United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Resource Bulletin 

NRS-96

Northern 

Research Station September 2015

Forest Resources 

within the Lake States 

Ceded Territories 

1980 - 2013
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies:

U.S. FOREST SERVICE U.S. Forest Service 

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073 359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015-8640

Fax: (740)368-0152

September 2015 Email: nrspubs@fs.fed.us

Abstract

The Lake States ceded territories are the portions of northern Michigan, northeastern 

Minnesota, and northern Wisconsin that were ceded by tribes of the Ojibwe to the 

government of the United States of America in the treaties of 1836, 1837, 1842, and 1854. 

The tribes retain rights to hunt, fish, and gather in the 1837, 1842, and 1854 treaty areas. 

This report summarizes the results of a series of forest inventories in the region between 

1980 and 2013. Inventory results show the region has 30.7 million acres of forest land 

with forests covering 65.3 percent of the total land area. Forest features reported here 

focus on the status of six species of trees (sugar maple [Acer saccharum], black ash 

[Fraxinus nigra], paper birch [Betula papyrifera], northern white-cedar [Thuja occidentalis], 

hophornbeam [Ostrya virginiana], and balsam fir [Abies balsamea]) that have special 

historic and cultural value to the Ojibwe in addition to the standard reporting of volume, 

biomass, growth, removals, and mortality of all trees that are typically included in the 

state-level reports produced by the Forest Inventory and Analysis program of the U.S. 

Forest Service. Sections of this report also focus on carbon, standing dead trees, invasive 

plant species, and ground flora.

Cover Photo

Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Michigan. Photo by Cassandra M. Kurtz, 

U.S. Forest Service.

Manuscript received for publication 4 February 2015
Forest Resources within the 

Lake States Ceded Territories 

1980 - 2013

About the Authors

CASSANDRA M. KURTZ is a natural resource specialist with Forest Inventory and 

Analysis (FIA), Northern Research Station, St. Paul, MN.

W. KEITH MOSER is a research forester with the Forests and Woodland Ecosystems 

Science Program, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Flagstaff, AZ.

MARK H. HANSEN is a research associate in the Department of Forest Resources, 

University of Minnesota, and retired research forester with FIA, Northern Research Station, 

St. Paul, MN.

DALE D. GORMANSON is a forester with FIA, Northern Research Station, St. Paul, MN.

MARK A. HATFIELD is a forester with FIA, Northern Research Station, Durham, NH.

PAUL A. SOWERS is a forestry technician with FIA, Northern Research Station, St. Paul, MN.

MICHAEL J. DOCKRY is a research natural resource specialist with the Strategic Foresight 

and Rapid Response Group, Northern Research Station, St. Paul, MN.

MARLA R. EMERY is a research geographer, Northern Research Station, Burlington, VT.

CHRISTOPHER W. WOODALL is a research forester with FIA, Northern Research Station, 

St. Paul, MN.

BRIAN F. WALTERS is a forester with FIA, Northern Research Station, St. Paul, MN.

GRANT M. DOMKE is a research forester with FIA, Northern Research Station, St. Paul, MN.

JONATHAN GILBERT is the wildlife section leader with Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 

Commission (GLIFWC), Odanah, WI.

ALEXANDRA WROBEL is a forest ecologist with GLIFWC, Odanah, WI.

Resource Bulletin NRS-96

Cassandra M. Kurtz, W. Keith Moser, Mark H. Hansen, Dale D. Gormanson, 

Mark A. Hatfield, Paul A. Sowers, Michael J. Dockry, Marla R. Emery, 

Christopher W. Woodall, Brian F. Walters, Grant M. Domke, 

Jonathan Gilbert, and Alexandra Wrobel
Page intentionally left blank
PREFACE

Understanding forest inventory information is essential to having a greater knowledge 

of complex forest conditions and the interdependent plants, animals, and human uses 

and opportunities. This report summarizes data collected over 34 years (1980 through 

2013) in the Lake States ceded territories (LSCT), and provides both quantifiable 

information and a discussion of what the findings mean. Resource professionals 

and interested readers benefit from this reliable inventory. We invite you to read 

and consider this report hoping it will stimulate additional discussion, analyses, and 

education about some of the LSCT greatest treasures. This report represents the first 

time that forest conditions have been reported by the U.S. Forest Service using the 

boundaries of the ceded territories and as such presents an opportunity for tribes, the 

U.S. Forest Service, and natural resource managers in the region to come together 

around the management and resources of these forests.

