

24

-109

Hill Island and
Channel

93

20

- 73

Island Number 8

16

5

- 11

La Salle and Little

La Salle Islands 267

Marquette Island

(Northern half) 298

Long Island 15

Birch Island 15

Moscoe Channel 17

TOTAL 1,652

56

49

0
0
0

374

-211

-249

- 15

- 15

- 17

LITTLE BAY DE NOC WETLANDS

The wetlands of Little Bay de Noc were plani-
metered using 1910 navigation charts at a scale of
1:40,000. With topographic maps at a scale of 1:62,500,
the 1958 wetland acreages were determined (Figures 14 and
15). Based on these data, approximately 50 percent of the
wetlands were lost (Table 9) . The 1910 acreage totalled
2,930 acres. By 1958 these wetlands were reduced to
1,457 acres.

The level of Lake Michigan in 1908-10 averaged
570.45 feet whereas the average between 1956-58 was
572.65 feet. The higher levels of the mid-1950' s suggests
that some wetlands may have been lost due to high water.
North of Gladstone, a delta has been deposited at the

39

87° - 10'

87° - 00'

- 45° - 50'

0 1

I 1 L

RAPID RIVER /Cy/fc

LAKE MICHIGAN

87° -00'
I

45°-50>-

45° -40'

FIGURE 14- -The Little Bay de Noc Wetlands in 1910

40

»7°- 00"

LAKE MICHIGAN

87° -00'
I

FIGURE 15--The Little Bay de Noc Wetlands in 1958

41

TABLE 9
WETLAND LOSSES IN LITTLE BAY DE NOG 1910-1958

Location 1910

Acreage

1958

Acreage

Loss

Whitefish River Delta

633

486

- 147

Escanaba River to

Portage Point

480

362

- 118

Ford River Delta

148

62

86

Shoreline from Bark

River to and including

Wilsey Bay 1,670 548 -1,122

TOTAL 2,931 1,458

mouth of the Whitefish River. The 1958 map suggests that
147 acres of this deltaic wetland have been drained for
agricultural purposes. Other losses, such as in the
vicinity of Escanaba, appear to be associated with urban
and commercial expansion.
DISCUSSION

Based upon the sites investigated, it may be con-
cluded that over 41,000 acres of coastal wetlands have
been lost (Table 4) . The wetland acreage differences
between two time frames are due to natural causes such as
flooding and/or erosion or to cultural modifications such
as urban/residential growth. A third possibility is a
combination of natural and cultural impacts. Table 10
may be premature without more intensive on-site investi-
gation; however, based on this investigation, some basic
insights may be presented. As noted historically, at all
investigated sites several factors may be related to wet-
land losses. With the exception of coastal flooding, all
factors were determined from the comparative map study
and the available literature. The "coastal flooding"
category was obtained from The National Shoreline Study
(U. S. Army, 1971).

42

TABLE 10

PROBABLE CAUSES OF WETLAND LOSSES IN SELECTED

AREAS

Wetlands

Acres Lost

Probable Cause

Lake Erie and
Detroit River

6,240

Draining, Commercial/
Residential Growth,
Erosion, Flooding.

Lake St. Clair

12,999

Draining, Local Commer
cial/ Urban Expansion,
Coastal Flooding.

Saginaw Bay

19,620

Draining, Coastal
Erosion, Local Commer-
cial/Residential
Growth .

Bay de Noc

1,473

Coastal Flooding, Loca!
Draining, Local Urban
Expansion.

Les Cheneaux

1,278

Erosion, Local Drain-
ing.

TOTAL

41,550

Due to natural conditions, wetland losses have
been most severe over the years where coastal sand bar-
riers have been destroyed by erosion, and by high water
levels. Once the coastal barrier is eroded, the adjacent
wetlands are exposed to wave action. At the mouth of the
Huron River, for example, between 1940 and 1972, some 900
acres of marsh have been lost to Lake Erie due to the
destruction of the coastal barrier lakeward of Pointe
Mouillee (Sellman, et al. , 1974, p. 21).

The impact of recent high lake levels on deltas,
shallow offshore shelves , and sheltered bays is poorly
known. However, some preliminary investigations suggest
that as lake levels rise and fall the wetlands are tem-
porarily drowned or shift landward or lakeward with the
changing levels. In the St. Clair delta, a vegetation
transect monitored between 1972 and 1974 documents this

43

horizontal displacement (Jaworski and Raphael, 1976,
p. 306-307). Aerial photograph studies comparing the
St. Johns Marsh in 1938 and 1974 revealed that the wet-
land acreage increased despite the higher lake levels
(Lowe, et_al. , 1976, p. 28-30).

In coastal Lake Michigan, wetlands are located in
drowned estuaries and protected from the lake by coastal
sand dunes. In most cases these estuarine lakes are con-
nected to Lake Michigan by rivers and hence are affected
by Great Lakes water level oscillations . The impact of
the lake level on the wetland communities appears to be
similar to that in other bays. In Lake Macatawa near
Holland, as lake level rose in the early 1970' s, the cat-
tail marsh became increasingly less dense. By 1975 only
a cattail fringe occupied the north shore of the lake
(Greij, 1976, p. 3).

Conversely, at the Les Cheneaux area permanent
loss of wetland appears to be associated with changing
lake level since human disturbance was minimal. In an
unpublished manuscript, Core (1949) concludes that there
has been a significant loss of aquatic vegetation in
western Lake Erie. Possible causes for the losses as
suggested by the author included changing lake levels,
water movements, carp feeding habits and agricultural
activity.

Wetland losses are more severe where cultural
modifications have occurred. These modifications include
dredging and filling, draining for agricultural purposes
and commercial/residential expansion (e.g., see Kaatz,
1955). In most cases, such activities have a permanent
effect and occur in all types of coastal wetlands identi-
fied. Also, such changes may alter the water quality of
adjacent wetlands and hence degrade wetland habitats
(see for example, Regier and Hartman, 1973).

44

As rural migration into the Great Lakes basin
occurred in the early 19th century, wetlands were drained
and cleared for agriculture. The wet prairie zone from
Port Clinton, Ohio to Detroit, where Spartina was abundant
was permanently lost (Bednarik, 1975, p. 1). This region,
known as the Great Black Swamp, occupied a 40-mile by
120-mile area in the 1850' s. Between 1854 and 1900 the
wetland was drained for agricultural purposes (Langlois,
1954, p. 22). By 1950, 1,800 miles of drainage ditches
were constructed in the region. Based on 1856 field
survey charts, similar losses have occurred in Huron and
Tuscola counties. The Detroit River is a highly in-
dustrialized/commercial area. On the Michigan side of
the river, the shoreline was colonized by at least 3,000
acres of wetland in 1796 (Kreisman, et al. , 1976, p. 13).
By 1967, only 390 acres of wetland remained and that is
of questionable quality.

P?<?t loss rates of coastal wetlands can be deter-
mined if more time periods were included. As noted by
Panzner (1955, p. 10), the removal of water from wetlands
in Michigan through agricultural drainage occurred, to a
large degree, prior to 1930. Also, between 1934 and 1941,
the Works Progress Administration and Federal Relief
Agencies carried out drainage projects in Michigan designed
for malaria control (ibid. , p. 10). Miller (1954) identi-
fied areas in the state where past drainage had occurred
and areas of probable future drainage of wetlands. Ac-
cording to his report, areas where industrial and urban
development destroyed high-quality wetland habitat included
St. Clair, Macomb, Wayne, and Monroe Counties as well as
Bay County. According to Miller, the other coastal
counties of southeastern Michigan (Tuscola, Huron and
Sanilac) were severely damaged in the past, but future
damage was anticipated to be limited. The remaining
coastal counties of the state, according to that report,

45

had limited loss in the past and future wetland loss was
also to have been limited as well.

Wetland losses are not restricted to high popula-
tion centers in southeastern Michigan. Wetland losses
have been identified elsewhere. Between 1857 and 1973, a
352-acre marsh south of Linwocd was reduced to 60 acres.
Between 1910 and 1958 the Whitefish River delta (in the
Upper Peninsula) was reduced from 630 acres to 486 acres.
PROSPECTS

Significant wetland losses have occurred in
coastal Michigan due to natural and cultural factors. In
some instances (e.g., Lake St. Clair and Saginaw Bay)
flooding and high lake levels may temporarily drown
coastal wetlands. However, as water levels fall, it may
be anticipated that such habitats will regenerate. Con-
versely, cultural impacts are irreversible. Draining,
commercial growth and residential expansion permanently
destroy the wetland habitat.

Table 11 summarizes shoreland use in 1970 and
projected use to the year 2020. Substantial increases are
anticipated for industrial/ commercial use and especially
residential use. Conversely, a 400 mile decrease of
shoreland is expected in the Agriculture/Forest/Undeveloped
category. This category is not defined. However, it may
be conceivable that "Forest" includes swamps and that
"Undeveloped" includes marshes.

Figure 16 represents coastal land use changes in
Lake Erie and Lake Huron. The pattern evident is a pat-
tern similar to the remaining Great Lakes, i.e., a decrease
in agricultural/forest/undeveloped use and an increase
in residential uses.

A common historical pattern for wetland losses is
the drainage of these habitats for agriculture followed
by commercial and residential uses. In recent years, due
to rapid and uncontrolled urban expansion, indiscriminate

46

300

250
£ 200

I--'-'""'""

OF SHORELI

e

-

•

to

—J

5 100

50

•

PROJECTED SHORELINE USE

1

• I

•

i

19

70

1980

1990 2000

LAKE HURON

2010

2020

RESIDENTIAL

RECREATIONAL

300

FISH AND WILDLIFE

AGRICULTURAL/ FOREST/

UNDEVELOPED

230

OF SHORELINE

u o
o o

.^^*
^^*

Ui

2 100

50

.

0

•

i ' • • j

1

i

11

»70

1980

1990 2000

2010

2020

LAKE ERIE

FIGURE 16- -Projected Coastal Land Use for Lake Huron and
Lake Erie (Great Lakes Basin Commission, Appendix 12,
1975) .

47

208

23^

265

293

1,119

1,628

1,246

1,331

321

328

352

365

57

55

55

55

filling of wetlands has occurred (Jaworski and Raphael,
1976, p. 308-315). In addition, dredging and filling,
which aid Great Lakes navigation and recreational boating,
have contributed to wetland losses. Subsequently, in-
creased soil erosion and turbidity have degraded the
quality of adjacent wetlands (see Hartman, 1973; Wells
and McLain, 1973) .

TABLE 11

EXISTING AND PROJECTED SHORELAND USE IN LINEAR

MILES*

Use 1970 1980 2000 2020

Indus trial /Commercial

Residential

Public Park/Recreation

Fish and Wildlife

Agriculture/Forest/

Undeveloped 1,691 1,566 1,393 1,267

Source : Modified after the Great Lakes Basin Commission,
1975, Shore Use and Erosion, Appendix 12, Great
Lakes Basin Framework Study, Ann Arbor, pp. 59-
79.

^Includes only U. S. shore of Lakes Superior, Michigan,
Huron, and Erie. Lake St. Clair, St. Clair River and
Detroit River date are included only in the 1970 column.

Based on this investigation it is clear that
wetland losses are most severe near urban areas. However,
such losses are not restricted to southeastern Michigan,
but are occurring throughout the Great Lakes basin. Based
on the land use projections of the Great Lakes Basin Com-
mission, shoreline urban/ commercial expansion will in-
crease in the future at the expense of agricultural,
forested, and undeveloped land. Hence, additional wet-
land losses and degradation may be anticipated.

48

DOLLAR VALUE OF WETLAND LOSSES

As of September, 1976, the DNR held 284,235.47
acres of state game and wildlife areas at a purchase cost
of 12.3 million (DNR, 1976c). The average cost per acre
of this land was $43.33. The present cost of acquisition
of coastal wetlands is extremely variable (Table 12) .

TABLE 12

ESTIMATED ACQUISITION COST OF SELECTED COASTAL
WETLANDS IN MICHIGAN

Location

Acres*

Cost/Acre

Total Cost

Huron Point

440

$ 1,500

$

660,000

Salt River

125

1,500

187,500

Ford Marsh

290

1,500

435,000

Humbug Marsh

332

1,500

498,000

Saginaw Bay Shoreline

8,300

500

4

,150,000

Munuscong WA

200

390

78,000

Cheboygan R. Marsh

289

300

86,700

Source : Martz ,

Wildli

.fe Division,

DNR, March

19

, 1977.

*In previous sections of this report only emergent vege-
tation acreages were determined. Therefore, the acre-
ages in this table, which include open water and sub-
merged aquatics, do not necessarily correspond with
computations in the previous subsection.

The cost to acquire additional wetland acreage at the Ford
Union Camp, and Humbug marshes for example is estimated at
$1,500 per acre. Over the years, Nayanquing Point was
acquired for $161.20 per acre, the Erie Marshes for $55.00
per acre and the St. Clair Flats for $22.00 per acre (DNR,
1976c) .

Generally, wetland acquisition in the past has
been less expensive than suggested acquisition in the
future. As noted in Table 12, to purchase a parcel of
the Munuscong shoreline, it is anticipated that the DNR

49

may have to pay $390.00 per acre; the Cheboygan Marsh may
cost $300.00 per acre. It is becoming increasingly clear
that the real estate value of wetlands is increasing
rapidly. Furthermore, market value of coastal wetland is
generally higher than inland wetlands. Coastal wetlands
are valued at $1,086.25 per acre whereas the average cost
of the Muskegon River, Indian River, Sand River and Galien
River floodplain areas is estimated to be $338.75 per acre
(Martz, 1977a) .

As noted in a previous subsection, the planimetered
areas revealed a loss of 41,550 acres of coastal wetland.
Assuming that these losses are permanent, the maximum value
of wetland loss at the present market price ($1,086.25 per
acre) of just the investigated areas totals $45,133,687.
It is recognized that some wetlands were planimetered at
near-record high lake levels and the marshes may regenerate
as lake levels fall. However, it must also be recognized
that significant permanent losses have occurred (i.e.,
southern Michigan) , where maximum values per wetland acre
are achieved (i.e., $1,500 per acre).
A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF WETLAND LOSS

On the historical topographic maps, the wetland
vegetation was planimetered, and was found to total
70,130 acres. The present acreage, planimetered on
recent topographical maps, totaled 28,522 acres. A com-
parison of the two time periods reveals a loss of some
41,000 acres, or 59 percent of the original wetlands.

Panzner (1955, p. 10) notes that by 1940, 8 million
acres of the state's wetlands had been drained for agri-
culture and for malaria control. Panzner (ibid, p. 8)
also determined that the state's total wetland acreage in
1955 was 3.2 million acres. This suggests that histori-
cally Michigan had at least 11.2 million acres of wetland.
An earlier estimate by Veatch (1938, p. 93) closely cor-
responds to Panzner 's data. Veatch states, "The total
area of land in Michigan which is, or was originally

•

50

swampy, including marsh, bog and wet timbered land, may
comprise more than 10 million acres of which perhaps
nearly 4 million are peat and muck" (ibid, p. 93).

Of the present 3.2 million acres of wetlands,
105,855 acres, or 3 . 3 percent, occupy the coastal zone.
Assuming that the coastal wetland acreage in the past
existed in the same proportion to the state's total wet-
land area, coastal wetlands may have totalled 369,000
acres. If Michigan historically had 369,000 acres of
coastal wetland and the present acreage is 105,855 it may
be concluded that 263,145 acres or 71 percent has been
lost. As noted in Table 4, historically there were 70,130
acres in the wetlands studies whereas between the 1958-
1973 period, these same coastal wetlands totaled only
28,522 acres. In the investigated areas therefore, the
coastal wetland losses totaled 41,608 acres for a loss of
59 percent of the original resource.

The 59 percent loss estimate does not consider
some important variables. Panzner's objective was to
determine wildlife habitat, therefore some open water and
upland cover were included in his evaluation. The 1973
DNR Shoreland Inventory, taken during high-water levels
of 1972, considered only emergent and submergent vegeta-
tion. Therefore, quite possibly the 3.2 million acres
recorded in 1955 may actually be less in area while the
1972 inventory underestimated the wetland acreage,
causing a higher estimate of the actual wetland acreage
lost.

51

CHAPTER THREE
VALUE OF COASTAL WETLANDS TO WATERFOWL

Important waterfowl in Michigan include ducks ,
geese and swans, as well as other water birds. Scientific
names of waterfowl common in Michigan are listed in
Appendix 1. As discussed below, waterfowl provide for
both consumptive (i.e., hunting) and nonconsumptive uses
with the latter increasing at a faster rate. It will be
demonstrated that the coastal wetlands of Michigan provide
resting and feeding habitat for migratory waterfowl as
well as shooting areas on private and public lands.
Because a considerable percentage of the annual harvest
of waterfowl is derived from birds reared within the
state, Michigan's wetlands, including the coastal wetlands,
are also important as breeding areas. Finally, as non-
consumptive use of coasts near cities increases, including
that of state game areas, more demand will be generated
for interpretive and other types of nonconsumptive recrea-
tion in the coastal wetlands.
USE OF COASTAL WETLANDS FOR MIGRATION

At least 3 million waterfowl migrate annually
through the Great Lakes region (Great Lakes Basin Comm. ,
1975c, p. 54). The spring and fall migrations consist of
relatively large numbers of diving ducks (Figure 17) ,
dabbling ducks (Figure 18) , Canada geese (Figure 19)
as well as some snow geese, blue geese, swans, and
coots. As illustrated by these maps, Michigan is
situated at the intersection of the Atlantic and Missis-
sippi Flyways. Spring migration corridors are similar to
fall routes except that the spring movements are more
diffuse and occur along a broad front. Based on the

52

CO

V

O

° s

^ 8

Q O

< r-~

(— —

to to

IT)
CN

CN

o

If)

o w

o e

*0 "O

i 2

Vs

:0

3 cA^H-i

vOs

tq
^

-^<

TA

Py

■^
c?

S.A-

,o

O

54

55

corridor data, an estimated 700,000 diving ducks, 500,000
dabbling ducks, and 250,000 Canada geese migrate each fall
across some part of the State of Michigan. Because large
numbers of waterfowl utilize the coastal wetlands of Michigan
for resting and feeding during migration, these coastal
environments have value to many states in the United States
as well as to Canada.
Canada .
Fall Migration

In mid-summer, duck and coot broods being reared
in Michigan wetlands begin congregating in somewhat deeper
wetland environments because of the greater abundance of
foods, including insects and invertebrates preferred by
the young (Hunt and Mickelson, 1976, p. 51). By September,
the local nesting waterfowl have gathered in large wet-
lands, referred to as concentration or staging areas,
where plant and animal foods are plentiful. For example,
a mallard brood may move from a small inland wetland in
Ontario to the St. Clair flats. In September and October,
severe weather in more northerly breeding grounds forces
other waterfowl to funnel southward toward Michigan and
into these same concentration areas.

The fall concentration areas for migratory water-
fowl are illustrated in Figure 20. In general, important
coastal wetland areas include coastal Monroe County, Lower
Detroit River and adjacent Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, St.
Clair River, Saginaw Bay, St. Marys River, and Big and
Little Bay de Noc. Diving ducks, e.g., canvasbacks ,
lesser scaup, and redheads tend to migrate across Lake
Michigan and to stopover in the coastal wetlands and adjacent
shallow waters of southeastern Michigan (Bellrose, 1968, p. 12).
Lake St. Clair, with its extensive beds of submerged aquatics
and relatively calm waters for resting, is nationally recog-
nized as a concentration area for canvasbacks and redheads
(Great Lakes Basin Comm. , 1975c, p. 55).

56

FIGURE 20--Fall concentration areas for migratory waterfowl,
in Michigan, 1977, (Michigan's Coastal Wetlands), modified
after Panzner, 1955.

57

For several migratory waterfowl species which
utilize the Great Lakes-Chesapeake Bay migration corridor,
the coastal wetlands and shallow waters of Michigan con-
stitute critical resting and feeding habitat. As shown in
Table 13, the primary and secondary migration corridors of
several duck species, whistling swans, and Canada geese lie
across Michigan. The principal migration corridors of
whistling swans, canvasbacks, buf f leheads , and ruddy ducks
extend diagonally across the state, from the northwest to
the southeast, with a resting stopover in the vicinity of
Lake St. Clair (Bellrose, 1976, p. 96, 304, 414 and 468).
Species whose secondary migration corridors traverse the
state in similar fashion include redheads, greater scaup,
and lesser scaup. Peak concentrations of canvasback during
the 1954-1958 period, along Lake St. Clair, lower Detroit
River, and adjacent Lake Erie numbered 260,000 whereas
today flocks rarely exceed 50,000 birds. Because larger
numbers of canvasbacks and other divers are being observed
along the northern shores of Lake Erie in recent years, a
loss and/or degradation of migration habitat in south-
eastern Michigan is suspected (ibid. , p. 305).

TABLE 13

DUCK, GOOSE, AND SWAN SPECIES WHOSE PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY MIGRATION CORRIDORS TRAVERSE THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN

Primary Corridors

American Goldeneye
Buf f leheads
Canvasbacks
Hooded Merganser
Ruddy Duck
Canada Geese
Whistling Swan

Source: Bellrose, 1976.

Secondary Corridors

Black Ducks
Greater Scaup
Lesser Scaup
Redhead

Coastal wetlands which currently are important
concentration areas are listed individually in Table 14

58

TABLE 14

WATERFOWL CONCENTRATION AREAS IN COASTAL WETLANDS
FALL MIGRATION, IN MICHIGAN, 1976

Wetland Area

Upper Peninsula

Portage Entry

Portage Marsh, Big & Little Bay de Noc

St. Marys River, including Munuscong &
Potagannissing Bays

County (s)
Houghton
Delta

Chippewa

Lower Peninsula

Wetland Area

Grand Traverse Bay

Mouth of Benzie Creek

Thunder Bay, Thunder Bay River mouth

Mouth of Manistee River, Lake Manistee

Hamlin Lake, Pere Marquette Lake

Tawas Bay, and adjacent Lake Huron

Au Gres Ma^sh and Wigwam Bay

Nayanquing Point, Tobico Marsh

Sebewaing and Wildfowl Bays, Fish Point,
Quanicassee Marshes

Mouth of Muskegon River, Lake Muskegon,
White Lake

Pentwater River mouth marshes

Lower Grand River

Lake St. Clair, Anchor Bay, marshes and
embayments of Flats, including St. Johns
marsh

Lower Detroit River, near Grosse Ille,
Celeron Island, Horse Island, and
adjacent Lake Erie

Pointe Mouillee and adjacent Lake Erie

Erie Shooting and Fishing Club, Erie State
Game Area, and waters of N. Maumee Bay

County (s)
Grand Traverse
Benzie
Alpena
Manistee
Mason
Iosco
Arenac
Bay

Huron & Tuscola

Muskegon

Oceana

Ottawa

St. Clair & Macomb

Wayne
Monroe

Source; Modified after Panzner, 1955.

Gerald Martz and Edward Mikula.

Monroe
Personal communication,

59

The wetlands at the mouth of the Saginaw River, in the
Lower Detroit River south of Grosse Isle, near Monroe in
La Plaisance Bay, and at the mouth of the Raisin River,
which were major concentration areas during the 1940' s
(Miller, 1943, p. 3), no longer attract large numbers of
migrants due to water pollution, siltation and decrease
in waterfowl foods (U. S. Dept. of Interior, 1967, p. 75 and
77; Bednarik et al. , 1975, p. 3).

Detailed, long-term census of migratory waterfowl
using specific wetlands are expensive to conduct, hence
complete data are not available for analysis. The vari-
ability in dates of main flights due to the unpredict-
ability of severe weather, as well as nocturnal flights
and timing of surveys all affect the accuracy of census
counts. To gain an impression of the relative importance
of the various coastal wetlands with regard to fall migra-
tion, an examination of available waterfowl day use by wet-
land area is helpful (Table 15) . A waterfowl day represents
the use of a wetland by one bird for one day. The data in
Table 15 do not suggest heavy waterfowl use of some coastal
wetlands. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources considers
a coastal wetland to be of high value to waterfowl if the
waterfowl use exceeds 39 bird days per acre annually
(Weeks, 1974, p. 6). If the Ohio standard is adopted, then
the western Lake Erie shore, lower Detroit River, Lake St.
Clair (U. S. side) and selected shorelands of Saginaw
Bay can be regarded as high value resting sites for migratory
waterfowl .

Documentation of the use by migratory waterfowl
of specific coastal wetlands in Michigan is possible only
for selected wetlands. Many wetlands along the western
coast, such as the Hamlin Lakes areas adjacent to Lake Michigan
have not been extensively inventoried by aerial surveys.
Moreover, the available data contained in the Permanent

60

rH

5

0

<u

-M

p.

co

J-i

o

.

a) <!

m

o

in

m

r-

p

•

•

•

•

m

cd

p

<o

CO

CT>

<f

vO

rH

rH

m

£

CD

o

CO

rH

rH

rH

r--

11

cu

iX

•

W) co

PfS

cd

^

S3

?-i

cd

P

(1) p

>

•

<

CO

O

O

o

o

o

o

O

o

o

a

•H

Q

cd

O

o

o

o

o

O

O

o

o

~

S3

T3 P"

vO

o

m

o

o

CO

o

o

<f

•

<

CU

•»

-

■»

•>

-

-

"

•>

«

>

►J

P rH

m

o>

rH

o

m

rH

o

o

CM

>r\

H

Qt

;>

r-»

rH

rH

vO

LT^

m

LO

CM

<r

P

W

s

0

00

CT\

r-

o

<t

rH

rH

rH

<r

5

•H <P

-

-

»

~

•>

CU

P

M

CO

rH

r>-

rH

o

m

►J

CO

OJ

CN

CN

\o

•H

<J

W

+J

rH

H

cd

nd

co

£

rH

<J

•H

O

JS

O m

LO

»

>h cr>

rH

O

m

o

o

o

o

O

vO

CO

PQ t-H

CO

m

m

CTN

o

o

o

o

O

On

>>

a)

<T

CO

CO

o

o

o

CM

vO

CT>

cu

m w -

M

-

„

->

-

•>

«*.

■«

•<

•<

>

rH co S

CJ

<!■

ro

m

CN

00

CO

r»

rH

<t

p

S3 <

<

CTi

H

rH

<f

r^

rH

ON

m

p

w o

rH

<!■

CM

o

CO

r-l >-< M

~

PQ <: x

rH

rH

< P O

5

H H

/-»v

P

cu

o

^£

CO

■H^

cd

a

QJ

m

Vw^

•3

cd

0

»

cd

p:

15

cd

c

M

O S3

N

ai

rH

O

a

rH

o

Q)

a

•H

cu

SM

P

Q)

o

u

CJ

cd

o

u

cd

Pi

•H

a

O

p

p

P

u

cd

P

~

a

3

p

PL.

^

o

0

cd

w

3

>^ p

.

X.

0)

>> «n tn

rH

•H

CJ

c

CO

IS

H

0

cd

0

p

u

cd

3

0)

rCl

cd

0)

O

^

CJ

DO

CO o<

< p

P

U

S

H

rH

r2

.

cfl
■H

P

..

rH

P

W

,-i

CJ

<D

H

u
P

0)
0)

P

•H

m

^3

<

JE;

•H rH

0)

■-3

rH

cd

•«

H

rH

X

CO

•«

0

.-i

CO

H

CO

•H

p

T>

CO

„

a

a

CU

co

13

3

P

r>»

•

o

•

•H

p

rH

W

P

O

•

cd

cd

P

2

rH

C

•H

cd>

rH

H/JCn

CJ

CO

0)

Pm

i-i

CJ

CU

OJ

c

-d

o

CO

CU

*

p

co

MH

bC

T)

•H

C

cd

rJ

P

P

P

•H t

O

!3

C

cd

•"— i

<

P

O Pw

P

X

o

•H

>,

«

rH

X)

H

a)

rP

•«

cd

CO M-l

3

CO

cd

r-l

CU

cd

O

P

CO

«

CO

PrH

T3

cr cu

PQ

CU

U

H

cd

•

cu

•H

cu

^ r

CXI

>

>^

o

T)

0

cd

CU P

cd

p

•H

cd

CO

<u

•H

cd

X

rC

co

d

u

CU

•H

CO

rH

o

>n!3

>■> P

rH

P4 pi

3

cox

cd

CU

P

P

P

p

UJ

Cd

1

cd

cd

P

cd

p

Ph

<

w

•H

cd

CO

PQ

W)52

P

CO

00

cu

>%t

S^

OS

•

a

•H

rM3

el

cd

O

cd

T3

CU

u

P <JQ

£

•H

•»

CO

rJ

V4

o

cu

PQ

S

PQ

•■

P

^

p

cu

CO

cd

cd

o

cu

cd

CJ

rC

cu

cd

cd

QJ

•H

CO

a

£

o

U

^8

£

CO

u

a

M

CO

P

CJ

i— i

rJ P

p

cu

p

•H

CU

•rl O

2

CU

cu

cd

O

p

p

W

rid

cd

bOX X

oO

.

0

CO

cu

>

£

U

p

a)

•

•

Cd r-l

cd

CU

O

3

•H

p

3

0)

r-l

•H

cd

0

o

^

r^hjt^j

rJ p4

CO CO H <J

PQ

cos

rJ

O

M

HP2

CO

61

Files of the Wildlife Division, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, have yet to be reduced and summarized.

With regard to specific species using the coastal
wetlands for resting and feeding, the available data were
scattered and incomplete. The data in Table 16 suggest
that the relative numbers and species composition varies
considerably from one wetland type to another. Note the
concentration of mallards and other dabbling ducks on
Harsen's Island where shallow marshes and grain are avail-
able, whereas diving ducks prefer the open-waters and wetlands
of Anchor Bay and the Canadian side of Lake St. Clair.

The use of wetlands by migratory waterfowl appears
to be a function of the species1 food and resting prefer-
ences as well as the physical characteristics of the wet-
lands. Protection from wave action is a major factor in
determining the location of waterfowl concentrations
(Anonymous, 1945, p. 4). For example, the shoreline con-
figuration, shoals, and islands collectively provide
protection from waves generated in the open waters of
Saginaw Bay for ducks and geese resting in Sebewaing and
Wildfowl Bays (Miller, 1943, p. 71). Because the Portage
Entry Marsh, Munuscong and Potagannissing Bays, Little and
Big Bay de Noc, Thunder Bay, Nayanquing Point, Tobico
Marsh, Lake St. Clair, lower Detroit River, and western
Lake Erie marshes are protected from the prevailing
westerly winds and subsequent wave action, these areas
are potential waterfowl resting areas. Rafts of over
10,000 redhead ducks have been observed in St. Martin Bay,
which is also protected from wave action (personal com-
munication, Gerald Martz) .

Another major factor determining the attractive-
ness of a fall concentration area is availability of pre-
ferred food items. Mergansers feed primarily on fish,
especially forage species, and some diving ducks, e.g.,
American Goldeneye, prefer crayfish, clams and other

62

SO

H

I— I CT>

O >i

J2 cd

CO

C

x:

•fi

o

co

*-i

M

cd

•

g

•U

00

vD

CN

r»

vO

r^

CM

m

CMAvJ

CO

o

o

CM

CM

cr>

CO

m

<t

CN

<r

CN

CM

HHm

<T

<t

ON

CO

O

<r

CM

CO

CO

r~-

CN

r— (

as

co <a- o

r>.

CM

>£>

CO

<!■

CO

r.

^

«N

#»

r* r. *k

a

ts

*

*

*£>

oo

H

r*.

m o <r

<r

\D

rH

vD

CM

CO

vO H H

as

CO

co r-. o o o o

ON CO CO

m as co

#\ #\ *t

<r cm i-i

m

On

r-. m

o o

o>

m vo vo cm <r
o o-\ m 00 CN
co oo o> CO

#* #* #»

vo co r>.
m

<t c* oo <£>

v£> O CTi CT>

o m o <f

00 vO vO CO

<d- m o rH r^ r^.

cx>

m co co <r cm

CO

CO CM

r-«

O O O O rH

CO

T3

p

cu

>-4

•H

CO

M

a

rH

CJ

CO

■H

cd

a.

cd

rH

C/J

g

pq

cu

4-1 rH

cd -H

a. cd

T3 4J

rH C

Cd -H rH

pq pQ rx, pq

rH

cd
CU
H

CU
60

a

•H

i

a

CU

cu
o

*

co
u
cu

rH
XI
,0
cd
P

cd

4->

o

H

o

cd

x>

CO

cd
>
c
cd
c_>

cu

cu

a

a cu

Cd rH

a o
co o

T3

cd
cu

rC

cu

rH
<4-l
*4H

PQ

O
as

CM

m

CM

m

CM

CM

vO

oo
m

CM

a

o

TJ

CO

c

a

cd

r-

o

o

o

o

o

r-*

o

o

o

m

m

o

•H

rH

CO

CN

m

m

rH

vO

o

CO

^

CO

rH

rH

ON

00

CN

o

CJ

H

•N

•H

CM

P

CO

C

x)

O

o

o

o

o

m

m

O

o

o

o

O

o

cu

C

m

o

m

ON

a\

CO

cd

m

on

vO

rH

u

rH

•V

*s

ffl

cd

CO

cr>

<r

m

»

H

rH

CM

CN

SO

oo
o

o

00

ON

•sO

CN

as
as

CN

P

o

o

o

d

vO

o

cd

CO

rH

bO

A

•H

CN

X!
0

•H
g

>

•H
P

CU
M-4

•H

&

o

o

m

o>

00

it

CM

CO

<h

CU

m

rH

CM

•H

CO
CJ

cu

•H
•4-4
•H
4-1
C

cu
•H

CO

cu

13

rH
O

e

63

invertebrates. Other divers, particularly canvasbacks ,
redheads, and scaup, feed on submersed aquatics including
wild celery (Vallisneria americana) , pondweeds (Potamoge-
ton spp . ) and waterweed (Elodea canadensis) (Miller, 1943;
Bellrose , 1976) . It is generally felt that submersed plants
and their associated communities provide most of the
foods required by diving ducks (Anonymous, 1945, p. 2).

In contrast, dabbling ducks, including mallards
and black ducks, and Canada Geese, feed on plant foods
found in shallow wetlands and on waste grains in nearby
agricultural fields (Miller, 1958, p. 2). A study of 126
mallard ducks shot at the Erie Shooting and Fishing Club
during the 1967 waterfowl season revealed that corn con-
stituted 69 percent of the food volume ingested (Hunt and
Mickelson, 1976, p. 53). Due to hunting pressure, mal-
lards and Canada Geese often feed atduskorat night in corn-
fields, but return after dawn to the protection of open
waters. Thus, the proximity of feeding areas, i.e., in
agricultural fields and in shallow marshlands, to open-
water areas, as in Sebewaing-Wildfowl bays, characterize
high value concentration areas for many species of dab-
bling ducks and Canada Geese. For that reason, many game
managers, as at Fish Point, St. Clair Flats, and at Erie
Shooting and Fishing Club, plant corn and other grains to
attract a segment of the waterfowl population.

Few studies have been conducted on the food prefer-
ence of waterfowl feeding in coastal Great Lakes wetlands.
One such study (Hunt and Michelson, 1976), however, at
the Erie Shooting & Fishing Club revealed that the emer-
gents, softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus) and nodding
smar tweed (Polygonum lapathifolium), and the submergents
sago and curly- leaved pondweeds (Potamogeton pectinatus
and P. richardsonnii), are preferred food items in the
diet of mallards, black duck, teal and other ducks com-
monly harvested in that wetland (Table 17) . This study

64

also demonstrated that plant foods are sufficiently
abundant in the managed wetland to maintain waterfowl
populations throughout the year, not just primarily during
the fall and spring migrations (ibid. , p. 51).

TABLE 17

UTILIZATION OF PLANT FOODS BY 150 DUCKS AND COOTS
HARVESTED AT ERIE SHOOTING CLUB, 1959

7o of Waterfowl Mean Seed Yield
Plant Species Utilizing the Species in lbs . per Acre

Softstem bulrush 76.7 525.7

Nodding smartweed 63.3 870.8

Sago Pondweed 34.0 201.0

Curly-leaved

pondweed 32.7 319.9

Source : Hunt and Mickelson, 1976, p. 48.

Other investigations of available waterfowl foods
in coastal wetlands include Miller's 1943 study of Sebe-
waing-Wildfowl Bays, Hunt's 1952 and 1963 surveys of sub-
mergent vegetation in the lower Detroit River, and some
quantitative estimates of plant foods present along the
St. Marys River contained in International Lake Superior
Board of Control, 1974. These three areas are important
concentration areas.

A recent decline in scaup harvests along Saginaw
Bay may be related to a decrease in the extent of sub-
mersed aquatics as a result of siltation and increased
turbidity (Martz and Ostyn, 1977, p. 15). Water pollu-
tion is also associated with a decline in the abundance of
wild celery in the Detroit River (U. S. Dept. of Int.,
1967, p. 90). In addition, siltation, turbidity and other
forms of water pollution have drastically reduced the
once abundant wild celery and other submersed aquatics
within the western Lake Erie wetlands. This vegetation

65

change has been associated with the decrease in the har-
vest of divers, including canvasback, redhead, and scaup,
which until recently constituted the basis of duck hunting
in the area (ibid. , p. 88-89). Because of differences in
food preferences, dabbling ducks and Canada Geese appear
to have been less impacted by this environmental degrada-
tion (Bednarik et al . , 1975, p. 3).

In contrast, a recent study of Anchor Bay, located
in northern Lake St. Clair, suggests that only a small
percentage of the desirable aquatic plants and inverte-
brates available to migrant diving ducks is currently
being utilized (Dawson, 1975, p. 69). Hunting pressure
and disturbance by boaters and fishermen, even in the
refuge area, forces the main flocks to leave the U.S.
waters of Lake St. Clair before the food supplies are
consumed (personal communication, Leo Pospichal) . In the
1930' s and 1940' s, as many as 750,000 ducks congregaged
on Lake St. Clair during the fall migration (Miller, 1943),
p. 9). This availability of waterfowl foods is signifi-
cant because Lake St. Clair is nationally renowned as a
fall concentration area for migrating canvasbacks , red-
heads, scaup, and buffleheads (ibid, p. 5).

Based on data collected in the fall of 1941 and
1942, the average length of stay by migratory waterfowl
in a given wetland in Michigan was 33 and 35 days, respec-
tively (Miller, 1943, p. 9 and 35). Unless forced to move
on by severe weather or hunting pressure, ducks tend to
linger in the concentration areas. The main flights of
dabbling ducks occur in late September or October, whereas
divers appear somewhat later in October and November.
Fall flights of canvasbacks, redheads and scaup generally
appear first at the western Lake Erie-Lower Detroit River
concentration area, then within a few days thereafter in
Lake St. Clair and along Saginaw Bay. Compared to some
other ducks, canvasbacks are prone to utilize specific

66

geographic concentration sites such as Lake St. Clair
(Martz et al., 1972, p. 9). In contrast, redheads tend
to be more widely scattered along the flyway corridors.
Scaup tend to arrive at western Lake Erie-Lower Detroit
River sites in November where they are harvested by hunters
in relatively large numbers (Martz and Ostyn, 1977).

As illustrated in ngure 19, Canada Geese tend to
migrate along the coasts of Michigan. At present, the major
fall concentration areas include the Fish Point State Game
Area, Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Baraga Plains Wildlife
Area, Shiawassee River National Wildlife Refuge and State
Game Area, Fenville Farm area, Kellogg Bird Sanctuary, Leidy
Lake State Game Area, and other small sites (personal com-
munication, Gerald Martz). Miller (1943, p. 123) listed the
coastal concentration areas important during the 1940 's, and
emphasized the islands and marshes of Saginaw Bay. In 1975
Canada Geese began arriving at the Fish Point area of Saginaw
Bay in mid-September and peaked at about 4,000 in number in
early October (Jarvis, 1975a). Though many geese from the
Saginaw Bay area migrate south toward Ohio, a significant
number also move diagonally across the state toward the southwest

Spring Migration

In general, the spring migration of waterfowl
follows the same corridors as during the fall migration.
However, the movement is less restricted to specific
wetlands as waterfowl are often observed on lakes and in
wetlands which they did not frequent in the fall. Hence,
the waterfowl tend to be somewhat more scattered, and
therefore draw on aquatic foods over a larger area than in
the fall. Submersed aquatic plants such as wild celery,
are particularly important to waterfowl during spring
migration. With regard to dabbling ducks and Canada Geese,
waste grain in agricultural fields is most important. If
the food supplies are inadequate, waterfowl may arrive at
breeding areas in poor condition, which, in turn, can

67

reduce nesting success (personal communication, Leo
Pospichal) . In Michigan's breeding grounds, the estab-
lishment of territories and nesting may be initiated in
late March (Hunt and Mickelson, 1976, p. 34).

