Methods

The study area was established during Phase one of the project (Merryfield 2000) based on the following criteria:

Stockton Island tombolo (Primary Site S-16). Photograph, E.J. Judziewicz.

1) Ecological Landscapes: Ecological Landscapes that are especially significant to Wisconsin’s Great Lakes coasts and coastal wetlands include the Superior Coastal Plain, the Northern Lake Michigan Coastal, Central Lake Michigan Coastal, and the Southern Lake Michigan Coastal. ¹

2) Buffer area: Wetlands that are within 6 miles of either the Lake Michigan or Lake Superior shoreline.

Primary Site Selection and Data Aquisition

Sixty-four primary coastal wetland sites were identified during the first phase of this project (WDNR 2000) using three main sources of information: a synthesis of over 40 reports found through a literature search, several other sources of data (including aerial photographs, Wisconsin Wetland Inventory GIS coverage, NHI Element Occurrence data, Ecological Landscapes of Wisconsin, Door Peninsula, Wisconsin Critical Habitat & Natural Areas Protection Plan, Manitowoc County Coastal Wetlands, as well as other GIS coverages), and evaluation and review by NHI staff. All 28 of the Lake Superior sites had been previously identified through a two-year study conducted by NHI (Epstein et al. 1997). Primary Lake Michigan sites were extracted from five additional sources of information (Herdendorf et al. 1981, WDNR 1980, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 1997, Door County Land Use Forum 1999, and Water Resources Management Graduate Students 1998). Each of the information sources used to extract primary sites was summarized in a report prepared following phase one (Merryfield 2000). The sites resulting from Phase one had generalized site boundaries that included non-wetland areas in some cases. Site boundaries were digitized and delineated on a map included with the phase one report.

Because many of the Lake Michigan Primary sites were identified either from the literature or older DNR file information, “windshield surveys” were conducted on 26 of the 36 Lake Michigan sites during Phase 2. These reconnaissance surveys were designed to identify and prioritize areas for which more detailed future field surveys were needed. During the reconnaissance surveys, photographs were taken for the CD-ROM and web-based products associated with this project. Additional photographs were collected and limited plant surveys were conducted during Phase 3 for sites where the NHI database had insufficient or outdated data. NHI staff visited as many of these sites as project resources allowed.

Several existing sets of data were procured as part of this project in an attempt to fill data gaps and improve our understanding of the significance of the Primary Sites. Several large gaps in existing information wereidentified during Phase One, particularly for birds and fish. During the remainingphasesof the project, active field ornithologists were contacted, and five majorbird databases were procured. Efforts were made to contact the original data collectors for the Wisconsin Breeding Bird Atlas, one major data set that had not been incorporated into DNR files. A statewide fish database was procured from Don Fago, WDNR to address one of the other important information deficiencies. Finally, a methodology was developed for incorporating all of the useable data into NHI’s Biological Conservation Database. Data for natural communities and rare species tracked by NHI are included in the individual site descriptions.

Sites were ordered numerically during Phase Two of the project based on several attributes including site size, number and quality of element occurrences, development pressure, and whether the site had been surveyed for a number of different taxa or natural communities. This ranking was useful for determining which sites should be visited during Phase 3 to gain additional information. However, large disparities with respect to the amount of available data skewed several of the site rankings. Also, visits to several of the sites during 2001 revealed that rankings had been inflated due to a basic lack of information. For some of these sites, quality should have ranked lower due to poor size, quality, and/or condition.

Ordering was also difficult because of differences between Lake Superior and Lake Michigan sites in regard to the amount and quality of available information. BER was able to perform a comprehensive, detailed evaluation of the Lake Superior sites through a past major funding initiative; Lake Michigan has not received a comparable treatment. In addition, the Lake Superior sites are generally of higher quality, although some of this difference may be due to the initial pre-screening performed as part of the aforementioned study. Further, comparing sites that are quite different ecologically may be of limited use. A set of sites may contain very different natural community types. For example, lakeplain prairie occurs only at Chiwaukee and cannot be compared with other sites, and almost all of the freshwater estuary sites are on Lake Superior, with the notable exception of Mink River, and cannot be compared with Lake Michigan sites. Although these sites are not directly comparable, regional distribution and status of the communities and associated rare species (obtained from sources such as The Nature Conservancy’s ecoregional planning initiative for the Great Lakes and other state’s Heritage programs) does allow for a degree of prioritization, when combined with individual site size, context, and condition. Some sites are presently in poor condition but represent a potential opportunity for habitat restoration because of factors such as large size, remnant patches of good quality native vegetation, public ownership, and/or location. Several sites are relatively small and somewhat degraded, but contain rare species that are known only from a few populations in the entire state.

Because of these limitations, we did not order the sites numerically during Phase 3 of the project. Instead, important features of each of the sites are included in the description.

To view the Primary Sites, return to the main page and select an area on the map

1. The boundaries for some Ecological Landscapes have changed since Phase 1 of the project.