Turtle Lake, Itasca County, Minnesota. Photo by Christie L. Kurtz, used with permission.
Page intentionally left blank
CONTENTS

Highlights............................................................................................................... 1

Background ........................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4

A Beginner’s Guide to Forest Inventory .......................................................... 5

 Forest Inventory........................................................................................ 5

 Sampling Phases...................................................................................... 6

 A Word of Caution on Suitability and Availability ...................................... 9

Forest Features ................................................................................................... 10

Forest and Timberland Area.......................................................................... 11

Ownership..................................................................................................... 12

Forest Type Distribution ................................................................................ 13

Tree Species Composition............................................................................ 17

Biomass and Growing-Stock Volume............................................................ 19

Forest Growth, Removals, and Mortality....................................................... 21

Carbon .......................................................................................................... 24

Standing Dead Trees .................................................................................... 27

Forest Economics................................................................................................ 30

Sawtimber Volume and Quality..................................................................... 31

Forest Indicators.................................................................................................. 33

Ground Flora................................................................................................. 34

Invasive Plant Species.................................................................................. 36

Tree Species of Cultural Significance.................................................................. 44

Introduction ................................................................................................... 45

Sugar Maple (Ininaatig) Acer saccharum...................................................... 47

Black Ash (Wiisagaak) Fraxinus nigra .......................................................... 51

Paper Birch (White Birch; Wiigwaas) Betula papyrifera................................ 54

Northern White-Cedar (Giizhik) Thuja occidentalis....................................... 58

Hophornbeam (Eastern Hophornbeam, Ironwood; Maananoons)

 Ostrya virginiana....................................................................................... 60

Balsam Fir (Zhingob) Abies balsamea.......................................................... 64

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................... 67

Glossary .............................................................................................................. 68

Literature Cited.................................................................................................... 74

Appendix: Tree species observed on FIA plots in the Lake States 

ceded territories. ........................................................................................... 80

Table Titles........................................................................................................... 82
Trickling stream. Photo by Cassandra M. Kurtz, U.S. Forest Service.
1

HIGHLIGHTS

• The amount of forest land in the Lake States ceded territories (LSCT) is estimated at 

30.7 million acres, covering 65.3 percent of the total land area.

• Timberland is estimated at 28.5 million acres of which 16.4 million acres are 

privately held (57.5 percent; private ownership includes tribal reservation lands).

• Eighty tree species were found on inventory plots in the LSCT and include 64 

hardwood species and 16 softwood species.

• Forest types vary across the region with aspen being the dominant forest type (5.8 

million acres; 20.3 percent of timberland).

• Abundance of snags (i.e., standing dead trees) has remained relatively stable over 

the last decade.

• Since 1980 there has been a 10.6 percent increase in sugar maple trees on 

timberland.

• Black ash volume is increasing but these trends are not expected to continue due to 

the emerald ash borer (EAB).

• There are now about half as many paper birch trees (5 inches diameter and greater) 

on timberland as there were in 1980; the area also saw a 10 to 38 percent decline in 

the number of paper birch trees 9 inches in diameter and larger, varying by treaty 

area.

• The northern white-cedar population is aging and there has been a modest decrease 

in the small diameter trees.

• Hophornbeam trends suggest this species will continue to be present throughout the 

region in the future, however its status should be monitored in the 1842 Treaty area 

where there has been a 20 percent decrease in large trees (7 inches in diameter and 

greater) between 2008 and 2013.

• Balsam fir dominates the softwoods 1 inch diameter or larger while northern whitecedar dominates the trees 5 inches in diameter and greater.

• Since 2008, there has been a roughly 9 percent increase in sawtimber volume.

• The overall net growth to removal ratio is 1.7 indicating growth exceeds removals 

by 70 percent.

• The total forest land carbon stock is estimated at 3.2 billion tons.

• Nine hundred and fifty-one plant species were observed on the subset of plots on 

which ground flora were monitored; Canada mayflower was the most common 

species.

• Twenty-eight of the 44 monitored invasive plant species were observed with 26.4 

percent of plots having one or more of these plants present.
2

Page intentionally left blank
3

BACKGROUND

Forest road, Bigfork, Minnesota. Photo by Cassandra M. Kurtz, U.S. Forest Service.
4

INTRODUCTION

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) member tribes and the U.S. 