The northward advance of waterfowl in spring is
governed by the ice breakup (Miller, 1943, p. 13). As
snowmelt occurs and ice- free areas appear in the water
bodies, a wave of northward migration follows. Main
spring flights begin in mid-March in the southeast corner
of Michigan (Table 18) . Ducks usually congregate along
western Lake Erie, in Lake St. Clair, and along the shore-
lands of Saginaw Bay. If the weather is mild, flights
appear by March 10, and most flocks have departed by
April 1st. The main flights require only approximately
45 days to pass through the state (ibid. , p. 11). By May
1st, most flocks of ducks and geese have passed through
the northern part of the state.

In contrast to the fall migration, the spring
migrants appear restless and hurried, even though there
is no hunting pressure and less disturbance by boaters.
Many ducks arrive in concentration areas already paired.
The average time spent by waterfowl at a concentration
site is 11 days (ibid. , p. 11). On March 27, 1941, an
estimated 400,000 ducks congregated on the east side of
Grosse lie on the Detroit River. Ninety percent of these

ducks were divers, the most numerous of which, in order,
were: canvasbacks, scaup, redheads, buff leheads , and golden
eyes (ibid. , p. 7). Lake St. Clair is a usual resting and
feeding stop for these spring migrants.

Census of spring waterfowl migrations are incom-
plete in Michigan. However, to provide a perspective of
the species composition and relative numbers of migrants,
some census data pertaining to southeast Saginaw Bay is
presented in Table 19. Note that the aerial survey revealed
a large variation in the species present as well as in

68

TABLE 18

SPRING MIGRATION CALENDAR BY WATERFOWL SPECIES
IN MICHIGAN'S COASTAL WETLANDS

Wetland Area
Monroe Marshes

Arrival
of 1st
Migrants

Mar. 10

L. Detroit River Mar. 10
Lake St. Clair

Sebewaing Bay

Squaw Bay and
Thunder R.

Hayward Lake
Green Bay

Munuscong Bay

Mar. 28

Apr. 10

Apr. 10

Apr. 4

Arrival
of Main
Flights

Mar. 15

Mar. 20-25
Mar. 20-30

Apr. 1

Apr. 16

Apr. 15

Apr. 10-18

Departure
Date

Mar. 20

Mar. 30
Mar. 30

Apr. 4
Apr. 20

Apr. 20

Apr. 15
(ducks)
Apr. 30
(geese)

Principal
Species

Widgeon, pintail
Mallards, B. duck

Scaup, canvasback

50-50 Divers and
Dabblers

70% divers
Canada Geese

Both divers and
dabblers

Both divers and

dabblers
Canada Geese
Black ducks

Mallards, BW
teal, scaup,
goldeneye.
Many geese.

Source: Miller, 1943, p. 14.

the total numbers of waterfowl. Timing of aerial census
flights, as well as nocturnal flights and leapfrogging of
concentration areas cause variations in the data which must
receive careful interpretation.

Canada Geese, in spring, utilize the Kalamazoo
River and the eastern side of Saginaw Bay as concentra-
tion areas. A main flight of Canada Geese in spring
occurs diagonally across the state from the southwest
corner to the Saginaw River valley and Saginaw Bay, then
north along the eastern side of the state (Miller, 1943,
p. 11). As many as 30,500 Canada Geese congregate at a
time in the Sebewaing-Wildfowl Bay area of Saginaw
Bay (Table 19). Resting and feeding also takes

69

PC

co r^

M r^

Pn o

rH

CO

53 «

O rH

M r-^

H CJ\

S^

O -

M CTi

JE| VO

CT\

td H

O '

fa r-

pi vo

CT*

w cr,

tH

H rH

<

W

!2 •

h4

>H

PQ

o <:

<3

2 PQ

H

M

Pi o

CM 2

CO h-l

^

P4 fcS

o w

CO

>H W

W CO

>

pi p

p> z

co <;

rJ H

<$ z

M M

pi O

W fa

<1

00

c

•H

O

o

o

o

o

o

O

O

O

O

LO

m

CO

O

o

o

o

o

o

o

O

r-^

r^-

£

CO

CO

rH

-d-

*3-

rH

LD

CO

i-»

CD

#N

•*

91

XI

CM

C^

CN

Q)

rH

r^

CO

r--

a\

rH

4-1

fa

o
o

o
o

o

o

o
o

O

o

O

O

o
o

O

O

o

x:

CO

CO

<r

<f

CO

CO

n

**

n

•H

rH

cr.

o

fa

rH

CO

CD
•H

a

CD

ex

CO

00

c

•H

o

co

5

CD

X>

CD

rH

CO

r~-

CT\

rH

4-1

fa

o
o

x:

o

CO

*■

•H

CN

fa

vO

&0

c

O

•H

O

CO

uo

£

#*

CD

r~-

rO

CO

CD

r--

CO

v£>

c^

r-H

•

■M

o

fa

x

co

•H

fa

CO

-a
cd

co
S

CO

o
P

o

cd

o
o
o

o
o
o

o

o
o
o

CN

LO VO

o o

O CO

o

CN

o
o
o

rH

CN

O

CO

o

o I o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

m

m

o

o

m

m

o

o

CM

o

r^-

-3-

m

m

r-»

r^

o

vO

vO

CN

m cN

o
o
m

o

o
o
o

r.

co

•H
CO
4->

c

o
o
o

CO
ON

o
o
o

co

•K

CO

>-l

CD

rH

x>

CO
P

O
O
O

o

CO

PP fa

cfl
CD
H

ex

CO

o

CO
CD

CO
CO
CD

rJ

T3
CO
CD

X!

'O
CD

Pi

o

CO

CO
CO
>

c

CO
CJ

•K

CO

u

CD
>
•H

P

O O

o o

m m

cm <r

CN

o o

o o

o o

CO CN

CD
CO
CD
CD

O

o
o

csj

o
o
o

o
m

o
o
o

CO
rH

CO

-a

CO

c

CO

CO

C
CO

CO

4

H
O
H

C

o

•H
CO

•H
>

•H

P

CD
•H

•H

•H

rH
4-1

C!

0)
C
CO

0
u

CD
Ph

X)
C
CO

4-1

o

ex

CD

Pi

CO

4-1

CD

S

a
o
u

•H

I

CTi

O

U

CD

o

P4

co
u

<D
0
3
CO

a
o
o

Pi
z
p

c

cO
00
•H
4=
O

CD
O
>-i

O
CO

CD
>

O

CO

-a

CD
4J
CO

O

c
co

CD
•H

a

CD

a

CO

M

a

3
T3

CO
C
O
•H

4-J

•H
T3

CO

CO

CD

rH
CJ

C

70

place in Squaw and Misery Bays of the Thunder Bay area

(Miller, 1943, p. 125).

Economic Value of Waterfowl Migration

An economic value for Michigan's coastal wetlands
with regard to waterfowl migration cannot be established at
this time. First, data regarding the average waterfowl day
use of each wetland area by species are not available except
for selected areas, particularly in southeastern Michigan.
Secondly, because the migratory waterfowl provide both con-
sumptive and nonconsumptive uses in Michigan and in other
states, as well as in Canada, a dollar value based on Michigan's
utility greatly underestimates the actual total value. Mig-
rants, sucn as whistling swans, canvasbacks , buffleheads,
ruddy ducks, and coots, are dependent upon Michigan's coastal
wetlands and shallow waters for resting and feeding during
migration, and in general travel from the Canadian prairie
provinces to and from the Atlantic coast.

The value of wetlands recently purchased by the
state of Michigan for wildlife purposes ranged from $300
to $1,500 per acre (see Table 12). Wetlands and asso-
ciated uplands of Pointe Mouillee, which were purchased
during the past few years, cost the state approximately
$1,500 per acre. Many of the coastal wetlands purchased
by the state are considered to be of high value to water-
fowl as indicated elsewhere in this chapter.
Loss of Migration Habitat

.In 1952-1955, a survey revealed that there were
310,500 acres of high-value waterfowl habitat in the
state of Michigan (Miller, 1958, p. 1). A survey in
March, 1976 indicated that 259,443 acres of high-quality
waterfowl habitat were inadequately protected from
private development (Martz, 1976, Table 1). Of the
259,443 existing acres, 219,000 acres serve as high-
quality migration habitat. An analysis reveals that
nearly 24 percent, or 53,286 acres, of quality migration

71

habitat is contained within or immediately adjacent to
the coastal wetlands. Current projections indicate that
32,645 acres of high-quality coastal migration habitat
may be impacted by development, at least in part, within
five years (Table 20) . Only the tracts of publicly-owned
land, or that contained within the Erie Shooting and
Fishing Club, appear reasonably safe from foreseeable
development by the private sector. Moreover, record
high-water levels in the Great Lakes during the 1972-75
period aggravated this migration habitat loss by tempor-
arily drowning deepwater marshes and rupturing diked marsh
enclosures .

The threatened migration habitats which are
located within coastal wetlands are mapped in Figure 21.
A comparison of these threatened areas with the fall
migration concentration areas in Figure 20 reveals con-
siderable overlap. Wetlands which are threatened or have
already been developed include: Raisin River mouth, lower
Detroit River, Saginaw Bay shoreline near Bay City, St.
Marys River, Nuns-Prentiss Bays and vicinity, Houghton
Entry Marsh, Grand Haven Marsh, Muskegon Lake and marsh,
and Lake Macatawa Marsh (Table 20) .

A preliminary survey by the U.S. Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife revealed serious future migration
habitat deficiencies in Michigan. The potential for
waterfowl use of migration and wintering habitat was
studied for six regions of Michigan as shown in Table 21.
In all three habitat projections — fall migration, spring
migration and wintering, southeastern Michigan exhibits

72

TABLE 20

LIST OF THREATENED COASTAL WETLANDS WHICH FUNCTION
FOR WATERFOWL MIGRATION, IN MICHIGAN, 1976

Upper Peninsula

County

Wetland Acres*

Portage Entry Marsh

Houghton

470

Baie de Wasai

Chippewa

410

Munuscong Bay

Chippewa

900

Raber Bay

Chippewa

300

Shingle Bay

Chippewa

380

Duck Bay

Mackinac

250

Epoufette Bay

Mackinac

300

Flowers Bay

Mackinac

185

Hessel Bay (Mackinac Bay)

Mackinac

500

Nuns Creek

Mackinac

290

Prentiss Bay

Mackinac

270

Northern

Lower

Peninsula

County

Wetland Acres*

Squaw Bay

Alpena

1,000

Cheboygan River Marsh

Cheboygan

120

Nayanquing Point

Bay

480

Tobico Marsh

Bay

700

Quanicassee Marsh

Bay

960

Southern

Lower

Peninsula

County

Wetland Acres*

Muskegon Lake marshes

Muskegon

4,000

Grand Haven River floodplain

Ottawa

1,200

Lake Macatawa marshes

Ottawa

210

Wildfowl Bay shoreline

Huron

400

Quanicassee State Game

Area

Tuscola

480

Saginaw Bay shoreline

Tuscola

220

Ford Marsh

Monroe

180

Union Camp Marsh

Monroe

240

Lake Erie, offshore of

Monroe &

Huron River

Wayne

4,500

Huron Point marshes

McComb

380

Detroit River

Wayne

11,350

Humbug Marsh

Wayne

180

St. Johns Marsh

St. Clair

1,790

TOTAL
Source: Martz , 1976, Table 2.

32,645

*Wetlands and associated uplands expected to be impacted
by some development within five years (1981, A.D.).

73

W

~W

w

8^> 8§

W

Gogebic

#

Wetlands Projected
to be Impacted
by Development

n-

I

o » io n » a .»

SCUE OF MILES

Figure 21. Threatened migration habitats in the coastal wetlands of Michigan.
Data from Martz, 1976, Table 2.

74

habitat deficiencies for the year 2000 A. D. The Saginaw
Bay-Thumb area likewise shows a large fall migration
habitat deficiency and has little surplus in the other
seasons. Since it is state policy not to encourage
wintering of waterfowl in Michigan, the lack of adequate
wintering habitat, except for selected localities, is not
significant.

TABLE 21

DEFICIENCIES IN FUTURE MIGRATION AND WINTERING

HABITAT IN MICHIGAN BY FLYWAY HABITAT REGION,

YEAR 2000 A. D., INIOOO'S OF WATERFOWL

Flyway Habitat
Region

W. Upper Peninsula

E. Upper Peninsula

N. Lower Peninsula

Saginaw Bay -Thumb Area

SW Lower Peninsula

SE Lower Peninsula

Habitat Deficiency or Surplus*
Spring
Migration

+848

+604

+578

+ 4

+622

-273

Fall
Migration

+397

+208

+155

-262

+276

-295

Wintering
+341
+248
+248
+ 41
+250
- 76

Source: U. S. Dept. of Interior, 1971, FHUMP Report No. 8

"Includes wetland types 3 and 4 (shallow and deep fresh
marsh) , Circular 39, (see Table 3 of this report) .

Usually the elimination or degradation of migra-
tion habitat causes shifts in the migration patterns of
waterfowl as opposed to creating absolute habitat defi-
ciencies which might reduce the waterfowl population
(personal communication, Harold Prince) . Thus the habi-
tat projection data suggest reduced use by migratory
waterfowl of the Saginaw Bay and southeastern Michigan
regions, including the coastal wetlands therein. Changes
in the migration patterns, in turn, affect the economy of

the regions involved because of reduced participation
rates in waterfowl hunting and birdwatching.

75

USE OF COASTAL WETLANDS AS BREEDING HABITAT

Michigan's kettle lakes, river-bottom wetlands, and
coastal marshlands are important breeding areas for water-
birds, including ducks, geese, coots, grebes, loons, gal-
linules and rails. With regard to nesting of puddle (or
dabbling) ducks e.g., mallards, blue-winged teal, wood ducks
and black ducks, Michigan is part of a large breeding area
which includes the Great Lakes region (Johnsgaard, 1975,
pp. 224, 246 and 275). Although some diving ducks do breed
in the northern Great Lakes states, e.g., the ring-necked
duck and the red-head, the prairie provinces pothole region
of the Dakotas and adjacent Canada as well as the northwest
territories and Alaska comprise the principal nesting grounds.
In comparison to ducks, Canada Geese do not nest in Michigan
in large numbers except in sizeable wetlands especially where
aided by muskrat houses and natural or artificial islands and
nesting structures. Pairs of breeding coots and gallinules
are frequently even more numerous in Michigan's wetlands than
nesting ducks.

Important species of nesting ducks in Michigan are
indicated in Table 22. At present, breeding ducks in the
coastal wetlands are dominated by dabbling ducks including
mallards, blue-winged teal, and black ducks. If nesting
boxes are available, as in the Erie Shooting and Fishing Club
Marsh, then wood ducks may also be quite numerous. Diving
ducks, e.g., redheads, though never very abundant, were more
common in the past. Currently, small numbers of redheads
nest in St. Johns Marsh along Lake St. Clair (Dept. of Natural
Resources, 1976b), but a significant population breeds on
Harsens Island and along lower Walpole Island (personal com-
munication, Leo Pospichal) .

Duck species nesting in the coastal wetlands, i.e.,
the common mallard and the blue-winged teal, are classi-
fied as meadow nesters. Preferred nesting habitat includes
grassy meadows, adjacent hayfields, and shallow marsh

76

TABLE 22

SPECIES OF DUCKS NESTING IN THE COASTAL WETLANDS
AND IN FORESTED INTERIOR OF MICHIGAN, AND MAGEE

MARSH, N. OHIO

Erie Shoot-

Nayanquing

Forested

Mag<

^e Marsh

ing Club

Point

Interior

N

. Ohio

Species

1957-1968

1969 & 1973

1968-69,

73

1953-1969

Mallard

39.0%

48.5%

40%

30.7%

Blue winged teal 13.0

35.5

48

41.5

Wood duck

12.0

0.0

1

16.7

Black duck

18.5

4.0

6

7.4

Pintail

3.5

4.0

0

0.7

Shoveler

0.0

7.0

3

0.9

Redhead

2.0

0.0

0

1.2

Green Winged

teal

0.0

1.0

2

0.9

Unknown ducks

12.0

0.0

0

0.0

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100% 100.0%

Source: Hunt and Mickelson (1976), Martz (1977) and Bednarik and
Weeks, (1971).

environments. As agricultural and other development
occurred along the landward margin of the coastal wetlands,
particularly within the dogwood meadows and sedge marshes
along Saginaw Bay, lower Detroit River and coastal Monroe
County, a loss of habitat for meadow nesters resulted.
The continued abundance of mallards may be partially due
to this species1 remarkable versatility with regard to
nesting sites. Mallards generally prefer blue-joint grass
meadows (Andrews, 1952, p. 137), but will nest in hayf ields ,
sedge meadows, along artificial dikes, and atop abandoned
muskrat houses. Mallards will also use artificial nesting
structures of various design (Jarvis , 1975b, p. 2).

Coots and gallinules have nesting habitat prefer-
ences similar to diving ducks in that floating nests are
commonly constructed on rafted debris within deep-water
cattail or bulrush marshes. Redheads nest atop muskrat

77

houses and rafted debris or construct nests in vegetation
along the shoreline (Miller, 1943, p. 78). A loss of deep-
water marsh habitat to nest in, and a decline of submersed
aquatic foods, perhaps due to increased turbidity, are sug-
gested as causes for the general decrease in nesting divers
(Bednarik et al . , 1975, p. 3). The building of summer camps,
dredging of boat slips, and other disturbance factors, in-
cluding filling, boating and fishing, are associated with
the decline of tne redhead and other diving ducks nesting
along the main channels of the St. Clair delta (personal
communication, Leo Pospichal) . In Michigan, Canada Geese
commonly nest on muskrat houses within large cattail marshes
(Mich. DNR, 1975b, p. 315) .

Several species of ducks, i.e., ringnecks , wood
ducks, and hooded and common mergansers, have primary
breeding ranges which include portions of Michigan (Bell-
rose, 1976, p. 180, 327, 441 and 457). However, with the
exception of wood ducks, these species do not commonly nest
in the coastal wetlands (see Table 22) . The wooded flood-
plain of the Kalamazoo River and other rivers constitutes
a prime breeding area for wood ducks in Michigan. Although
whistling swans once nested in Michigan, at present the only
swan commonly nesting in the coastal wetlands is the mute
swan which breeds in the Grand Traverse Bay Region (Koechlein,
1971, p. 2) .

For the purpose of this report, it will be assumed
that the duck species nesting in the coastal environments
consist of 40 percent mallards, 30 percent blue-winged teal,
10 percent black ducks and 21 percent all other species .
Current estimates of the number of breeding pairs of ducks
in Michigan are indicated in Table 23. The number of
breeding pairs of mallards may actually be as high as
40,000 (personal communication, Gerald Martz) . If one
accepts that there are 40,000 pairs of breeding mallards

78

then Michigan may have approximately 100,000 pairs of
breeding ducks each year. The remaining 60,000 breeding
pairs are primarily blue-winged teal, wood ducks and
black ducks. Some incidental species may also nest in
Michigan in small numbers, e.g., ringnecks, redheads,
mergansers, etc. The data concerning breeding pairs will
be utilized to estimate the number of ducks produced in
Michigan's coastal wetlands.

TABLE 23

NUMBER OF BREEDING PAIRS OF DUCKS IN MICHIGAN, 1976

Species "Estimated No. of Pairs
Mallards 23,500*

Wood duck 20,000**

Blue-winged teal 17,500

Black duck Unknown

Ringnecked duck 5 , 000

Source : Bellrose, 1976

*Waterfowl biologists at Michigan DNR believe this figure
to be 40,000.
**This figure is also felt to be somewhat underestimated.

Waterfowl breeding in the coastal wetlands is
significant because birds produced locally increase the
success of hunters within the state as well as that of
other hunters in nearby states. It has been estimated
that between 25 and 40 percent of Michigan's annual
harvest consists of ducks produced within the state
(personal communication, Edward Mikula) . Banding data
indicated that 40 percent of all mallards (Greis, 1971,
p. 32) and 82 to 95 percent of all wood ducks (Bowers
and Martin, 1975, p. 314) shot annually

79

in Michigan are reared within the state. Using the 1971-
1975 average duck kill as a base, it is shown in Table 24
that state-produced mallards and wood ducks alone comprise
2 2 percent of the total duck harvest.

TABLE 24

ESTIMATE PROPORTION OF MICHIGAN'S ANNUAL DUCK
HARVEST WHICH DERIVES FROM STATE-REARED

WATERFOWL

1971-1975 average duck harvest in Michigan was
358,280. If one assumes that 30 percent of ducks
were state produced, then:

358,280

X .30

107,484

7o of Total % Reared No. Locally Produced

Species Duck Harvest in Michigan harvested in Michigan

Mallard 31 40 44,430

Wood Duck 11 89 35,080

TOTAL 79,510

Source: Martz, 1976; and Table 25.

When the species composition of Michigan's annual
duck harvest is examined, one notes that mallards, scaup,
wood ducks , black ducks , and teal dominate the yearly take
(Table 25). In contrast to the state, the main species
harvested in the coastal wetlands, as exemplified by the St.
Clair Flats State Game Area data, are the mallard-- 76 percent
of the area's kill, along with lesser numbers of black
ducks, pintails and teal. In open-water areas, however,
such as Sebewaing and Wildfowl Bays of Saginaw Bay, Lake
St. Clair, Lower Detroit River ana adjacent Lake Erie, where
hunting from boats and floating blinds occurs, a majority
of the duck kill are divers rather than dabbling ducks.

80

TABLE 25

AVERAGE SPECIES COMPOSITION OF RETRIEVED DUCK

SAMPLE STATE AVERAGE (1965-1974) vs. ST. CLAIR FLATS

SGA (1974-1975)

State of

Michigan

St. Clair

Flats SGA

Species No

. of ducks % of Total

Annual Harvest % of Total

Mallard, incl.

domestic

29,890

30.48

4,362

76.30

Scaup (Bluebills)

13,100

13.36

34

0.60

Wood Duck

10,370

10.57

28

0.49

Black duck and

hybrids

7,550

7.70

498

8.71

Green-winged

teal

6,000

6.12

173

3.03

Ringed-neck duck

5,280

5.38

78

1.36

Bufflehead

4,580

4.67

18

0.31

Blue-winged teal

4,160

4.24

71

1.24

Redhead*

4,050

4.13

4

0.07

Goldeneye

3,020

3.08

9

0.16

Baldpate (Am.

widgeon)

2,540

2.59

138

2.41

Canvasback*

1,640

1.67

0

0.00

Pintail

1,620

1.65

242

4.23

Mergansers

1,240

1.26

19

0.33

Scoter

740

0.76

0

0.00

Ruddy duck

700

0.71

3

0.05

Old squaw

640

0.65

0

0.00

Gadwall

610

0.62

30

0.53

Shoveler

350

0.36

10

0.18

TOTAL

98,080

100.00%

5,717

100.00%

Source: Mississipp

i Flyway

Retrieved Harvest Data, 1965

, 1974; and

Pospichal (1975 and 1974)
*Redhead and Canvasback harvests are now restricted in most states.

In Ohio, mallards, black ducks, wood ducks, and blue-winged
teal comprise 75 percent of the annual duck harvest

81

(Bednarik, 1976, p. 4). A comparison of Table 22 with
Table 25 reveals that the coastal wetlands constitute
both nesting habitat and shooting grounds for several of
Michigan's important game ducks, especially mallards and
black ducks.

One index of the nesting value of a coastal wet-
land is the density of nesting waterfowl per areal unit.
Some of the available duck nesting densities derived from
ground surveys are presented in Table 26. (Aerial surveys,
in comparison, frequently underestimate actual
nesting densities, especially of wood ducks). Although
an average density of 83 nesting pairs per square mile
was determined, the standard deviation is high with densi-
ties ranging from 18 to 169/ square mile. Given 105,855
acres of coastal wetlands in Michigan (Table 2) and a
duck nesting density of 83 breeding pairs per square mile,
then there may be 14,000 breeding pairs of ducks in the
coastal wetlands. Likewise, the acres per nesting pair of
ducks varies considerably about its mean of 12 acres per
pair.

TABLE 26

DUCK NESTING DENSITIES IN COASTAL WETLANDS OF
MICHIGAN, 1951-1966

Average Number Average Acres
of Nesting of Wetland/
Wetland Area Councy Pairs/Mile^ Nesting Pair

Portage Marsh Delta 169 pairs 3.8 acres

Tobico Marsh Bay 139 4.6

Portage Entry Houghton 101 6.3

Harsens Island St. Clair 72 8.9

Munuscong Bay Chippewa 63 10.2

Pointe Mouillee Monroe 56 11.4

Po tag annis sing Chippewa 45 14.2

Sebewaing Bay Huron and 18 35.6

Tuscola 9

AVERAGES 83 pairs/miz 12 acres/pair

Source : Martz, undated, "Waterfowl Breeding Ground Sur-
veys," and field data survey sheets, Wildlife
Div. , DNR.

82

Although the data are not complete (Table 26) ,
two coastal wetlands—Portage and Tobico marshes, appear
highly productive. Also, under controlled level impound-
ment, an average of 134 pairs per square mile was obtained
during 1969 and 1973 at Nayanquing Point State Game Area.
Unrefined sampling techniques as well as disturbance by
humans may explain the apparent low densities of nesting
ducks on Harsens Island and in the coastal marshes of Monroe
County (Miller, 1943, p. 85, personal communication, Pospichal)

Because broods are difficult to observe among the
marsh vegetation, available brood count data are sparse.
Table 27 represents some of the early extant data.

TABLE 27
DENSITY OF DUCK BROODS IN MICHIGAN WETLANDS, 1949

No . of Broods No . of
Wetland Area County Per Sq . Mile Duck Species

Portage Marsh Delta 116.0 4

Dead Stream* Roscommon 80.0 4

Hayward Marsh* Menominee 72.7 2

Thunder Bay

River* Alpena 12.5 I

Nayanquing Point Bay 11.3 6

Sebewaing Bay Huron 8.7 4

Portage Marsh Houghton 5.4 2

Kalamazoo River* Allegan 3.7 3

AVERAGES 39 3.3

Source: Miller (1949).

*Inland Marshes

Portage Marsh, again, stands out as a most productive
wetland. Some of the coastal wetlands, e.g., Nayanquing
Point and Portage Marsh, exhibit considerable species
diversity among the nesting pairs compared to inland

83

wetlands. Although these data suggest an average of 39
broods per square mile and a species diversity of 3.3
species per wetland area, more sampling should be carried
out to derive nesting standards for evaluation purposes.

The actual production of waterfowl young per areal
unit of wetland is a more useful measure of productivity
than nesting densities. Table 28 contains field biolo-
gists' estimates of the production of ducklings in the

TABLE 28

BIOLOGISTS' ESTIMATES OF NESTING PAIRS AND DUCKLING
PRODUCTION IN MICHIGAN COASTAL WETLANDS, 1975

Potential No.

No.

of

Wetland

of

Young/

Nesting

Acres

Wetland Area

County Wetland Acre

Pair/Sq.

Mile

Per Pair

Salt River

Macomb

4.0

430

1.5

Nayanquing Pt.

Bay

1.6

200

3.2

Huron Pt. Marsh

Macomb

1.3

130

4.9

St. Johns Marsh

St. Clair

0.98

102

6.3

Arcadia Marsh

Manistee

0.98

82

7.8

Harsens Island

St. Clair

0.96

103

6.2

Quanicassee WA

Bay

0.89

113

5.7

Tobico Marsh

Bay

0.80

100

6.4

Saginaw Bay Shore

Tuscola

0.65

75

8.5

Old Rifle R. Lodge

Arenac

0.40

60

10.7

Quanicassee SGA

Tuscola

0.14

13

49.2

Misery Bay

Alpena

0.12

12
118

53.3

AVERAGES

1.1

14

Source: Martz, "The Mississippi

Flyway Waterfowl Habitat

Reconnais-

sance, 1976, " Data Sheets.

coastal wetlands of Michigan. Additional data regarding
the number of ducks and coot broods reared in the Erie
Shooting and Fishing Club Marsh for the period 1957-1968
have been published, but it is not possible to derive

84

density statistics (Hunt and Mickelson, 1976, p. 37).

An average of 1.1 ducklings per acre was generated

from the data in Table 28. Based on the nesting pair

densities presented in Table 26, the duckling production in

Table 28 appears to be a maximum potential figure as

opposed to a realistic estimate of actual production. A

current estimate of nest success for dabbling ducks in

Michigan is 40 percent, while along the Lake Erie marshes

where nest terminations due to seiche floods and other

causes are common, a nest success of 20 percent may be

realistic (Kartz , 1977, p. 11). If one assumes six young

per brood (Miller, 1949, then:

83 pairs/sq. mi. X 0.40 nest success = 33 success-
ful nests/sq. mile

33 nests X 6 young per brood = 198 ducklings/sq.
mile.

A production of 0.31 ducklings/acre/year for the wetlands
(198 ducklings per square mile divided by 640), does not compare
well with the 1.1 contained in Table 28. However, if a
100 percent nesting success is assumed, then the estimated
number of ducklings produced per acre appears correct.
Therefore, the biologists' estimates of nesting pair
density and production of ducklings per acre may be too
high. During his 1962-1963 study, Thompson (1964) found
in the 729-acre Ottawa Shooting Club Marsh along Lake Erie
in northwest Ohio, a total of 197 flying ducklings, or
0.27 flying ducklings per acre. On the other hand,
Miller's data from Table 27, when analyzed, reveals an
average production of 0.36 ducklings per acre. Thus, an
average productivity of 0.31 ducklings per acre is prob-
ably a representative statistic for Michigan's coastal
wetlands .

Although each waterfowl species has its own nesting
habitat preferences, four general components of a nesting
territory include: nesting cover, food for the entire brood,
open water, and loafing sites (Andrews, 1952, p. 141).

85

Some coastal wetlands (e.g., Dickinson Island in Lake St.
Clair) contain both grassy meadow and deep-water marshes
for nesting of dabbling and diving ducks. The Lake St.
Clair wetlands as well as those protected by coastal barriers
(e.g., Tobico Marsh), or artificial dikes (e.g., Erie
Shooting Club) are secure from large seiches and other
sudden water level fluctuations which characterize the
coastal wetlands. Many game managers of managed wetlands,
e.g., at Fish Point, not only dike the marshlands but
strive to increase the linear extent of the marsh-open
water boundary or 'edge' by opening up the dense cattail
stands, thereby increasing the number of potential nesting
territories.

Diking and other management practices can greatly
improve waterfowl production in the coastal wetlands.
Using artificial dikes, Ohio hopes to reclaim from Lake
Erie 1,857 acres of coastal marshland which were recently
washed out by wave action (Weeks, 1974, p. 8). In addi-
tion to protection from high-water conditions , as in the
case of the diked marsh at Pointe Mouillee, dikes were
also constructed to impound water during low
laKe level periods. Succession during low-water conditions
often results in dense stands of emergent vegetation
which, in turn, reduces the availability of preferred food
items and nesting habitat. The abandonment of nesting
territories by breeding ducks in the managed Ottawa
Shooting Club Marsn of northern Ohio following artificial
water drawdown substantiates the adverse impact of low
water-level conditions on duck productivity (Thompson,
1964, p. 75). Finally, the erection of nesting boxes,
nesting structures, and artificial nesting islands (Martz ,
1977, p. 10), as well as predator control (Urban, 1968,
p. 70) may significantly increase nesting success and
production of 0.50 ducklings per acre, which was estimated
at Nayeinquing Point during 1969 and 1973, may be feasible

86

in the coastal wetlands when Great Lakes water levels
approximate average conditions.

If the state of Michigan has 105,855 acres of
coastal wetlands (see Chapter 2) , it is possible to esti-
mate the total annual duck production per acre. Assuming
0.31 flying ducklings per acre, then a total annual pro-
duction of 32,815 ducks is obtained for the coastal wet-
lands. This coastal production may contribute 14 percent
of the state's total production. A total duck produc-
tion of 240,000 was estimated by assuming that each year
Michigan has 100,000 breeding pairs (see Table 23), that
the nesting success rate is 40 percent and that six young
are produced per brood (see earlier discussion, this Chapter)

Assuming that there are 32,815 ducks produced in
the coastal wetlands and that 40 percent of these ducklings
are mallards (see earlier discussion), then a total of 13,125
flying mallard ducklings may be produced within the coastal en
vironments. This would amount to an estimated 15 percent
of the state's total annual mallard production, provided
there were 40,000 breeding pairs of mallards. Thus, the
coastal wetlands, particularly if properly managed, are
most productive waterfowl breeding areas.

A survey conducted during the 1952-1955 period
revealed that Michigan possessed 310,500 acres of wetlands
which were considered to be of high value to waterfowl
(Miller, 1958, p. 1). In 1976, a study indicated that
the state had 259,000 acres of wetland and adjacent uplands
which served as high quality waterfowl habitat (Martz ,
1976, p. 1). Approximately 212,000 acres of the 259,000
acres were considered of importance to waterfowl breeding
(ibid. , p. 1). Excluding land contained within public
refuges and wildlife areas, some of this prime breeding
ground is currently being threatened by private develop-
ment. The threatened coastal wetlands are indicated in
Table 29. An estimated 18,362 acres of coastal breeding

87

TABLE 29

WATERFOWL BREEDING HABITAT IN COASTAL WETLANDS
THREATENED BY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 5
YEARS, MICHIGAN, 1976

Upper Pen

insula

Wetland Area

County Wetland Acres*

Portage Entry Marsh

Houghton

470

Gladstone Marsh

Delta

28

Portage Marsh

Delta

500

Baie de Wasai

Chippewa

410

Munuscong Bay

Chippewa

900

Raber Bay

Chippewa

300

Duck Bay

Mackinac

250

Epoufette Bay

Mackinac

300

Flowers Bay

Mackinac

185

Hessel Bay (Mackinac Bay)

Mackinac

500

Nuns Creek and Bay

Mackinac

290

Prentiss Bay

Mackinac

270

Northern Lower Peninsula

Wetland Area

County Wetland Acres*

Squaw Bay

Alpena 1

,000

Cheboygan Marsh

Cheboygan

120

Au Gres (Old Rifle River

Arenac

Lodge**

Arenac 1

,229

Quanicassee Wildlife Area

Bay

960

Tobico Marsh**

Bay

700

Southern Lower Peninsula

Wetland Area

County Wetland Acres*

Lake Muskegon Marshes

Muskegon 4

,000

Grand Haven River Marshes

Ottawa 1

,200

Lake Macatawa Marshes

Ottawa

210

Wildfowl Bay Shoreline

Huron

400

Quanicassee State Game

Area**

Tuscola

480

Saginaw Bay Shoreline

Tuscola

220

Galien River Marsh

Berrien

550

Ford Marsh

Monroe

180

Port of Monroe Marsh

Monroe

60

Union Camp Marsh

Monroe

240

Humbug Marsh

Wayne

180

Huron Point Marshes

Macomb

380

Salt River Marshes

Macomb

60

St. Johns Marsh

St. Clair 1

,790

TOTAL

18

,362

Source: Martz , 1976, "The

Mississippi Flyway Waterfowl

Habitat Reconaissance. "

*Development is expected to be initiated within

5 years

(1981 A.D.) .

**Publicly- owned holdings are

i protected from private

s develop-

ment .

88

habitat are faced with some degree of residential develop-
ment and other encroachment within the next five years or
so. Assuming that Michigan has only 105,855 acres of
coastal wetlands, then 17 percent of the total would be
adversely impacted within less than a decade. In order
to establish a priority system for protecting these breed-
ing areas, the waterfowl productivity of each wetland,
coastal and inland, must be determined and comparisons
made .

Protecting waterfowl breeding areas in Michigan
is important since a large and slowly increasing propor-
tion of the state's annual duck harvest derives from
state-produced young. At present, though resident breed-
ing populations are increasing, state-produced Canada Geese
probably provide less than 10 percent of the annual Canada
Goose harvest in Michigan (personal comunication, Gerald
Martz) . The productivity of the coastal wetlands takes
on greater significance when drought or wetland destruction
in inland Michigan and elsewhere in North America reduces
waterfowl breeding opportunities.
VALUE OF WATERFOWL HUNTING IN COASTAL WETLANDS

The harvest of waterfowl, particularly ducks, in
Michigan during the October-November hunting season is an
important recreational activity (Table 30) . During the
period 1971-1975, an annual average of about 116,750 waterfowl
hunters purchased federal duck stamps and spent an average
annual total of 639,950 recreation days (average of 6.3
days per hunter) . The state estimate for number of hunters
in 1975 (see Table 30) is used in this report because it
includes those hunters under the age of 16 not requiring
a federal duck stamp and gives a closer approximation to
the actual number of waterfowl hunters.

89

Estimates of the annual waterfowl harvest in
Michigan by the Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife
Division, exceeds that of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. For example, the state Department of Natural
Resources estimated the average annual retrieved duck
harvest during 1971-1975 to be 597,966, whereas data from
the Fish and Wildlife Service suggests an average of
358,284 retrieved birds (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1976). The state and federal estimates are arrived at
using different sampling techniques which may account for

TABLE 30

ANNUAL WATERFOWL HARVEST IN MICHIGAN, 1971-1975,

DNR ESTIMATES

Number of

Number of

No. of

No. of

No. of

Year

Hunters*

Recreation Days

Ducks

Geese

Coots

1975

118,500

1,205,630

651,860

32,430

32,450

1974

116,780

1,200,980

615,440

43,090

48,280

1973

116,310

1,324,930

598,290

38,610

54,260

19 72

109,130

1,120,040

530,960

25,550

34,560

19 71

123,000

1,311,050

593,280

38,000

87,750

AVG.

116,744

1,232,526

597,966**

35,536

51,500

Source; Michigan DNR Biennial Reports.

*Includes waterfowl hunters under the age of 16 not requiring a
federal duck stamp.

**U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service data for 1971-1975 reveals an
average of 358,284 ducks.

the variability of the harvest figures. The more con-
servative Fish and Wildlife Service estimate of the average
duck harvest of 358,284 retrieved birds, excluding cripple
losses, will be utilized in this report.

Long-term waterfowl harvest data are available for
the managed state game areas, including Fish Point, Pointe

90

Mouillee, and St. Clair Flats, as well as from the Erie
Shooting Club. As an example, during the past few years,
the annual kill of ducks at Fish Point (2,475 acres) and
St. Clair Flats (2,600 acres of managed wetland) has aver-
aged about 5,000 and 6,000 ducks, respectively (Pospichal,
1975; Jarvis, 1975a). Because of extensive coastal erosion
resulting in the loss of the marsh habitat, the managed
public hunt at Pointe Mouillee has been temporarily dis-
continued. For most private coastal wetlands, however,
the harvest data have not been collected for the entire
season or are badly fragmented.

Data are not readily available to determine the
proportion of the annual waterfowl harvest in Michigan
which occurs in the coastal wetlands. However, the pro-
portion may be quite high because several of the main fall
migration concentration areas are located within coastal
wetlands (see Figure 20). A comparision of the harvest in
11 coastal counties with that taken in the remainder of the
state reveals that 39 percent of the waterfowl kill (94,188
divided by 240,965) derives from counties with extensive
coastal wetlands (Table 31). Because dabbler ducks, not
divers, are commonly harvested in the coastal wetlands, the
proportion of the coastal wetland waterfowl harvest is
estimated to be 21 percent of the state total (50,735 divi-
ded by 240,965) .

The top six counties in the entire state with the
highest waterfowl harvest, in descending order, are St.
Clair, Saginaw, Huron, Monroe, Tuscola and Bay counties.
Among this group of counties, only Saginaw is an inland
county. It should be pointed out that all six counties con
tain large state holdings and public waters where public
hunting occurs.

If 21 percent of Michigan's annual duck harvest
occurs in coastal wetlands, then approximately 75,240 ducks
are taken yearly from the coastal wetlands. This estimate

91

TABLE 31

AVERAGE DUCK HARVEST IN THE COASTAL COUNTIES
OF MICHIGAN BY COASTAL COUNTY IN MICHIGAN, 1961-1970
ANNUAL AVERAGE, U.S.F. AND W.S. ESTIMATES*

Upper Peninsula

County

Dabblers

Divers

Chippewa

1,376

3,838

Delta

3,412

1,337

Mackinac

1,334

3,497

Total

Subtotal

6,122

Lower Peninsula

8,672

5

214

4

749

4

,831

14,794

County

Alpena

Arenac

Bay

Cheboygan

Huron

Monroe

Tuscola

St. Clair

Wayne

Subtotal

Dabblers

670
1,628
7,681

440
7,383
8,239
7,887
8,475
2,210

44,613

Divers

439
1,047
2,987
641
8,170
2,565
3,111
7,951
7,870

34,780

Total

1,109

2,675

10,668

1,081

15,553

10,804

10,998

16,426

10,080

79,393

94,187

146,777
240,965

Lower Peninsula and U.P. Total

Totals for

Non-Coastal

Michigan

Counties 102,581 44,196

STATE TOTAL 153,316 87,649

Source ; Carney, Sorenson, and Martin, 1975.
*Note: Current harvest of 358,284 birds based on 1971-75
average .

was obtained by multiplying 0.21 times 358,284 birds (the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service average for 1971-1975; see
footnote, Table 30). According to the U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service harvest data, including ducks, geese and
coots, an estimated 85,987 waterfowl were taken from the
coastal wetlands (0.21 x 409,460 birds).