Forest Service negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 1998, which was 

ratified by nine GLIFWC member tribes: Bay Mills, Bad River, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac 

du Flambeau, Lac Vieux Desert, Mille Lacs, Mole Lake, St. Croix, and Red Cliff. Two 

additional GLIFWC member tribes, Keweenaw Bay and Fond du Lac, signed the MOU 

in 2000 and 2012, respectively. Through interactions among the parties to this MOU, the 

idea of writing this report was developed; it is modeled after similar state-level reports. The 

collaboration is an effort to support the tribes view of managing resources to the seventh 

generation, sustainable natural resource management, and the federal trust responsibility to 

American Indian tribes. The report uses information routinely compiled by the U.S. Forest 

Service Northern Research Station’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, yet it is 

presented here to maximize its usefulness for tribes and resource managers responsible for 

managing natural resources within the ceded territories.

The area covered by this report, the Lake States ceded territories (LSCT), represents four 

territories ceded by the Ojibwe people to the United States in four cession treaties: the 

1836 Treaty covering a portion of Michigan’s lower peninsula and the eastern half of the 

Upper Peninsula, the 1837 Treaty covering a portion of northern Wisconsin and east central 

Minnesota, the1842 Treaty covering a portion of northern Wisconsin and the western half 

of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and the 1854 Treaty covering northeast Minnesota and 

creating the current reservations (Fig. 1). GLIFWC represents 11 Ojibwe tribes in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan.

The Ojibwe people have a long history of living in the Great Lakes region in what now 

comprises portions of the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. They have managed 

Figure 1.―Lake States ceded territories boundaries (by color) and the 11 Ojibwe member tribes 

and approximate locations (red).
5

the forests and natural resources throughout the region for many generations. Prior to European 

settlers, the Ojibwe people lived a semi-nomadic lifestyle, moving seasonally among camps 

harvesting and cultivating foods, medicines, utility supplies, and ceremonial items.

The French were the first Europeans in the Great Lakes area in the 1600s. During the next 

two centuries, more Europeans continued to move into the Great Lakes region, including 

the Ojibwe territories, in search of fur, timber, minerals, and eventually land for settlement 

and agriculture. In the 1800s, the United States government exerted control over vast areas 

of Ojibwe and other tribal territories through cession treaties. Treaties are legal agreements 

between two sovereign governments and are considered the “supreme law of the land” in the 

U.S. Constitution. In many of these treaties, the Ojibwe ceded the land to the United States 

but retained their rights to hunt, fish, and gather in the ceded territories to sustain their ways 

of living. In other words, the tribes ceded land but not their rights to use the land and natural 

resources. Tribal leaders approached treaty negotiations with caution and skepticism and 

often only agreed to sign if there was a guaranteed reservation of tribal rights. These reserved 

usufructuary rights are often referred to as treaty rights (Danielsen and Gilbert 2002). The 

tribes reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights in the 1837, 1842, and 1854 Treaties with 

the United States government.

Today, the Ojibwe tribes continue to exercise their treaty rights within the ceded territories. 

The landscapes comprising these four ceded territories are diverse, perhaps more diverse than 

that found in any individual state, ranging from prairie fringe at the southern and western 

portions to mixed laurentian forests more to the north and the boreal forests of northern 

Minnesota. In order for the Ojibwe tribes to sustain their lifestyle and their harvesting 

traditions, it is imperative that the forests in the ceded territories be well cared for and 

managed. Knowing current conditions and forest resource trends are the first steps in ensuring 

that all resources remain for at least seven generations, a long-term value held by many 

GLIFWC tribal members.

A BEGINNER’S GUIDE TO FOREST INVENTORY

Forest Inventory

Information on the condition and status of LSCT forests was obtained from the data collected 

by the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) 

program. Resource data tables are available on the CD included with this report; table titles 

are listed beginning on page 82. For detailed information on inventory methods, see the 

“Statistics, Methods, and Quality Assurance” sections on the DVDs of Minnesota (Miles et al. 

2011), Wisconsin (Perry et al. 2012), and Michigan (Pugh et al. 2012) forest inventory reports. 

Additional information on the inventory design can be found in Bechtold and Patterson (2005).

What is a tree?

We know a tree when we see one and we can generally agree on some common tree attributes. 

A problem arises when differentiating which species should be classified as shrubs and which 

should be classified as trees. In general, FIA defines a tree as any perennial woody plant 

species that can attain a height of 15 feet at maturity. Throughout this report, the size of a tree 

is expressed as diameter which refers to diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) in inches taken at 

4.5 feet, outside bark.
6

A complete list of tree species of the LSCT measured in this inventory can be found in the 

appendix.