92

Although Michigan has approximately 116,750 water-
fowl hunters annually (Table 30, DNR data), there exists a
substantial number of latent or potential hunters who do
not participate because of a lack of accessible quality
hunting. As evidenced by the popularity of duck shooting
clubs which trace back to the mid-1800's, Michigan has
long enjoyed a tradition of quality duck hunting.

Today the prospective hunter, particularly from
metropolitan southeastern Michigan, usually applies for
a reservation at a public game area because permission
from private shooting clubs or owners of the few remain-
ing wetlands is difficult to obtain. Most hunters want
a reservation for the opening day and frequently for the
first or second weekend of the hunting season in selected
wetland areas.

Some concept of the unsatisfied waterfowl hunting
demand may be obtained by comparing the number of appli-
cants for reservations at the public game area to the
number of available blinds or hunting areas. Although
little of the existing raw data have been summarized, some
preliminary data are presented in Table 32. For the
three public game areas, which are located within coastal
wetlands, there was a total of 13,450 applicants, but
only 3,475 possible reservations. Each application repre-
sents a potential party of 2.5 people, and each reserva-
tion will accommodate a party of 2 or 3 hunters . The
data in the table indicate that only 26 percent of the
applicants could be served. It is realized that many
hunters apply for reservations at more than one public
shooting area. Nevertheless, the disparity between appli-
cants and available reservations, especially on opening
day, suggests that there exists a large unsatisfied demand
for quality waterfowl hunting.

A study by the Great Lakes Basin Commission (1975)
examined the waterfowl hunting demand by planning sub-
basin in Michigan. The Commission's data indicate that
in each of the seven planning sub-basins which comprise
the state, there is a projected increase in hunters, but

93

Ph

o

Pi H Pi

W < M

PQ <

2WJ

5 2 u

2 o

HH • O

O H H I*-

H < co en

> rH

co Pi Q

2 W 2 -

O CO < CO

hW <

H Pi *pq

< hdi

UU2<

CNI

hz;h

t-O

JhOM

O, E-h Ph Ph

w

Ph2 h

-J

<JUJ

PQ

X, 2 Q

<

Ph h^i

H

Oh12h

^ cy^

Pi O 2

W Ph < w

PQ pi >h e-h

2 w < <

D H 2 H

2 < CO

^ -

Ph h CO

O W 2 E-h

Jh<

2«oj

O < Ph Ph

CO J

hhE

Pi < co

<> HH

Ot < Ph

s

o

u

*

CO

d

o

•H

<

4-t

s

CO

O

en

•H

4-)

i-H

cd

ft

H

a

Ph

<

M

•H

CO

03

c

H

o

U

•H

4-»

•

cd

4-1

>

CO

V4

CU

CO

CU

&

■K

CO

c

o

•H

4J

CO

<

O

^

•H

H

•

Ph

4J

P.

Ph

<3

M

c

CO

•H

C

p

o

cr

•H

a

4->

cC

cfl

>.

>

CO

M

2

CU

co

<D

P51

■K

CO

C

o

•H

4-t

CO

o

<*

•H

o

rH

CO

ft

ft

4-J

<J

a

•H

O

CO

Ph

a

O

,C

•H

co

4-1

•H

CO

Ph

>

Sh

cu

CO

cu

Ph

lO

iH

CO

o

m

00

O

vO

r~-

m

<r

CO

CNI

r^

m

H

00

in

O

m

o

o

o

o

o

o

O

O

m

m

vO

\P

vO

vO

vO

\D

v£>

vD

CO

m

CM
VO

CO

m

CT»

«*

CM

CO

vO

00

CO

vO

<!■

vD

a\

r-.

m
co

o

m

o

m

m

m

o

m

co

co

<r

CO

CO

CO

-3-

CO

o

m

O

cm

1-^

On

co

CTi

r^»

00

CO

ON

m

<r

00

CO

<r

vO

<f

H

co

H

H

vO
O

m

m

m

o

o

o

o

o

m

m

m

vO

V4D

vO

v£>

\D

o

/g la 'g 'e /J "? § a

co ft cd ft cO ft v.' w

o o

vOr^r^0000CT\CTirHrH
4J4J4J4J4J4-I4J4J4J

oooooooao
ooooooooo

<r

a\

c^

•

cu

H

•

ft

Ph

O

s

cu

Q

ft

C

m

CO

•

00

CM

•H

X

»4-l

m

o

o

CN

•H

co

S

4J

a

u

c

CO

o

ft

•H

CO

H

•H

CO

>

H

•H

4->

P

cu

a)

4J

00

M-J

o

00

•H

ft

rH

rH

A

13

ct)

CM

tH

•H

CO

!»

4->

A

cu

CO

CO

cu

cu

H

u

•H

ft

(H

cu

m

M

CM

4->

m

C

c

CU

o

c

•H

cd

4->

(0

o

cu

•H

Ph

H

CO

ft

4

• •

ft
CO

H

CU

O

o

X

H

M

a

3

co

O

w

CO

*

94

a projected decrease in acres of wildlife habitat and a
decrease in potentially huntable land (Great Lakes Basin
Comm. , 1975c, p. 29, 73 and 100). Similarly, a study
which provides some data on the southeastern corner of
Monroe County reveals that wildlife in North Maumee Bay
are suffering from a degraded and decreasing habitat
base. Besides the fact that degraded habitat decreases
a person's desire to hunt, future waterfowl hunting oppor-
tunities in the North Maumee Bay area are limited due to
restricted access, poor water quality, lack of supportive
facilities, and vandalism (Great Lakes Basin Comm., 1976,
p. 3-8 and 3-9). A small increase in the number of hunters
over time places more pressure on the resource base.

Waterfowl hunting and the game harvested in
coastal wetlands contribute materially to the economy of
Michigan. Preliminary estimates for 1977, based on the
1970 National Survey of Hunting and Fishing (U. S. Dept.
of Interior, 1972), indicates that each waterfowl hunter
spent on the average $130 . 25 on equipment, licenses,
transportation, and so forth. This figure was obtained
by multiplying the 1970 annual hunter expenditure of $84.47
times 1 . 542 , which is the cost-of-living increase factor
for Detroit, Michigan (personal communication, Bob Craig).

Although most waterfowl hunters orginate from rural
areas and hunt in nearby counties, hunters from Detroit,
Lansing, Grand Rapids and Flint often travel considerable
distances to their shooting grounds. Because the trans-
portation component of the estimated annual waterfowl
hunter expenditures is less than $5.00, it is believed
that an economic evaluation based on annual expenditures
may yield conservative values. For example, at Magee
Marsh of northern Ohio, the value of a goose hunting day
or trip is valued at $9.73 (Ohio Div. of Wildlife, 1976).
Nevertheless, because of ease of calculation, average
annual waterfowl expenditures will be employed to estimate
the value of waterfowl hunting.

95

Utilizing the estimated 1977 annual waterfowl

hunter expenditure value of $130.25, Michigan's waterfowl

hunters contribute to the state economy as follows :

116,750 Number of Waterfowl Hunters in
Michigan, 1971-75 Average
X 130.25 Estimated 1977 Hunter Expenditures

$15,206,687

As the above calculation illustrates, waterfowl hunting
in Michigan contributes an estimated $15.21 million
annually. If data on number of hunters and distance
travelled were available for each coastal wetland, then
the economic importance of waterfowl hunting could be
determined and protection priorities established. Fur-
ther, if latent demand were included (see Table 32) , the
total annual value of waterfowl hunting in Michigan may be
at least double, therefore equal to $30 million or more.

The meat contained in the waterfowl carcasses is
also important because many families, particularly in
rural areas, supplement their diet with wild game. Fur-
ther, in most instances, except at game areas with a
cropping program, the waterfowl are utilizing food
resources which man is not effectively exploiting. There-
fore, the game can be regarded as a "free" resource. The
economic value for 1975 of Michigan's annual waterfowl
harvest in terms of carcasses is indicated below. A cost-
of-living factor of 1.129 was employed (personal communi-
cation, Bob Craig) to project the total 1975 carcass value
of $474,263 to a total 1977 value of $535,443.

Average
Annual Harvest* Weight

Ducks 358,284 1 lbs.

Coots 29,575 1 lbs.

Geese 21,601 4 lbs.

Carcass
Value

Total
Value

$l/lb.

$358,284

$l/lb.

29,575

$l/lb.

86,404

TOTALS 409,460 $474,263

Source: Current Files, Wildlife Div. , Michigan DNR.
*U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service figures of 1975 were used.

96

If we sum the total average annual hunter's ex-
penditures and the value of the carcasses for the year
1977, then the total economic value of Michigan's water-
fowl hunting is $15.74 million. In terms of waterfowl
harvested, waterfowl hunting is worth $37.79 per bird
(obtained by dividing 409,460 waterfowl into the total
value of $15,742,130) .

During the 1971-1975 interim, an average of approxi-
mately 116,750 people (see Table 30) hunted waterfowl in
Michigan. Data as to where this hunting activity occurred
are not available. However, by comparing the waterfowl
harvest from coastal counties , where several large coastal
public shooting areas have been established, with that
harvested from the entire state, it was estimated that
21 percent of the annual duck kill derives from the coastal
wetlands. Further, if 21 percent of Michigan's water-
fowlers hunt in the coastal wetlands, this accounts for
some 24,518 hunters (116,750 x 0.21 = 24,513). If an
average waterfowl hunter spends $130.25 annually, then
the coastal wetlands provide an annual hunter expenditure
value of $3.19 million (24,518 x $130.25 = $3,193,470).
When carcass values are included ($535,443 x 0.21 =
$112,443), the total annual return from waterfowl hunting
amounts to $3,305,913. Given 105,855 acres of coastal wet-
land, the average annual value per wetland acre is $31.23
(i.e., $3,305,913 divided by 105,855 acres).

Other economic techniques, for example, methods
based on opportunity costs or on the willingness of parti-
cipants to pay, may yield values which exceed that of the
above analysis. Other values, including the harvest of
Michigan reared birds in other states, in addition to those
estimated above, may also increase the value of waterfowl
hunting. However, it is felt that economic value of water-
fowl hunting as determined herein using average annual hunter
expenditures and carcass values yield a simple, yet reason-
able economic estimate.

97

CHAPTER FOUR
VALUE OF COASTAL WETLANDS TO FURBEARERS

In this chapter the value of coastal wetlands
with regard to furbearing animals is presented. Raccoon
and muskrat generate the largest trapping revenues, fol-
lowed by red fox, coyote, beaver, mink and others (Table
33). Because of changes in licensing, the 1970-71 trap-
ping season was the last year when reliable data on the
number of trappers on a state level were available.
During the winter trapping seasons between 1956-1976,
Michigan averaged 5,560 trappers (Jenkins, 1977, p. 40).
As revealed in Table 33, muskrat trappers outnumber other
trappers. Although the muskrat is the most abundant fur-
bearer, a licensed trapper will trap other furbearers as
well. Therefore, the total number of trappers in Table
33 is not an accurate estimate of the total number of
trappers, but rather represents a "doubling up" of trap-
pers .

It must be noted that the value of furbearers is
extremely variable from year to year. As noted in Table
33 for example, the mean value of raccoons for 1971-1972
is $4.00. Based on the 28th Biennial Report for 1975-
1976 (Jenkins, in press, p. 38), the average pelt price
of raccoons ranges from $25 to $30. Similarly, the
muskrat pelt value has increased significantly from $1.75
to $2.50-$3.0(
MUSKRAT VALUE

to $2.50-$3.00 during the same time period (ibid. , p. 38)

The principal mammal inhabiting Michigan's coastal
wetlands is the muskrat. Based on its feeding and lodging
habits, a muskrat density per unit of coastal wetland can
be determined. The literature and statistical data of

1Pelt values have increased in value significantly since
the June 1976 values given here but this conservative
value is used until a definite trend of higher pelt prices
is established.

98

TABLE 33

FURBEARERS, TRAPPERS AND FUR VALUE IN MICHIGAN

(1971-1972)

Species

Trappers

Harvest

Mean Value ($)

Pelt Value ($)

Muskrat

6,240

348,400

1.75

609,700

Mink

2,580

10,050

10.00

100,000

Raccoon

2,840

13,350

4.00

929,600

Oppossum

1,630

8,690

.50

4,345

Badger

350

400

4.00

1,600

Skunk

1,100

6,350

2.00

12,700-

Weasel

480

980

1.00

980

Coyote

no data

65,530

3.00

196,590

Fox

no data

32,150*

8.00

257,200

Otter

2,318

584

25.00

14,600

Beaver

2,318

7,212

20.00

144,240

TOTAL

2,272,055

Source:

DNR, 26th Biennial Report

. 1971-1972.

*Rough estimate.

the DNR reveal that the distribution of this furbearer is
greatest in the southern half of the lower peninsula (Zone
3). Table 34 shows that between 1967-68 and 1970-71 an
estimated total of 962,700 muskrats were trapped in Zone
3 compared to 166,700 and 233,530 in Zone 1 and Zone 2
respectively. Approximately 68 percent of the muskrat
catch is from wetlands in the southern half of the lower
peninsula.

Baumgartner (1942, p. 30) who surveyed 33 muskrat
sites in the state, concluded that habitats on streams in
Zone 1 and 2 are exceptionally poor except at their
sources and at their mouths because of food scarcity. He
also evaluated marsh habitats and determined that all
coastal habitats investigated support better than average

99

TABLE 34

MUSKRATS HARVESTED BY TRAPPERS, 1967-1971 IN

MICHIGAN

Area

1967-68

1968-69

1969-70

1970-71

Zone 1

27,320

40,400

49,120

49,860

Zone 2

44,720

58,060

64,490

66,260

Zone 3

162,550

174,940

292,930

232,280

TOTAL

234,590

273,400

406,540

348,400

Source :

Hawn, Michigan Furbearer Catch

by Trappers, 1970-

71, DNR, Research and
257 , Jan. , 1972.

Development Report No.

muskrat populations. These exceptional habitats were:
Muskegon Lake Little Bay de Noc

Pere Marquette River Portage Marsh
Manistee River Munuscong Bay

Arcadia Marsh Saginaw Bay

Big Bay de Noc Lake Erie Marshes

The food supply of muskrats may be diverse, espec-
ially during times of stress. Baumgartner (ibid. , p. 15) has
identified 34 food items of the muskrat in Michigan. The
preferred food is cattail, bulrush, and blue joint grass.
Based on the literature, the most common food type is
cattail and in some cases bulrush, (Bellrose and Low, 1943;
Mathiak and Linde, 1954; and Kadlec and Wentz , 1974).
Panzner concluded that Type 4 and Type 5 wetlands are the
optimum habitats in terms of food and cover for Michigan's
muskrats (1955, p. 9). Type 4 wetlands are characterized
by cattails, reeds and other emergent vegetation. In open
areas, aquatics such as pondweeds, naiads, watermilfoils , and
waterweeds are abundant. According to Shaw and Fredine
(1956, p. 21), the Type 4 wetland is an "Inland deep fresh
water marsh." Type 5 wetlands are "Inland open fresh
water marshes usually less than 10 feet in depth and

100

bordered by emergent vegetation (ibid., p. 21-22). The
deeper waters of the Type 5 wetlands are colonized by
pondweeds and other aquatics. Shaw and Fredine also note
that these two wetland types are more commonly used by
muskrats than any other furbearer (ibid. , p. 42).

Most of the muskrat data in the past have been col-
lected and tabulated on a county by county basis. Table
35 represents the muskrat in eight coastal counties in
southeastern Michigan (Zone 3) over a six-year period.
The muskrat habitat in these counties is primarily in the
coastal zone. What may be concluded from Table 35 is
that muskrat populations are high in coastal wetlands and
the number of muskrats generally increases from north to
south.

TABLE 35

MUSKRAT TAKE IN SELECTED COUNTIES OF SOUTHEASTERN

MICHIGAN, 1965-1970

County

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

Average

Arenac

854

11

1,210

786

1,750

769

Bay

1,718

1,485

7,878

18,482

27,158

11,307

11,338

Tuscola

919

225

3,738

5,110

2,104

10,603

3,783

Huron

2,702

8,000

16,386

10,103

14,759

8,740

10,115

St. Clair 2,675

15,515

24,335

13,395

16,063

30,350

18,722

Macomb

1,272

4,084

2,658

5,469

6,012

3,479

3,829

Wayne

112

2,700

392

1,006

1,484

1,149

1,141

Monroe

12,155

18,834

5,185

15,743

15,811

8,481

12,702

Source:

Data summarized by Ryel,

Office o

f Survey;

3 and Statistics,

DNR.

A survey similar to that presented in Table 35
was taken from 1950 through 1958. In the same eight
county area the 1950-1958 survey noted that the muskrat
take was largely within two miles of the Great Lakes'
shorelines (Permanent File, 1959, Wildlife Division, DNR)

101

That survey, which included the urbanized areas of south-
eastern Michigan, concluded that 8.5 percent of Michigan's
total area produces 11 percent of the state's muskrats.
Consistently outstanding harvests reflected in both surveys
included the wetlands of St. Clair and Monroe Counties.

The coastal wetland acreage of the selected coun-
ties (see Figure 1) may be tabulated and compared to the
average muskrat production of the preceding table. As
noted in Table 36 below, a ratio of muskrats per acre has
been determined. The "Wetland Acres" and "Cattail Acres"
were obtained from the DNR Coastal Wetland Inventory (1973)
The wetland acreage for Macomb County is probably higher
than 30 acres as indicated in that report. Based on Table
5 the acreage of coastal wetland for the coastal zone (Salt
River and Clinton River areas) totalled 590 acres in 1973.
If the total take in Macomb County is 3,829 "rats," the
take per acre is 6.48 "rats." Based on our investigations
most of the acreage in coastal Macomb County is in cattail.
Therefore, it will be assumed that all 590 acres are
colonized by cattails. As discussed in the above para-
graphs , muskrats occupy and feed mainly in the cattail

2
areas in a given wetland. Therefore, if the muskrats

taken per acre of cattail is used the ratio increases

2 In 1973, the DNR completed a coastal wetland
inventory. Basically, the acreages of different marsh
vegetation, including cattails were determined. It must
be noted that in 1972 when the survey was conducted, lake
levels were approaching record high levels. For example,
in the summer of 1972 Lakes Michigan and Huron were at an
elevation of 580.3 feet, Lake St. Clair at 575.3 feet and
Lake Erie at 572.4 feet. The average levels between 1900
and 1976 for Lakes Michigan and Huron, St. Clair and Erie
were 578.34, 573.61 and 570.85 feet, respectively.
Therefore, due to drowning, the wetland acreages may not
represent "normal" conditions.

102

(column 6) . The average sustained muskrat take of the
eight county area is 3.42 "rats" per cattail acre.

TABLE 36

MUSKRAT TAKE PER WETLAND ACRE AND PER CATTAIL ACRE
IN SELECTED COUNTIES OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN

Avg

. Muskrat Take
(1965-1970)

Wetlands

Cattail

County

Acres
4,740

Take /Ac re
.16

Acres
2,850

Take/Acre

Arenac

769

.27

Bay

11,338

9,790

1.16

5,760

1.97

Tuscola

3,783

5,250

.72

1,130

3.35

Huron

10,115

14,946

.68

3,110

3.25

St. Clair

18,722

15,600

1.20

4,488

4.17

Macomb

3,829

590

6.49

590

6.49

Wayne

1,141

1,420

.80

730

1.56

Monroe

12,702

6,715

1.89

1,995

6.37

Compared to other wetlands, 3.42 "rats" per acre
is a reasonably high productive average. Within Horicon
Marsh of Wisconsin is a 95-acre managed marsh which pro-
duced 5.48 "rats" per acre (Mathiak and Linde, 1954,
p. 11). In the Magee Marsh, which is also a controlled
system, 40,000 "rats" were harvested from a 2,000-acre
area (U. S. Dept. of Interior, 1967, p. 77). A muskrat
take of two to six per acre is an average for many coastal

wetlands of the state, whereas a sustained yield of five
to six per acre is considered to be very high (personal
communication, Leo Pospichal) . For the purposes of this
study, it will be assumed that average annual muskrat
harvest from cattail marshes is 3.42 animals per acre but
only 3.0 animals/ acre from the coastal wetlands in general.

If the current value of a muskrat pelt is $7.00 (perso-
nal communication, Karl Bednarik) and the density is 3.42
muskrats per acre of cattail, the selected wetlands in
southeastern Michigan have a fur value of $23.94 per cattail

103

■z

acre. The carcass value of a muskrat in 1975 was $1.50
per "rat" (lh pound animal x $1.00/lb.). Based on the
1975-1977 cost-of-living factor, which is 1.129, the pre-
sent carcass value of a muskrat is $1.70 (1.5 lbs. x $1.13).
Since the density of muskrats is 3.42, the carcass value,
per cattail acre, would be $5.81. This means that the total
average annual muskrat value per acre of cattail in the
selected southeastern Michigan counties, to include fur
and carcass values would be $29.75 ($23.94 + $5.81). The
coastal cattail habitat in Michigan in 1972 totalled 30,809
acres. If the value of muskrats is $29.75 per cattail acre,
the state's muskrat value is $916,568.

Although there is general agreement among researchers
in Michigan that the muskrat population increased from
north to south, there are exceptional habitats in Zone
2 (e.g., Arcadia Marsh) and Zone 1 (e.g., Munuscong Bay).
Also, it has been noted by Baumgartner (1942, p. 30) that
low muskrat productivity occurs between the river source
and the coast. Therefore, high production may be antici-
pated in the coastal wetlands especially if a cattail habi-
tat is abundant.

Because muskrats are rather omniverous herbivores and
occur in most coastal wetland environments, the value of
this furbearer for the coastal wetlands in general must
also be estimated. Given an average annual take of 3.0
muskrats per wetland acre and a combined pelt and carcass
value of $8.70/animal ($1.70 for carcass + $7.00/pelt),
muskrats generate an average annual return of $26.10/wet-
land acre. If there are 105,855 acres of wetlands along
Michigan's coasts, a total average annual value of
$2,762,816 is obtained.

3It is recognized that the current pelt price is high
compared to past prices. Between 1971-1976 pelt prices
ranged between $2.00 and $3.50. However, the quality of
fur from the coastal areas is better, hence the fur prices
in these areas are usually highest (personal communication,
Richard Julian) .

104
RACCOONS

As noted in Table 33, the most significant furbearer
in terms of pelt value is the raccoon. The DNR data in
the past were collected by zones , therefore only rough
estimates of the value of the raccoon can be determined
with regard to coastal wetlands. As with muskrats ,
the number of raccoons hunted increases from north to
south (Table 37) .

TABLE 37
ESTIMATED RACCOON HARVEST IN MICHIGAN, 1971-1975

197T 197? I97T 1974 1975

Region 1 790 7,430 9,200 6,260 6,810

Region 2 33,400 26,580 44,830 66,460 66,840

Region 3 209,480 207,130 213,870 300,330 257,190

TOTAL 243,670 241,140 267,900 373,050 330,840

Source: Hawn, Michigan Small Game Kill Estimate, 1975,
DNR, AugustT 1976, p. 4.

In recent years with increased fur prices , the
harvest for raccoons has increased. In the 1960's for
example, the annual harvest totalled approximately 130,000
animals. By 1975, the harvest more than doubled. High
value habitat for raccoon includes Types 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7
wetland (Table 3) for food and cover (Panzner, 1955, p. 9)
These habitats as classified by Shaw and Fredine (1955,
p. 21) range from Type 2-Inland fresh meadows (i.e.,
sedges, grasses and various broad-leaved plants) to all
habitats normally occupied by muskrats. Also included
are wooded swamps which may occupy portions of drowned
estuaries in coastal western Michigan. The most intensive
use by raccoons is the Type 2, 3, 6 and 7 wetlands (ibid. ,
p. 42). The vegetation of a Type 3 wetland includes bul-
rushes, spike rushes and various other marsh plants such
as cattails and smartweeds . Type 6 wetlands, colonized
by willows, buttonbush and dogwood, normally occur along
sluggish streams rather than in the coastal zone. The
diverse habitats are probably related to the movement of
raccoons to different environments throughout the year.

105

The raccoon density per acre of wetland has not
been well researched and hence is poorly known. Leo
Posphical (personal communication) reports that 30 racoons
evacuated a 200-acre site which was burned in the St.
Clair Flats. Urban (1968, p. 60) determined a density of
45.3 raccoons per square mile at the Winous Point Shooting
Club, Ohio, which is a diked marsh with water level con-
trols. Stuever (1941, p. 163) has suggested a mean density
of 50 raccoons/ square mile. Therefore the average
density, based upon these reports, is 0.11 raccoons per
acre.

The coastal wetlands acreage in Michigan totals
105,855 acres. If there are 0.11 raccoons per acre, the
harvested population in the coastal wetlands is 11,647
raccoons. Based on the 28th Biennial Report of the DNR
for 1975-1976, the average price per pelt is $28.00. How-
ever, if a cost-of-living factor (1.129) is multiplied by
the 1975-1976 price, the current value per pelt is $31.50.
The total estimated fur harvest of raccoons in the coastal
wetlands is the value per pelt ($31.50) multiplied by the
annual harvest (11,647). This value totals $366,880.50
or $3.47 per coastal wetland acre.

The carcass value of raccoons was $7.00 per animal
in 1975 (7 lbs. /animal x $1.00/ lb; unpublished report,
Michigan DNR). If the price is updated to 1977, using the
cost-of-living factor of 1.129, then the current value is
$7.90 per animal (1.129 x $7.00). Therefore, the esti-
mated carcass value of raccoons harvested in coastal wet-
lands is $92,011 (11,647 x $7.90) or $0.87 per acre of
coastal wetland. Given a raccoon harvest of 0.11 animals/
acre and a combined pelt ana carcass value of $39.40/
animal ($31.50/pelt + $7.90 carcass value), raccoons yield
an average annual dollar value of $4.34 per wetland acre.
Assuming 105,855 acres of coastal wetland, a total return
to the state of $459,411 is estimated.

106

CONCLUSION

Pelt and carcass values of furbearing wildlife with
regard to coastal wetlands is significant. The pelt and
carcass value of muskrats with regard to coastal wetlands
total $2,762,816, or $26.10 per wetland acre. If only
cattail wetlands are considered, muskrats generate a total
average return of $916,568 or $29 . 75/cattail acre. The
value of raccoons is $459,411, or $4.34 per acre of coastal
wetland. Therefore, the total value of muskrats and rac-
coons is approximately $3,222,227, or $30.44 per wetland
acre per year.

The 3.2 million dollar value is based on just two
furbearers. Other animals taken from wetlands include mink,
deer and rabbits. The total mink harvest in Michigan in
1970-1971 was 10,050 animals and the fur price of mink in
1971 was $10.00 per pelt (unpublished report, Michigan DNR) .
The total pelt value therefore, is approximately $100,000
annually for the entire state. What portion is derived
from coastal wetlands compared to other areas of the state
is not known. However, what is significant is that the
muskrat and raccoon values discussed above represent a
minimum fur and carcass value. If, for example, a red
fox, which has an approximate fur value of $65.00, is trapped
in a coastal wetland, the furbearer value would, of course,
be considerably higher than $30 . 44/wetland acre/year.

Although the dollar value of raccoons is not as high
as muskrats, the wetland is important to the ecology of
this animal. As noted, the raccoon may occupy a range of
different habitats. Although wooded swamps (Type 7 wet-
land) are a favored habitat for dens, in autumn raccoons
may predate on muskrats which favor deeper water marshes
(Type 4 and Type 5 wetland). Also, a favorite and common
food is crayfish which inhabitats waterlogged soils. The
value of this furbearer may be low with regard to coastal
wetlands but this habitat does support the life cycle of

107

the species. Also, considering the value of raccoons to
the state as a whole in 1970 was 10 million dollars, or
over one-third of the total value of all wildlife harvested
in Michigan (ibid. ) , preservation of its habitats warrant
consideration.

108

CHAPTER FIVE

COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHING VALUES OF THE
COASTAL WETLANDS

This chapter examines the value of the coastal
wetlands of Michigan with regard to fish spawning, com-
mercial fishing, and sport fishing. It will be demon-
strated that many of the coastal fishes which support the
commercial and sport fisheries are warmwater species that
are dependent on wetland habitats for spawning, feeding
and other functions. Also, the economic value of sport
angling in coastal wetlands will be shown to greatly
exceed the commercial fishing value.
SPAWNING OF FISH IN THE COASTAL WETLANDS

Through a survey of the literature, fish species
spawning in the coastal wetlands of Michigan have been
identified (Table 38). In some instances, e. g. , the
spawning of the Great Lakes muskellunge in the coastal
marshes of western Lake Erie, destruction of the wetlands
has since eliminated the spawning habitat (Trautman, 1957,
p. 18 and 20). Little coastal spawning data were avail-
able for the coast of the Upper Peninsula and for the
western coast of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. One of
the most intensive surveys of fish conducted in the coastal
environments was that of Beak Consultants Inc. (1976) in
Saginaw Bay.

Fish entrainment studies of cooling water intakes
have enabled the Fisheries Division, Michigan DNR, to
determine the fingerling production per wetland acre for
walleye, northern pike, and several other fish species
(personal communication, John Shauver) . Based on data
from 22 marshes, both inland and coastal, including lower

109

TABLE 38

FISH SPECIES SPAWNING IN COASTAL WETLANDS OF MICHIGAN

Lake Superior

Coastal Wetland Area
Apostle Islands

Species Spawning
Lake trout, lake white-
fish

Nipigon Estuary (Canada) Walleye

St. Marys River

Northern pike, yellow
perch

Literature Source
Lawrie & Rahrer,
1973, p. 39, 44.

Lawrie & Rahrer,
1973, p. 54.

Intern '1 Lake
Superior Bd. of
Control, 1974,
p. 2-18.

Lake Huron

Coastal Wetland Area
Potagannissing Bay

Saginaw Bay

Saginaw Bay, Fish Pt.
to Sand Point

Species Spawning
Northern pike, walleye

Perch, northern pike

Yellow perch

Literature Source
Wright & Schorf-
haar, 1976, p. 4.

Consumers Power
Co., 1974, Vol. 2,
p. 2-7-49 & 51.

Greg Olson (Pers.
commun. ) .

Saginaw Bay shoreline,
E. of Saginaw River

Yellow perch, spottail
shiner, carp, alewife,
gizzard shad, N. pike.

Beak Consultants,
Inc., 1976, p. 10,
32, 33, 34, 37, &
41.

St. Joseph Channel
(Ontario)

Lake Trout

Berst & Spangler,
1973, p. 15.

Lake Erie

Coastal Wetland Area Species Spawning
Coastal marshes, N. Ohio N. pike, Great Lakes

muskellunge

Kellys Island-Bass Is. , Walleye
Lake Erie

Lake Erie Wetlands

Raisin River mouth,
Monroe County

Perch, white bass,
gizzard shad, alewife
& yellow pickerel

Carp

Literature Source
Trautman, 1957, p.
214 & 217.

Reiger et al. ,
1969, p. 50.

Kreisman, McDonald,
Rosenbaum & Snyder,
1976, p. 19.

Parkhurst, 1971,
p. 63.

Shoreline, W. Lake
Erie

Walleye

Reiger et al. ,
1969, p. 18.

110

TABLE 38 (Continued)

Lake Michigan

Coastal Wetland Area
Grand Traverse Bay

Green Bay marshes

Lake Michigan drowned
river mouths

Little Bay de Noc

Little Bay de Noc,
mouth of Whitefish R.

Little Bay de Noc

Lower Little Manistee
River

Muskegon River mouth

Whitefish River, of
Green Bay

Species Spawning
Bowfin, carp, golden
shiner, blacknose minnow,
N. pike, banded killi-
fish, yellow perch.

Northern pike

N. pike, panfish, bass,
Largemouth bass, carp,
goldfish.

Perch

Walleye

Spottail shiner
Northern pike

Walleye

Walleye

Lake St. Clair

Literature Source
Price and Kelley,
1976, p. 12, 28,
30, 31, 37, 41, &
47.

GLBC, App. 8,
1975, p. 97.

GLBC, App. 8,
Draft, no. 2,

1972, p. 223;
Richard Julian,
pers. commun.

Wagner, 1972,
p. 56.

Crowe, 1962,
p. 353.

Basch, 1968, p. 3.

Wickland & Dean,
1957, p. 10.

Wells & McLain,

1973, p. 41.

Wells & McLain,
1973, p. 41.

Coastal Wetland Area
Big & Little Muscamoot
Bays

Dickinson Island

Eastern Anchor Bay

Lake St. Clair
wetlands

Species Spawning
Smallmouth bass

Northern pike and
muskellunge

Smallmouth bass

Literature Source
Latta, 1954, p. 1,

Mich. DNR, EIS,
1975a, p. 11.

Latta, 1954, p. 1.

N. pike, walleye, perch, Kreisman, McDonald,

smallmouth bass, channel Rosenbaum & Snyder ,

catfish, muskellunge, 1976, p. 18.
and lake sturgeon.

Mitchell Bay

Smallmouth bass

Doan, 1940, p. 259.

Ill

TABLE 38 (Continued)
Lake St. Clair (Continued)

Coastal Wetland Area
St. Clair Flats

St. Clair Flats, sedge
meadows

St. Clair Flats

St. Clair Flats, deep
cattail marsh

St. Johns Marsh

Species Spawning
N. pike, bluegill, carp

Northern pike

Smallmouth bass

Smallmouth bass, large-
mouth bass, carp, blue-
gill.

N. pike, muskellunge,
smallmouth bass, large-
mouth bass, walleye,
yellow perch, and
bluegill.

Literature Source
Greg Olson (pers.
communication) .

Leo Posphical
(pers. commun.).

Latta, 1957,
p. 23.

Leo Pospichal
(pers. commun.)

Michigan DNR,
1976a, Proposed
St. Johns Rec.
Area, p. 4.

Harsens Island, fingerling production of walleye and
northern pike in 1976 were estimated to be 1,220 and 374
fingerlings /wetland acre/year, respectively (Current Files-
Fingerling Production Data, Fisheries Div. , Michigan DNR) .
Using the Thompson- Be 11 method of projecting the annual
recruitment of fingerling fish to various year classes
(Ricker, 1975, p. 237), it is possible to estimate the
annual wetland acre production of adult fish. By employing
the fingerling data and the penalty system (whereby the
Michigan DNR may impose a fine of $10 per pound of game
fish illegally taken or lost to the fishery) , northern
pike production in lower Harsens Island may be valued at
$170/wetland acre/year.

A diversity of warmwater, non-salmonid species of
fish spawn in the coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes.
The northern pike (Esox lucius) is one of the wetland-
dependent species which spawns in the wetlands, usually
distributing its eggs in shallow sedge marshes or in
flooded fields (Trautman, 1957, p. 214; Williams and
Jacob, 1971, p. 3). Carp (Cyprinus carpio) commonly

112

broadcast their eggs over vegetation or debris in warm,
shallow coastal bays and marshes (Trautman, 1957, p. 285;
Lake Erie Research Unit Staff, 1976). The yellow perch
(Perca flavescens) can also be categorized as a wetland
spawner because the species strews its eggs over aquatic
vegetation or submerged brush of inshore waters (Lake
Erie Research Unit Staff, 1976). Nesting of smallmouth
bass (Micropterus dolomieui) has been observed among
bulrush clumps on the sandy, nearshore flats along the
margin of the St. Clair River delta (Doan, 1940, p. 259;
Latta, 1954, p. 1).

Man's impact on the coastal environment has severely
degraded and/or eliminated the spawning and nursery habitats
in many wetlands. The clearing and draining of the Black
Swamp of northwest Ohio and adjacent Michigan, the Saginaw
Bay lowlands , and the lower Green Bay marshlands for agri-
culture may be the primary cause of the collapse of the
commercial fisheries in these areas. Agricultural crops
now flourish where northern pike, Great Lakes muskellunge
and lake sturgeon once spawned in coastal Ohio (Trautman,
1957, p. 20). Until 1890 when industrial expansion began
to occur, lake whitefish commonly spawned in Maumee Bay
and the Detroit River (Hartman, 1973, p. 26). Turbid
waters and silt-covered bottoms hinder sight-feeding
gamefish, but favor bottom feeders such as carp, redhorse,
and white suckers (Shepherd, 1973, p. 23).

In addition to agricultural development, extensive
urbanization and industrialization of the lower Fox River
Valley has resulted in the deterioration of the aquatic
environment of the lower Green Bay (Great Lakes Basin
Comm. , 1975a, p. 97). Populations of tolerant species
such as carp and suckers have subsequently increased,
while common whitefish, walleye, northern pike and yellow
perch have declined. Draining of the coastal wetlands
eliminated the spawning habitat of the northern pike.

113

The paper industries have caused thermal pollution, wood
fiber deposition, and chemical deterioration which, in
turn, has eliminated both warm- and coldwater fisheries
in the lower tributaries and nearshore environments of the
Green Bay (ibid. , p. 97).

Along the coast of Saginaw Bay a fine, black
anaerobic layer of ooze has recently been observed (ibid. ,
p. 141). Other water quality problems along the shoreline
of the inner bay include increases in dissolved solids,
chlorides and sulfates and a decrease in oxygen levels
especially during calm summer days. Dredge and fill
operations have also eliminated fish habitat. Currently,
the main commercial fish species in Saginaw Bay, in
decreasing order of importance by value, are: channel
catfish, yellow perch, carp, black crappie, bullheads and
quillback (U. S. Dept. of Interior, 1976). Northern pike
and walleye were removed from the list of commercial
species in 1966 and 1970, respectively. Through habitat
degradation and restriction on the taking of certain
species, e.g., northern pike, only medium- to low-valued,
warmwater species remain for the commercial fishermen to
pursue.

Under natural conditions, the coastal wetlands are
capable of supporting a diverse and balanced fish com-
munity. The species common to the wetlands of Michigan
have been listed in Table 39. Note the diversity,
including predator fish such as northern pike and small-
mouth bass as well as forage minnows such as the black-
nose shiner and golden shiner. When siltation and chem-
ical pollution occur, large predators and forage minnows
disappear and fast-growing detritivores increase (Table
40) . This species succession toward more tolerant
species is in an advanced stage in the coastal wetlands
of western Lake Erie. Habitat changes in coastal Lake
Erie favor low-value species such as freshwater drum,

114

TABLE 39

COMMON FISH SPECIES UTILIZING THE COASTAL
WETLANDS OF MICHIGAN

Common Name

Northern longnose gar

Bowf in

Northern pike

Great Lakes muskel lunge

Walleye

Yellow Perch

Largemouth bass

Smallmouth bass

Bluegill

Pumpkins eed

Green sunfish

Black crappie

Western banded killifish

Carp

Goldfish

Pugnose minnow

Blackchin shiner

Blacknose shiner

Spottail shiner

Emerald shiner

Golden shiner

Pirate perch

Channel catfish

Black bullhead

Brown bullhead

Yellow bullhead

Freshwater drum

Redhorse

White sucker

Gizzard shad

Johnny darter

Trout-perch

Scientific Name
Lepisosteus osseus oxyurus
Amia calva
Esox lucius
Esox masquinongy
Stizostedium vitreum
Perca flavescens
Micropterus salmoides
Micropterus dolomieui
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis cyanellus
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Fundulus diaphanus menona
Cyprinus carpio
Carassius auratus
Opsopoeodus emiliae
Notropis heterodon
Notropis heterolepis
Notropis hudsonius
Notropis antherinoides
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Aphredoderus say anus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus melas
Ictalurus nebulosus
Ictalurus natalis
Aplodinotus grunniens
Mo xo stoma spp.
Catostomus commersoni
Dorosoma cepedianum
Etheostoma nigrum
Percopsis omiscomaycus

Source : Compiled from Trautman, 1957; Hubbs and Lagler,
1958; and Scott and Crossman, 1973.

alewife, gizzard shad, carp, and goldfish (Great Lakes

Basin Comm. , 1975a, p. 163).

VALUE OF COASTAL WETLANDS TO COMMERCIAL FISHING

Commercial fishing in Michigan is not a large
industry. In 1975 there were 161 licensed commercial
fisherman who landed 11.51 million pounds of fish valued

115

TABLE 40

FISH SPECIES INHABITING COASTAL WETLANDS WHICH
ARE TOLERANT TO TURBIDITY, SILTATION, AND

POLLUTION

Species Tolerant to an Increase in Turbidity and
Siltation:

Gizzard shad White crappie

Big mouth buffalofish Black crappie

Channel catfish Green sunfish

Brown bullhead Sauger

Black bullhead Freshwater drum

(Sheepshead)

Species Tolerant to Organic and Inorganic Pollution:

Common white sucker

Carp

Goldfish

Source : Pinsak and Meyer, 1976, p. 154.

at approximately $3.0 million (Scott, 1977, p. 4). By
weight, Lake Michigan alone accounted for 64 percent of
the total state harvest, with its alewife landings con-
tributing 32 percent of the entire statewide catch. With
regard to the value of fish landings, in 1976 the most
important commercial species, in descending order by value
of total harvest, were common whitefish, chubs, channel
catfish, yellow perch, carp, smelt, lake trout, alewives ,
black crappie, Menominee whitefish, and all others (Table
41).

Little commercial fishing occurs within coastal
wetlands per se , except for the harvesting of carp and
other medium- to low- value, warmwater species. The
coastal wetlands are too shallow and the bottoms either
too unconsolidated or strewn with obstacles to permit
efficient fishing with trawls or gill nets. Haul seines

116

P

i-H

cd
>

cd

P
O
H

vj-vooovf^OMnooMrosl-oovoino movdcmh
r^ o r^ o <f o on cm t-h rH m co r^ m o romcMvovo
r-i r». cr> CO CM CN| co <j- o oo <f CM cm on <f oo vo vo

ovocococMONr^vocMOOO

vOtsvOsfOvOvOiTKt-ncsKN
OOmHHH

<ry

rH<f<J-

CM

oo

co

cu
•H
u

oococomooooo

VO ON ON

rH <|" 00

00

o

<J>

<to<rvo<r

m oo oo

si-

LO

int^m

CM

ON

<f

00 CM

CM

CO

o

<t"

m

CM

oo

w
rJ
CQ

c
o
}-l

p

PC

inomrHONOOOcMcooooNONvo

HHvl-O
00 00 CO VO

i-l

o

~

»«•«•>

i-i

CM
CO
</>

iriCMHH
<t <J- v£>

CM

ON ON VO

CM liO vO O rH

CO

cm r^ vo

r-H m CM

VO

vO

<f rH

vO vO vO

CT>

.. •>

•> «

•»

O <f

i-H rH

CO

r-i

co

u
o

•rl
U

CU
D.

P

CMONOOOcOCMOOONOOOr-OO
ON rH rH O <t CO CO

vtl^ CO CO CM CO

OO OO o

on m

r«*

O

h*- rH

vO

CM

co <f

</>

O

m

CO

00

oo

q

cfl

Ml

•rl

o

•iH

r~.r^.ooovocoooorHoovooo
co oo ononcm vo m

on on cm <t r^» <j-

oo o
m vo

<o-

so

m

o
co

O O O CM O

O

vO

CM

O

U

*

o

m

•H

r^.

u

<!■

CU

~

P

j-t

n

</>

M

MH
O

CO

cu

•iH
CJ
<1)
D-

C/3

43

CO
•H

p

o.

CU

43

MH

Q

CO

(I)

E

•H

•P

P ^~^

•

MH

CD «H

MT3

CO

CU 42

•Hi.n M

t3 cd T3

P O

D-12 co C

CU cd

•

•H M P

P-, «iH -iH

co U & XI

P3

43 CU P

cd cu fe }h

CO CO cu co M CO

3 Pk O

CO

n cu u

cd x> -P a, O

43 „ h

CUUGOCUCOPQcdcdCUCd'tf

hJ

• •

C w £ H

>

HHS^

CU £ 0)43 r<

•p

C3

<c

CU

O CO -iH O P

•H M e <d cu

CU 43 43 43 rH cd

o

•H

H

o

g ^Q IW rH P-.I-H CU

5

O OMH CU 4*5 P rH CO COrH N,QlW

o

H

E P 4-) r-H }-l 0) ^i

cu

cd cu-t a; o

•rH rH CU ^-"'H N

J-l

s

H

p

O42«dCUCd0CdrHrHCUpCdp

£ P H p -H

p

o

o

OUO!hoc/>,-J<|pq2pQ,-3c/)

^ pq fn c/O pq pq

w

117

are utilized in the shallow bays of western Lake Erie to
catch carp, goldfish, and freshwater drum (Reiger and
Hartman, 1973, p. 1249). Seines are a common gear type
in waters with depths of 7 to 12 feet, whereas trap nets
are usually set in slightly deeper water so as to allow
pleasure craft to pass over without snagging the gear
(Howard, 1972, p. 35).

With the possible exception of suckers, there
appears to be less commercial fishing activity in the coastal
wetlands of either Lake Superior or Lake Michigan. Much
of this lack of activity can be explained by the closing
of bays, such as Bay de Noc to commercial fishing. Yellow
perch are not abundant in Lake Superior, and in Lake
Michigan the perch fishery has been closed to commercial
fishermen since 1970. Some fishing of yellow perch does
occur in the Wisconsin waters of lower Green Bay, and in
the Indiana waters of Lake Michigan (personal communica-
tion, Ned Fogle) . Other warmwater species, such as carp
and channel catfish, do not sustain a commercial fishery
in Lake Michigan or Lake Superior.

Commercial fishing in Potagannissing Bay (St.
Marys River) of Lake Huron has been an important industry
since the late 1800' s. During the 1930' s, for example,
the commercial harvest in Potagannissing Bay consisted
primarily of suckers, along with walleye, muskellunge and
yellow perch (Westerman and van Oosten, 1937, p. 27). In
1966, the northern pike was closed to commercial fishing
in Lake Huron waters as was the walleye in 1970. By
removing these species from the commercial list, sport
fishing now dominates in the St. Marys River -Drummond
Island-Les Cheneaux Island area. Nevertheless, suckers
are still an important commercial species, although most
of the catch is taken in rivers during spring spawning
runs. Carp are becoming more abundant near the Potagan-
nissing River in Potagannissing Bay, but the low- value

118

species does not suppport a permanent commercial fishery
at this location.

Saginaw Bay supports the largest commercial fishery
which extends into the coastal wetland environments of
Michigan. In 1975, 28 commercial fishermen, principally
from the Bayport-Sebewaing-Linwood area, landed 1,323,847
pounds, valued at $313,190 (Table 42). Most of the yellow
perch, carp, and sucker harvest, as well as a large portion

TABLE 42

COMMERCIAL FISH LANDINGS IN SAGINAW BAY (LAKE
HURON) BY SPECIES, 1975

Species

Pounds Landed* Value

Carp

626,398

$ 47,174

Channel catfish

282,148

109,198

Yellow perch

257,203

91,927

Black crappie

85,451

56,354

Bullheads

37,354

4,229

Quillback

16,468

2,525

Freshwater drum

15,937

1,698

Bowfin

2,331

58

Gizzard shad

440

23

White bass

1

117

4

TOTAL

,323,847

$313,190

Source : Current

Files,

Fisheries

Div. , Michigan DNR.

*A small percentage of
Tawas and Thunder Bays

this catch

may also derive from

of the channel catfish landings from Lake Huron derive
from Saginaw Bay (Parsons, 1974, p. 34). Channel catfish,
yellow perch, black crappie, carp, and bullheads, in
that order by value, clearly dominate the total landings.
Although the black crappie is a commercial species in

119

Saginaw Bay, elsewhere in Michigan it is designated as a
sport fish.

Commercial fishing on the United States side of
Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River has been closed
since the 1930' s, except for the temporary fishing of
catfish during the 1960's. At present there may be an
underutilized stock of channel catfish offshore from the
Clinton River cutoff (personal communication, Bob Haas).
The only commercial fishery in Lake St. Clair is operated
by the Walpole Indians of Ontario who harvest northern
pike from the wetlands of Walpole Island. Commercial
fishing in the Detroit River has also been discontinued
for several decades.

With regard to the Michigan shoreline of western
Lake Erie, only the shallow bays, such as La Plaisance
Bay, support any commercial fishing activity. In 1975,
five commercial fishermen, most of whom ported out of
Monroe, Michigan, harvested 483,879 pounds of fish, valued
at $41,560 (Table 43). Of these five fishermen, three
seine for carp in waters that may be as shallow as 4 to
6 feet deep (personal communication, Ned Fogle) . Some
fishing by Ohio commercial fishermen occurs in Maumee Bay.
In 1974, the principal catch in Maumee Bay was carp, with
smaller quantities of white bass, channel catfish, yellow
perch, bullheads, and freshwater drum (Pinsak and Meyer,
1976, p. 165).

Several commercial fishermen along western Lake
Erie place carp caught from the lake shore into holding
ponds or barges before marketing. The carp are usually
held six weeks awaiting holiday market days, during which
time the fish are fattened or "cured" on shelled corn
(Howard, 1972, p. 86). In contrast to Michigan's carp
ponds which function as holding or fattening pens , in
Asia and the Near East, carp ponds are used for rearing
from eggs or small fry. In Israel and Germany, carp

120

ponds produce an average of 386 pounds of carp per acre/
year (Pirie, 1973, p. 324). At 8 cents per pound (current
price of carp in Michigan), this amounts to $30.85 per
acre/year.

In summary, the economic value of commercial
fishing in the coastal wetlands of the state of Michigan
is small. In 1975, the commercial harvest in coastal
wetlands amounted to 1,807,726 pounds, which was valued

TABLE 43

COMMERCIAL FISH LANDINGS FROM MICHIGAN'S COASTAL
WATERS OF LAKE ERIE, BY SPECIES, 1975

Species

Carp

Buffalo fish

Channel catfish

White bass

Bullheads

Freshwater drum

Suckers (incl. redhorse)

Yellow perch

TOTAL

Pounds Landed

Value

422,204

$21,749

33,965

10,078

13,950

6,453

4,558

1,511

3,221

624

2,218

148

1,964

49

1,799

948

Source

483,879
Current Files, Fisheries Div.

$41,560
Michigan DNR.

at $354,750. Using a cost-of-living factor of 1.129 to
convert the 1975 value to a 1977 value, the total com-
mercial fish harvest from the coastal waters in 1977 is
worth $400,513, or an average of 22<£/pound. For the 33
fishermen involved in the fishing of coastal areas, the
average annual income per fisherman would be $12,135. This
wetland catch is approximately 12 percent of the total
weight of the statewide commercial harvest, and approxi-
mately 15 percent of the total value. Given 105,855 acres
of coastal wetland in Michigan, commercial fishing therein
yields 17.1 pounds per acre/year, for a value of $3.78 per

121

acre/year. However, if carp are raised in wetland ponds,
the value may be $30.85 per acre/year. If all of Michigan's
Great Lakes commercial fish catch (see Table 41) is con-
sidered to be wetland dependent, then the commercial fish
value would average approximately $30/wetland acre/year
($3,177,827 divided by 105,855 acres).

Commercial fishing in the Great Lakes coastal
wetlands has deteriorated from its former status due to
environmental degradation, species succession, overfishing,
and restrictions on the catching of several high value
species. Nevertheless, there are underutilized fish
stocks including freshwater drum, white bass, bullheads,
channel catfish, suckers, and carp (Cable, 1971, p. 357).
Many wetlands have populations of fast-growing forage
fish such as carp and gizzard shad, which presently have
little commercial value (Messman et al. , 1977, p. 89;
Greenwood, 1971, p. 415).
VALUE OF COASTAL WETLANDS TO SPORT FISHING

The economic value of sport fishing may be cal-
culated by several methods. A common technique, and the
one employed herein, is to utilize the 1970 freshwater
fisherman's average annual expenditures of $127 or the
$6.30 value of an angler day (U. S. Dept of Interior,
1972, p. 9). Using cost-of-living factors, these 1970
values can be extrapolated to the year 1977. In contrast,
Stroud (1977, p. 2), based on the amount of money a fisher-
man would require in compensation to forfeit a day of
fishing, suggests that the value of an angler day of
inland, warmwater fishing is worth $49.66. Another method
would involve fixing a dollar value on each fish in the
fishery. At present the Fisheries Division of Michigan's
DNR may impose a fine of $5 to $10 per pound of game
sport fish illegally taken or lost to the fishery (per-
sonal communication, Bill McClay) . However, in order to
be consistent with the estimated values of waterfowl
hunting, the first technique described above will be
utilized in this report. Specifically, angler day values
will be employed as opposed to average annual expenditures
because data on the number of fishermen may not be avail-
able.

122

In 1975 approximately 1.16 million sportsmen
fished in Michigan's waters and expended a total of 20
million angler days (Jamsen, 1976, p. 2). Based on the
1970 National Survey of Fishing and Hunting (U. S. Dept.
of Interior, 1972, p. 9), as extrapolated to the year
1977 by employing a 1.542 cost-of-living factor for
Michigan (personal communication, Bob Craig) , each fresh-
water fisherman in 1977 spent $196, or $9.72 per angler
day. Given an estimated 1,164,160 Michigan sport fisher-
men and an average annual expenditure of $196, the total
economic value of sport fishing in Michigan is $228 mil-
lion. Using an angler day value of $9.72 and 20 million
angler days, the total economic value is estimated to be
$194.4 million. A study in press regarding the economics
of Great Lakes sport fishing indicates that in 1977 the
value of an angler day ranged between $7 and $10 and that
the total value of Michigan's sport fishery is $250
million (Talhelm, in press, p. 8). Thus, a total economic
value of $200 million for Michigan's sport fishery appears
corroborated.

Data on the number of sport fishermen and fishing
effort in Michigan are presented in Table 44. Information
specific to the coastal wetlands is not available. Warm-
water sport fishing in the coastal wetlands, and in other
shore environments , is contained within the Great Lakes
non-salmonid fishing category. In comparison, fishing
of inland lakes and streams, which focuses on non-
salmonid fish, e.g., panfish, yellow perch, and bass,
clearly dominates the state's sport fishing activity
(Jamsen, 1973, p. 28). Great Lakes fishing of non-
salmonids involved an estimated 413,100 participants, for
a total of 4,361,180 angler days. Yellow perch was the
most sought after species (Jamsen, 1976, p. 2). Assuming
a current fishing effort of 4,361,180 angler days per
year and using the $9.72 figure per angler day, the Great

123

TABLE 44

NUMBER OF SPORT FISHERMEN AND FISHING EFFORT BY
TYPE OF SPORT FISHING, IN MICHIGAN, 1975

Great Lakes Inland

Non-Salmonid Non-Salmonid

No. of Fishermen

Angler Days

Economic
Values***

413,100
4,361,180

816,340
10,109,220

All Others*
758,880
5,534,520

Totals
1,164,160**
20,004,920**

$42,390,670 $98,261,620 $53,795,535 $194,447,820

Source: Jamsen, 1976, p. 2 and 6; Current Files, Office of Surveys
and Statistics, Michigan DNR.

*i.e. Great Lake Salmonid, Anad. Salmonid, Inland Trout.
**The number of fishermen are not additive, as a given fisherman
could be represented in more than one category. The total angler
days, however, were obtained by summing the individual categories.
***Figures are based on an angler day value of $9.72.

Lakes non- salmonid sport fishery for 1977 is estimated to
be worth $42 4 million to the state of Michigan.

Because yellow perch accounts for 71 percent of the
Great Lakes non-salmonid hook and line catch (Jamsen,
1976, p. 2), it is instructive to examine the geographic
distribution of this fishery. The southern Lower Peninsula
is the source of 83 percent of the state's Great Lakes
yellow perch fishing demand (Table 45) . This large per-
centage appears reasonable considering that 81 percent of
the state's licensed sport fishermen reside in southern
Michigan (Jamsen, 1973, p. 23). Wayne County alone gen-
erates nearly 20 percent of the total Great Lakes yellow
perch sport fishery demand (see Table 45). Hence, that
much of the non-salmonid fishing demand derives from the
urban centers in southeastern Michigan is beyond question.

It is felt that much of the Great Lakes sport
fishing effort is expended in open-water areas as compared
to the coastal wetlands. Nonetheless, because some of
the species being fished either spawn or feed in wetland

124

TABLE 45

NUMBER AND RESIDENCE OF GREAT LAKES YELLOW PERCH
FISHERMEN BY REGION, IN MICHIGAN, 1975

Region

Upper Peninsula
N. Lower Peninsula
S. Lower Peninsula

Fishermen Percent

Number of Perch
Fishermen in the
4 Leading Counties

10,200

4

Wayne

55,600

35,800

13

Macomb

30,200

218,800

83

Oakland

19,200

TOTAL
Source :

264,800 100.0% SaSinaw 18,600

Current Files, Office of Surveys and Statistics ,
Michigan DNR.

environments, e.g., northern pike and yellow perch, a por-
tion of the Great Lakes non-salmonid fishing activity can
be considered part of the coastal wetland fishery.

Lake Superior has traditionally been renowned for
its high quality sport fishery, especially in bay and
shoal areas, including the Apostle Islands, Keweenaw
Bay, and tributary streams (U. S. Dept. of Interior,
1970b, p. 2). A 1970 creel census in Michigan waters of
the lake revealed that the following species , in ranked
order by number caught, constituted the main sport fish:
smelt, yellow perch, suckers, centrarchid panfish,
northern pike, walleye, and bass (Great Lakes Basin Comm. ,
1975a, p. 58). With the exception of smelt, these
species inhabit the warmwater, shore environments and
tributary streams as well as many of the inland lakes
(U. S. Dept. of Interior, 1970, p. 44).

Some information is available on the sport fishing
of coastal wetlands in the Upper Peninsula along the
northern shore of Lake Michigan. The 1971 creel census
revealed that the principal non-salmonid sport fishes
were yellow perch, smelt, suckers, smallmouth bass,
northern pike, walleye, and centrarchid panfish (Great

125

Lakes Basin Comm., 1975a, pp. 88-89). The catch on the
lower Menominee River generally consists of northern pike,
bullheads, walleye and other species (State of Michigan,
1967, p. 36). A creel census in 1965 in Little Bay de
Noc indicated that the principal sport fishes , in order
of catch, were yellow perch, brown bullhead, rock bass,
pumpkinseed sunfish, northern pike, smallmouth bass,
bluegill, walleye, and black crappie (Wagner, 1968, p. 3).
Ice fishing generates somewhat more angling activity than
open-water fishing in the Bay de Noc area.

In 1965 , ice fishing at Little Bay de Noc generated
29,322 hours, while open-water anglers fished 16,785
hours, for a total of 46,107 angler hours (ibid. , p. 1).
For calculation of economic value, it is assumed that the
current sport fishing demand is 50,000 angler hours and
that an angler day is equivalent to six hours of fishing.
The economic value of sport fishing in Little Bay de Noc,
using $9.72 as the value of an angler day, is $81,000.
Given 1,458 acres of coastal wetland in the bay (see
Table 4) , the value of sport fishing is $56 per wetland
acre/year.

With regard to Michigan sport fishery along the
eastern shore of Lake Michigan, little information is
available. In this area, much of the fishing effort was
traditionally expended on the inland lakes and streams
(Great Lakes Basin Comm., 1975a, p. 109). Nevertheless,
important sport fish along the coast include the yellow
perch, smelt, suckers, smallmouth bass, northern pike,
walleye, and centrarchid panfish. Yellow perch fishing
from piers and jetties open to the public is particularly
intense in southern Lake Michigan (ibid. , p. 90) and may
be increasing as additional structures are built. With
regard to the coastal wetlands, the drowned river mouths
and the estuary- like lakes furnish habitat for northern
pike, bass, and panfish not found elsewhere along the

126

coast due to the absence of nearshore wetlands. Sport
fishes of Grand Traverse Bay include yellow perch, large-
mouth bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill, rockbass, white
sucker, and northern pike along with smelt and several
anadromous species (Price and Kelly, 1976, p. 54).

The St. Marys River, which connects Lake Superior
and Lake Huron, has long been a highly regarded sport
fishing area. Recent studies indicate that the fishing
potential for yellow perch, walleye and northern pike in
Potagannissing Bay is excellent (Wright and Schorfhaar,
1976, pp. 2-4). The Old Channel currently supports yellow
perch, northern pike, walleye, and sucker populations
(Parsons, 1974, p. 75). In Munuscong Bay and in areas
north of Drummond Island, valuable aquatic vegetation
grows in water depths up to 25 feet. At St. Marys
Rapids, south of Lake Superior, over 100,000 angler days
are expended annually on the United States1 side. How-
ever, much of this activity is directed toward lake white-
fish and rainbow trout (Intern1 1 Lake Superior Bd. of
Control, 1974, pp. 2-19). Some pier fishing by local
residents also takes place at the Rapids for yellow perch.

Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair fishermen generate
75 percent of the Great Lakes non-salmonid fishing demand
and account for 81 percent of the total yellow perch catch.
Within the Great Lakes, Saginaw Bay and Lake St. Clair
receive the heaviest hook and line pressure for yellow
perch, panfish, walleye, bass, northern pike, and muskel-
lunge (Jamsen, 1976, p. 2). With reference to Lake Huron,
by far the majority of warmwater sport fishing effort
takes place in Saginaw Bay, Les Cheneaux, and Drummond
Island areas. The 1970 creel census revealed that the
following ranked order of species by number caught
comprised the important sport fishes of Lake Huron: yel-
low perch, centrarchid panfish, suckers, bass, northern

127

pike and muskellunge (Great Lakes Basin Comm. , 1975a,
p. 137).

Saginaw Bay is a popular area for the sport
fishing of yellow perch, walleye, and channel catfish
(Parsons, 1974, p. 34). Sixty-one percent of the Lake
Huron non-salmonid sport fishing activity in 1975 occurred
in Saginaw Bay (Jamsen, 1976, p. 2). Fishing for yellow
perch accounts for 54 percent of the fishing effort of
Lake Huron, but much of this occurs in Saginaw Bay. In
summer, perch fishing is particularly intense between
Fish Point and Sand Point, and near Port Austin (personal
communication, Greg Olson). Ice fishing for yellow perch
is also popular in winter at Fish Point (personal communi-
cation, Randy Eshenroder) .

In 1975, an estimated 125,630 sport fishermen
expended 863,600 angler days to catch 12.46 million fish
in Saginaw Bay (Table 46) . If we assume that the current
annual warmwater sport fishing effort in Saginaw Bay,
excluding smelt and salmonid fishing, is 787,000 angler
days and using the $9.72 figure as a value of an angler
day, then the warmwater, non-salmonid sport fishery of
Saginaw Bay is valued at $7.66 million. At present,
Saginaw Bay has 17,816 acres of coastal wetland (see
Table 4). On an area basis, the warmwater, non-salmonid
sport fishery of Saginaw Bay is valued at $429 per wetland
acre/year.

Lake St. Clair is the most valuable Great Lakes
area for non-salmonid sport fishing in Michigan. In 1975,
33 percent of all Great Lakes fish catch and 48 percent of
the fishing effort were expended on Lake St. Clair (Table
47). In spite of its relatively small area, more walleye,
bass, and centrarchid panfish are taken from Lake St.
Clair than from any other Michigan Great Lakes water body.
Charter boat operators exploit the fact that one-half of
the state's muskellunge catch comes from Lake St. Clair

Personal communication, Gale Jamsen

128

TABLE 46

SPORT FISH CATCH AND FISHING EFFORT IN SAGINAW
BAY BY SPECIES, 1975

Species

No

. of

Fish Caught

% of Total Catch

Yellow perch

10

,962,790

88

Panfish and white
bass

707,030

6

Bullheads and
Catfish

523,430

4

Bass

94,690

<1

Suckers

64,430

<1

Northern pike

36,210

<1

Salmon and Trout

35,360

<1

All others

36,890

1

TOTAL

12

,460,830

100%

Number of
Angler Da]

Fi

shermen 125
863

,630
,600

Source: Current Files, Office of Surveys and Statistics,
Michigan DNR.

(Schrouder, 1975, p. 4). Because of the lake's popularity
and accessibility, many unlicensed fishermen from Wayne,
Oakland, Macomb, and St. Clair counties fish in Lake St.
Clair (Great Lakes Basin Comm. , 1975a, p. 187).

The St. Clair River delta consists of approxi-
mately 16,000 acres of coastal wetland, the lower part of
which provides fishing opportunities for metropolitan
Detroit and adjacent Ontario. As indicated in Figure 22,
the shallow, marshy bays, river channels and weedy lakes
provide high quality sport fishing of northern pike,
smallmouth bass, perch, bluegill, and walleye. In St.
Johns Marsh, the fishing of yellow perch, bluegills,
largemouth bass, and northern pike is popular from shore
sites as well as from small boats (Michigan DNR, 1976a,

129

130

TABLE 47

MICHIGAN NON-SALMONID SPORT FISH CATCH AND
FISHING EFFORT, LAKE ST. CLAIR VS. OTHER
MICHIGAN GREAT LAKES WATERS, 1975

Yellow

Northern

% of

Perch

Walleye

Bass

Panf ish

Pike

total

St. Clair

6,803,060

809,030

399,500

1,490,900

114,410

33

All

Others

17,856,660

96,560

329,630

1,294,040

168,300

67

TOTAL 24,659,720

905,590 729,130 2,784,940 282,710 100

Angler Days

Percent of Total

St. Clair

1,996,990

48

All Others

2,137,750

52

TOTAL

4,134,740

100

Source; Jamsen, 1976, p. 6

p. 4). Ice fishing, particularly in eastern Anchor Bay,
attracts many sportsmen from a wide area.

It has been estimated that lower Harsens Island,
which is 2,600 acres in size, supports an estimated
100,000 angler days per year of sport fishing activity
(Pospichal, undated, p. 8). At an angler day value of
$9.72, this amounts to a total of $972,000 per year, for
an area value of $374 per wetland acre/year.

The United States portion of the St. Clair River
delta consists of approximately 8,500 acres of wetlands.
It has been determined that the value of sport fishing
on Lake St. Clair totals $19,410,740, which is obtained
by multiplying 1,996,990 angler days (see Table 47) by
$9.72 (the value of one angler day). Given 8,500 acres
of wetland on the United States side of the delta, the
value of sport fishing per wetland acre in Lake St. Clair
equals $2,284 per year. However, much of the actual

131

fishing effort appears to be expended in the bays and other
open water areas as opposed to wetland areas.

A current estimate reveals that the 118,000 acres
of Lake St. Clair, which is situated on the United States
side, experiences a sport fishing use rate of 20 angler
days/acre/year (personal communication, Ron Spitler) .
Again employing the angler day value of $9.72, this amounts
to $195 per water acre/year of economic value. However,
if the angler day figures from Table 47 are employed--
1,996,990 angler days from Michigan waters of Lake St.
Clair, then a use rate for the 118,000 acres of 16.92
angler days /water acre/year is obtained, for an economic
value of $165 per water acre/year in Lake St. Clair.

Several charter boat captains feel that somewhat
more fishing activity occurs on the Canadian side than on
the American side of the lake. This may be a response to
overcrowding and overfishing or to the environmental
deterioration occurring along western Lake St. Clair.

The non-salmonid sport fishing of carp, catfish,
bullheads, yellow perch, walleye, and white bass is common
along the Detroit River. Salmonid fishing opportunities
are also present because of the stocking of chinook salmon
and steelhead trout in the river since 1973 (Scott, 1977,
p. 2). Creel census data during the period 1953 through
1955 revealed that the yellow perch fishing was declining,
and that game fish constituted only 13 percent of the
catch, whereas panfish and coarse fish accounted for 35
and 52 percent of the total catch, respectively (Fukano,
1956). At present the fishing of carp, catfish, bull-
heads and panfish in the Belle Isle area by Detroit urban
fishermen is particularly intense. There are 14 shore
sites and 1 pier as well as 8 boat launching facilities
which provide angling opportunities along the Detroit
River for Metro -Michigan fishermen.

132

Sport fishing in the coastal wetlands of Monroe
County along western Lake Erie has deteriorated consider-
ably during the past few decades. Yellow perch was and to
some extent still remains the most popular species along
the nearshore area (Great Lakes Basin Comm. , 1975a, p.
168) . The current water quality at the mouth of the
Raisin River is so degraded that a sport fishery for
species other than carp is not possible at this time
(ibid. , p. 187). Muck areas in Maumee Bay negate the
existence of fish life and prevent the migration of
anadromous species (ibid. , p. 177). Since the early
1960's, carp archery carnivals have been held at Pointe
Mouillee which attract up to 4,000 participants annually
(Schemenauer , 1963, p. 3).

At present there are two shore sites for sport
fishing along coastal Monroe County. One is located at
the State Game Headquarters at Pointe Mouillee along the
lower Huron River, while the other is a public boat launch
site near the Whiting power generating plant near Erie,
Michigan. Bullheads and carp appear to be the primary
species caught by bank fishermen along the lower Huron
River. At the site near the Whiting plant, many sport
fishermen walk along the shoreline to the hot water dis-
charge canal and fish from shore for catfish, white bass,
freshwater drum, and carp. On several occasions, during
weekends , the authors have observed 30 to 40 fishermen
both on shore and in small boats fishing near the dis-
charge canal. It is estimated that 1,000 angler days per
year are expended at this site.

As discussed above, the coastal wetlands vary
considerably as to their value to sport fishing (Table
48) . Part of this variation may be due to habitat quality
and part to the difficulty of separating the open-water
catch from the wetland harvest. However, as indicated in
the section on spawning, most of these warmwater species

133

TABLE 48

ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE OF COASTAL WETLANDS TO
SPORT FISHING, SELECTED COASTAL AREAS, IN
MICHIGAN, 1977

Wetland Area Value per Acre/Year

Lake St. Clair Wetlands

(U. S. side only) $2,284*

Saginaw Bay coastal wetlands 429

Harsens Island, St. Clair

River delta wetlands 374

Little Bay de Noc wetlands 56

AVERAGE 286**

^Includes all waters of Lake St. Clair as well as the
wetlands
**The first entry, Lake St. Clair wetlands, was not in-
cluded in the average calculation of this statistic.

are at least indirectly dependent on the coastal wetlands.
Another factor influencing the sport fishing use rate
appears to be the proximity of the area to urban centers.
Lake St. Clair, because of its proximity to metropolitan
Detroit, has extremely high participation rates and
sport fishing value. If the Lake St. Clair wetlands data
are excluded (see first row in Table 48) , then an average
economic value of sport fishing, based on the three wetland
areas, is estimated to be $286 per wetland acre/year.

Projections of sport fishing participation rates
have been made by the Great Lakes Basin Commission for the
seven planning subareas in Michigan for the years 1980,
2000 and 2020 A. D. If the resident participation gen-
erated within a planning subarea is compared to the total
participation, which accounts for imported and exported
demand, then regions with insufficient angler opportuni-
ties can be identified. At present, southwestern Michi-
gan, southeastern Michigan, and the Saginaw Bay-Thumb
area cannot supply their residents with sufficient sport

134

fishing opportunities (Great Lakes Basin Comm. , 1975a,
pp. 115, 155 and 189). Projections to 1980 indicate that
in the future the Upper Peninsula and northern portion of
the Lower Peninsula must absorb much of this outside
demand (Table 49). Currently, 30 percent of the demand in
southeastern Michigan and 40 percent in southwestern
Michigan is supplied by planning subareas in northern
Michigan (ibid. , pp. 115 and 189). As resident demand
increases in the Saginaw Bay-Thumb region, increased
pressure will be exerted on the Saginaw Bay fishery as
well as on those further north.

Latent demand is another factor which should be
considered when evaluating the future status of sport
fishing. In southeastern Michigan, latent demand, or
excess demand as it is otherwise referred to, could more
than double the projected resident sport fishing demand
in 1980 (ibid. , p. 190). Throughout southern Michigan,
the cost of providing more fishing opportunities in inland
areas must be weighed against the cost of developing
alternate opportunities in Lake St. Clair, Saginaw Bay,
other Great Lakes, or in northern Michigan. The mobile,
relatively affluent segment of the population may be
satisfied by outmigration opportunities, but the less
mobile may be defranchised from participation.

135

ON

w

u

3

W U3

H CJ

O H

W S

2 ss

*•" s

/"N

+

1

s_^

v^

T3

T3

c

C

CO

CO

e

s

<u

CU

Q

Q

TJ

T3

<U

0)

4J

■u

M

U

O

o

Cu

a

0

X

H

w

*

C
cO

a

P

en

o
o

o
o
o

m
m

o
o
o

m

iH
CO

CM

O
O
O

00

o

cd

6

<u

vC

O

Q

CM

O

v£>

o

u

#v

*

a

<r

CO

<U

iH

m

T3

CM

•H

A

CO

!-H

CU

cd

3
CO

ti
•H

C

CU

Pm
J-i

cu

CU

ex

3
CO

C

•H

c

cu
Pm

M

CU
a
a

CM
O

o

CO

co

+

o
o
o

o

CM

O

#N

ON

00

CM

m

ON
rH

m

CO CO

CO CO

3

CO

C
H

c

cu
3 Pm

cu
Pm

n
CU

5-i
<U

o

CUhJ

a

°>

CM
O
O

o
m

o
o
o

CO
CM

o

co

CO CO

CO
T3 rH
C 3
co co
PJ
CO -H
rH 3
3 CU
CO P-i

a

•H >-i

3 CD

CU ^

Pm O

CU •

aw
a

w

H r- m

rH rH iH

ct» co m

vO

m

m
o

CM

i

m
<r
o

m
I

o
o
o

CM
CM
CO

00 rH
ON rH
ON ON

00
00

CM CO

CO
cu

u

<

1

,3

H
I

>•>
CO

PQ

!»
cO
3
•H
60
CO
00

o
o
o

o

O

O

o
o

CO
CM

m

CM vO CM

rH
CO

m

vO
CM

m

rH

m

00
vO

m

3
cO
60
•H

X!
O
•H
S

PJ
CO
00
•H
X!

a

•H

w

00

x>
PS

cO

m
m

rH

ON

CM
CM

CO

vO

a
a

00

•H
T)
ti
<U

a
a
<

m

ON

CO CO

CO

CO
PQ

CO

CU

CO

rJ
4J

cO
cu

r-l

o

CU

o

M

3

o

CO

•3
PS
CO
S
cu

*3

•3
CU

u
o

ft

cu
ti

CO

cu

4J

u
o

a

S

•H

CO
CU
•3

rH
O

c

136

CHAPTER SIX
NONCONSUMPTIVE WETLAND VALUES

In this chapter, selected nonconsumptive uses,
or non-fishing and non-hunting uses, of coastal wetlands
are examined. Many unique values cannot be assigned a
dollar value; however, they are recognized as important
contributors to the wetland and the adjacent environments.
Conversely, many birds and other unique flora and fauna
use coastal wetlands to maintain their normal life func-
tions. It is perhaps these unique values which draw many
visitors to the state's wetlands. The recreation values
are examined and a dollar value estimated.

An approach in determining the value of a wetland
is to document certain unique characteristics. Wetlands,
which are outstanding and hence merit preservation,
include areas that have significant geological and/or
biological traits which are invaluable for scientific
research and education (Larsen, 1976, p. 7). As outlined,
an outstanding geobotanical wetland unit involves the
juxtaposition, in sequence, of several serai stages of
hydrarch succession. In addition, diversity may be con-
sidered a unique characteristic of a wetland. A wetland
supporting a wide spectrum of wildlife, such as fish,
birdlife and mammals, is indeed exceptional.

A second entity for the identification of an out-
standing wetland is based on its fauna and flora. Three
criteria which would classify a wetland as outstanding
are :

1) The presence of rare, restricted, endemic or
relict fauna or flora,

2) The presence of flora of unusually high visual
quality and infrequent occurrence,

137

3) The presence of flora or fauna at, or near,
the limits of their range.

UNIQUE GEOMORPHOLOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL VALUES

Along the Great Lakes, normal wetland succession
is disrupted as a result of lake level fluctuations.
However, vegetation zonation from submersed aquatics to
shrubs and finally to upland hardwoods is present and shifts
occur as lake levels change. Examples of such a basic
ecological principle as determined in the literature with
few exceptions is not well researched or documented.
Figure 23 demonstrates that such a spectrum occurs in the
St. Clair delta (Jaworski and Raphael, 1976). It may be
expected that similar vegetation profiles occur on other
wide, undisturbed wetland zones such as at Little Bay de
Noc and perhaps the Au Gres wetlands.

Compared to other Great Lakes' coasts, the St.
Clair delta has been reasonably well researched by geo-
graphers and geologists (Jaworski and Raphael, 1973).
Based on the literature, the delta is the largest in the
Great Lakes' basin and is characterized by unique geomor-
phic features and hence merits preservation.
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND RARE SPECIES

In Michigan, an Endangered Species Program was
organized under the authority of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (P. L. 93-205). The first state lists on
endangered and threatened species were presented to the
Natural Resources Commission in February, 1976. The data
on endangered and threatened species documented in this
section are based upon the proposed annotated list of
plants and animals resident in Michigan that is proceeding
toward final approval in accordance with the Administra-
tive Procedures Act. Location of the fauna and flora was
primarily obtained from environmental impact statements.
The location of most threatened birds was largely taken
from "The Mississippi Flyway Waterfowl Habitat Recon-

138

0»
CO

.c
a

CD

Pi

c

CO

•r-l
*i
CO

rJ

O

CD
•-3

5-t

0)
J-i

»w

CO

CO
4-1
r-l
CU

Q

a*

_Q
O

■*—

U

o

<s=^

o

I I II 1 I I I

CU

>

•H

Pi

S-i

•H
CO

i-H

u

4J
CO

C
CO

CO

<D
CO

CO

c

O

4J
O

<D
CO

C

CO

H

C
O
•H

4J

CO •

CU <T>

> r-l

CO
CN

0)

u

60
•i-l

CO

+

133d

I

139

naissance" (Martz, 1976). Floral data on endangered,
threatened and rare vascular plants have recently been
documented by Wagner et al. (1977) for the DNR.

For convenience, two tables are presented. Table
50 includes coastal endangered, threatened, and rare
fauna observed and documented in the literature. Table
51, largely determined from Wagner et al. (1977) locates
endangered, threatened, and rare plants in coastal Mich-
igan. The latter table is not limited to wetland flora
but includes plants which have been documented on islands
(e.g., Isle Royale) and on coastal cliffs. In some
instances, the flora which were identified on sandy shores
and dunes are included as well. Many coastal wetlands
exist and are maintained because of barrier beaches (e.g.,
Tobico) . Such barriers are morphologically related to
the adjacent wetland and may be part of the wildlife
habitat, thus the flora are included.

Based on Table 50 and 51 certain wetlands of the
state do possess endangered, threatened and/or rare
fauna and/or flora. The wetlands of the lower Detroit
River and western Lake Erie contain flora and fauna which
are not only threatened, but are endangered, such as the
American lotus. Similarly, in the St. Clair River delta
a similar cluster of endangered, threatened and/or rare
species emerges. Other wetlands in Michigan where endan-
gered or threatened species have been documented include :
the south shore of Saginaw Bay (Quanicassee) , Tobico,
Epoufette Bay, Mismer Bay, St. Martin Bay, Little Bay de
Noc, Baie de Wasai, Nuns Creek and the Cheboygan Marsh.

As determined by Beaman (1977) and illustrated on
Table 52, 38 percent of the probably extinct, endangered
and threatened species occupy or have occupied aquatic
and wetland habitats. Also as noted, more plants have
probably been extinguished in this habitat than any other
habitat. Assuming that the proposed list of endangered

140

o
m

w

fa

3

H

CO

W

w

CO

CD
•H
O
CD

a.

CO

fa

a)
u

£

x
d

03

XI

cu
d
cu
■u

CO
CU

u

x:

H

fa

0)

o

d
CD
M
0)
14-1

cu
ptf

o

•H

x

CM

CO

ofl
o

•H
H

X

•H
fa

CU

H

CO
CU
•H
O
CU

fal

CO

CO

£

•»

CO

o

4-1

•H

4-1

X!

o

O

4-)

x

d

c

cu

CO

S

CU

•

4J

X

CO

o

4J

•H

CO

s

H

*

CO

u

4-J

o

0

X

CU

,-J

B

CO

d

EC

o

M

V-i

•H

CU

>

>

0

•H

fa

pej

ON

•H

W

U

>>

0

<

• CM

CO tH

D fa

•H

x)

§

tH
4J
J-4

•H

CO
O
i-l

o

X)

c
cu

Q

CO

d
d

•H

>-l

CU

u

CU

CM

o

O
rH

CO
fa

OS

CO

CO

XI

4-J

5

cu

a

cO

u

<U

4-)

<u

s

4-J

00

0

o

0

o

~^_

CO

o

s*.

X

""■».

cO

d

d

PQ

fa

o

CO

•H
4-1

s

CU
CU

• •

cO

IH

g

>.

o

PQ

3

cu

o

fa

£

cu
>
o

X

CO

CO

CO
0)

0

CO

CO

X
C
cO

M

0)

•H

M

•H

cu .N

4-»

rH d

O

X O •

>N

U O /-\

2

CO rH fa

12 • cO w

tfi

/-N fa

4J

•

CO W r-s

CO

f — V

► vx CU tH

fa

fa

XI C H

•w-

d /"> *H cO

cO

CO X) S-l 4J

d

/"■N

H J-i 00 CO

CO

d

4J -H (U 0

•H

<u

M cO M D

X

rH

•H fa CU H

d

rH

!*i ^ fa

-*^

H

<

cu

o

M

a
o

s

4-1

•H

I

fa C_>

CO

4J

•

fa

cO

>^

M

4-J

4-1

<

•H

d

S3

X

3

CO

CO

O

X

4-1

»

d

CO

1 C

a

cO

CU

CU

CM

<

u

X

1

cu

o

CO

r>.

u

U

^i

CO

cu

<j

•

LO

^

J0

D.

r-.