What is a forest?

FIA defines forest land as land that is at least 10 percent stocked by trees of any size or 

formerly having such tree cover and not currently developed for nonforest use. In general, 

forest land must be at least 1 acre in size, and 120 feet in width.

Sampling Phases

Inventories are conducted in three phases. During the first phase (Phase 1 or P1), aerial 

photographs, digital orthophoto quadrangles (DOQs), and satellite imagery are used for 

initial plot measurement via remotely sensed data and stratification. Analysts determine 

a digitized geographic location for each field plot and a land cover/use is assigned to the 

plot. All plot locations that could possibly contain accessible forest lands that satisfy FIA’s 

definition of forest land are selected for further measurement via field crew visits.

The second phase (Phase 2 or P2) of the inventory consists of measuring the annual sample 

of field plots. Current FIA procedures require a sampling intensity of approximately one 

forest inventory plot for every 6,000 acres, with some regions having intensified sampling 

due to stakeholder interest and funding. FIA has divided the entire area of the United States 

into nonoverlapping hexagons, each of which contains 5,937 acres (McRoberts 1999). 

The total Federal base sample of plots is systematically divided into five interpenetrating, 

nonoverlapping subsamples or panels. Each year the plots in a single panel are measured, 

and panels are revisited on a rotating, 5-year basis. For estimation purposes, the 

measurement of each panel of plots may be considered an independent systematic sample of 

all land in a region and can be used to generate unbiased estimates and associated sampling 

errors for attributes such as total forest land area.

The overall P2 plot layout consists of four subplots. The centers of subplots 2, 3, and 4 

are located 120 feet from the center of subplot 1 (Fig. 2). The azimuths from subplot 1 to 

subplots 2, 3, and 4 are 0, 120, and 240 degrees, respectively. Trees with a d.b.h. 5 inches 

Figure 2.―Forest Inventory and 

Analysis plot layout.
7

and larger are measured on a 24-foot radius (1/24 

acre) circular subplot. All trees 1.0 to 4.9 inches 

d.b.h. are measured on a 6.8-foot radius (1/300 

acre) circular microplot located 12.0 feet east of 

the center of each of the four subplots. Forest 

conditions that occur on any of the four subplots 

are recorded. Factors that differentiate forest 

conditions are changes in forest type, stand size 

class, land use, ownership, and tree density.

The third phase of the inventory (Phase 3 or P3) 

focuses on forest health. For this report, the P3 

plots measured were a 1/16 subset of P2 plots 

with approximately one P3 plot for every 96,000 

acres. Measurements on these plots are obtained by field crews during the growing season 

and include an extended suite of ecological data such as the forest flora and down woody 

material. Further information about P2 and P3 data collection can be found at http://fia.

fs.fed.us/library/fact-sheets/.

What is the difference between timberland, reserved forest land, and other 

forest land?

FIA categorizes three types of forest land: timberland, reserved forest land, and other forest 

land. In the LSCT, 93 percent of the forest land is timberland, 5.5 percent is reserved forest 

land, and 1.4 percent is other forest land (values do not total 100 due to rounding).

• Timberland is forest land that is capable of producing at least 20 cubic feet of 

industrial wood per acre per year and is not withdrawn from timber utilization. 

Inaccessible and inoperable areas are included.

• Reserved forest land is land withdrawn from timber utilization through legislation 

or administrative regulation without regard to productive status, e.g., designated 

natural and wilderness areas.

• Other forest land is land that is not capable of producing 20 cubic feet of industrial 

wood per acre per year (e.g., some northern white-cedar swamps or infertile jack 

pine barrens) and is not restricted from harvesting.

How many trees are in the LSCT?

It is estimated the LSCT forest land contains nearly 5 billion trees that are 5 inches d.b.h. or 

larger. Including the smaller trees, at least 1 inch d.b.h., the number increases to nearly 23.8 

billion. These are estimates of the number of trees; we do not know the exact number since 

the estimates were derived from samples of the forest area.

How do we estimate a tree’s volume?

FIA has typically expressed volumes in terms of cubic feet. However, most people may be 

more familiar with cords (a stack of wood 8 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 4 feet high). A cord 

has approximately 79 cubic feet of solid wood and 49 cubic feet of bark and air.