4J

d

ON

o

cO

#«

vH

u

d

•H

00
•H

rH

<K

X

x

•

CU

a

CO

o

O

•H

cO

CU

•H

53

tH

o

•H

S

CO

u

O

#\

A

a.

CU

r oo

a

(X

a

01

CO

<

CO

O H

U

rH

X

•H O

cu

CO

at

00 >

X

a

u

CU

•H

a>

ffj «

d

50

00

c

cd

o

d

co cO

>

rH

CO

CU «H

O

X

^J a

.

CJ

0

cO «H

M

w

fa

►J

S

rt

CO u

rQ CU

•H M

a h

c co

cO !3

•H

cd

d

d

o

cO

co

>.

4J

0)

cu

d

tH

d

•H

CO

X

•H

CO

CO

a

rH

o

o

H

O

d

•H

00

G

u

1

>
fa

CO Xi

d

•H

CO

M

•H

0)

>>

CO

>

CO

Pi

•H

PQ

«\

Pi

cu

CU

d

o

•H

o

d

J-l

u

cO

W

3

CO

33

•H

CU

cO

M

«

rH

CO

U

fa

►J

cu

>

CO

•

•H

CU

>

o

X

CO

CO

CO
0)

e

cfl
CO

0)

d

cr

• CO

/-N cu

w d

^-^ H

<4-4

• <»~\ cO

/-s cu pi

W 3^

v_ f rj*

co cO

<-s CU 4-)

CO d cO

CU -H H

hJ m-i d

v— ' CO o

Pi u

•H

v— ' CU

•H

x>

X

CO

d

•rl

X

4-»

CU

d

H

d

CO

4->

CO

cO

o

•H

•H

u

cO

M

X

d

cO

d

o

>

CO

tH

O

o

Xi

•

>>

o

o

o

cd

a > Pi

M

0)

>

•

•H

u

fa

cu

>

d

•H

o

fa

cu

u

•H

d

d

M

PC

o

CO

fa

M

(J

M-4

d

fa

cu

O

pel

CO

J^J

CO

CO

X

i-i

g

hJ

4->

d

0)

•

o

o

^ S fa

141

CU
CJ

d

CU
M

cu
o

•H
Xi

CM

ctJ

^

Ofl

o

5

PQ

W

rH CJ)

u

■u

.

d

CO

CO

cu

CU

rH

0

U

o

0)

<

4-)

•

03

rH

4-1

4-)

CO

CO

CO

CO

O

#v

rH

a

-d

cO

CO

d

■M

•H

co

fl

Q

rH

cu

CO

i

T3

M

5

CU

o

^J

d

M

•H

o

•H

P

CO

>

d

C

TJ

•H

W

CU

^

CO

o

rH

o

•H

cd

a

O

d

o

•H

u

d

t*i

Cu

o

0
U

<

CO

rH P

rN

4-1

d
3
o
o

CO

d

/-N

4-1

TJ

CO

CU

CU

g

d

d

•H

•H

iH

4-1

d

O

o

CU

4-1

d

PQ

o

ir>

CU

W\

a

M

W

!*

$

rJ

H

cO

9

CO

«

H

cu

-a

•H

cu •

O

5-1 ,~S

CU

CU H

a

TJ "W

CO

ed-shoul
Gmelin)

t*

x„-

cd

CO

4J

d

CO

cu

4->
iH
CU

o

Q

H

d

•H

o

CO

CO

•H
4-)

S

rH

CO

(H

O

PQ

•

O

4->

rJ

CO

CO

g

rH
PQ

f-r-t

d

4-1

>%

CO

g

d

<!

o

•H

• •

4-*

CO rH

a

<r

CU

• PQ

4J

P 1

o

00

u

« 00

PM

• PQ

xi

x»

o •

o

•h a.

o

g

rH

#«

Cu

* *^o

• r-

cu

o

c^

d

o

rH

•H

rH

cu

«v

CU

o

•

M

M

w

o

d

X!

o

•

CO

g

CJ

*

CO

3

d

•H

M

00

cd

CU

a

M

•H

CU

O

a

5-1

o

d

•

a

0J

/"-v

rH

Q

w

*

cd

V

^~s

(H

#»

CO

u

^-N

•H

#*

CU

T3

r-l

d

rH

5-<

T3

o

•

X)

•H

d

u

/-h

rJ

CO

d

rH

W

CO

PQ

H

CO

v^

IS

v-/

Pn

*d

^-s

CO

-H

d

CU

rH

-

•H

CO

d

rH

T3

-d

•H

CO

d

d

0

M

4-'

CO

cti

d

00

CO

H

rH

4-1

cu

d

4-)

4J

CO

5-i

d

5-»

M

5

a)

H

•H

•H

P-,

"w*

&

-*5

N_^

CO

4J

d
d
o
o

CU
O

5-1

d
o

g

CO

4J
CO

CO
O

d
o

•H
4-1
CJ

CU

4J

o

•d
o
o

<H

rn

CU

d

•H
rH
0)

u

o
x:

CO

T3

d

03
5-i

•H

g

co

•H

rH

CO

T3
O

co

CO

•H

4J

o

g

CO

PQ
• 00

,d oo
o PQ
•H

s •

rN

-d
d

4-t
CO

w

CJ

4-1

■

CO

,-^N

PQ

CO

d

r-N

CO

d

•H

cu

TJ

rH

a

rH

H

<d

CO

cu
o

5-1

d
o
S

4-1

•H

•H

4->
CO

4-1

•H
X>
cO

pa u

4J

d

d
o

pq
i

oo
en

v£3

/-sx-s H

(UH'-'

d ^

/— s

cr /-n

w

CO /-N cu

s_^

cu cu d

d d cr

/^S

•h cr co

^

IH CO cu

CO •

co cu d

CO /-^

pd d -h

v_x

W

v-,^

•H

IW

"^-^ M-l CO

CO

cO

CO 05

d

/^N 4J

OCj v^

M

cO cO

<>— '

•H

CU rH

CO

Xl

rJ d

cO

M

0

w o

rH

4-1

03

M

O

CU

•H

CU

•H

d

cd

•H

X)

O

cr

X5

X>

d

CO

•H

CJ

•H

4->

CO

5-t

d

CU

<+-)

■P

o

rH

CO

0

cO

CO

CO

•H

CO

•H

•H

•H

d

•H

CO

rH

0

o

5-1

d

•H

O

CO

CO

o

CO

d

p,

>

rH

a

o

0

O

o

0

CO

•H

x»

>>

CO

>^

CO

o

o

rJ

O

CO X» O rQ CU

00

"O

d

a

•H

CO

4J t^.

CO 4-»

CO

4-i d

OJ

•h d

00

X) o

CO

CO U

d •

XI

•H CO

d cu

CO 5-1

•H O

5-1 CU

5-4

T3 4-1

>> d

CO

rH O

>^ 5

CO

rH g

rH

rJ

CO

rH rH

pa

•H rH

CO CO

CO

4J CO

•H 5-1

CO

d 4J

O O

I*-)

CU CO

CU 4-1

§

4-1 CO

CX 4J

o o

CO >H

Ph O

CU rH

142

T3

0)
O
C
•H

4-1

a

o
o

o
m

W

PQ
<

0)

o

c

CD

M

cu

M-)

CU

cd

o

•H

43

ch

co1

J-i

00

•

O

CD

•H

>

rH

o

43

43

•H

CO

PQ

CO

CO

CD

B

cO

CO

cu

H

CO

CU
•H
O
0)

<M
en

o

c
o

•H

4-1

CO
O
O
rJ

CO 43 OT) CD <4-4 00

00

d

>.

•H

4->

CO •

■u

d

CD CO

•H

d

00 u

XI

o

CO CD

CO

o

d +J

43

•H CO

d

CD

CO 5

•H

O

M

U

T3 H

>>

d

CO

^H

o

>> U

rH

s

rH O

CO

CO

!-H 4-»

rJ

•H

.H

CO 4-»

M

4-t

CO

•H «H

<

d

■u

O rH

S5

Q>

CO

CD

CO

4J

CO

CXT)

o

O

CD C

Pd

O

CD CO

CD
>
O

■a

CO

cO

CD

I

CO

•

•H

CD

•

^N H

4J

/— s •

H CD

d

H /-v

^ a

o

s-' • H

o

o

/-s ^^ ,^

/~N o

/-n H H

>% o

CD

CO V-' /"*. /"* • "— '

eg »

w1

►J

CD t^ H /-n

>— '

J •-v cO -^ H /-* •

•^s r-H CO ^ CD -^

B

CO "»• x-s 3 H

CO

4J
P.

CO

d
>-.

CO

d

CO

43 co /~% a*^

>

M

•H

•H CO

CD M CO

u

O

CO

C 4->

>! (U 0/>

cO

4J

d

a to

CO «4H d ^

o.

CD

CD

CO >

Xi <w -H CO

d

•H

S3 CD

CO -H <4H CO

CO

•H

4->

*-' rH

CD CD cO -^

•H

#1

o.

CO

CD

Q 4H pi

4J

00

d

CO

*«-' P-i v-/ B

o

d

CO

d

d

^ 'w d

4-»

■H

d

•H

CO

CO

CO

CO

>

d

g

4-1

a

>^

>.

4->

•H

d

CO

>•

P3

O

d

CD

M

CO

43

CD

o

J-i

CD

M

•H

d

00

4J

o

J-l

d

CJ

rH

o

O

a

!*

o

o

a

o

•H

•H

rH

d

^

d

o

•> 00 •

s

CO

43

O

o

5 O /-v

•H

P-.

CO

CO

cO

m^H

A

CO

cO

^ -H

M

X

B

M >-^

cu

D.

rH

CO

•H

•H

CD

xs d

r-{

O

O

fl

a

a

Xi

u

CO U /-v

O

•H

O

O

o

CO

a

4-1

0) T3

>

4-)

O

TJ

TJ

•H

S

o

4J J3 J-l

CO

•H

O

o

d

o

rH

CO 4J 'H

CD •

B

g

CO

•H

00

CO

a

CO d cO

d *->

o

g

CD

u

$

CD

CO

CD O PQ

•H H

CX.

<3

S

H

s

ffl

J w^

Pw -^

•

•

•

CO ^3

CU
O

d

2

CO

4-1
CO

CO

o
o

o

■T3

d

d
o

4J

d

d
o

>
O

CO

CO
CO

CD
B
CO
CO

CO

d

CD
CO

d
d

•H
-4

co

d

d
co

o

CO

d
a

•H
O

4«J

CO

Xi

CO

<4-l

o

co

CD
Xi
CO

J-l

CO

s

Fn O

CO

CD

S

N CD
•H O

rH

rH »-l

PQ

•H d

4J O

P £

4-1

4J

d

w

a)

CD

B

Xi

rH

CD

4-1

CU

4-J

d

CO

«4H

d

4-1

o

co

CO

43

oc

U

r-\

d

CO

•H

d

4->

oc

o

d

T3

•H

CU

CD

4->

B

u

CO

d

Q

oc

o

•H

M

CD

>

•H

O

CO

>

d

25

d

CO

w

d

rH

CD

CO

rH

4-1

rl

CO

d

CD

d

•H

T3

•H

CO

CD

fm

s

fn

CO

rH D

d

CO

od

H
43
U

•H

s

co
J-l
O
O
•H

4J

O

d
o

U /-N

CD Orf

43 w

4J

•H

43

rH

00

•H

•H

4J

d

O

CO

TJ

O

CU

43

5

X

o

cO

u

M

o

O

1

o

4^

•H

O

4J

ct)

O

rH

>>

PQ

d

CO

>-i

CU

>

P£S
d

•H
CO
•H

is

erf

<4H
O

43

4->

d
o
S

w

o

►J
B

>
o

43
CO

CO

CO

CU

g

CO

X

cd

M

X

O

CO

a

J-i

o

o

j-i

a

CJ

•H

CO

4-1

T-\

0

CO

>>,

43

z

Pm

d

o •

cu pi

43 w

4-t

•H

43

rH

00

•H

•H

4J

d

o

cO

T3

o

CD

43

g

X

O

CO

J-i

J-i

o

O

1

O

^

•H

a

4->

cO

CJ

rH

>,

PQ

d

T3
U

o

CO

d

TJ

O

rH

0)

s

CO

•H

M

• TJ

•~s cO

H J-i

^w cO

43

/-s O

d

o •
co u

CO CD
CD >

rJ O

Ph

00

d

•H •

•H H

PH '>-'

cO

CD

4-»

CO

4J

CO

a)

CD

rH

rH
•H

d

•

o

CO

S

CU

J-i

CD

<

4J

d

0)

•H

S

O

CO

PU

o

143

QJ

X Xi

CJ

•h m

3

X Is-

CU

rH

•> 3 CTi

u

CO

CO

QJ rH

0)

CJ

CO

a,^

<4^

•H

O

ex

cu

4J

H

<t] •>

eeS

•H

<3

•

M

x a

0

CJ

3

s e

•H

O

co o

x

ft

•H

rH CJ

o.

rH

4J

CD

co

r*~

ctj

u c

u

cr>

m

O -H

oo

rH

00

X W

o

•H

CO CO

•H

#i

S

PQ

rH

<+-i

U

Xi

M

XI

O CO

•H

cfl

a

4-1 0)

PQ

X

CtJ

JX

O

X CO

CO

00

CU i-J

3

u

•

•H

CO 4->

CJ

4-»

a. co

CO

CU cu

•

CD

n ^

EB

Z

Ph o

/•"N

CD

CO 3

3 rH

/~\

cu co

X

CO Xi

<U

3 a

3

3 0)

3

•H CJ

•H

rJ O

4J

W O

C

3

o

CO

CD

3

4->

cu

rH
CO

o

CO

3

m

(D

■H

4-1

a.

rH

o

w

K

CO

0)

►J

H

X!

CO

PQ

•H

<

CO

3

rH

•

H

<u

o

CO

r*N

•H

•H

EC

H

O

XI

>W*

CU

ti

ft

p.

CO

CU /-s

C/)

(U

rH CO

00 3

* tS (D

>•, W cO

0) 3

HT) C

P-rH -H

CO CO |-J

o

m

^-'

CO X

CU

CO

PQ

c0

CU

>•»

00

o

X)

Pi

•H

S-i

cu

rH

4J

CO

CO

M

Ph

fl

a

O

o

00

00

.

c

c

X

•H

•H

3

4J

4->

CO

CO

CO

rH

CU

a)

CO

z

z

t-i

ft

CU

pi

X!

o

4-1

CO

rH

4->

CU

CO

M

o

CO

•H

cu

S

•H

X

•

3

o

4J

CO

CU

rH

cO

X

O

c

•H

CO

oo

O

4->

rH

a

o

3

CJ

K

[I]

M

3

•H
X!
CO

•H
Pn

X
3
CO

001
3

co vo CU

r*» -H

• CTi J-l

0 rH W

ft

>,

4-1

4J

3

3

3

cu

O

S

CJ

CU

00

•>

co

cu

3

o

cO

M

S

3

O

u

S

•H

CU

ft

X

CO

H

3

O

X

•H

3

4J

CO

CO

CJ

X

•H

CO

rH

U

a

CO

e

S

M

3
cO
Ml

•H

X

CJ
*H

CX,
CO

CO
0)
CO

I

CU

o

u

3

O

S

ft

X

CO

CO

u

h4

CO

H

S

>>

<

4J

Z

cu

3

CO

•H

3

r4

O

<U

CU

>

>

o

o

X

X

CO

CO

CO

co

CO

CO

CU

CU

0

s

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

3

3

rH

0)

CO

CO

X

3

<X

3

CU

•H

a

►J

o

N— /

CJ

/■" \

3

CO

H

CU

3

^^

rH

CU
3

a)

CO

cO

M

3

*

cO

4J

CJ

3

CJ

CO

CU

CO

cO

3

M

•H

O

0)

rH

•

U

4J

CO

<r-N

•H

CO

33

H

CJ

rs

V

A

ft

•

CU

/""N

^

a

rH

CO

5

co

00

3

CO

CO

CU

X

X

cu

cO

■H

3

X

H

X

3

co

4->

rH

•H

r4

CO

CO

rJ

CO

25

PQ

%_•

S

cO

w o

CU

cu

>

>

o

o

X

X

CO

cO

CO

CO

CO

CO

cO

CU

M

CU

e

PQ

§

cO

CO

CO

CO

Of)

3

•H

S-i

CU

CU

X

•H

4->

25

cw

•

O

<£

•

CO

Csl

•

X

cn

&

3
cO

CNI

X

rH

•

3

4->

P.

cO

CU

ft

3

CO

•H

X

CU

&

3

4-)

X

CO

CO

o

rH

+J

o

3

co

a

M

X

•

ft

0)

a

m

4J

r-.

•H

•

O-N

3

c*s

rH

P

CO

3

rH

CO

X

P.

o

CU

(i-S

a

H

o

•^-^

CJ

3

CO

CU

3

rH

4J

<D

CO

CO

3

•H

4-)

rH

CJ

CO

CU

X

CO

•H

3

rH

O

cO

•H

ca

X

3

ft

cO

CU

Ph

rH

00

ft

cO

>-.

cu

CU

M

X

a

rH

CO

CO

o

PQ

CO X

CO

cu

u

CO

X

00

3

3

cO

•H

rH

4-J

CO

CO

M

CU

3

3

O

>>

5-(

cu

CU

U

rH

Cu

CU

CO

CJ

O

144

CO

CO

rH

0)

#1

CD

CD

^j

X!

«\

CJ

>

03

CO

CO

d

CD

J

•H

r~-

0)

kJ

Pn

cyi

u

4->

rH

cu

co

CO

»

U-t

CD

0)

Q

A

cu

M

M

d

rt

CO

C5

X

O

J

•H

•H

a

LW

13

4-)

•H

4-t

O

a

CO

X

CO

CD

0)

pa-

a)

C

a

M

ce1

M

0

p.

O

u

O

•H

<

CD

•

00

4-1

PS

CN

o

H

CO

#i

so

•H

ctJ

H

CO

X)

Q

H

d

d

rH

d

X

o

M

CD

CO

T3

•H

•H

0)

>

d

FQ

4-J

Pi

CD

CD

CO

CO

rJ

M-l

d

fK

•H

<r

n

T3 U

rH

CN

a»

U CU

-a

Q

■u

cO 4->

rH

a

O CO

•H

•

M

pq

3

3:

D-

CO

d

/->

CD

XI

U

cu

CO

=3

CD

d

>

•H

d

■U

rH

d

4-1

o

o

H

0)
CO

o

CD

d

m

a

CD

>,

a

w

H

•H

kJ

O

•

PQ

CO

<

/— V

<

CD

H

H

•H

#v "^S

o

C

0)

O -"N

a

CD QJ

CO

ake sturg
Rafinesqu

J

» — '

CO

5-i
O
X

o

CO
rH

OJ

d

d

X!
0)

»> rH
CO 13
4-J TJ
rH -H

CD
X)

U
•H

CO
rH
O

13

d
d

o

5-4
00

DO

d

•H

x

4->

J-i
O
5S

d
a

o d

a, 5
co

00 a

d co

•H

4J CO

C/) PQ

J-i
o

•r- )

cO

CO

pq

CO

d

x

o

A

1-3

CO

rH

U

,

00

d,

CU

#s

43

VJO

H

f^~

ON

»> rH

Pi

Z >%

O rH

•

d

/"" v

d ->

<J

co

00 •>

CD

•H X

rH

x co

X

O Jm

CO

•H CO

H

S

s

X

cd

f-t

0

a

•H

•

j_i

/— s

o

H

>,

s^<

ss

CO

d

d

o

•

^

M

s-^

d

CD

Pi

CO

X

w

4J

•H

X

rH

CO

00

•H

d

•H

4-)

o

d

a

5-i

cti

•H

-o

o

C_>

<u

X

*>

3

X

^i

o

CO

S

M

5-4

CO

0

I

O

a

X

^

•H

X

a

4J

CO

«-o

O

5-1

rH >J CO

PQ d '

CO

co S

X

(0
5-<

CO

d
X
o

4->
CO

CO

pq

CU

/~\

d

4J

o d

#*

5-4

•H CO

CO

O

4-1 CO

0)

a

CO CO

a

QJ

5-1 >!

•H

5-1

pei

CO co

CO

d

as

d

o

^

CD 1

d

co

5-:

M >>

o

CD

m

OkrH

o

Pi

d

pS4

CD

•H

CD

pi

•

B

£1 -H

■u

•H

■m a

u

CO

rH

a

cO

22

aJ

M -H

4-)

5-i

O CO

•H

<4-4

(X,

4-1 CO

XI

0

^^^

■a>

0)

CU

<u

a)

QJ

•H

CO

>

>

>

>

>

>

CO CO

P3

•

vD

o

o

o

o

o

O

4J CO

4-J

!-•-.

x

x

x>

X

x>

XI

CD -H

rH

ao

ret

CO

cO

cO

CO

CO

<u x

5

CD

rH

rC

O

a

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO CD

<4-l

ff<

d

CC

CO

crj

crj

cfl

rd

5-4

•

,d

CO H

CD

x

o

CU

CU

CU

CU

CJ

CD

4J 4J

CJ

M

a

0

s

6

B

£

CO <4-l CO

•H

oj

CO

cd

a

cd

cfl

CO

Q O

S

£

S

CO

CO

C/J

C/3

CO

CO

CO

d

/-N

rH

H

CO

" — *

.d

a

CO

CU

d

o

+j

o

a>

a

co

d

•H

0)

H

rH

cO

X!

CO

d

d

4J

o

O

•H

CD

TJ

CO

d

•H

CD

rH

Ph

CO

cd

♦s

>^

*>l

CD

CU

M

rH

ex

00

CO

cO

O

w

cO X

^~s

r-s

a)

O.i

CU

a)

CD

H

H

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

v^-

^.^

M

00

00

M

00

cO

CO

crj

cO

CO

>^

>.

w

r.-J

w

w

w

CU

CD

5-4

5-i

13

T3

13

-a

13

ex

a

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

05

CO

cO

CO

CO

CO

cO

O

o

pq

PQ

pq

pq

pq

»

0

CO cO

CO

•

■11

4-»

H

CO

TJ

CD

d

00

d

00

d

oo

0

•H

<p«

•H

d

5-1

s

CU

■n

13

-a

-H

CJ

4-J

>

CU

d

cu

13

>

•H

CU

cO

cu

CU

•H

^

4-J

M— 1

rH

"4-4

>1 •

CD

Cti

.

•H

.

CJ

CO

•

cO cO

<4-i

cO

cd

CO

CO

A

M

cO

m

pq cu

CU

cu

CO

4-)

13

CU

>,

U

M

M

M

cO

CO

#s

d

5-4

5-4

cO

(U cO

cu

CO

cd

DE

CU

CU

co

CO

CO

pq

4-1

CU

kJ

d

^

rH

00

4-> 00

5-i

00

CD

cO

CO

d

00

cu

cu d

c_>

d

d

X)

CD

J

H

C/J

d

rH

M-l -H

co

•H

>

•

•H

00

•

d i3

CO

•H

13

CD

•H

,*5

13

cO

4J

13

d

CO

o cu

d

•d

CU

•H

+J

O

d

CU

CO

CU

•H

a>

a cu

d

d

cu

cO

U

d

cO

5-i

CO

CU

X

5-i

W 4-4

Z

IH

U-i

pq

cO

P

c/a

CO

W

IH

C/)

cO

145

CD

I

U

c
o
o

CO

0)

o

e

(1)
>-<

cd

CD

o

•H

X
CM

cd

00]

o

•H
H

X
•H

P0

o

0)

m

a

>>

w

H

J

pq

CO

<5

cd

H

•H

CJ

a»

ex

co

cd

a)

0)

>

>

>

o

o

o

X

x>

X

X

cd

cd

CO

CO

CO

cd

cd

cd

a>

CD

0)

e

S

6

cC

cd

cd

to

CO

w

<u

0)

s-^ CD

rH

rH

H rH

00

00

s^ bO

cd

cd

cd

w

w

(U

T3

T3

r-i T3

rH

rH

CXrH

cd

cd

CO Cd

pq

PQ

O PQ

cd

cd
a)
n
cd

Ml

d

•H
T)
CD

cd

4-1

cd
pq

CO

~u

CD
rH

o

cd cd x

cd
cu

cd

oo
d

•H
-d

a)
cd

<4-4

>•.
cd
pq

V-t

<u

0
CO
•H

00

d

•H
-d

CD

CD

m

>-.

cd
PQ

a

•H

4-1

H

cd

S •

cd

• a)

4-> M

co edi

GO

PQ

d

1
cd

•

d

•H

00

I cd

•H

X 00

CO

■p

3 -H

T3

CO

ax!

as

»-i

CD

d o

X

•H

>

d -n

H

pq

c

r-4

^-s

<*

14-1

•""4-1

<r

O

A

>. O

r^

X

00

0"\

CD

CO

o >>

rH

a

u

rH 4J

d

cd

O >H

m

cd

s

X! CO

a

tj

4-1 U

a)

a

d

•H CD

X

3

cd

d >

cd

X

00

U «H

X

<J

>>

O d

O

o

P

X

O)

xi

d

H

>

CD

•H /-s

•H

X

X)

•

JU

o

CO CD

a

cd

d X!

rH

CD

O CO

•

CD

X!

•H -H

p4

etf

4J

4-> rH

X

cd

5-1

O

CJ

• -H

/-n 4->

H O

.

^ >^

^~N

53

<*:

CO

s-/ CD

3

d d

a)

o • u

r-4

d

U /~s CD

d

cd

cd eti s

cd

>,

x ^ s

4J

rj

•H

o

4-> «H

pq

CO

X rH

cd

3

00 «H

•H

0t •

o

•H 4J

>

c ^

u

d a

cd

U Pi

•H

cd

o

CD ^s

O

TJ O

4J

cd x

•> 4J CO

0s C$

c -h d

^ 5 x

O X CO

> o cd

o o

cd Vj u

rIC fl

X o o

cd -H

1 o

C O 00

X M -H

O iH 'H

co a 4J

g i4 4J

m cd a

S CD C

Cd rH >>

o e cd

s

PQ

d

o

<

rH

cd x

CJ 73

X
CO

u

cd

cd
oo

o

X
CD
X

o

d
cd
oo
>^
o

X

at
X

u

On Td

rH CD

X

* CO

d -H

0)
X

CTj

X

o

X
H

X

d
a,
d
P

.

X

o

CO

S-i

•

cd

P4

X

cd
u
•H
OO
O

rH

O
•H

pq

d
cd
oo

•H

X
o

•H •

iw cd
o o

Pi

CO

H

/~\

/^-N

» — "

fc.

*»-' »S P£i

0

v— ' v-/ cd

0

6

4J

4-1

d

CO

CO

a

I

o.

M

•H

d

rH

cd

O

>-<

CD

• d

C

4J

4-1

u

*s o

>^

CD

CO

CD

ptn CO

en

d

d

d

^ d

•H

rH

•H

•H

» ft

cd

CJ

CO

00

a

d

CO

^-s

d co

CD

X

>^

1 w

•h d

X

d

cd

1 N"'

S ■>->

CD

r-l

4->

0

e o

u

d

CD

d

CD M

o

•H

cd

rH

1 o

rH O

CO

CO

CD

O

! /-n O

•H

cd

T3

I H rH

oo • S

* h4

•H

«\

1 >-/ cd

O ^N > X

<D

1 • Fn

,D H •» CD » cd

rH

1 >-N CD

v_^ CD U 4J H

4->

1 H rH CD

d rH X cd

1 ^ 60 C

rJ -H

o co x •> d

I cd -r

CD U

> H 4J

1 >. W r-

X CD

M >s CD

1 CD 0

4J CX

CD CD U 00 T)

i mt3 a)

d o

d 4J Cd T3 o

1 O-rH U

o o

•h cd o cd o

1 co cd cd

C/3 CJ

pl, ^ pc pq ES

O pq P*

• • • • • •

• • •

cd

X

O

T3

CU

d

i cd x a

X
CO

u

I

d
cd
oo
>^
o
x

CD

X
u

x en
o
r^ •

CT\ rH

rH O

>

CD

CJ

•H •
<-M rH
M-l CT>
O CM
I

00 o
d cr»

o

>.

•H

Td

J-t

d

CD

4-1

4-J

CO

d

M

>>

M

IW

cd

o

d

4-»

•

CO

4J

w

ft

CD

rH

Q

cd

a

•

O

oo

•H

4->

•

cd

P

53

CN

ex

4J O

d

CD •

S P

o oo
d

• -H

co x
co

• jS

p &

CO

pq

cd
pq

B

d

•H
00

cd

CO

146

cd

CO

00

3

•H

O

3

,3

-H

O

O

4J

■H

■H

cr!

4->

a •

■i-J

O

v£>

•H

CD

* r-

O

4-1

>!

CTs

O

4-1

rH

H

u

3

03

PL.

3

^

3

O

»

o

T3

cj

w

•H

O

4J

O

CO

»

•H

H

o

a

T3

fe

M

XI

3

>

<

QJ

o

B

3

a

u

•H

<

H

A

a)

>>

!~i

X)

0:

o

=3

,3

4J

0

CO

CO

P

CO

C

o
p

w

H

O'j

w

O

w

4J

S^

v^

■

3 •

r-s

3 ^

cd

X

w

4-» H

!

•H

cO

w

CO "—'

4-1

CO

a>

CU

•-!-!

T-,

,3

CO

,3 00

•H

0

&

3

O 3

rH

0

0

4J

0)

CJ

&

M

•

0

3 co

5-i

CO

H

cd 3

ill

X5

<l

cu

O -H

rH

a»

•H

£3

•H O

a

Xi

(r.

a

CtJ

M

M

o

CO

(U

O

cu •>

3

H

•H

o-

•H

B co

cO

P-.

i

CO

CO

cu

J-4

< 3

•H

n

4-1

a

0,

CU

•H

r4

CO

3

QJ

/->

>.

$

»> iH

CO

Q)

3

X)

Drf

H1

05

o

M

u

rH

•rl

-^

+J

<4-l

3

3

PQ

>

en

*»

«

CU

0

a

a)

co

a)

cd

4-1

3

1

}-j

VI

4J

M

•H

CU

a

CT

cO

3

cO

a

05

CJ

4J

0)

3

4-1

a

CO

o

pei

CD

3

XJ

•H

3

o

3

0

a

H

3

pd

m

4->

X3

CO

CO

cr

4J

• X

cO

a

O

CU

0

cO

/-n o

•H

cd

,n

a

3

H

U

s

CO

X

•H

cO

N-' cO

cO

A

3

4-1

cO

s

CU

•H

4J

^-N

H

CO

3

cu

cO

CD co

4-t

H

<u

cO

CO

rH

rH

£t X>

•H

^---

2".

cj

PM

a

rH

cO O

00

CO1

a>

M O

cO

X3

•

*

•

<J

Pi

X D£

CO

a)
3

a)

4J

05
CU
M

H

W

CU

u

CU
00
3
CO

X)
3

W

CU

X> o

cn ro

U")

CO

•H

M

■H

• CU

^v ^

H co

«

«

^— ' iH

ai

H

co

<4-|

^-'

^^

3

U

cO

Cfj

CO

H

a

•H

•H

CU

e

•

rH

X

/-N

•H

3

*<

o

H

CJ

ex

CO

4-1

s_x

ctj

•H

•H

M

CO

M

*J

CO

00

•H

4J

03

•H

CU

rH

CO

M

13

cO

>,

3

4J

CU

V-i

4J

O

cd

0

(X

CO
•H

CO

rH

X

X

X

r-l

a>

CU

CU

X

CO

M

u

M

0

•H

cd

CO

CO

•H

U

U

U

c_>

Pn

M

>o

00 CT> O

.

/~\

QJ

>» r>>

^

1 CJ

*N

cu

rH

cO cO

CJ

T5
• O o3

(ft

05

03

4J

cd

TJ

03

•

PQ pQ

3

^ O

a;

r-l

4-J

3

o

P4

U QJ

-o

CJ |5 X

M

<U

CO

03

ed

QJ 00

&

Sw'

cd

r*>

<

QJ

T3 CO

XTj

>. O

'3

CO

0!

00

Cfl

QJ

3

3 4J

•

CO 4-1 •

0/

pq

<i)

0

3

QJ

rH

cr

3 J-i

LW ^

S o

a

B

03

•H

P>

co

•H

X! O

o c_>

4H T3 CJ

T3

a

CU

cd

CJ

rH

O

rH

W

H PL.

rH CU

3

•H

CO

o

r-l

o

co

•3

CD >,

CO 4-> QJ

rt

XI

V-i

a>

a)

*\

•H

3

#\ *\

CU CO

WOO

rH

u

a)

Q>

•H

4J

*»

r4

3

03

CO CU

X! PQ

•H J-i

CO

>

•H

M

CO

QJ

O

cO

rH

QJ > •

O

•> )H 3

H

•l

cd

M

W

rH

rO

S

CO

U O O

cO •>

• 4-1 O

;>^

U

W

M

cd

u

M

O CJ O

CU •

A5 co S

T3

cO

H

4H

•

>s

cO

CH

43 23

U AJ

CJ OJ

3

pq

4-1

O

M

o

•

33

o

CO

co 3

CJ

pe!

O

>>

CU

O

CJ

ctf

CO

3

O QJ

V-i

U CO

s

3

4-)

rH

X!

•

Cu

CU

J3

CU

t^ g x)

CU 0

O /-> T3

H

O

3

4->

JJ

4J

3

M

QJ

0

rH

4-J

CO

X) 0

> 3

4J . 3

3

M

3

4J

CO

U

cO

U

rH

cO

00

3

u

3 cO >^

O rH

4J CO CO

r4

3

o

•H

O

o

5

cO

CO

5

CO

O

CO

cO O cO

hJ P>4

O ^ rH

Q

P3

CJ

rJ

3s

z

CO

PL.

M

co

W

S

PS

co co «

147

CD

§

•H
4-»

CO
4->
•H
O

rH
CO

a
o

•H
4J
•H
X

3

H

m
en

cd
d
o
Q

a

2

W

13
OJ

d
•H

4-1

d
o
a

m

w

►J
PQ
«j
H

CO

a

o.

u

0)

00

a

CJ

£

>i

H

XI

o

CO

ctj

0)

M

■H

X

a

Of

CO

ex

3

CO

o

d

d

T>

/ — \

H

<»-s

X

H

>_•

H

d)

•• *

v— /

•

00

x

, — v

d

CO

4J

rH

H

•H

X

CD

d

<D

v—'

5-i

cu

>

•H

X

"4-1

>

•H

a

O

U

CO

X!

CO

X

<u

CD

CD

a

>^

a

ex

•H

rH

X!

CO

ex

M

x

CO

•H

•H

X

rH

X

H

CO

d

■H

H

<D

W

M

3

13

•H

CO

!

P*

O

>

iH

>.

Pi

#>.

CO

5-1

#^

6

0S

Pn

•H

d

CO

CO

co

a)

#1

Pn

CO

x)

cO

u

•H

rH

ft

P,

o

rH

CO

o

rH

•H

CO

d

rH

CO

o

CD

•H

d

Xi

O

CJ

ex

rH

X

CO

d

CJ

CO

X

CO

cO

•H

•H

X)

o

B

CO

rH

CO

3

CO

0)

a

•H

CO

•H

>.

rH

a

4-4

rH

rH

cO

O

CO

<*

CJ

H

cj

Pi

S

M

d

CO

A

r*

a)

cO

X

cO

•H

a

x

rH

co

a,

o

4-»

0

M-l

CO

a

•H

>1

3

XI

CO

CD

d

cO

rH

•

3

•

XI

X—N

4J

/"N

CO

H

o

H

d

•H

v^"

5-1

Vw'

o

5-i

u

cO

X

CO

CO

>1

d

•H

•H

•H

ex

a>

X

X

X

o

XI

o

CJ

O

u

co

5-4

r-l

M

60

5C

O

O

O

<

X
co

U

I
xi

rH
CO

pq

00

•

CO

s~ \

a?

(U

H

X

d

V- '

•H

3

O

Q

CO

a

CD

u

#v

XI

•H

CO

•H

o

•H

O

CO

rH

a

rH

u

cO

O

•H

t*

0

a

u

CO

cO

CO

o

e

X

o

9

CD

rH

>,

u

•H

rH1

cO

CO

w

o

Pl4

X
cfl

M

X

o
o

/•-s

cO

H

5-1

^ '

o

rH

•H

4-1

>,

•H

a'1

>

CO

U

cO

CO

>

ex

CO

CO

a

rH

a

d

d

N

3

d

►-j

r-l

o
u

"d

o

•H
4-1
CO
O
O

rH

CN

CO

<r

to

%o

r^

00

CT\

o

rH

Cn!

m

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

CM

CN

CNI

CN]

CO CU

•

rJ O

O

■

J-I

CJ

cu

#s

CO

CU

* d

CU

9\ m

rH

.

X

CO

rH

r*5 O

CO

5

CU CU

4-1

CU

d

5

d

crj

d

0) X

X

u

CO

rH CU

4-J

rH

cO

CO

•H

CU

>,

o

CU

d

#•

d

CU

d

CO CO

•H

CO

rH

H

4J

00

X

o

4J

U ~

•H

CO

co

>

CU

rH CO

r-l

>■>

co

CO

d

d

Pi

bfl

CJ >>

CO

rH

CO

CU

CO

o

M

«\

3

o

•

o

d

CO

•H

•

O

X

u

£

cu a

#s

Pi

o <

iH

/^S

g

<u

•H

>%PQ

CO

>>

o

co

H

CU

rH «H

CO

U

d

rH

•

E

•

•

rH

X

d

PS

4-J

a

•H

fc*S

rH d

X

CU

CU

CO

4J

CO

o

3

5-i

>.

CO

CO

O 4-1

d

X

CU

CU CO

d

rH

>

rH

M

r*

u

M

0)

CO

H

cO

4-1 CO

XI

d

XI

CU

rH

4-1

PQ 3

cO

CO

CO

PQ

O

CO

Q

>

PQ

IS

C/J <U

d

o

d

CU

4->

O

o-

rH

M

CU

P-i

d

<D

•H

X

r-l

CO

CJ

CO

25

4-)

#»

CO

PQ

CO

s

O

X

PS

CU

d

X

O 03

•H

CU

X -

M

X

•H

A

d

d

CO

CO

d

4J

CU

CU

CO

A

rJ

u

d cu

d

•k

O

&

•

CO

rJ

cO

at

5-i

cO

O

•

cu

o

CU

•

CO

o

cO CU

9

CO

co

PQ

CO

cu

CU

^w/

rH

CU

X

M 4J

CU

rH

u

a

CU

•H

A

X

rH rH

cu

d

5-4

X

r^

60

>

d

0)

cu

rH

rH

d

•H

rH

CO

•

CO

CO rH

cO

a

U

•s

CU

o

o

^J

CO

CO

CO

co

rH

ai cu

CO

•H

o

>

CO

V4

CO

M »H

CU

o

o

>•>

cu

d

CO

5-i

PQ

w

5-1

rH

CO

S-4 o

>>

3

S

CU

>.

3

M

•

3

d

S3

X

cO

5

co

CU

CO

H

CO

>•>

o d

•

O

O

u

o

o

CO o

CU

CO

PQ

cu

a.

X

Ph

S-i

A

M

o

•

co

>*

Pi

S

<N

o

Pi

U

53

d S

X

CU

^

CO

CU

X

CU

Pi

M

5-4 CO

4-1

r-l

XI

cu

CU

o

X

>sr-:

w

5-1

CU

X

d

rH

5-i

O

CU -H

d

CU

•

CU

Jbd

CU

d

>

*t

CO •

X

•H

A

cu

4-1

d

CO

4-»

CO

CU

X

4-J CO

3

rH

<u

>

CJ

rH

co

CO

>^

V-i CU

CO

>■>

d

a

•

X)

a.

CO

d

rH

4J

60

rH

5-i

4-» rH

O

CO

4-J

•H

o

CO

r4

CU

cO

CO 4J

CU

CO

cO

cu

4-»

d

ex

4J

H— «

CO

•H

d

CO

cO

O p4

o

M

Ph

rt

Pi

M

o

PQ

PQ

P3 P4

rJ

PQ

en

CJ

Pm

co

d>

cn

H

M

h4

CO

H

EC

148

co

c
o

•H
4-1
CO

•u

•H
CJ

cO

3
o

•H

4J
•H
X>

3

CTv

x)

-H
cO

3
o

Q

o
S

W

X)

<U

a

•H
4-»

3
o

m

w
•J

9

H

CU

a

>>

H

CO
CU
•H
CJ

a)
a
co

X)
01

00

d

•H
M
tn

0)

oo
3
co
U

o

en
en
03

u

oo

CU

S
o
u

PQ

B

#\

3

^

CO

)-i

CO

3

O

•

•H

C

.-I

•~»

U

CO

M— 1

w

CO

•H

•H

n— y

•H

iH

43

H

■H

T-\

•H

a)

a

CO

O

•

P.

3

0)

•-«v

|

4-1

CO

CO

H

3

CO

•H

^^'

a

C

3

>-i

o

0

CO

XS

CO

00

6

a

•H

3

>",

o

CU

43

e

rH

rH

43

CJ

o

o

O

CO

M

u

Ph

CO

32

O

PQ

4-1

O

U

cu

3

<u

•H

5

H

rH
5

,- — <
H

,"— \

s^

<3

^^

^S

H

•H

•%

''w'

•H

#*

0

0

co

4-1

CO

3

3

•H

CO

d

a

U

co

r4

a

CO

•H

o

3

CO

CO

>

4-1

a

o

OO

a

•H

01

o

00

rH

•H

rH

3

00

•H

3

M

rH

o-

>*

rH

>

CU

3

CO

rH

3

0

CO

O

cO

CO

CO

o.

s

rH

CO

•H

fl

3

CO

CO

H

CO

•H

a

•H

•H

CO

4J

d

•H

O

a

H

3

•H

3

•H

CU

3

a

a

• a-

■M

rH

43

co

o

^ 3

CO

O

3

3

CO

H -H

3

CO

CO

c_>

>

^" Ph

•-3

<

0)

rH
4-1
CO

•H
43

4J

CO

a;

rH
4-J
CO
•H
42
4-1

u

01
4=
O
4J

a

3

4-1

T3
CU
0)

c

■H
(0

o
Pi

4-1

c

CO

rH
CU

I

a<
3
O

co

"a
o

4J

42
00
3
O

HI

rH

•H

PQ

tK

0

A

rH

ew

s

3

•H

■H

#N

3

4-1

•H

X

#H

CO

4J

CO

3

•H

rH

CO

•H

O

*\

H

rH

•H

rH

4J

•H

CU

CU

a

O

43

•H

43

43

•H

14-1

00

rH

a

CJ

a

u

3

rH

4-J

rH

cO

CU

O

•H

•H

3

rH

a

43

43

a

CX

0

0

O

g

0

CO

3

3

00

3

3

CJ

•H

•H

CO

•H

•H

3

43

43

x>

CO

a

*J

P.

a

•H

M

u

/-N O

rH

rH

rH

•H

•H

H cO

•H

•H

O

CJ

CJ

v^ hJ

CO

CO

CO

xt

o

5-1

a
cu

X)

rH

o

00

CM

CM

CM

r-.

CM

00
CM

CM CO

CO

CM CO
CO CO

CO

to

CO

co co

oo

CO

CO

o
CO
C
O
00

u

CO
3
O
00

o
o

•H
42
O
H

CO

«. CU

3 -H

CO 4J

oo 3
>» 3

0 O
X> O

CU

43 X

C_> -H

O

1 >
CU

CO rH

CU r4

U co
O 43
43 C->

co

>. 4-»

T) CU

c i

CO 0
CO W

cu

rH
CO
>>

o

Pd

CU

CU

rH

CO
CU

rH
CO

X)

3
CO

u

cO
00

3
CO

o

cO
CU
PQ

O

CU

rH

O
H

CU

rH

CO

>>
o

4-1

3

o

CU
OO

rJ

3 •

4J 4-1

CO P-!

•< CU

o o

3 3

CO cO

rH XI

PQ co
O

CD 00

•H 3

O CO

PQ ES

CU

o

r4

3
O

>-.
cO
PQ

CU

a
3
CO
CO
•H
CO

rH

CO

rJ

CO

3

CU
CO

M

CO
33

cO
0)
H
CO

0)
•H

H
•H

CO

5-i

34

CO •

rH T3

O 3

O cO

CO rH

3 co
H H

CO
X)

3
cO

I
cu

4J

•H

CO 3
3 -H
CU 4J
CX CO
rH 3

o

4J

M
O

CO P-i

CU

rJ •«

o •

X 4J
CO P*

X) 43

3 co

CO -H

CO >4H

3
o

u
3
P3

4-1

5-i

o

3

o

u

£

4-1

o

P4

CU
CJ

3

CO
CO
•H
CO
rH
PM

CO

•H

3
o

g

CU
4J

Ph

4*!
CU
CU
M
O

>>

3
O

4-1
CO

o

4J

CO

CO
PQ

3
O

CU •

00 T3

5-1 3

3 CO

4-» rH

CO CO

}-t

3 x)

cO 3

O

H 0

•H 0

O 3

CU r4

U Q

149

<U

3

3

•H
4-1
3
O

m

w
•J

3

cO

T)

•H

CD

a

O.

<d

>>

rH

H

O

CO

M

0)

rt

•H

t3

O

•H

CD

rH

&

O

CO]

CO

o
u

"3
o

•H
4J
CO

o

o

4-1

c

3
O

o

cd
M
CO
M
CO
pq

CD
CO

5

CO

4-1
CJ
•H
^
4->
CO

co

•H
4-1
CO
O
r-l

M|

CO

s

cO
H

CO
O

•H
•H
Ml

0!

•H
0!

CO
0)
U

3

CM
n
3
CM

co

•H
CO

CO
rH

a

•H

j-i

H

I

4J

o

•H

CM

CO

I

4-»

<D
CO
•H

H

co

a

o

W

o

•H
M
<D
4-1

a

•H CD
O
•H
CO U
U
CO "O

> rH

•H

CO
o

•H
u

CO

3

al-H

4-1

CO
3

CO

•H

.3

3

o
.u

CD

M)

O

9

4J

o

PL.

rH

m
cr>

r-i m

CO v£>

3 a>

O rH

o

CD

a

3

CD

3S «

W

CO

o

M

CU

e

cO
IS
CO

w

•H
>-)
■u»
en
3

rH

CO
CM

co

3

O

CO
-H
£i
•H
33

m

0>

rH
CO

a
o
a
o

w

w

CO
3
4J

O

3

cO

o

•H
>-)

I

rH

•H

u

a)

4J

CO

CO
3
o

bfl|
CO

H
4-1

CD

4-1

CO
0)
CO
43

a

m

cO
3
O

a
a

w

CO

u
o

rH

IW

•H
M|
3
O

4-1

V4

o

4J
CO
<H

rCl

QJ
3
•H

a

0

3
Vj
cO

CM

•H

>
•H
>

6
3
3
O
M
>^

rH

o
PL.

CO
CD
CO

I

rH

o
o

CO
•H
CO

3
CD

CO
3

CO

a

CO
•H
4J
CO

CO
u

33

3
cO
•H
'O

3
H

CO

•H

rH

cd
3
o

■H
>-i
O
4-1

3
0)

4J

CM

CD
CO

CO

O rH

o

3

3
CD
CD
IS
CD

14-1

O

CO

CD
U
O

■3
co

a

o

&

N CO <f

3
cO

CO

3
CD
co

u

CO
S3

CD
O
U
3

£

H3

3
cO

CO

3
CD
co
u
CO
33

O CO

C_> TJ

5 cO

CO rH

3 CO

CD r-f
CD

IS M

CD CD

14 >
cO

4-4 CD

O pq

CO Tj

CD 3

M co
O

co 3

o

>n i

M I

O 3

9 M

Pi Q

m
<r

co

4-1

CO
CD

rH
CO

CD J-!
rH 0)
rH >

CD -H

PQ 04

- 3
CD -H

rH CO
•H

CO

•J

00

ON O

■<* m

m

cn co
m m

•H

3
O

S

p3

CD

CD

4J M-4
P-l O

CO

CO
PQ

TJ
3
O

CO
PC

T3
3
cO

•H

a

CD

•H

3
O

X

CD
4-1

3
•H

O
PL.

CD
O
U
3
O
S

4J

3
•H
O
P-.

>N

3
O

4-1
CO

O

4J

CD
O
3
cO
co
•H
CO

rH

Ph

U
CD
>

•H
Pi

3
O

M
3
33

O

4J

(D
•H
P-i

CO
3

3
h4

CD

rH

CO

>•>
o

P4

CD
rH
CO

CO
PQ

3
CO
O

3

3

CD

CD

•H

3
O

CD

4-1

3
•H
O

PL.

CD
rH
CO

O
CD

CD
CO
CO

o

u

o

CD

rH
CO
rH

CO

rH

3
CO

3
•H
3
CD
Pw

3 ■

3 CD

CD rH

CD CO

IS >>

CD O

Ui Pi

u

CD
O

rH
M-l

>-.

CD

3

co

3

4-1

CO
V-i
£i

CO

n 3 M

ti 2

•H S

CO -H

Ph S

m

co
pq

CD

4-J
4-1

CD

3
O

a.
w

3

CO
M
•H

a

•H

S

3
cO
M
•H
43
O
•H

3
•H

CO
4-1
3
CO

rH

Cm

M
3

rH

3

a
co
cO
>

CD •

CO CD

K 4-1

•H
TJ O
3

cO co
CO

T3 co

CD CD

3 O

CD }-.

4J 3

CO O

CD co
M

42 rH

H CO

3

« O

TJ -H

a) 4j

>-i -H

CD TJ

MT3
3 CO
CO

t3 •#»
3 to
W <D

= a

« u

/-s 3

r^ O

r>» co

CJ\ CD

rH PC-

CO

M

3

4-1

CO

Z

•> O

r-l

CD •

3 4-1

m a

cfl CD

!2 Q

CD
O

3
O

co

150

and threatened plants and animals is approved and Larson's
criteria for outstanding wetlands is acceptable, unques-
tionably high nonconsumptive value may be assigned to
these selected wetlands.

NESTING AND MIGRATION OF SHOREBIRDS, PASSERINES AND BIRDS
OF PREY IN GREAT LAKES SHORELANDS

As determined by Scharf (1977) , the principal avi-
fauna of the Great Lakes shorelands are documented in
Table 53. It is evident that a diversity of habitats is
required for feeding and resting of migratory birds and
for nesting cover for the resident populations. The
habitat varies from isolated wooded areas and herbaceous
cover preferred by the herring gulls to marshland require-
ments of the black terns and the great blue herons.

Nesting sites of the birds occupying shorelands,
have substrates varying from beach grasses and shrubs, to
cobbles and gravels, to spoil disposal sites. Two coastal
marshes in Michigan appear to be most significant to
colonial nesters per se. At Portage Point, 64 common
tern nests and three green heron nests occur within the
wetland (ibid. , p. 76 and 84). Other migratory birds
breeding in Michigan include the killdeer, piping plover,
upland sandpiper, spotted sandpiper, Wilson's phalarope
and the American woodcock (Sanderson, 1977, p. 306-308;
Cottrille, 1957, p. 27). An important breeder in the
wetlands is the mute swan. Koechlein (1971, p. 2) has
identified 72 nests situated in cattails, sedges, and
bulrushes of the Grand Traverse Bay area. He also deter-
mined that 275 to 300 swans utilized the ice-free areas
of Grand Traverse Bay during January, February, and March,
1970 (ibid. , p. 3). Cottrille (1957, p. 27) has mapped
the breeding sites of the piping plover in Michigan.
The more significant coastal sites of the plover occur in
Monroe, Macomb, Huron, Schoolcraft and Alger Counties.
On the lower Detroit River, Celeron Island provides

151

m

W
.-J
PQ
<

Q

<

w

53

53 O

<! m

Q

53
W

l-l

C_> H
2

H
X
W

>>
•J
PQ

<ti

PQ
O
Ptf
Ph

O

in

H

<c

H

M

PQ

H

S3

<d

Ph

Q

W
13
W
H
<C

H

cd

l-l

CM

v£>

r-4

<t

<fr

I CO

4J

O

<f-

CO

CO

r-l

CM

1 co

o

CM

H

<D

C
Q)

4J
cd

CO

T3

CD

c

CD
4-»
cd
(D

U
&

co

O
O

•H
Q

CO
4-J
O

O

o
a
o

I

o co

t3 a)

•H 4-)

U >i

4-J Pu|

X3
CU

r4

<U

cd

a
w

>^4-l

r-l O

cd -H

,£5 4->

O X

u w
p-1

a\

o

CM CM

CM
CM

CO

CM

CO CO

i— I r-l

CO <t

o
o

^o

oo o

m

m
oo

*£> CM

CO I CM

CO

CO

vO <j"

l 1 >£>

On

T3

cd

•H C

•u cd
cd i-i

3 4->

a4 cd

C^i

CD CQ

oh

CD

-•rH

CO 4-4
CD

CO CM

•H
rJ
•H

cd CD
}-i M

pu cd

CO

p,
o
u
o
4->

O CO
M-l

O 3

O r-l

CD

4-J
O

cm I m

CM

T3
CD
•H

CO

cd

r-l

T3
O
O

"0 CD

tw

£ J-4

•r4

cd cd

CO

CO

co ^

cd

CDtS

r-l

c a

O

3 cd

c

Q co

13

rJ

H
O
H

cd

50
•H
X!

O
•H
S

•H

CO
4-J

cd

rH
Pw

Cd r-l

cd

cd •
PQ pu

cd
o
u

O
c/>

152

TABLE 53
AVIFAUNA IN THE COASTAL GREAT LAKES

Bird

1. Herring Gulls (Larus a
argentatus)

b

2. Ring-billed gulls a
(Larus delawarensis)

3. Common terns

(Sterna hirundo)

4. Caspian terns a
(Hydroprogne caspia)

5. Black terns a
(Childonias niger)

6. Great Blue Heron a
(Ardea herodias) and
Common Egrets
(Casmerodius albus)

7 . Black-crowned night a
heron (Nycticorax
nycticorax)

8. Double-crested cor- a
mo rant (Phalacrocorax
auritus) b

9. Snowy Egrets a
(Leucophoxy thula)

10. Cattle Egrets a
(Babulcus ibis)

11. Green Heron (_B. a
irrescens)

Habitat
Bedrock outcrop

Herbaceous Cover

Tree cover

Clay soils,
dredged spoil

Gravelly, sandy

soils, wooded

areas

Heavy herbaceous

cover, dredging

sites

Remote gravel,
sand islands

Marshes on Great
Lakes.

Tall deciduous
trees

Bush, low trees a

Trees

Gravelly sediment b

Medium shrub

Medium shrub

Marsh

Site Examples

Apostle Islands;
St. Marys River.
Bellows Island,
Lake Michigan.
Gull Island, Lake
Mich, Goose Island,
Lake Huron.

Round Island and
Gull Island, Wis.;
Shelter Island,
Saginaw Bay.

High Island, St.
Vital Island,
Lake Michigan.
St. Marys River.

Hat and High Island,
Lake Michigan.

Green Bay area.

Winous Pt . , Lake
Erie.

Saginaw Bay,
Smith's Island,
Lake Erie.

Cat Island, Green

Bay.

Fish Island,

Green Bay.

Oconto Marsh

Oconto Marsh

a) Portage Pt. ,
Lake Michigan.

Source: Scharf, Nesting and Migration Areas of Birds of the U. S.
Great Lakes, 1977

153

nesting habitat for the osprey (Goodwin and Niering, 1975,
p. 232). Also, according to these authors bald eagles
and sandhill cranes visit the island (ibid. , p. 232).
Just to the south at Plum Creek, a black-crowned night
heron heronry has been identified and mapped (Hoffman and
Prince, 1975, pp. 95-99).

Table 54 identifies significant migration sites
and staging areas of passerines, raptors and shorebirds.
Important focal and funneling points are mainly islands
(e.g., South Fox Island) and peninsulas (Figure 24) jut-
ting into the Great Lakes (e.g., Keweenaw Point). However,
wetlands such as the Elberta Marsh, the Muskegon River
Mouth and Saginaw Bay are also significant migration
sites.

The value of wetlands and adjacent areas is vari-
able with regard to migration. As noted in the table
below, the vaj-ue of sites in Saginaw Bay and western Lake
Erie has decreased due to damage to the vegetation by
recent high water. Other wetlands, such as the Grand
Haven marshes and the Elberta Marsh have also experienced
similar high lake levels in the early 1970' s, but have
remained important migration sites. The latter coastal
wetlands are protected by coastal dunes or barriers which
prevent serious erosion of che wetlands. Also, the pro-
tective coastal barrier, if vegetated, probably provides
additional cover for migratory and nesting birds.
Other Important Migratory Birds

As noted in the introduction of this chapter, one
important criterion for the identification of outstanding
wetlands is the presence of fauna at or near the limits
of the breeding range. Geographically, several migratory
birds are at their range limits in Michigan. The list
includes :

Virginia rail King rail
Yellow rail Common gallinule
Black rail American coot

154

w

~$7

"8^ 8^

w

w

Ontonagon

HouqKk

ftorago

Gogebic

"*sl

-N-

FIGURE 24--Migration sites of shorebirds , passerines and
raptors, in Michigan (after Scharf, 1977). See Table 54
for site locations.

155

TABLE 54

COASTAL MIGRATION SITES OF SHOREBIRDS, PASSERINES

AND RAPTORS

Migration Sites

1. Keweenaw Point

2. Sand Point Marsh

3. Point Abbaye

4. Whitefish Point

5. Shoreline west of
Mackinac City

6. Waugoshance Point

7. Garden Peninsula

8. Harbor Springs

9. Ptobego Marsh

10. Old Mission Point

11. South Fox Island

12. Sleeping Bear Dunes/
Benzie State Park

13. Pointe Betsie

14. Elberta Marsh

15. Ludington State Park
(Hamlin Lake)

16. Muskegon River mouth

17. Grand Haven Marsh

18. Kalamazoo Lake and
Saugatuck Marsh

Comments

Full spring migration site.

Concentration area for passerine and
shorebirds.

Concentration area for passerine and
hawks .

Spectacular migration focal point for
passerines, owls, common loons and hawks.

Funnelling point for spring migration,
especially for birds of prey.

Large numbers of shorebirds.

Major shorebird migration area. Heavy
raptor, waterfowl and common loon flights,

Large numbers of passerines in fall and
spring.

Shorebird concentrations during low
water.

Large concentrations of passerine and
small numbers of hawks in spring.

Northward extension of the South Manitou-
North Manitou migration route.

Large number of shorebirds during low-
water.

Seasonally heavy passerine and shore-
bird migrations.

Resident Canada geese; excellent shore-
bird, passerine and hawk migration
resting points.

Hawk, passerine, and shorebird migra-
tions; hawks and warblers in the spring.

Important for passerine, hawk and
shorebird migration.

Important for migrating King rails,
Virginia rails and migrating and nesting
Sora rails. Yellow-headed blackbirds
commonly seen here.

Very important as a stopover for large
numbers of passerine and shorebirds.

156

Migration Sites

19. Grand Beach, Warren
Dunes State Park

20. Calcite Flats

21. Presque Isle Point

22. North Point near Misery Bay

23. South Point on Thunder Bay

24. Au Sable Point

25. Tawas Point

26. Saginaw Bay wetlands

27. Pointe Mouillee

28. Sterling State Park

29. Woodtick Peninsula

30. North and South Manitou
Islands

TABLE 54 (Continued)
Comments

Major staging area for waterfowl, loons,
grebes and shorebirds.

Large shorebird migration.

Fairly heavy passerine and hawk migration,

Passerine and hawk migrations.

Exceptional concentrations of nocturnal
and diurnal passerine birds.

Mainly shorebird migration point.

Prime focal point for migration; some
hawks, but large numbers of shorebirds
and passerines.

Usefulness damaged by high water; very
productive shorebirds and passerine
birds in low-water years.

Point of departure for the great hawk
migrations to Canada.

Same function as Pointe Mouillee.

Damage by high water, formally very
productive passerine and hawk migration
point.

A very large and important flyway for
passerine birds and hawks.

Source: Scharf, Nesting and Migration Areas of Birds of the U. S.
Great Lakes, 1977.

On a national scale, the limits of the breeding
ranges of the above listed birds are the wetlands of
Michigan. The southern breeding limit of the yellow rail
is the Michigan-Ohio state line (Sanderson, 1977, p. 68).
The northern limit of the black rail and the king rail in
North America is approximately a line from Port Huron
westward to Muskegon (ibid. , pp. 74 and 98). The eastern
limit of coot breeding according to Sanderson (ibid. ,
p. 132) is western Lake Erie. The common gallinule's
northern boundary breeding limit is the south shore of
Lake Superior (ibid. , p. 112). Finally, the highest
breeding density of the Virginia rail is confined (northern

157

and southern boundary) to the lower peninsula of Michigan
(ibid. , p. 49).

The habitat need for these birds includes wetlands
or reasonably wet areas for resting and feeding. Informa-
tion and specific site inventories are not adequately
documented over time to identify high value coastal wet-
lands. However, since many of these birds are at the
limits of their range and need wetlands to perform their
normal life functions, based on Larson's criteria, many
of the state's coastal wetlands must be considered valu-
able.

The occurrence of many migratory shorebirds and
birds of prey other than those discussed above have been
documented in the literature. Tawas Point (Kelley and
Kelley, 1973, pp. 111-115) appears to be an important
staging area, particularly for passerine birds. Large
hawk migrations in fall are well known over western Lake
Superior, Tawas Point, Beaver Island, Whitefish Point,
Stonington, and the Garden Peninsula (Sheldon, 1965,
pp. 79-83). The Erie Marshes are one of the few areas
in southern Michigan where large assemblages of shorebirds
occur (Butsch, 1954, pp. 46-53). Fifteen species were
observed here exclusive of the killdeer and spotted sand-
piper which are resident breeders at North Cape. The
Woodtick Peninsula and adjacent marshes are important
since they provide resting areas for birds migrating along
the periphery of western Lake Erie to and from the Little
Cedar Point Wildlife Refuge in coastal Ohio (personal com-
munication, Karl Bednarik) . Spring migrations of birds
of prey including several threatened species such as
the Peregrine falcon, osprey, eagle, and double-crested
cormorants have been observed at Whitefish Point (Kelley,
1972, pp. 69-75). Yellow-headed blackbirds utilize the
Saginaw Bay wetlands especially Tobico, Nayanquing Point
and the St. Clair Flats (personal communication, Chuck

1.5 8

Wolverton and Gerald Martz) . Snowy owls winter at Fish
Point (personal communication, Gerald Martz) .
Species Diversity

A unique value of wetlands is their diversity of
aquatic and terrestrial life. An attractive aspect of the
Cheboygan Marsh as illustrated by Thobaben (1974a) is
that 77 animal species occur in that 96-acre wetland.
Bird diversity is as equally varied. Thobaben (1974b,
pp. 8-9) recorded 10 nesting species such as the American
bittern, coot, black tern and eastern kingbird within
that wetland. He also notes that the marsh is used by
yellow-headed blackbirds and as a wintering area by snowy
owls (ibid. , p. 1). In the Magee Marsh some 271 species
of birds have been sighted (Bednarik, 1975, p. 16). On
Dickinson Island (St. Clair Flats), a party of four
observed 43 bird and duck species in two hours (U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1974b, p. 126). In St. Johns
Marsh DNR wildlife biologists observed 34 species of birds
in a single day (DNR, 1976b, p. 4). Included were the
threatened marsh hawk and the rare black-crowned night
heron as well as six species of herons and bitterns.
During spring migration about 50 percent of North America's
whistling swan population utilize the southeastern Michigan
wetlands (Bellrose, 1976, pp. 95-98), some of which rest
and feed in the St. Johns Marsh and presumably the St.
Clair Flats to the immediate southeast.

It is clear from such reports that coastal wet-
lands provide valuable nesting functions as well as cover,
food, and migratory resting areas for a diversity of
shorebirds, passerines, and birds of prey. Ecologists
have suggested that symbiotic relationships exist between
bird colonies and wetlands. On the Florida coast, for
example, the presence of bird excretions is essential for
the rich aquatic plant growth which in turn supports the
bird colonies (Wing, 1956, p. 211). Similar important

159

relationships have been noted elsewhere. Welty (1975,
for example, notes that small marshes may be more import-
ant (nests/area) than larger marshes because of the
greater edge effect.
Other Fauna

Animals other than waterfowl, furbearers , fish
and birds have received less attention in the literature.
Notable exceptions include snails and mussels, and a few
mammals such as the shrew, lemming and Indiana bat, some
of which are endangered, threatened or rare species (Table
50). Also, the occurrence of reptile species have been
documented in Table 50. Other common fauna occupying
Michigan's coastal wetlands are a variety of snakes and
amphibia.

According to Switzenberg (1954, p. 1), Michigan
has 17 species and subspecies of snakes most of which are
decidedly beneficial since they help control rodents
such as rats and mice. Other foods commonly provided in
wetlands include crayfish, a variety of insects, fishes,
frogs, snails and slugs, as well as toads (ibid. , p. 8).
Snakes in turn are fed upon by hawks , raccoons and owls .
Manville (1952, pp. 13-19) notes that the snakes commonly
found in Michigan's wetlands include the hog-nosed snake,
green or grass snake, queen snake, Kirtland's snake and
the Massasauga rattlesnake.

Ten species of turtles have been identified in
the state, nine of which are native (Lagler, 1954, p. 1).
These include:

Snapping turtle Spotted turtle

Soft-shell turtle Wood turtle
Box turtle Map turtle

Blandings turtle Musk turtle
Painted turtle Slider turtle

Turtles are beneficial in that most of them act as scav-
engers in keeping the waters free of dead fish and animals

160

Lagler (ibid., p. 3) notes some turtles feed on mosquito
pupae, on insects which prey on fish, and on mollusks
which harbor fish parasites during certain stages of
their life cycle. Snapping turtles are trapped and sold
for human consumption. At Fish Point a trapper took over
100 twenty-pound snapping turtles in the summer of 1977
which were valued at $2.00 per pound.

These and other fauna enhance the diversity of
wetland wildlife and they fill an ecological niche as
well. As noted in Saginaw Bay, a variety of reptiles and
amphibians occur (U. S. Department of Interior, 1970b,
p. 291). Included are:

Reptiles Amphibia

Snapping Turtle American Toad

Painted Turtle Spring Peeper

Blandings Turtle Tree Frog

Softshell Turtle Cricket Frog

Red Bellied Snake Pickerel Frog

Brown Snake Chorus Frog

Water Snake Leopard Frog

Garter Snake Green Frog

Hognose Snake Wood Frog

Ringneck Snake Bull Frog

Green Snake Mud Puppy

Blue Racer Blue-spotted Salamander

Rat Snake Spotted Salamander

Red-backed Salamander
There is little precise data on the abundance and
occurrence of reptiles and amphibia with regard to Mich-
igan' s coastal wetlands. Nevertheless, these fauna are
significant to the food webs which support the more
economically important fish and game species.
Wetland Use by Nature Groups

Data on coastal wetland use by nature groups such
as the Michigan Audubon Society are not routinely collected,

161

A questionnaire was designed and sent to the 39 chapters
of the Society asking each chapter to document which wet-
lands were visited, the number of people in each group and
the purpose of the visit. Fourteen chapters (3690) res-
ponded to this inquiry. Table 55 represents the response
of those groups. The data included for Fish Point, also
includes group visits and vehicle counts made by the
Michigan DNR at Fish Point in 1977.

As noted in Table 55, a variety of non- consumptive
activities occur in the coastal sites to include not only
birdwatching, but research, photography and botanical
study as well. Based on the limited response, Fish Point,
Waugoshance Point, Cheboygan, and the wetlands of Lake
St. Clair are popular nature study areas. It must be
noted that the data represent minimal wetland use essen-
tially by one organization. Field trips by individuals,
other organized groups or educational institutions would
reflect greater use than what is presented on Table 55.

VALUES OF COASTAL WETLANDS FOR NONCONSUMPTIVE RECREATION
USES

Other nonconsumptive uses of wildlife in Michigan

are presently considered to be at least equal in man days

to consumptive uses. The latter, however, is projected

to increase at a faster rate than hunting uses. Currently,

Michigan has 284,200 acres of public hunting areas, and

only 128,200 acres of state parks and recreation areas

which provide for recreation other than hunting and

trapping (Great Lakes Basin Comm. , 1975c, p. 27 and 28).

Yet, future projections reveal that nonconsumptive uses

of wildlife and wildlife lands will increase more rapidly
than hunting use and will compensate for decreases in
consumptive uses wherever they occur (ibid. , p. 73).
These nonconsumptive uses are:

Nature and ecology trails.

Interpretative and photography centers.

162

1

o >.

00

00

o

4->42

p

p

42

•u

O Pu

•H

•H

CJ

o

42 Cd

U

i

rP

H

42

Ph u

PI-

P

CJJ 00

CJ

cd

Ph

bO

CO

o

(Xi P

4-»

a>

^

- o

•H

•H

cd

<d

CO

•> p

>>

M1J

~

4->

-42

§

CO

<D

00 cd

p.

p 00

>^

>%

cd

OOO

T3

00

>.

o

Ph

P 4->

cd

cd o

T3

T3

}-i

p cd

r4 >%

p

T3

p-

CO

•H O

4->

4-> -H

3

P

00

•H Q>

•H42

•H

P

M

#»

-o

43 PQ

O

O PQ

■P

■u p

•H

42H

PQ Ph

42

4J

S

oo

n

O

rQ

rQ

CO

co O

s

O

cd

O

CO

P-.

p

•rl

■P -

•>

•H

4J w

- U

4H

•H

43

cd ^

rH

rH >s

CD

CU 4->

00

cd42

rOOO

cd

CD

x

CD

£42

cd

Cd42

U

r-l Cd

p

2 °

P o

s

U

o

H

x) a

u

v-i a

3

P r4

•H

T) J-l

cd -u

x>

3

cd

o

n cd

o

O cd

u

4-> 00

r-l

r-l Cd

4H O

u

4J

<D

42

•h n

rH

rH U

cd

Cd -H

a

•H Q)

042

•H

cd

H

CO

PQ 00

fc

PH oo

23

ZS

CO

PQ CO

PQ P-.

PQ

Z

r-

r».

1

1

vO

S

m

i

00

!

l

I

l

i

ON

l

1

r i

1

CN

i

LO

1

1

l

l

i

rH

o

CN

vO

r^.

O

o

LO

o

o

i

m

1

00

co

oo

o

CO

ON

<T

«— 1

tO

m

vC

i

CN

1

r-«.

rH

i — i

<*

Ph

rH

rH

CM

D

O

P2!

LO

CJ/~s

r^

o

1

LO

m

m

o

m

r^

00

CO

CO

W

ON

rH

1

r i

rH

rH

CN

CM

rH

00

rH

rH

S Ph

r-i

rH

CM

PO

LO

H W

<f

m

<C PL,

r-

<N

1

m

m

m

O

m

1

o

CO

O

S

ON

rH

f

rH

rH

in

CN

CM

1

00

rH

CO

w

Pn

H

rH

rH

CM

•J

>H O

cd

PQ

PQ

a)

<

P*

>H

CO

H

w w

r-*

O

m

1

CN

CM

m

r^

O

CO

O

CO PQ

ON

CM

rH

1

rH

rH

CM

rH

ON

rH

CM

52

rH

rH

CM

Q2

2^

CM

<d

r^

m

r i

00

OO

m

1

O

CO

m

►J

ON

rH

rH

CM

1

o

rH

rH

H

rH

rH

ON
rH

O

r»

ON

rH

O
rH

1

1

1
1

1
I

1
m

CNJ

m

CM

m

CM

1
1

o

CN

CM

O
00

rH

o
m

rH

CO
rH

CO
rH

CM

O
co
CM

O

cu

rP

CO

cd

CO

•u

i

rH

U

cd

rH

T3

CO

rH

cd

rH

cd •

rH

a)

•H

S

Pu

>^

•-*. a>

4-J O

•H

CD

42

P

•

cd

4-1 CD

00

CO C_>

3:

CJ

co

o

Ph

CO

U

PQ

P CO

P

p

cd

cd

p

'H

s

C

•H

•H CO

•H

cd

O Cd

p a)

cd

cd

P

42

cd

£

O cd

-«^

P

bO

O £

o u

42

S

CJ)

O

O

rH

cd

Pu a

O

cr

>^

a>

Q) <rj

CO

+j

4-J

*-)

CJ

P

•H

a

P

042

• Ph

00

O 4-)

P

<d

p

P

•H

42 P

•H

cd

,a co

W Ph

U <U

bOP

o

•H

•H

•H

•

•

bO

co cd

rO

>»

0) u

•H

p m

2-r*

•H

}-t

O

rH

4->

4->

cd

•rH h

o

cd

xi cd

•42

4-) «H

Cd O

4-J

cd

w

PL.

o

CO

CO

CO

ph cy

HS

OS

CO CJ

CO rH

D5P-.

O

rH

CN

co

>tf

m

VO

r^»

00

ON

O

rH

CM

163

1

O cjO

P C

O -H

,C CD

Ph O

<u

,£

CO

•>

- CO

O

60

toO £

W)

>>

00

Pu

C >n

G O

C

XJ

c

U

•H ,£

•H £

•H

2

•H

3

,£ a

,E! CO

,C

P

^

Ph

o cd

o

CJ

C/)

O

■U Jq

P -

P

4J

cd w)

cd ^

cd

cd

cd

£ o

£,£

£

}-i

£

T3 4->

x> a

x>

2

-O

M o

n cd

n

P

U

•h ,g

•H u

•H

cd

•H

PQ P-.

PQ bO

PQ

z

PQ

r^

P

r^»

I

vO

■>

I

1

ON

1

rH

rH

1

1

rH

>

vo

5-1

r-».

1

CO

0)

o

CM

ON

1

rH

>

<r

CO

rH

o

•-^

o

T>

m

4-3

CD

r^-

r>»

O

CM

rH

3

on

iH

rH

cu

-cl-

CO

c

rH

2

•H

T3

4-»

c

<f

13

O

r^.

0)

in

O

C_>

cd

ON
rH

3
•H

CM

rH

m

0)

P

m

><

co

c

r^

O

o

O

w

o\

O

m

vO

rJ

rH

CO

PQ

•H

<

Q

H

CM

J^-

CM

m

O

ON

rH

-tf

CO

»H

rH

r^»

CM

m

O

ON

rH

<*

CO

rH

O

r^»

CM

m

m

ON

rH

st

CO

rH

XI

P

CO

CO

G

P

r-l

•H

cd

cd

O

^

a>

rH

s

Pm

cd

a

fe

cd

<d

PQ

cd

CD

•H

60

C

to

•H

T3

cd

cd

MU3

CO

cd

4-»

o

CO

G

P

o

U

c

• U

O

CD

r-l

o

2

p cd

•H
P

cd

PQ

<J

Pm

Q

cos

o

•

.

•

.

•

o

CO

<fr

m

vO

r>-

rJ

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

164

State game area visitor stations.
Scientific and educational study areas.
Migration stopover viewing sites.
Wildlife wintering and feeding stations.
Non-adult sport fishing areas.

Nonconsumptive use of Michigan's coastal wetlands
has not been studied. A survey of public use of southern
Michigan game and recreation areas, however, does provide
some pertinent data. Based on a postcard questionnaire,
the survey of 15 waterfowl game areas revealed that non-
hunting use exceeded the consumptive use (Table 56) .
Although an inland waterfowl game area, the Shiawassee
River State Game Area, was a major unit in the study, the
sample also included the following coastal wetlands :

Erie State Game Area

Fish Point Wildlife Area

Nayanquing Point Wildlife Area

Pointe Mouillee State Game Area

Quanicassee Wildlife Area

St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area

Tobico Marsh State Game Area

Wigwam Bay Wildlife Area

Wildfowl Bay Wildlife Area

TABLE 56

NON-HUNTING VS. HUNTING USE OF PUBLIC WATERFOWL

GAME AREAS

Acres of Hours of Hours of Total Hours

Public Non-hunting Hunting of Recrea-

Waterfowl Use/Acre Use/Acre tion per

Game Areas Year Year Acre/Year

42,475 21.94 (71.9%) 8.57 (28.1%) 30.51 (100%)

Source : Belyea and Lerg, 1976, Public Use of Southern
Michigan Game and Recreation Areas , Michigan
DNR, p. 19.

165

The sample design regarding the data in Table 56
does not allow generalization about specific wetlands.
The main use of these waterfowl areas is as follows :
fishing (57.1%), waterfowl hunting (23.97o), camping (2.67<>),
and all other uses (16.47o) (Belyea and Lerg, 1976, p. 34).

Based on a "1976 Statewide Telephone Survey" the
Michigan DNR tabulated nonconsumptive recreational use
in the state's game and wildlife areas (personal communica-
tion, Daniel Kitchel) . Several coastal game and wildlife
areas have a large proportion of wetland (e.g., Erie, St.
Clair Flats, Wildfowl Bay, Tobico, Pentwater and Betsie
River) . It has been estimated that 580,000 participations occurred

in non-hunting and non- fishing activities by Michigan
residents while visiting 15 coastal state game and wildlife
areas in 1976. The 15 state game and wildlife areas
included:

Betsie River Pointe Mouillee

Erie Tobico

Manistee River Fish Point

Muskegon Nayanquing Point

Pentwater Quanicassee

Petobego St. Clair Flats

Wigwam Bay Wildfowl Bay

Beaver Island
The acreage of the above coastal state game and wildlife
areas totals 97,000 acres. Nonconsumptive activities in
these areas include sightseeing, boating, hiking, picnick-
ing, snowmobiling and nature study.

Data derived from a national survey suggests that
dollars spent per participant is significant to the value
of coastal wetlands. As determined by Payne and DeGraaf
(1975, pp. 6-10), the direct expenditures attributable to
the enjoyment of nongame birds in 1975 was 1.7 times the
amount spent by waterfowl hunters exclusive of indirect
expenditures for transportation, lodging and food. As

166

determined by the 1970 National Survey of Fishing and Hunting
(U.S. Dept. of Int., 1972, p. 11), the average annual ex-
penditure of a waterfowl hunter was $84.47. If the cost-of-
living factor of 1.542 for interpolating from 1970 to 1977
is multiplied by $84.47, the updated value is $130 . 25/hunter/
year. If food, transportation and lodging costs are sub-
stracted as indirect costs from the $130.25 average annual
waterfowl hunter's expenditures ($130.25 - $29.53 = $100.72),
and the remaining direct costs are multiplied by 1.7 ($100.72
x 1.7 = $171.23), then the average annual participant ex-
penditure by nonconsumptive recreat ionalists would amount
to $200.76 ($171.23 + $29.53). Proportionally, the value of
a nonconsumptive recreation day, compared to a waterfowl
hunting day of $15.00 would be $23.12. Assuming that
580,000 recreation days or trips were involved in the 15
coastal state game and wildlife areas, then these public
coastal environments generate a total annual value of
$13,409,600 (580,000 x $23.12). Given 97,000 acres of wet-
lands and associated upland environments in these coastal
game and wildlife areas, the annual economic value per acre
is $138.24 ($13,409,600 divided by 97,000 acres). Potenti-
ally, Michigan's 105,855 acres of coastal wetlands may have
an average annual nonconsumptive recreation value of $128.24/
wetland acre.

Not only are expenditures for nongame bird enjoy-
ment high, but they have been increasing rapidly in the
past several years. For example, gift bird book sales in
the U.S. rose from $1.5 million in 1970 to $3.1 million in
1974 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1977, p. 85). Dues
paid to the National Audubon Society doubled in five years ,
increasing from $1.6 million in 1970 to $3.1 million in
1974 (ibid. , p. 85). Other evidence of interest in the
nonconsumptive appreciation of wildlife is suggested by
growth in subscriptions to National Wildlife magazine from
60,000 in 1963 to 350,000 by 1975 (ibid. , p. 85). These
indicators suggest that the future value of the state's non-
consumptive recreational resource will increase.

167

Locally, some preliminary data regarding non-
hunting uses are available for the St. Clair Flats Wild-
life Area, specifically Lower Harsens Island (Table 57).
Sport fishing in summer, particularly bank fishing along
the main channels and canals, accounts for the heaviest
use of this wetland (Pospichal, undated, p. 8). Wildlife
and flora viewing from canoes and non-motorized boats is
spectacular on Harsens Island, as well as on nearby
Dickinson Island, because canals and abandoned river
channels allow access to most interior areas. Based on
the data in Table 57, nonconsumptive use of this coastal
wetland provides 41.92 man days of recreation per acre/
year. In comparison, waterfowl hunting which traditionally
was the main recreational use, amounted to only 2.73
recreation days per wetland acre/year.

TABLE 57

NON-HUNTING AND HUNTING USE OF ST. CLAIR FLATS

WILDLIFE AREA PRELIMINARY DATA FOR LOWER

HARSENS ISLAND

Estimated Man Days
Non-Hunting Uses Man Days Acre/Year

Sport Fishing 100,000

Bow and Arrow Carp Fishing 3-5,000

Bird Watching 3,000

Canoeing and Boating 2,000

SUBTOTAL 109,000 41.92

Hunting Uses
Waterfowl Hunting 7,108 2.73

Source: Pospichal, Undated, Preliminary Management Plan
for St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area .

Coastal wetlands are important viewing areas for
several reasons. As discussed earlier, many of the
coastal wetlands function as concentration areas for
migration of waterfowl, shorebirds, passerines, and birds
of prey. Point Pelee, Ontario, is internationally
renowned as a fall migratory viewing area for not only

38.

,46

1.

,54

1.

,15

0.

,77

168
waterfowl, but also Monarch butterflies, songbirds and
shorebirds. Moreover, several coastal counties in
Michigan, including Berrien, Cheboygan, Emmet, Isle
Royale, Keweenaw, Monroe, and Wayne Counties, have large
numbers of rare or threatened species (Beaman, 1977,
p. 111). Three endangered and 79 threatened plants are
located within aquatic and wetland environments of Michigan
(Table 52). With regard to birds, Cheboygan Marsh, for
example, provides habitat for the marsh hawk and the
American bittern, a threatened and rare species, respect-
ively (Thobaben, 1974b, p. 8).

The nature of the wetland influences the scenic
quality of the site. Dense, monotypic marshes exhibit
low species diversity and species abundance which, in
turn, reduces the birdwatching quality. A wetland
exhibiting half vegetation cover and half open water pro-
vides the most suitable habitat for aquatic species (Weller
and Spatcher, 1965, p. 28). The Great Lakes coastal wet-
lands, because of lake level fluctuations, are not as
stable as inland wetlands (Woodby, 1974, p. 12). Hence,
stands of cattails and other monotypic communities, which
can lead to senescence and low productivity, are constantly
being disrupted by water level changes. Moreover, if the
wetland contains a composite of environments or a strong
environmental gradient, as on Dickinson Island of the St.
Clair Flats, then the species diversity is further
enhanced. At Cheboygan Marsh, 43 different wildlife
species were observed in the cattail marsh, whereas 29
species were found only in the sedge-willow ecotone which
provides dry marsh and upland habitat (Thobaben, 1974b,
p. 9). At Magee Marsh, a coastal wetland in northern
Ohio, a total of 271 wildlife species have been recorded
(Bednarik et al. , 1975, p. 9).

Visitor and interpretive centers at state game
areas can provide for the multiple use of waterfowl and
other game resources. The visitor center at Magee Marsh
Wildlife Area Headquarters attracts 50,000 visitors each
year (Bednarik, 1975, Table 2). This quality non-

169

consumptive use has increased 300 percent during the past
few years since the station was established. At present,
Michigan has a few visitor's centers within coastal

wildlife areas. An interpretive center has been constructed
at Tobico and one is being considered for Pointe Mouillee
State Game Area, but the latter facility is still in the
planning stages. Visitor centers at inland state game
areas, e.g., Shiawassee Wildlife Refuge Area, have been
successfully attracting viewers for many years.

Urban fishing and non-motorized boating are two
activities currently underdeveloped in coastal wetlands.
As wetlands near metropolitan areas are degraded by poor
water quality or fragmented into small parcels by develop-
ment (Great Lakes Basin Comm. , 1976, pp. 3-5), their use
by turbidity- intolerant fish and easily-disturbed wildlife
diminishes. Nevertheless, these small parcels of somewhat
degraded wetlands can provide selected nonconsumptive
uses. For example, the fishing of carp, bullheads, and
other wetland species can give angling opportunities to
many urban youth (Fogle, 1975). Also, while quietly
canoeing or paddling a boat through wetland environments,
particularly at dusk or dawn, the visitor observes a
variety of wildlife not usually seen on foot. Such boat
trips are a common visitor's experience of the Florida
Everglades .

The St. Clair River delta, including its wetland
complex, has high scientific value because this delta is
one of the relatively few large fresh-water deltas in the
world and is geologically and biologically well known.
In addition, because of tremendous waterfowl use of
Wildfowl Bay and Fish Point during migration and the high
duck nesting densities at Portage Marsh, these wetland
areas are of special scientific interest.

The demand for nonconsumptive recreation has
been projected for six planning subbasins in Michigan by

170

the Great Lakes Basin Commission. By the year 2020, the
demand will greatly exceed the supply, especially in
southeastern Michigan and the Saginaw Bay region (Table
58) . The situation is critical because the participation
demand for consumptive and nonconsumptive use of wild-
life is expected to double the current demand by 2020
A. D. , while the available habitat continues to be de-
graded and/or lost to development (Great Lakes Basin Comm. ,
1975c, p. 123).

TABLE 58

UNSATISFIED PARTICIPATION IN NONCONSUMPTIVE USE
OF WILDLIFE HABITAT BY PLANNING SUBBASIN IN
MICHIGAN, FOR SELECTED YEARS, IN 1000' S

OF MAN DAYS

Man Days Man Days Man Days
Planning Subbasin 1980 2000 2020

Northern Half of Upper

Peninsula 15.0 7.2 27.9

Lower Half of U. P. and
Northwest part of the

Lower Peninsula

202.3

332.4

514.

,7

Northeast portion of
Lower Peninsula

16.1

66.5

132.

,1

Saginaw Bay and Northern
Part of the Thumb Area

396.6

786.3

1,203.

.7

Southwest portion of
Southern Michigan

504.5

753.6

966.

,4

Southeast portion of
Michigan

1,596.4 2

,474.2

3,539.

.0

Source: Great Lakes Basin

Comm. , 1975c,

p. 99.

Summary of Nonconsumptive

Recreational

Use

Waterfowl hunting, trapping and fishing are
primary, direct revenue producers for the state. In terms
of hours of use, non-hunting activities greatly exceed
hunting activities (41.92 man days vs. 2.73 man days).
Although the data cannot be accurately related to a

171

dollar value at this time, some preliminary estimates
suggest that coastal wetlands have a nonconsumptive
recreational value of $138.24 acre/year.

As noted in Chapter 2, coastal wetlands are being
lost. This chapter indicates future demand for non-
consumptive uses are increasing and will double by the
year 2020. These two facts clearly reveal that the
demand for wetland use will increase as the wetland
acreage decreases.

EFFORTS TO PROTECT UNIQUE COASTAL SITES FOR NON-
CONSUMPTIVE USES

To meet future demands for nonconsumptive use,
the Michigan DNR is making an effort to preserve and
enhance natural areas throughout the state (personal com-
munication, Paul Rasmus sen) . The sites being considered
include natural areas of biological and scenic interest,
and areas of geologic uniqueness (i.e., type localities).
The coastal areas under consideration are presented in
Table 59. Of the 20 sites under consideration, at least
10 sites involve wetland localities.

The proposed coastal sites have been mapped
(Figure 25) . The data compiled throughout this report
concur with many of the proposed selections of coastal
areas identified by the DNR. Pointe Mouillee is well
known for its waterfowl habitat and documented threatened
species. The Tobico Marsh, an exceptional wetland, par-
ticularly with regard to aquatic fauna and migratory
waterfowl, is now a National Landmark (Goodwin and Niering,
1975, pp. 230 and 240). As noted by Scharf (1977),
Sleeping Bear Dunes, Tawas Point, Tobico, Pointe Mouillee,
and Sterling State Park are important nesting and migra-
tion areas for shorebirds.

172

FIGURE 25- -Proposed Natural Areas in Coastal Michigan. See
Table 59 for locations and source.

173

TABLE 59

PROPOSED NATURAL COASTAL AREAS UNDER CONSIDERATION

BY THE DNR

Area

1. Galien River

2. Warren Dunes State Park

3. Hoffmaster State Park

4. Muskegon State Park

5. Sleeping Bear Dunes

6. Wilderness State Park

7. Beaver Island Complex

8. Pointe Mouillee State
Game Area

Sterling State Park

Metropolitan Beach

Tobico Marsh

Tawas Point

Gull Island

Scarecrow Island

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Negwegon State Park and
Thunder Bay River State
Park

16. Duck Marsh

17. Bois Blanc

18. Straits Bay

19. Neebish/Sugar Island
Complex

20. Eagle Harbor

Use or Interest
Wetlands

Ancient dunes , Virgin woods
Lakeshore, Dunes, Wetlands
Lakeshore, Dunes
Wilderness area
Research/Natural area
Wilderness area

Wetlands

Wetlands and Hibiscus

Wetlands

Wetlands

Geological spit

Wilderness area

Wilderness area

Wild area

Wetland

Research/ Nature study

Wetland and Waterfowl

Wilderness area
Wetland

Source: Natural Areas Coordinator, Paul Rasmussen, Land
Resources Division, Dept. of Natural Resources,
Lansing, MI.

174

CHAPTER SEVEN
FISH AND WILDLIFE PRODUCTIVITY BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION

The productivity of fish and wildlife as related
to coastal wetlands may be presented in two ways: (1) as
wildlife and fish produced/area/year; and (2) as economic
benefits of wildlife and fish use/area/year. If the pro-
duction of fish and wildlife per wetland acre is known, a
potential average fish and wildlife production per year
may be determined by geographical area. As noted in Table
60, production has been calculated for ducks, muskrats,
raccoons and commercial fish based on estimated densities
of fish and wildlife determined in preceding chapters. The
densities are:

Ducks 0.31 flying ducklings /wetland acre/year

Muskrats 3.0 animals harvested/wetland acre/year

Raccoons 0.11 animals harvested/wetland acre/year

Commercial Fish 17.1 lbs landed/wetland acre/year

It must be recognized that the table is theoretical
in that the total production derived is largely dependent
upon the area of existing wetlands in the given geographical
regions. Thus, a lakeshore with extensive wetland acreage,
according to this procedure, will exhibit high fish and wild-
life production. More detail and a more accurate geographi-
cal perspective have been presented in the preceding chapters.
As discussed, most fish and wildlife are concentrated in
certain coastal wetland areas. The data in Table 60 assume
uniform fish and wildlife population density which, in turn,
suggests uniform environmental and habitat conditions as well
as uniform management procedures.

Based on Table 60 and the data analyzed and dis-
cussed in Chapter 3, the coastal wetlands produce large
numbers of dabbling ducks and coots. Although St. Marys
River and the Detroit River are less productive than
other coastal wetlands, overall the coastal wetlands are
more productive than the inland wetlands. At present,
the coastal wetlands comprise 3.3 percent of the state's

175

total wetland acreage, but account for 14 percent of
Michigan's annual duck production.

TABLE 60

POTENTIAL AVERAGE ANNUAL COASTAL FISH AND
WILDLIFE PRODUCTION*

Geographical

Acres
1,200

Ducks
372

Furbearers

Commercial

Area

Muskrats

3,600

Raccoons
132

Fish

Lake Superior

20,520

St. Marys River

11,978

3,713

35,934

1,318

204,824

Lake Michigan

29,846

9,252

89,538

3,283

510,367

Lake Huron

5,686

1,763

17,058

626

97,231

Saginaw Bay

33,380

10,348

100,140

3,672

570,798

L. St. Clair and
St. Clair River

15,630

4,845

46,890

1,719

267,273

Detroit River

1,420

440

4,260

156

24,282

Lake Erie
TOTALS

6,715
105,855

2,082
32,815

20,145
317,565

739

11,645

114,827
1,810,122

*Wildlife data in

l numbers

of animals

Fish data in pounds

As indicated in Chapter 4, muskrat and raccoon
harvest increases from north to south. This is to be
expected in the case of muskrats since the total Upper
Peninsula cattail acreage totals only 3,603 acres whereas
in the Lower Peninsula, cattails account for 27,206 acres.
Cattails are the primary food source for the muskrat, how-
ever, as noted in the literature, other foods include
bulrushes, pickerel weed, and sedges (Bellrose, 1950,
p. 314). Since other marsh vegetation is consumed by
muskrats, the total wetland acreage is used to determine
muskrat production in the state's coastal wetlands rather
than just the cattail acreage. The data consistently
reveal that the Saginaw Bay area as well as St. Clair,
Wayne, and Monroe Counties are the highest annual fur-
producing areas. Although the harvests in Arcadia Marsh,
Munuscong Bay and Little Bay de Noc are high compared to other

176

regions, in general, the coastal wetlands of Lake Michigan
and the St. Marys River are not high-yield areas for fur.
The production of commercial fish suggests that
Lake Michigan can support a significant commercial fishery
in the coastal wetlands. However, because yellow perch
fishing is closed and other warmwater coastal species are
insufficient in numbers , the commercial fishing in Lake
Michigan is less important than the table indicates. The
most accurate correlation between the table and the actual
commercial fishing activities is in Saginaw Bay. In the
St. Marys River, with the exception of suckers and yellow
perch, most available species are designated as sport or
coldwater, non-coastal fishes. Lake St. Clair has been
closed to commercial fishing since the 1930' s, and no com-
mercial fishing now regularly occurs in the Detroit River.

With regard to sport fish ±t is difficult to sepa-
rate the coastal wetland-related catch from the inland warm-
water catch. Therefore, sport fishing was not included in
Table 60. As noted in Chapter 5, 48 percent of the state's
total coastal fishing effort is in Lake St. Clair. This
lake accounts for 32 percent of the state's coastal catch.
Therefore, Lake St. Clair must be regarded as having the
highest sport fish production. Conversely, Lake Superior
and Lake Huron excluding Saginaw Bay, are less productive
because of the lack of extensive coastal wetlands and the
remoteness from large urban centers. In contrast, coastal
Lake Erie no longer supports a productive sport fishery be-
cause of wetland loss and habitat degradation, especially
with regard to high-value species such as northern pike,
yellow perch and smallmouth bass.

A second way of viewing wetland productivity is to
examine economic benefits with regard to a dollar value for
each geographical area. Table 61 illustrates the potential
economic benefits of coastal fish and wildlife and noncon-
sumptive values per year. The dollar value per acre of
waterfowl, fur (muskrats and raccoons), commercial and sport
fish, and nonconsumpt ive recreation is as follows:

T3

CJ H

Cd CO

5-1 4-1

O O
H
r>2

177

CO CM

oo

CM

• •

m iH

CO

oo

-H

m
en

m

CO

vo

o

o

o

o

<u

>

•H

c

4J

o

a

•H

S

4-J

y

03

CO

CD

3

>-i

o

a

a

a)

d

f*i

o

S

00
CM

oo
m

<o-

r--

oo

oo

rH

<t

rH

O

r-^

o

oo

r^

m

m

\D

r^

CO

m

CM

CO

oo

00

CO

CM

rH

*N

#N

r.

r*

*

rv

*

#\

m

m

<r

m

co

m

oo

O

vO

!H

00

<r

m

o^

oo

CO

oo

vo

r^-

co

v£>

vO

CM

CO

m

.H

CM

rH

r^

CO

rH

m
•co-

CO

CTn

H

00

CO

rH

oo

00

o>

»v

#1

r-

m

m

m

^D

m

CM

rH

vD

rH

co
co
O

CO

^D

rH

rH

CM

vD

o>

o

oo

ON

^>

CO

CM

CO

*.

*\

m

r.

o

\D

oo

CO

^D

CTn

CM

CO

rH

rH

o>

vO

CM

■CO-

bdi

■u

c

5-J

•H

o

43

a

CD

00

•H

fe

o
o

CM
CO

<r

co

•co-

oo

vO

vO

O

o

O

O

O

o

m

o^

00

CO

CM

o>

CO

r^-

ON

rH

vD

rH

rH

■<r

m

r.

»rt

#\

r.

r.

*>.

#*

ts

m

m

^O

M5

o

vD

o

<T

CM

CO

CM

<r

r^

O

CM

r-^

<r

m

vO

m

<r

<r

O^

CJ

CO

00

rH

ON

-d-

rH

o

CO

-CO-

W

rH

rd

•H

CD

CJ

c

5-4

•H

CD

,d

g

CO

g

•H

O

fe

U

CO

m

CM

m

oo

rH
00

CM

CO vO
CT> r~»

<f rH

CM

CM

rH

CO

CO

CM

CO

**£>

CO

CO

o

CO

CO

rH

rv

#N

#s

«\

Q>

m

m

o

m

CM

o
-co-

u

<x>

CO

00

O

CM

CM

I-*.

r--

in

m

^

u

d

CM

rH

rH

00

00

r~^

CM

o

CM

CO

•H

m

>X5

m

O

o

r^

CM

<r

CM

CD

Cu

*v

^

r\

IT.

#s

r»

^

w\

#\

rQ

0-

v£>

<r

oo

co

VD

m

CO

o-

CM

M

CO

CO

vO

rH

l~»

rH

r-~

<f

o

CM

P

r-J

CO

O^

rH

O

-<r

CM

CM

fo

H

■CO-

rH

CO
■CO-

rH

S

00

v£>

co

rH

<r

r^-

m

l»*.

O

CO

o

c

r^

r-~

CT>

r^

m

CM

<r

rH

m

M— 1

•H

<r

o

O

m

<r

rH

co

r-

CO

5-i

4-1

#»

#N

r.

c\

»\

r\

^

0\

0\

cd

d

r^

<t

CM

r^

CM

00

<r

<y\

m

4-J

3

CO

r^-

CO

r-

<r

00

<t

o

o

cd

S3

CO

ON

rH

o

-d-

CM

CO

&

■<y>

rH

CO

■co-

T3

1=1

CO

o

oo

VD

vO

O

O

o

m

in

crj

CD

O

r>.

<r

00

00

CO

CM

rH

m

rH

5-1

CM

CT\

oo

v£)

CO

vD

>J"

r^

oo

4-J

CJ

M

«\

«*i

r.

»v

*\

n

ri

c*

CD

<

rH

rH

CT>

m

CO

m

rH

v£)

m

^

5-i

rH
U

CD

>

CM

CO

5-1
•H

5-1

rH

5-1

o

rH

rH

o

•H

CO

cO

•H

CD

CO

CO

•H

<*;

00

r.

>.

>,

rH

CO

>

rJ

U

5-1

•H

C

CO

CO

O

rH

•H

<

•H

CD

CO

43

O

00 PCI

eq

CJ

rt

CD

H

X!

CO

a

>>

a

5-1

d

.

•H

o

Cu

CD

3

5-4

;H

d

•H

&

^

4J

•

4J

5-i

H

CO

M

CO

CO

S

W

X)

cO

CO

CO

4->

•H

W

5-4

<:

s

d

d

d

CO

5-1

O

00

CD

CD

CD

rH

•H

•H

CD

CD

5-1

CD

O

^3

•

^

^

CJ

00

00

M

T3

>

4-J

^S

CD

cO

4-1

CO

CO

X

CO

CO

CO

d

a

CD

CO

O

kJ

CO

hJ

hJ

CD

CO

CO

J

co

Q

J

178

Waterfowl Hunting $ 31 . 23/wetland acre/year

Furbearer Trapping $ 30. 44/wetland acre/year

Commercial Fishing $ 3.78/wetland acre/year

Sport Fishing $286 . 00/wetland acre/year

None on sump tive $138 . 24/wetland acre/year
Recreation

As in Table 60, it must be recognized that Table
61 is a very broad overview and the variation in habitat,
environment, and policies are assumed to be uniform from
one wetland to the next across the state. Also, the eco-
nomic benefits are area dependent. Thus, many comments
expressed about the preceding table are applicable to
Table 61 as well. For a more accurate geographical presen-
tation, it is recommended that the preceding chapters be
consulted.

The potential economic benefit of the coastal wet-
lands, in terms of fish, wildlife, and nonconsumptive recrea-
tional resources, is $51.8 million per year (Table 61).
Given 105,855 acres of coastal wetland, this amounts to
$489. 69/wetland/acre/year . Because the average annual
gross return is largely a function of wetland acreage, Saginaw
Bay with 33,380 acres is potentially the most significant
geographical area of the Great Lakes . Although Lake Michigan
aerially, and hence in terms of economic benefits is second,
significant problems do occur , in part because of the lack of
commercial fishing already discussed. In contrast, since
48 percent of the state's coastal sport fishing and 32
percent of the state's coastal fish catch is from Lake St.
Clair, the actual economic benefit of the St. Clair wetlands
is greatest and Saginaw Bay is probably second. Both areas
are adjacent to large urban areas and as indicated in the
text, these wetlands have the highest latent demand for
fishing, duck hunting and nonconsumptive uses as well.
Moreover, both areas exhibit forecasted habitat deficiency
for migratory waterfowl. Based on proximity, the Lake Erie
and Detroit River wetlands should exhibit high economic
values, but conversions to other land uses and environ-
mental degradation have resulted in lower economic values.

179

MATRIX OF COASTAL WETLAND VALUES

Table 62 is a composite of referenced values in
the text with respect to geographical location. Where
possible, the wetlands have been subdivided into individual
natural geographic units. For example, the Les Cheneaux
area is subdivided into seven wetland units. An addi-
tional unit, "Les Cheneaux," has been added here because
some references are not specific enough to pinpoint a
particular wetland within that island complex.

In any evaluation such as this, it is just as
important to indicate what literature is available in
terms of specific wildlife, fish and nonconsumptive
values as well as what information is lacking. It is
important to note that some wetlands are considered to be
of high value because their values have been well docu-
mented. However, this does not mean to say that if lit-
tle or no documentation exists for a given wetland, that
the wetland is of no value.

Based on the matrix, most coastal wetlands in the
state have some documented fish or wildlife value.
Available literature for waterfowl migration and breeding,
endangered, threatened and rare species, and avifauna is
reasonably complete. With regard to these categories,
studies in the Upper Peninsula and in coastal Lake Mich-
igan appear to be fewer than in the eastern part of the
state. Goose Island, in Mackinac County, has not been
adequately inventoried. Similarly, the wetlands on East
Sugar Island, Duck Lake, and Colton, Back, Maxton and
Fowler's Bays in Chippewa County require more information.
In the Lower Peninsula, Allegan and Van Buren Counties
stand out as inadequately inventoried areas for fish and
wildlife. Inventories such as those of Thobaben (1974a
and b) and Woodby (1974) would be most useful since their
objective was to rapidly and inexpensively document fish
and wildlife values in a given wetland. As noted in

180

Chapter 2, wetland losses are not solely confined to
southeastern Michigan, but have occurred statewide to
include the less accessible areas of the state. There-
fore, the more remote areas require investigation as well.

In general, fish and fur values, with few excep-
tions, are not well inventoried in Michigan. To our
knowledge, the regional distribution of fur areas, other
than those of southeastern Michigan (e.g., Pointe Mouillee)
has not been updated since the 1940' s. The DNR policy to
inventory fish and wildlife by region discourages or
prohibits a wetland by wetland assessment for fur.

The coastal wetlands have been ignored with
regard to commercial and sport fish. Most investigations
have been concentrated in deeper off-shore areas or up streams
and rivers. Even in southeastern Michigan where wildlife
values are generally well documented, the regional values
of fish require more investigation.

Overview of Wetland Values

Because few economic value assessments of wetlands
have been undertaken, it is difficult to compare our re-
sults to those of other studies. Nonetheless, our estimate
appears to be within the range of other research. Benson
and Perry (1965) reported that an average acre of marsh in
New York state had an annual net value of $20 per acre.
However, if gross economic values are employed, as in the
case of this study, an average annual value of $400 is
obtained (as the net value was 0.05 of the gross). Moreover,
if the 1965 value is inflated to 1977 values using a cost-
of-living factor of 1.95, then an average annual value of
$780 per marsh acre is attained. An earlier study by
Anderson (1960) indicated that the combined value of tourism,
sporting activities and fisheries was worth $167 per acre
annually for the bays in the Corpus Christi area. If
these 1960 values are converted to 1977 values by employing
a cost-of-living factors of 2.06, then a comparable 1977
value of $344 per acre is obtained. In contrast, Gosselink,

181

Odum and Pope (1973) reported an annual return per acre of
only $100 for sport and commercial fishing in a typical
marine marsh-estuary system. Even with inflation, that
value is much less than the usually high values reported
for marine estuaries.

Wetlands have economic values in addition to those
investigated in this study. Because wetlands receive
drainage from upland environments, they may act as filters,
thus reducing sedimentation and turbidity in rivers, lakes
and other water bodies. Other economic values indicate
surface water storage, groundwater recharge, and water
quality improvement through nutrient uptake by wetlands
plants. When used as a waste treatment system, wetlands
may provide over $3,500 per acre annually, especially with
regard to tertiary treatment (Sullivan, 1976). Considerable

research is currently being conducted on the use of wet-
lands for areawide water quality management as well as for
treatment of sewage effluents (Ti'lton, 1976). In short,
each wetland is unique, thus the ecological functions and
economic values should be evaluated on an individual basis,
perhaps by employing the criteria estabished by Larson (1976)

The average economic values derived in this study
vary greatly from one geographic area to another. Depending
on the wetland characteristics, and proximity and accessi-
bility to potential users, a particular wetland system may
exhibit a range of potential values. It must be emphasized
that economic evaluations based on average values per acre
suggest that larger wetlands are more valuable than smaller
wetlands. Furthermore, most of the annual economic return
values in this investigation are public values as opposed to
an average income a private landowner might expect from his
property. Thus, provided the public has access to the wet-
lands and multiple use is made of the available resources,
wetlands may generate several hundred dollars worth of gross
annual return per acre.

Our map survey has revealed that Michigan has lost
approximately 70 percent of its coastal wetland resource
base since settlement by European settlers. With regard to

182

the future, projections indicate that up to 20 percent of
the existing 105,855 acres may be impacted by private in-
terests within the next decade. This projected coastal wet-
land loss should be carefully evaluated in terms of previous
wetland losses , loss of revenue provided by the wetland re-
sources , and by the fact that unsatisfied participant demand
for waterfowl hunting and sport fishing already exists in
many coastal counties. This unsatisfied or latent partici-
pation demand for recreation appears particularly acute in
populous southeastern Michigan. Waterfowl habitat pro-
jections to the year 2000 A.D., for example, reveal defi-
ciencies for fall and spring migration use in Saginaw Bay
and along the southeastern Michigan coast (U.S. Dept . of
Interior, 1971). Habitat deficiencies result in changes
in migration patterns which, in turn, may reduce waterfowl
hunting success.

Key References

There are few basic references to consult to
determine fish and wildlife values in a given wetland.
What is perhaps most comprehensive is an environmental
impact statement prepared by a public or private agency.
However, such statements, although quite detailed, are
limited to very few geographical areas. Regionally, a
few good reports exist. Scharf s report on Nesting and
Migration Areas of Birds of the U. S. Great Lakes (1977) ,
with its inventories and maps, is an excellent source as
reflected in the matrix. Wagner et al. , (1977) have
completed a report on Endangered, Threatened, and Rare
Vascular Plants in Michigan for the Michigan DNR.
Accompanying the text is an atlas of these plants in
Michigan by county. Also included are citations of other
investigators who have reported on these unusual flora.

A regional evaluation of muskrats has been com-
pleted by Baumgartner (1942). Although not updated, a

183

good geographic study by areas in Michigan has been made
and the coastal muskrat habitats have been identified and
mapped.

Key references on fish, particularly spawning
sites, have yet to be prepared for publication. Such
data should receive priority since the dollar value of
sport fishing is $286/wetland acre/year. With regard to
types of fishes and habitats, Trautman's The Fishes of
Ohio (1957) is a useful source.

For waterfowl, the reports of Miller (1943, 1949)
and Pirnie (1935) are the most comprehensive references.
As with muskrats , the data have not been collectively
updated. Therefore, the most current sources of informa-
tion are in the files of the Wildlife Division of the
Michigan DNR.

Future land use and population trends in the
Great Lakes Basin, to include the coastal regions of
Michigan, have been prepared by the Great Lakes Basin
Commission in Ann Arbor. The 17 Appendices published in
1975-76 are comprehensive and include information on
wetlands, fish, and wildlife within a regional framework.

184

CM

vO

fa
►J

9

fa

o w

►J

en PQ
p H

> H

Q W H
W Od X
H W fa

fa

H

CO
T)
J-t
■H M

a) ti^:

M CO 4-1

o o
era

#■•

*

to

-o

T3

0)

0)

o»

•H

)-l

c

0

CU

a)

<u

GO

4-1

a

C

cO

en

cO

cu

x)

u

0)

c

XL

M

w

H

CO

erf

go

ti

•H

43
CO
•H
fa
I

CO

fa cd

a,
en

CO

CU

>-)

CO

3

fa

c

•H

CU
0)

u

PQ

o

•H
4-1

CO
U
GO
•H

s

CM

ON

CO

CO

>£)

vO

vO

cO

O

H

rH

rH

CM

CM

m

rH

CM

m

CM

rH

m

H

rH

rH

m

CO

CO

H

CM

m

H

cm r~-

»>

CM

o^
o

cc

CM

CO

00

vO

oc

m

J3

CO

• •

M

z

fa

CO

l-l

CO

o

S

en

-d

23

a

<:

>->

O

CO

►j

M

M

o

r-l

p

4J

O

en

• CO

en

• c

£>

rH

O

M

25

o

w

U

sa

O

M

o

cO

0)

25

0)

ru

py

TJ

iH

W

Z

c

GO

s

rH

4-1

fa

^

O

CO

CU

w

a)

CO

o

4-1

4-1

rH

ed

•H

o

erf

M

,d

M

GO

H

4-1

ex

w

«

bO

O

cO

erf

>>

<:

fa

o

51

fa

w

o

CO

fa

rH

o

a

PQ

P

S

Ed

o
o

4-1

"4-1

CO

a

rH

o

o
s:

o
en

O

CTs CJN

00

CM

CO

CO

00

LO

CO

v£5 ^O

O
e_>

CO

4-1

rH

a>
p

Xi
to
u

CO

s

0)

oo
co

4-1

u

o
fa

00

o

o

25
0)

-d

>»
cO
PQ

0)
rH
4J
4J

00

o
o

25

cu
>%

cO
PQ

60
•H
PQ

O

^0

0)

C5

•H

rH

a)

>-4

o
en

c>

13

<D

c

•H
4-1

a
o
o

00

00

00

CM

CM

CM

cO

o

.

e_)

>%

o

cO

o

cu

PQ

cu

o

c

C5

cO

•H

CU

c

e

cu

•H

o

u

^!

CJ

o

o

cu

CO

s

s

c

PQ

>S

cO

CO

rH

<U

PQ

CO

>»

4->

M

CO

4-1

CO

PQ

cu

u

cu

U-l

cu

CO

^

3

>

o

a

O

o

o

3

fa

rH

o

Q

fd

fa

185

CO

u

•H U

X> *T3 <1>

CU C JS

M ((! U

o o

43
CO

CO

CO

rH

A

A

CO

'd

T3

cu

cu

0)

•H

u

C

o

cu

CU

cu

60

4->

a

c

CO

CO

td

CU

T3

u

cu

C

43

n

w

H

5

LT)
<*

co «<r

rH
rH

va-

in

va-

st

13

cu

•H
4J

e
o
o

CN

w

rJ

60

•H
43
CO
•H

I

X!
CO
•H
Pn

60

a

•H

cd
fti

CO

CO

cu

r-l

as
cu

3

vO

CN

rH

r-v.

rH
rH

CO
O

rH

1

4J

§

o

cu

rv
co

co

oo

CM

|vv CN

r. |W

rH

rH

r-v

o

00

co

r~v
co

r-v.

co

vO

Csl

CM

CM

n

rv»

r^

r^

CO

m

•p
c
o

O

o
o

o
cd

d

•H
4«S
O

cd

a

•H
4J
M

4J
CO

CU
CO
CO
CU

33

O

CO

C
•H
4«S

O >>

cd cd
S «

M
cu
cu
n
u

CO

C

d

25

cd

PQ

CO
CO
•H

4J

c
cu

Vj

Pi

CO

o

c
cd

PQ

CO

•H
O
PQ

CO

cu
cu

c

CU

o

co
cu

rJ

T3

a

cd

o
o

cd

cu
ft
ft

•H
43
CJ>

U

cd

60
CO

w

cu
4«i

cd

rJ

4»J

o

Q

cd

PQ

c
o

4J
rH
O

o

cd

PQ

o
cd

PQ

cd

PQ

C

o
u
X
cd
S

cd
PQ

60
C
O
O
CO

1

>>
cd
PQ

co

U
CU

o

cd

PQ

u
cu

S h Z

cd

PQ
cu

rH

60
«3
•H
43
CO

•H

cd

CO

cu

T3

cu

•H

cd
PQ

T3

13
cd

rH
CO

CO

186

w

U M

•H "O CU

& G Si

0) cd +J

M O
O

CO

CM

m

CM

^O

co

CO

m

ve

r*>.

H

H

H

o

r«

«

co

*\

m

Ln

LO

vO

LPl

rH

LO

in

r-i

vO

rH

H

rH

CO

m

CO

m

rH

«S

A

(0

T3

T3

Q)

CU

0)

•H

u

C

CJ

Q)

a)

a)

60

4J

a

a

«

CO

03

cu

X)

M

a)

C

-C

M

W

H

n3

p3

CO

<r

CO

rH

<r

#•>

rH

LT)

<t

rH

o
m

T3

a)

e

•H
4J

e
o
u

CM

W

3

M

C
•H

CO

•H

Pn

I

x:
co

•H

Pn

.s

x

CO
•H
p*

03

w

CO

w

M

0)
M

03

0)

M

CM

*j2
CM

o

o

CM

O

-a

cu

3

a

co

•H

O

CT\

■U

rH

O^

r>

o

CTN

u

O^

v*"'

c

Q
•H
■U
03
5-i

bOl

•H

X

CO

CO

m

• co
■P »

G

O 00

o d

■H

co

CD
■H

G

a

n)

00
03

O
O

03

cu

CM

•H

u

a o

p-

-a
C

03

T3
C
O

G
Q

03

m

U
cu
>

•H
p(i

CO

u
03

s

■Ul

CO

Pn

o

p

CO

ss

M

Z

W Z
PU <
O
pej H
W S3

O H
J X

m

u
C
*H
O
PM

0)

o
c
cd

X!
CO

o

W)

G
cd

cu

CO

u

CU

>

03
M
H

CU
iH
•P

•U >»
•H CO
iJ PQ

O

u

X
•H

o
>

cu
rH
M
CO
X
O

T3

G
0)

U

cu a

> S

cO O

CU U

PQ O

O

cu

CO

<u

>

03
M
H

C

cd
»-i

O

CO

m

cu

CO

u
cu
>

CO
H

5

cO 5^»
K cO
O PQ

cc

o
u

03

c

03
H
CU
CU

3
o

4J

•H
C
CO

T3 CO

cO Ci
cO

X rH
O CO
(J4 H

O

o

cu
•H
N

c

(1)

cq

X! U

CO cu

n >

CO -H

cO CU

4-) «H

>-l CO

CU 4J

,£J CU

rH PQ

CO

co

O
O

CU
CU
■U
CO

•H
C
cd

X

CO
M

cd
X

03
•H
TJ
CO
O
5-1
-5

CU
S
cO
O

CU

cu
J->

CO
•H

d

cd

CO
CU

, u
X <

187

CO

U U

•Hfl (U

^3 a s:

CU CO 4J

u o
o

CO

LO

LO

LO

LO

LO

rH

LO

vD

LO

*

rH

H

rH

CO
LO
rH

LO
LO

rH

00

V£>

CO

rH

r^-

#>

rH

CN

\D

*> #*

CO

T3 T3

CO

co a)

•H

Ji c

O

cu a)

CU

W) 4J

a

C crj

CO

cd cu

TJ U

CU

a M

r-l

W H

s

LO

T3
CU

1

a
o
o

CM
vO

w

rJ

I

totf
C
•H
JC!
top CO
•H

•H

CO
C/T

CO

(-1

CU

u

crj
cu

u

0>

LO

LO

LO

LO

LO

CN

CN

CN

CN]

CN

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

o

rH
rH

cr>

c

rH

o

rH

§

a

•H
4J

c
o
o

5

o

4-1

u
cu

■P

CO

t>4
a

•H

cu
cu

M

PQ

C

o

•H

4J

CO

toO|
•H

co oo

LO LO

cu

■P
4J
CU

cr*

M

S

CU

u
o

Pd

CO

c

CO

CU
5

C
•H
rH

Ed

oo

LO

oo

LO

M

o

•

CU

u

o

4-1

o

CO

a

>

O

CO

4J

toO

c

a

CU

CO

cu

J*S

CU

eu

CO

o

a

O

£

cu

cO

k4

CU

4J

•H

oo

rH

oo

LO

a

o

toO
CU

CO

i

CU

.Ad

cO

rJ

I--.

oo

CO

00

oo

LO

CO

u

CO

§

4J
CO
o

T3

C

cu

CO

^5

r-4

cO

o

►J

CU
>
•H
PJS

O
M O
O N

3 cd

4J S

cO cO

bOrH

tod d CO
CU| CO £

co ^

cu
>

cO co

K -O

C

X! CO

•P rH

3 4J

O CU

CO &

co

oo

CN

JB

n

CO

i,»

•

•

n

>

o

»s

CO

•H

o

S

• di

,C

o

cu

a

•

u

d

rH

0)

rt

CO

CO

CO

a

toO

rH

o

d

CO

>,

►"J

cu

toO

O J2

cu

■H

r^

,o CO

3

•

rH

o

cu u

a-

■U

cO

,0

JG CO

CO

CO

o

cu

o S

cu

a.

188

CO

OA

r-»

v£>

co

<t

rH

rH

CO

r^-

^D

#\

r.

*C

rH

LO

rH

-vi-

CN

Csl

<t

!-J J-4

*

VD

"

MD

vO

>JD

vO

•rl -O (U

LO

LO

r^

H

^0

CM

iH

<T

rH

<t

rH

rH

ja dji

LO

LO

LO

#\

LO

VO

»

vO

#s

VD

*v

<r\

0) co 4J

rH

rH

rH

<r

H

<H

CM

rH

vD

rH

CM

o

U O

rv

^o

•>

vD

LO

LO

vO

o

LO

rH

r-

rH

rH

rH

H

X

LO

LO

n

rs

CO

rH

rH

LO

CO

LO

net
(1)

I

•H
•U

d
o

CN

w

*

A

CO

T3

T3

0)

CU

0)

•H

M

d

O

(1)

CU

cu

00

•U

a

d

co

CO

03

CU

T3

M

CU

c

X

u

W

H

cO

oq
d

•H

x
co

•H

tn

I

X
CO
•H

01}

d

•H

x
co

•H

CO
CO

CM

H

co

CT.
CTn

CO

r^-

LO

r-~

LO

<r

<t

<f

<t-

<r

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

o^
o

rH

co

co

r-«.

CN

CO
H
H

CN
rH

IN

0^
O

rH

o
o

(7-,

CO

rH

rH

m

o>

CT-.

r,

c?\

a\

o

o

H

rH

d

•H

o

4-1

o

d

rH

o

<JN

u

oo^

d

•H

0)
CU
M

PQ

CO CO

* co

CN

co

o

co

LO

CO

ccj
PQ

>-i
cu

t3

d
d
j5

H
I

d
cr

OJcO

r- CO
co co

o

co

LO

CO
LO

CO

LO

CO
PQ

>^
U
CU
CO

•H

s

o

•

P-.

O

o

O

o

u

CO

cd

cO

o

d

o

£

CO

o

o

CO

d

a

co

H

cu

3

o

M

5

e

CO

60
•H

CO

cu
O

d co

< PQ

CO
LO

CO

•P
rH

CU
T3

r-l

CU
>
•H
Pi

CU
rH

LO

CO

CO

#

CO

r-«

CN

*

CO

CO

rH

r

CO

v£>

r-»

^C

VD

e

»>

CO

LO

a'

CO

m

LO

LO

LO

4J

d

•H

o

x

co

CO

00

u

PQ CU

d

cO

d

•H

S

5 -H

d

CO rH

cr

o

d cu

•

d

o

•H r-l

o

cO

•H

00 o

o

!>.

X

CO X!

cO

O

CO CO

CO
PQ

z

H

<3

5"

cu
cu
co
co

cO

o

•H

d
co
d
C co co

cO
PQ CU

3-5

CO rH

d <u

•H H
00 o
CO X

r»

h-

CO

CO

LO

r«

r.

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

00

CO

LO

CO

LO

LO

LO

i-O

<3

O

<

CO

^

cu

>,

cu

CO

4-J

CO

PQ

CU

d

co

d

•H

CO

^

•H

o

CJ

cO

rH

Ph

•H

d

cu

d

•H

M

X

CO

00

o

co

d

cfl

X

•H

o-

CO

CO

fe

189

CO

u u

rl -d d)
42 <2 42
CU CO 4-1

u o
o

42
CO

CTi

N H<f H

vO ».^o •»

rH CM rH CM

00 rH CN rH

in »<vO "

iH r^. ,h m
m in

CM

vD

H

o

o

•»

m

m

O

rH

rH

in

T3

CU

3
C
■H
+J

C

o

CM
v£>

W
rJ

^

*•

CO

T>

T3

CU

0)

CD

•H

M

d

O

CO

CU

cu

00

4->

a

c

CO

CO

cd

CU

T3

M

CU

fi

42

u

w

H

ctJ

OS

oq
c

•H

42

co
•H

fa

!
42

CO
•H

Pm

oo

C

«H
42
CO
•H

fa

O

o>

<r

H

<r

*

<r

00

<fr

1*".

rH

<f

•st

<t

#i

1-\

rH

rH
H

H

<h

CO

CM

rH

CO

o

rH

^

CO

CO

CO

r^

00

H

rH

rH

CM

CM

*s

*S

m

O^

Cxi

en

OA

c^

CT>

0>

On

CO o\

CO

O-N

o
o

o

o

-a
cu

21
4J

a
o
o

60
C
•H

0)
CU
M
pq

00

CM
00

oo

oo

00

m

0\

#s

oo

m

r-^

i->.

00

^o

in

oo

oo

00

<H

*\

m

m

in

m

vO

00

m

r-

r-»

CO

CO

r^

r^

^

9\

oo

00

CO

CO

00

00

oo
in

CM

oo
m

oo
m

CO

P>->

CO

PQ

1

00

rH

C

£

•H

o

CO

MH

£

TJ

CU

rH

42

•H

CU

^

CO

o

•

o

o

c_>

M

•H

a

CO

CO

rH

r-A

O

•H

a

•

CO

4-1

co

CO

42
CO

u

cd

co

eJ

42

o

•-3

4J
CO

CO

CO

S3
cu

CO

u

cO

T3
C
CO

o

CO

(2
•H

a

<4H

o o

•H

H CU
CO T3
4J -H
C CO
O
(2
*> cO

O

4-1

c

CU

"O CO

CO 4-1

£2 rH

CO CU

CU

>
•H

a
o

4->

a

•H
rH

o

4->
fa

c
o

M
33

42
CO

u

u

CU

>

•H
P<S

4J
rH

CO
CO

o
u

cu

5

CU

>
•H

PS

4J

•H
O
U
4->
CU

o

42
CO

u

00
3
42

P2

d

CO

rH
CO CU

12

o
u

cu

rH

cu

cu

CO
CO

o

u
o

190

co

•H T) Q)

^ C£

CU CO 4J

n O
o

JC
CO

■sT

vO

<r

H

v£3

^

H

CM

CN

«■>

^O

^O

O

r^~

rH

rH

CO

LO

«S

CS

rH

rH

o

V£3

A

in

in

v£>

H

H

m

T3

**

r>

CO

-o

XJ

0)

0)

0J

•H

M

d

O

0)

cu

CU

00

4J

Q*

c

CO

CO

CD

CU

T3

M

CU

d

X!

J-l

w

H

CO

e

•H
X!

CO
•H

fa

I
x:

CO

fa

oq
d

•H

jd

co

•H

fa

CO

a

CO

CO

CT\

<f-

<r

rH

rH

^

^v

'X)

r^

\o

■o-

-d"

<r

rH

rH

rH

^

A

CN

MO

r>

CN

CN

<f

<r

CO

<r

<c

rH

rH

<r

rH

H

rH

rv

r\

o

o

■vt-

<r

rH

rH

CN

CO

rH

CN

^

CO

CT>

CN

rH

CT>

o

a*
o

rH

d
o

CJ>

CN

-X)

w

CO
>-i
CU

u

CO
CU
X)
M

fa

o
o

o^

<3>

d

•H

-a
cu
cu
yt

oo

00

CO
CO

v£5

00

00

o
o

cu
o
u
d

£

CN

CN

vD

oo

O0

c^

r-s

r>.

X!
CO

u

00

in

m

XI

d

rH

o

CU

cu

m

cu

Ln

CO

cu

CO

r-l

CO

CO
g

60

d

•H

rH
rH

•H

o
u
d

1

d •

co d

cu

xi

a

4J

d

o

^

X! fa

CO

6

cu

cu

o

o

g

cu

CO

1-4

co

•H

d

o

g

cu

u M

CO

CO

M

•H

43

<H

u

CO o

g

d

fa

rH

cu

CO

CU
4J

o

X!

C_)

g -H

4J

-O

o

CU

M

cu

d

4->

CO

d

CO T3

5-1

•H

^

O

•H

•H

<fl

M

u

cd

•H O

O

d

CO

JZ

M

o

O

o

cO

£

>4 O

fa

d>

►J

co

W

fa

co

fa

g

CO

W |2

191

APPENDIX

SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON NAMES OF WATERFOWL WHICH
FREQUENT MICHIGAN'S COASTAL WETLANDS

Ducks and Mergansers:
Scientific Name

Common Name

Aix sponsa
Anas acuta
Anas clypeata
Anas crecca
Anas discors
Anas penelope
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas rubripes
Anas strepera
Aythya affinis
Aythya americana
Aythya collaris
Aythya marila
Aythya valisneria
Bucephala albeola
Bucephala clangula
Clangula hyemalis
Mergus cucullatus
Mergus serrator
Oxyura jamaicensis

Geese and Brant:

Wood Duck

Pintail

Northern Shoveler

Green-winged Teal

Blue-winged Teal

American Widgeon (Baldpate)

Common Mallard

Black Duck

Gadwall

Lesser Scaup

Redhead

Ring-necked Duck

Breater Scaup

Canvasback

Bufflehead

Common Goldeneye (American Goldeneye)

Old squaw

Hooded Merganser

Red-breasted Merganser

Ruddy Duck

Anser caerulescens
Branta bernicla
Branta canadensis

Snow Goose
Brant Goose
Canada Goose

Swans :

Cygnus columbianus
Cygnus cygnus
Cygnus olor

Coots:

Whistling Swan
Trumpeter Swan
Mute Swan

Fulica americana

American Coot

Source: Johnsgaard, 1975, Waterfowl of North America

192

REFERENCES CITED

Anderson, A. A., 1960, Marine Resources of the Corpus
Christi Area, Research Monograph No. 21, Bureau
of Business Research, University of Texas,
Austin, Texas, 44 pp.

Andrews, Ralph, 1952, A Study of Waterfowl Nesting on a
Lake Erie Marsh, unpublished M.S. thesis, Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio, 171 pp.

Anonymous, 1945, "Report on Waterfowl Abundance and

Habitat on Sebewaing Bay," Game Division, Dept.
of Conservation, Lansing, MI, 6 pp .

Basch, R. E. , 1968, "Age, Growth and Food Habits of the
Spottail Shiner, Notropis Hudsonius (Clinton),
in Little Bay de Noc, Lake Michigan," unpublished
M.S. thesis, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI, 42 pp.

Baumgartner, Luther L. , 1942, Ecological Survey of Muskrat
Populations and Habitats, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Project No. 14-R, 128 pp.

Beak Consultants Inc., 1976, Fisheries Survey of Saginaw
Bay Related to the Thermal Effects of the Karn-
Weadock Generating Stations, A Report for Con-
sumers Power Co., Mississauga, Ontario, 49 pp.

Beaman, John H. , 1977, "Commentary on Endangered and
Threatened Plants in Michigan," The Michigan
Botanist, Vol. 16, pp. 110-122.

Bednarik, Karl E. , 1976, "Ohio Wildfowl Hunter Activity
and Waterfowl Harvest, 1957-1974," Wildlife
In-Service Note 323, Crane Creek Wildlife Exper-
iment Station, Oak Harbor, Ohio, 25 pp.

Bednarik, Karl E. , 1975, "Wildlife Habitat Improvement

and Management of the Magee Marsh Wildlife Area,
Project Narrative," Crane Creek Wildlife Exper-
iment Station, Oak Harbor, Ohio, 36 pp.

Bednarik, Karl E. , et_al. , 1975, "Environmental Impact
Assessment Report, Magee Marsh Wildlife Area
Dike Construction," Crane Creek Wildlife Exper-
iment Station, Oak Harbor, Ohio, 13 pp.

193

Bednarik, Karl E. and J. L. Weeks, 1971, "Waterfowl

Production in the Lake Erie Marshes," Division

of Wildlife, Ohio Department of Natural Resources,

Columbus, 24 pp.

Bellrose, F. C. , 1976, Ducks, Geese and Swans of North
America, 2nd. ed. , Stackpole Books, Harrisburg,
Pa. , 5^4 pp.

Bellrose, F. C. , 1968, "Waterfowl Migration Corridors

East of the Rocky Mountains in the United States,"
Biological Notes No. 61, Illinois History Survey,
Urbana , Illinois , 24 pp .

Bellrose, Frank C. , Jr. and J. B. Low, 1943, "The Influ-
ence of Flood and Low Levels on the Survival of
Muskrats," Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 24, No. 2,
pp. 173-188.

Belyea, Glen Y. and J. M. Lerg, 1976, Public Use of
Southern Michigan Game and Recreation Areas,
Michigan Dept. of Nat. Resources, Wildlife
Division Report 2754, 96 pp.

Bennett, Carl L. , 1965, Some Methods of Waterfowl and
Marsh Inventories , M.S. thesis, Michigan State
University, 77 pp.

Benson, D. and R. F. Perry, 1965, "An Acre of Marsh is

Worth. . . ", The New York State Conservationist,
Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 30-33.

Berst, A. H. and G. R. Spangler, 1973, "Lake Huron, the
Ecology of the Fish Community and Man's Effect
on It," Technical Report No. 21, Great Lakes
Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI, 55 pp.

Bowers, E. F. and F. W. Martin, 1975, "Managing Wood

Ducks by Population Units," Trans. 40th N. Amer.
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, pp.
300-324.

Bryan, L. , 1976, "Flooding of Monroe County, Michigan:
A Comparison of Three Remote Sensor Data Sets,"
Michigan Academician, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 425-440.

Butsch, Robert S., 1954, "The 1953 Spring Shorebird Migra-
tion at North Cape, Monroe County, Michigan,"
The Jack-Pine Warbler, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 46-53.

Cable, L. E., 1971, "Inland Fisheries-Fishing in the

Interior of the United States," In: Our Changing
Fisheries, pp. 324-358, S. Shapiro (ed. ) ,
Washington, D. C, U. S. Government Printing
Office, 534 pp.

194

Carney, S. M. , M. F. Sorenson and E. M. Martin, 1975,

"Distribution of States and Counties of Waterfowl
Species Harvested During 1961-1970 Hunting
Season," Special Scientific Report, Wildlife No.
187, Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C. ,
TT1 pp.

Consumers Power Co. , 1974, Environmental Report,

Quanicassee Plants, Units 1 and 2 , Vo 1 . 2 ,
Construction Permit Stage, Jackson , MI , 2-9.1 pp .

Core, E. C. , 1949, The Plants of Western Lake Erie After
Fifty Years. Unpublished manuscript, Stone
Institute of Hydrobiology , Ohio.

Cottrille, B. C, 1957, "Summer Distribution of the
Piping Plover in Michigan," The Jack-Pine
Warbler, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 26-33.

Cowardin, L. M. , and V. Carter, 1975, Tentative Classi-
fication for Wetlands of the United States,
(mimeographed report) U\ S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Office of Biological Services,
Washington, D.C., 48 pp.

Crowe, W. R. , 1962, "Homing Behavior in Walleyes,"
Transactions of American Fisheries Society,
Vol. 91, No. 4, pp. 350-354.

Dawson, Steven A., 1975, Waterfowl Food Production and
Utilization in Anchor Bay, Lake St. Clair,
Michigan, Unpublished M.S. thesis, Ann Arbor,
MI, University of Michigan, Wildlife Management,
124 pp.

Department of Natural Resources, 1976a, "Proposed St.
Johns Marshland Recreation Area," Revised Feb.
1976, Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI, 9 pp.

Department of Natural Resources, 1976b, "The St. Johns

Marsh - A Wetland Habitat and Wildlife Analysis,"
A preliminary unpublished report, Wildlife
Division, Department of Natural Resources, Lansing,
MI, 24 pp.

Department of Natural Resources, 1976c, "Status of State
Game Areas," Sept. 30, 1976, Wildlife Division,
Lansing, MI, 1 p.

Department of Natural Resources, 1975a, Environmental-
Impact Statement : Dickinson Island and Waterfowl
Management Proj ect , Lansing, MI, 27 pp.

195

Department of Natural Resources, 1975b, 27th Biennial
Report 1973-1974, State of Michigan, Lansing,
MI, 323 pp.

Department of Natural Resources, 1973a, Impact on the Karn
and Weadock Plants' Operation on Water Quality and
Biota in the Saginaw River and Nearshore Areas of
Saginaw Bay, Water Resources Commission, Bureau of
Water Management, Lansing, MI, 48 pp.

Department of Natural Resources, 1973b, 26 Biennial

Report 1971-1972, State of Michigan, Lansing,
MI, 283 pp.

Department of Natural Resources, 1973c, Shoreland Inven-
tory, Land Resources Division, Lansing, MI, 18 pp.

Department of Natural Resources, 1972, "1971 Michigan
Sport Fishing Survey Estimates, Appendix A, B,
and C," Research & Development Report No. 268,
Survey and Statistics Division, Lansing, MI, 148 pp .

Department of Natural Resources, 1971, 25th Biennial

Report 1969-1970, State of Michigan, Lansing, MI,
246 pp.

Department of Natural Resources, 1969, 24th Biennial Report
1967-1968, State of Michigan, Lansing, MI, 239 pp.

Department of Natural Resources, 1967, 23rd Biennial

Report 1965-1966, State of Michigan, Lansing, MI,
239 pp.

Department of Natural Resources, Current Files — Great

Lakes Fisheries, Fisheries Division, Lansing, MI.

Department of Natural Resources, Current Files--Fingerling
Production Data, Fisheries Division, Lansing, MI.

Department of Natural Resources, Current Files--0f f ice of
Surveys & Statistics, Lansing, MI, 1959.

Department of Natural Resources, Permanent File--Muskrats ,
Wildlife Division, Lansing, MI.

Department of Natural Resources, Permanent File —

Waterfowl Aerial Surveys, Wildlife Division,
Lansing, MI.

Department of Natural Resources, Permanent File-
Waterfowl Breeding Grounds Survey, Wildlife
Division, Lansing, MI.

196

Department of Natural Resources, Permanent File-
Water fowl Hunting Reservation Program, Wildlife
Division, Lansing, MI.

Doan, K. H. , 1940, "Studies of the Smallmouth Bass,"

Journal of Wildlife Management , Vo 1 . 4 , No . 3 ,
pp. 241-266.

Doan, K. H. , 1942, "The Nesting of Smallmouth Bass in

Lake Erie from 1938 to 1941, The Ohio Conserva-
tion Bulletin (May), pp. 31-32 .

Fogle, Ned E. , 1975, "Asphalt Angling," Michigan Natural
Resources , Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 18-21 .

Fukano , K. G. , 1956, "General Creel Census Records for

the Connecting Waters Between Lake Huron and Lake
Erie, 1953-1955," Research & Development Report
No. 1478, Institute for Fisheries Research, Ann
Arbor , MI , 6pp.

Goodwin, R. H. , and W. A. Niering, 1975, Inland Wetlands
of the United States, Natural History Theme
Studies No. 2, U. S. Gov. Printing Office,
Washington, D. C. , 550 pp.

Gosselink, J. G., E. P. Odum and R. M. Pope, 1973, "The
Value of A Tidal Marsh", Work Paper No. 3,* Urban
and Regional Development Center, University of
Florida, Gainsville, Fla., 30 pp.

Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1976, "Maumee River Basin
Level B Study," Preliminary Draft Report, Ann
Arbor, MI, 5-6 pp.

Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1975a, "Fish," Appendix 8
Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, Ann Arbor,
MI, 290 pp.

Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1975b, "Shore Use and

Erosion," Appendix 12, Great Lakes Basin Frame-
work Study, Ann Arbor, MI, 111 pp.

Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1975c "Wildlife," Appendix
17, Great Lakes Basin Framework Study, Ann Arbor,
MI, 141 pp. JL

Great Lakes Basin Commission, 1972, "Fish," Appendix 8,
Draft No. 2, Great Lakes Basin Framework Study ,
Ann Arbor, MI, 550 pp.

Greenwood, M. R. , 1971, "Untapped Island Fisheries -
Freshwater Commercial Fishery Resources," In:
Our Changing Fisheries, pp. 410-417, S. Shapiro
(ed.), Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing
Office, 534 pp.

197

Greij , E. , 1976, The Effects of a Marsh on Water Quality,
Project No~" A-007-Mich. " Institute of Water Res . ,
Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI, 24 pp.

Greis , A. D. , 1971, "Breeding and Wintering Areas of
Mallards harvested in various States and Pro-
vinces," Fish & Wildlife Service Special Sc.
Report - Wildlife No. 155, Washington, D.C7, U.S.
Dept. of Interior, 59 pp .

Hartman, W. L. , 1973, Effects of Exploitation, Environ-
mental Changes and New Species on the Fish Habi-
tats and Resources of Lake Erie, Technical Report
No. 22 , Great Lakes Fish Commission, 43 pp.

Hawn, L. J., 1972, "Michigan Furbearer Catch by Trappers,"
Research and Development Report No. 257, Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI, 3 pp .

Hoffman, Robert D. , and H. H. Prince, 1975, "Vegetative
Structure and Nest Distribution in a Black-
crowned Night Heron Heronry," The Jack-Pine
Warbler, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 95-99.

Howard, D. G. , 1972 , Near Shore Commercial Fishing in the
Western Basin of Lake Erie Centering on the Area
Between Monroe and Erie, Michigan" unpublished
M.S. thesis, Eastern Michigan University,
Ypsilanti, MI, 105 pp.

Hubbs, C. L. and K. F. Lagler, 1958, Fishes of the Great
Lakes Region, University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor , MI , 2*13 pp.

Hunt, G. S., 1963, "Wild Celery in the Lower Detroit
River," Ecology, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 360-370.

Hunt, G. S., 1957, Causes of Mortality Among Ducks Winter-
ing on the Lower Detroit River~" unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI, 296 pp.

Hunt, G. S., 1952, "Map of Duck Foods in Vicinity of
Sugar Island (Detroit River)," Game Division,
Dept. of Conservation, Lansing, MI, 1 pp .

Hunt, G. S. and P. G. Mickelson, 1976, Ecological Studies
at the Erie Shooting and Fishing Club Marsh and
Their Management Implications, Monroe County,
Michigan. Erie Research Committee"" North American
Wildlife Foundation, Washington, D.C., 70 pp.

198

International Great Lakes Levels Board, 1973, "Fish,
Wildlife and Recreation," Regulation of Great
Lakes Water Levels, Appendix D, Washington,
D.C. , 189 pp.

International Lake Superior Board of Control, 1974,

Feasibility Study of Remedial Works in the St.
Marys Rapids at Sault Ste. Marie, A Report to
the International Joint Commission, Washington,
D.C. , 8-2 pp.

Jamsen, Gale C. , 1976, "Michigan's 1975 Sport Fishery,"
Surveys and Statistics Services Report No. 156,
Survey & Statistics Division, Department of
Natural Resources, Lansing, MI, 7 pp.

Jamsen, Gale C. , 1973, "Assessment of the 1971 Sport

Fishery," In: Michigan's Great Lakes Trout and
Salmon Fishery 1969-72, Fisheries Management
Report No. 5, Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing, MI, pp. 20-32.

Jamsen, Gale C. , 1972, "1972 Michigan Sport Fishery
Survey: All Fishing," Appendix A, Surveys &
Statistics Report No. 122, Surveys & Statistics
Division, Dept. of Natural Resources, Lansing,
MI, 51 pp.

Jarvis, C. R. , 1976, "Fish Point Managed Hunting Report -
1976," Wildlife Division, Dept. of Natural
Resources, Lansing, MI, 10 pp.

Jarvis, C. R. , 1975a, "Fish Point Managed Hunting Report -
1975," Wildlife Division, Department of Natural
Resources, Lansing, MI, 10 pp.

Jarvis, C. R. , 1975b, "Use of Artificial Mallard Nesting
Platforms at the Fish Point Wildlife Area 1974-
75," Report No. 2738, Wildlife Division, Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI, 6 pp .

Jaworski, Eugene and C. N. Raphael, 1976, "Modification
of Coastal Wetlands in Southeastern Michigan and
Management Alternatives," Michigan Academician,
Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 303-317.

Jaworski, Eugene and C. N. Raphael, 1973, "A Morphological
Comparison of the St. Clair and Mississippi River
Deltas," Proced. of the Assoc, of Amer . Geog. ,
Vol. 5, pp. 121-126.

199

Jenkins, D. H., 1977, "Wildlife Division Biennial Report,"
unpublished draft, for 28th Biennial Report 1975-
1976 , Dept. of Natural Resources , 52 pp .

Johnsgaard, Paul A. , 1975, Waterfowl of North America, Indiana
University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 575 pp.

Kaatz, Martin, R. , 1955, "The Black Swamp: A Study in

Historical Geography," Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 1-35 .

Kadlec, John A. and W. A. Wentz , 1974, State-of-the-Art

Survey and Evaluation of Marsh Plant Establishment
Techniques: Induced and Natural, School of
Natural Resources, University of Michigan, 265 pp.

Kelley, A. H. , 1972, "Spring Migration at Whitefish Point,
1966-1971," The Jack-Pine Warbler, Vol. 50, No. 3,
pp. 69-75.

Kelley, N. T. and A. H. Kelley, 1973, "Fall Migration at
Tawas Point," The Jack-Pine Warbler, Vol. 51,
No. 3, pp. 111-115.

Koechlein, Alan L. , 1971, Nest Site Selection by Mute

Swans in the Grand Traverse Bay Area, Michigan,
M.S. thesis, Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Michigan State University, 48 pp.

Kreisman, J., J. McDonald, G. Rosenbaum, and J. Snyder,

1976, Coastal Wetlands with Emphasis on Freshwater
Systemic School of Natural Resources, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 185 pp.

Lagler, Karl, F. , 1954, "Michigan Turtles," Michigan
Conservation, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 3-6.

Lake Erie Research Unit Staff, 1976, "Status of the Ohio
Lake Erie Fisheries," Division of Wildlife
Department of Natural Resources, Sandusky, Ohio,
20 pp.

Lake St. Clair Advisory Committee, 1975, "Fishing Chart
and Guide, Lake St. Clair, St. Clair River, and
Upper Detroit River," St. Clair Consultants,
Royal Oak, MI, 12 pp.

Langlois, Thomas H. , 1954, The Western End of Lake Erie

and Its Ecology, J. W. Edwards, Ann Arbor, 479 pp.

Larson, Joseph S. (ed.), 1976, Models for Evaluation of Fresh-
water Wetlands , Water Resources Research Publication
No. 32, University of Massachusetts , Amherst, 91 pp.

200

Latta, William C. , 1963, "The Life History of the Small-
mouth Bass, Micropterus d. dolomieui, at Waugo-
shance Point^ Lake Michigan," Bulletin of the
Fisheries Research No. 5, Department of Conserva-
tion, Lansing, MI, 56 pp .

Latta, William C. , 1957, "The Ecology of the Smallmouth
Bass, Micropterus d. dolomieui Lacepede, at
Waugoshance Point, Lake Michigan," Institute for
Fisheries Research Report No. 1514, Institute for
Fisheries Research, Ann Arbor, MI, 114 pp.

Latta, William C. , 1954, "Some Observations on the Spawn-
ing of the Smallmouth Bass, Micropterus d.
dolomieui, in Lake St. Clair during the Spring
of 1953," Fisheries Research Institute Report No.
1419, Fisheries Research Institute, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Ann Arbor, MI,
7 pp.

Lawrie, A. H. and J. F. Rahrer, 1973, "Lake Superior, A
Case History of the Lake and its Fisheries,"
Technical Report No. 19, Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Ann Arbor, MI, 69 pp.

Lowe, D. S. et al. , 1976, Remote Sensing in Michigan for
Land Resource Management, Report No. NASA CR-ERIM
193400-13-P, EnvirV Research Institute of Mich-
igan, Ann Arbor, MI, 79 pp.

Manville, Richard H. , 1952, The Snakes of Michigan,

Cooperative Extension Service, Extension Bul-
letin 315, Michigan State College, 20 pp.

Martz, Gerald, F. , 1977a, "Suggested Next 5-year

Acquisition Program," Wildlife Division, Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI, 1 p.

Martz, Gerald, F. , 1977b, "Island Nesting Report,"

(unfinished draft) , Wildlife Division, Department
of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI, 23 pp.

Martz, Gerald F. , 1976, "The Mississippi Flyway Waterfowl
Habitat Reconnaissance," Wildlife Division,
Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI,
16 pp.

Martz, Gerald, F. , (undated), "Waterfowl Breeding Ground
Surveys, 1951-1966," unpublished report, Wild-
life Division, Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing, MI.

201

Martz, G. F. et al . , 1972, "The 1971 Point System Com-
pared to the Fixed-Bay-Limit Waterfowl Seasons of
1961-70," Research & Development Report No. 280,
Wildlife Division, Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing, MI, 20 pp.

Martz, G. F. and D. Ostyn, 1977, "Recovery Patterns of
Banded Scaup Harvested in Michigan, 1964-7 3,"
Report No. 2753, Wildlife Division, Department of
Natural Resources , Lansing, MI, 17 pp.

Mathiak, H. A. and A. F. Linde, 1954, "Role of Refuges in
Muskrat Management , " Technical Wildlife Bulletin
No. 10, (P-R Project 15-R) , Wisconsin Conserva-
tion Dept. , 16 pp .

McDonald, Malcom E. , 1951, The Ecology of the Pointe

Mouillee Marsh, Michigan with Special Reference
to the Biology of Cattail (Typha) , Microfilm No.
2795 , University of Michigan, Ann Arbor , MI ,
243 pp.

Messman, L. , et al . , 1977, Wetland Values, Planning and
Evaluation Methodology, Fort Belvoir, Va. , U.S.
Army Engineers, Institute of Water Resources,
214 pp.

Mikula, E. J., 1965, "Waterfowl Breeding Grounds Surveys
in Michigan," Game Division Report No. 2479,
Dept. of Natural Resources , Lansing, MI, 5~~ pp .

Miller, H. J., 1962, "Development and Preservation of

Wildlife Habitat in the Great Lakes Shoreline,"
Game Division Report No. 2391, Department of
Conservation, Lansing, MI, VI pp .

Miller, H. J., 1958, "Waterfowl Habitat - Michigan,"

Department of Conservation, Lansing, MI, 6 pp .

Miller, H. J., 1954, "Letter Pertaining to Drainage and
its Effects on Past, Present and Future Water-
fowl Utilization of the Wetlands of Michigan,
Department of Conservation, Game Division,
Lansing, MI.

Miller, H. J., 1949, "Waterfowl Breeding Ground Cover,
1949, in Michigan," Game Division Report No.
1038, Department of Conservation, Lansing, MI,
6 pp.

202

Miller, H. J., 1943, Waterfowl Survey, Saginaw Bay - Lake
St. Clair - Lake Erie, Project No. 13-R, Wildlife
Division, Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing, MI, 132 pp.

Mississippi Flyway Council, "Retrieved Waterfowl Harvest
Data, 1965-1974," unnumbered data sheets, from
personal files, Edward J. Mikula, Wildlife
Division, Dept. of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI

Natural Areas Coordinator, Paul Rasmussen, Land Resources
Division, Dept. of Natural Resources, Lansing,
MI.

Office of Planning Services, 1975, Michigan Recreation
Plan 1974, Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing, MI, 348 pp.

Ohio Division of Wildlife, 1976, "Proposed Cooperative
State-Managed Canada Goose Hunting Program on
the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge, Ohio,"
Draft Environmental Assessment, Department of
Natural Resources , Columbus , Ohio, 27 pp.

Panzner, E. Robert, 1955, Wetlands Inventory of Michigan,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wild-
life Service, Minneapolis, MN, 22 pp.

Parkhurst, B. R. , 1971, The Distribution and Growth of the
Fish Populations Along Western Shore of Lake Erie
at Monroe, Michigan, During 1970. Unpublished
M.S. thesis, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI, 71 pp.

Parsons, J. W. , 1974, "Striped Bass (Morone saxatilis) :

Distribution, Abundance, Biology, and Propagation
in N. America and Suitability for Introduction
into the Great Lakes," Greak Lakes Fishery
Laboratory, Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife,
Ann Arbor, MI, 74 pp.

Payne, Brian, R. and Richard M. DeGraaf, 1975, "Economic
Value Associated with Human Enjoyment of Nongame
Birds," Proceedings , Symposium on Management of
Forest and Range Habitats for Nongame Birds,
Gen. Tech. Rept. No. WO-1, Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.,
pp. 6-10.

203

Personal Communication, Karl Bednarik, Crane Creek Wild-
life Experiment Station, Oak Harbor, Ohio.

Personal Communication, Bob Craig, Economic Analyst, Land
Resources Program Division, Department of Natural
Resources, Lansing, MI.

Personal Communication, Randy L. Eshenroder, Director,
Lake Huron Field Station at Alpena, Michigan,
Fisheries Division, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources .

Personal Communication, Ned E. Fogle , Great Lakes Fisheries,
Fisheries Division, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.

Personal Communication, Robert Haas, Director, Lake St.
Clair Field Station, at Mount Clemens, Fisheries
Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Personal Communication, Richard Julian, U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service, Lansing, Michigan.

Personal Communication, Daniel Kitchel , Economist, Recrea-
tion Services Division, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources .

Personal Communication, Gerald F. Martz , Wetlands Specialist,
Wildlife Division, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Lansing, MI.

Personal Communication, Bill McClay, Fisheries Division,
Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources.

Personal Communication, Edward J. Mikula, Waterfowl

Specialist, Wildlife Division, Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.

Personal Communication, Gregory Olson, Fisheries Biologist,
Lake St. Clair Great Lakes Research Station,
at Mount Clemens, Michigan. Fisheries Division,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Personal Communication, Leo B. Pospichal, Wetlands

Specialist, Wildlife Division, Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.

Personal Communication, Harold Prince, Associate Professor,
Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife, Michigan State
University, E. Lansing, MI.

204

Personal Communication, Paul C. Rasmussen, Planner, Office
of Planning Services , Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.

Personal Communication, John M. Shauver, Bureau of Environ-
mental Protection, Water Quality Division,
Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, Lansing, MI.

Personal Communication, Ronald J. Spitler, Fisheries
Biologist, District 14, Pontiac, MI.

Personal Communication, Chuck Wolverton, Shorelands
Manager, Land Resources Division, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources.

Pinsak, A. P. and T. L. Meyer, 1976, Environmental Base-
line for Maumee Bay : Maumee River Basin Level B
Study, Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor,
MI, 194 pp.

Pirie, R. G. (ed.), 1973, Oceanography, Contemporary
Readings in Ocean Sciences, Oxford University
Press, New York, 530 pp.

Pirnie, Miles D. , 1935, Michigan Waterfowl Management,

Game Division, Department of Conservation, Lansing
MI, 328 pp. &

Pospichal, Leo B. , 1976, "1976 Waterfowl Hunting Season
Report, St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area," Wildlife
Division, Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing, MI, 6 pp .

Pospichal, Leo B. , 1975, "1975 Waterfowl Hunting Season
Report, St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area," Wildlife
Division, Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing, MI, 5 pp.

Pospichal, Leo B. , 1974, "1974 Waterfowl Hunting Season
Report, St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area," Wildlife
Division, Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing, MI, 5 pp .

Pospichal, Leo (undated) Preliminary Management Plan for
St. Clair Flats Wildlife Area~^ Department of
Natural Resources, Lansing, MI, 17 pp.

Price, B. and T. Kelly, 1976, Fishes of the Grand Traverse
Bay Region, MICHU-SG-76-100, Michigan Sea Grant
Program, Ann Arbor, MI, 54 pp.

205

Regier, H. A., and W. L. Hartman, 1973, "Lake Erie's

Fish Community: 150 Years of Cultural Stress,"
Science, Vol. 180, pp. 1248-1255.

Regier, H. A. etal. , 1969, "The Ecology and Management
of the Walleye in Western Lake Erie," Technical
Report No. 15 , Great Lakes Fishery Commission,
Ann Arbor, MI, 101 pp.

Ricker, W. E., 1975, Computation and Interpretation of
Biological Statistics of Fish Populations,
Bulletin 191, Ottawa, Ontario. Fisheries Research
Board of Canada, 382 pp.

Roller, Norman, E. G. , 1976, Changes in the Wetlands and
Land-Use Patterns of St. Johns Marsh, St. Clair
County, Michigan. Environmental Research
Institute of Michigan , Ann Arbor , 6 pp .

Sanderson, Glen C. , (ed.), 1977, The Management of Migra-
tory Shore and Upland Game Birds in North America,
International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, Washington, D.C., 358 pp.

Sather, J. H. (ed.), 1976, Proceedings of the National
Wetland Classification and Inventory Workshop,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ] Office of Bio-
logical Services, Washington, D.C., 110 pp.

Scharf, William C. , 1977, Nesting and Migration Areas of
Birds of the U.S. Great Lakes, prepared for U.S.
Department of Interior, Office of Biological
Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bay St.
Louis, Mississippi, 253 pp.

Schemenauer, L. G. , 1963, "Report of Recreational Use of

Pointe Mouillee State Game Area," Report No. 2413,
Game Division, Department of Conservation, Lansing,
MI , 4 pp .

Schrouder, J. C, 1975, "The Muskellunge in Michigan,"
Fisheries Division Pamphlet No. 45, Department
of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Lansing,
MI , 7 pp .

Scott, J. A., 1977, "Fisheries Division Biennial Report,"
for 28th Biennial Report 1975-1976, unpublished
Fisheries Division, Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing, MI, 13 pp.

Scott, W. B. and E. J. Grossman, 1973, Freshwater Fishes
of Canada, Fisheries Research Board of Canada
Ottawa, 966 pp.

206

Sellman, A. , et al . , 1974, Remote Sensing in Michigan for

Land Resource Management, Report No. NASA CR-ERIM

193400-1-T, Environ. Res. Inst, of Mich., Ann
Arbor, 43 pp.

Shaw, Samual, P. and C. G. Fredine , 1956, Wetlands of the
United States , U. S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Circular 39, Washington, D.C.,
67 pp.

Sheldon, William, 1965, "Hawk Migration in Michigan and
the Straits of Mackinac," The Jack-Pine Warbler,
Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 79-83.

Shepherd, R. E. , 1973 "Inventory of Fish and Evaluation
of Water Quality During Minimum Flow Period in
The River Raisin, August 1971," Fisheries Divi-
sion, Department of Natural Resources, Lansing,
MI , 64 pp .

State of Michigan, 1967, "Water Resource Ues, Present and
Prospective, for the Menominee and Montreal River
Basins in Michigan," Water Resources Commission,
Lansing, MI, 59 pp.

Stroud, R. H. , 1977, "Changing Challenges in Recreational
Fisheries," Sport Fishery Institute Bulletin No.
284 (May), Washington, D. C. , 6 pp .

Stuever, F. W. , 1941, "Raccoon Management Investigation,"
Final Report Wildlife Research, Game Division,
Department of Conservation, Lansing, MI, 170 pp.

Sullivan, Peter, 1976, "Versatile Wetlands - An Endangered
Species," reprint from Conservation News, Oct.,
15, 5 pp.

Switzenberg, D. F. , 1952, "Michigan Snakes," Michigan
Conservation, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 1-5.

Talhelm, Daniel, in preparation, "Fishery Economics of
the Great Lakes," Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI, 9 pp.

Thobaben, Robert G. , Jr. , 1974a (unpublished report) ,
Cheboygan Marsh, Biological Field Camp Report,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 3 pp .

Thobaben, Robert G. , Jr. , 1974b (unpublished report) ,

The Relative Abundance of Birds in the Cheboygan
Marsh, Investigations in Ornithology, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 35 pp.

207

Thompson, D. W. , 1964, A Study of Waterfowl Nesting in the
Southwest Lake Erie Region, unpublished M.S.
thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio,
80 pp.

Tilton, D. L. , 1976, Freshwater Wetlands and Sewage

Effluent Disposal, School of Natural Resources,
University of Michigan, 343 pp.

Trautman, M. B., 1957, The Fishes of Ohio, Ohio State
University Press, Columbus, Ohio, 683 pp.

Urban, David, 1968, The Ecology of Raccoons on a Managed
Waterfowl Marsh in Southwestern Lake Erie, M.S.
thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus , 98 pp.

U.S. Army, 1976a, Environmental Statement Ottawa River
Harbor, Corps of Engineers , Detroit District,
Detroit, MI, 80 pp.

U.S. Army, 1976b, Final Environmental Statement Main-
tenance Dridging of the Federal Navigation
Channel at Monroe Harbor, Michigan, Corps of
Engineers , Detroit District, 131 pp.

U.S. Army, 1976c, Shoreline Flood Protection Study,
Monroe County, Michigan, Corps of Engineers ,
Detroit District, 23o pp .

U.S. Army 1974a, Final Environmental Statement Confined
Disposal Facility at Pointe Mouillee for Detroit
and Rouge Rivers , Corps of Engineers , Detroit
District, 256 pp.

U.S. Army, 1974b, Proposed Diked Disposal Area on Dick-
inson Island, St. Clair County, Michigan, Corps
of Engineers , 234 pp.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971, National Shoreline
Study, Vol . 5 , U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 362 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1977, "The Nation's
Renewable Resources - An Assessment, 1975,"
Forest Resources Report No. 21, Forest Service,
Washington, D.C., 243 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, 1976, Lake Summary Reports ,
Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C, 4 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, 1972, "National Survey of
Fishing and Hunting 1970," Resource Publication
95, Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.,
Tu"8 pp.

208

U.S. Department of Interior, 1971, "Flyway Habitat Manage-
ment Unit Project," FHMUP Report No. 8, Division
of Wildlife Refuges , Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, Washington, D.C., 5 pp. plus
appendices .

U.S. Department of Interior, 1970a, Fish and Wildlife as
Related to Water Quality of the Lake Superior
Basin, A Special Report on Fish and Wildlife
Resources, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C. , 151 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, 1970b, National Estuary Study,
Vol. 3, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing-
ton, D.C . , 326 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, 1969, Fish and Wildlife
as Related to Water Quality of the Lake Huron
Basin, A Special Report on Fish and Wildlife
Resources, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C. , 134 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, 1967, Fish and Wildlife as
Related to Water Quality of the Lake Erie Basin,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C,
170 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1976, "Federal Waterfowl
Hunting Estimates," Administrative Report Series,
unnumbered, Department of Interior.

Van der Schalie, H. , 1975, "An Ecological Approach to
Rare and Endangered Species in the Great Lakes
Region," Michigan Academician, Vol. 8, No. 1,
pp. 7-22.

Veatch, Jethro, 0., 1939, "Patterns Based upon the Dis-
tribution of Swamp Land in Michigan," Michigan
Academy of Science, Arts* and Letters, Vol . 24,
Part 3, pp. 93-106.

Wagner, W. C, 1972, "Utilization of Alewives by Inshore

Piscivorous Fishes in Lake Michigan," Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society, Vol"! 101, No.
1, pp. 55-63.

Wagner, W. C, 1968, "The Sport Fishery on Little Bay de
Noc, 1965," Research and Development Report No.
146, Institute for Fisheries Research Report No.
1T^8 , Fisheries Division, Department of Natural
Resources, Lansing, MI, 20 pp.

209

Wagner, W. J. , etal. , 1977 (in preparation) , Endangered,
Threatened and Rare Vascular Plants in Michigan,
for the Department of Natural Resources , Lansing,
MI, 24 pp.

Weeks, J. L. , 1974, "Ohio Wetlands and Wildlife Ecology
Research and Management," Federal Aid Project
W-104-R-16 , Division of Wildlife, Department of
Natural Resources, Columbus, Ohio, 16 pp.

Weller, M. W. and C. E. Spatcher, 1965, "Role of Habitat

in the Distribution and Abundance of Marsh Birds,"
Special Report No. 43, Agricultural and Home
Economics Experiment Station, Iowa State University,
Ames, Iowa, 31 pp.

Wells, La Rue and A. L. McLain, 1973, Lake Michigan - Man's
Effects on Native Fish Stocks and Other Biota,
Technical Report No. 20, Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, Ann Arbor, MI, 55 pp.

Welty, Joel, C, 1975, The Life of Birds, 2nd ed
Saunders Co . , Philadelphia, 623 pp .

W. B

Westerman, F. A. and J. Van Oosten, 1937, "Fisheries of
Potagannissing Bay, Michigan," Department of
Conservation, Lansing, MI, 81 pp.

Wickland, R. G. and B. C. Dean, 1957, "Watershed Survey
Report, Little Manistee River Watershed, Survey
and Plans Report," Dingell- Johnson Project F4R7
Department of Conservation, Lansing, MI, 17 pp.

Williams, J. E. and B. L. Jacob, 1971, "Management of
Spawning Marshes for Northern Pike," Research
and Development Report No. 242, Fisheries Divi-
sion, Department of Natural Resources, Lansing,
MI, 22 pp.

Wing, Leonard W. , 1956, Natural History of Birds, Ronald
Press Co. , New York, 539 pp.

Woodby, Douglas A. , 1974, (unpublished report) , Distri-
bution and Potential Productivity of Birds in
the Cheboygan Marsh, Biological Field Camp Report
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 16 pp.

Wright, A. T. and R. Schorfhaar, 1976, "Summary of August,
1975, St. Mary's River Synoptic Fish Survey,"
Fisheries Division, Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing, MI, 10 pp.

*U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1 978--7681 32/1 01 REGION NO. 6

PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

iivivuiiiiiiin

AOOOOTO^^fl