Measuring diameter. Photo by U.S. Forest Service.
8

Volume can be precisely determined by immersing a tree in a pool of water and measuring 

the amount of water displaced. Less precise, but much less expensive, is the method 

used by FIA. Several hundred cut trees were measured by taking detailed diameter 

measurements along their lengths to accurately determine their volumes (Hahn 1984). 

Regression lines were then fit to these data by species group. Using these regression 

equations, we produce individual tree volume estimates based on species, diameter, and 

tree site index.

The same method is used to determine sawtimber volumes. FIA reports sawtimber volumes 

in 1⁄4-inch International board foot scale. Conversion factors for converting to Scribner 

board foot scale are also available (Smith 1991).

How much does a tree weigh?

The U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Products Laboratory and others developed specific gravity 

estimates for a number of tree species (Miles and Smith 2009). These specific gravities 

are applied to tree volume estimates to derive estimates of merchantable tree biomass (the 

weight of the bole). To estimate live biomass, the weight of the stump (Raile 1982), limbs, 

and bark (Heath et al. 2009) are added. The live biomass of roots or foliage is not currently 

reported in FIA inventories.

Forest inventories report biomass as green or oven-dry weight. Green weight is the weight 

of a freshly cut tree; oven-dry weight is the weight of a tree with 0 percent moisture 

content. On average, 1 ton of oven-dry biomass is equal to 1.9 tons of green biomass.

How do we estimate all the forest carbon pools?

FIA does not directly measure the carbon in standing trees or belowground pools. Instead, 

FIA assumes that half the biomass in trees consists of carbon. The remaining carbon pools 

(e.g., soil, understory vegetation, belowground biomass) are modeled based on stand/site 

characteristics (e.g., stand age and forest type).

How do we compare data from different inventories?

Data from new inventories are often compared with data from earlier inventories to 

determine trends in forest resources. For comparisons to be valid, the procedures used 

in the two inventories must be similar. As a result of FIA’s ongoing efforts to improve 

efficiency and reliability of the inventory, several changes in procedures and definitions 

have occurred over time. Although these changes will have little effect on statewide and 

regional estimates of forest area, timber volume, and tree biomass, they may significantly 

affect plot classification variables such as forest type and stand size class. Because of the 

changes that have taken place over time, some variables are inappropriate to compare 

between inventories.

In this report we present inventory estimates primarily for the years 1980, 1990, 2008, and 

2013. For some variables, we present estimates for years between 2003 and 2013. All of 

these estimates are based on FIA field plot measurements taken over a period of several 

years. Data for the 1980 estimates are derived from measurements taken on 14,330 forest 

plots measured between 1975 and 1982. Data for the 1990 estimates are derived from 
9

measurements taken on 16,563 forest plots measured between 1986 and 1995. In 1999 

FIA began implementation of an annual inventory system where plots are permanently 

established and measured every fifth year with one-fifth (20 percent) of the plots being 

measured each year and inventory estimates for a specific year based on those plots 

measured in the 5-year period ending with that year. Under this new system, data for the 

2013 estimates are from measurements taken on 8,747 forest plots measured between 2009 

and 2013 and for the 2008 estimates are from measurements taken on 11,859 forest plots 

measured between 2004 and 2008.

A Word of Caution on Suitability and Availability

FIA does not attempt to identify which lands are suitable or available for timber harvesting, 

particularly because such suitability and availability are subject to changing laws, 

economic/market constraints, physical conditions, adjacency to human populations, and 

ownership objectives. The classification of land as timberland does not necessarily mean it 

is suitable or available for timber production.

FIA endeavors to be precise in definitions and implementation. The program tries to 

minimize changes to these definitions and collection procedures, but that is not always 

possible or desirable. Although change is inevitable, we hope that through clarity and 

transparency the forest inventory data collected will be of use to analysts for decades to 

come.

Lake of the Clouds, Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Michigan. 

Photo by Cassandra M. Kurtz, U.S. Forest Service.
10

FOREST FEATURES

Sugar maple stand. Photo by Christie L. Kurtz, used with permission.
11

FOREST AND TIMBERLAND AREA

Background

Area estimates are the most basic, easily understood, and frequently cited of all forest 

inventory estimates. They are essential in assessing the status of a region’s forest 

ecosystems. Fluctuations in forest land area estimates may indicate changing land use 

or forest health. The LSCT is a heavily forested area (Fig. 3) with a matrix of farmland, 

residential areas, recreational areas, and industrial land uses such as mining and metallurgy.

What we found

The LSCT forest land area is estimated to be 30.7 million acres (Fig. 4) with forests 

covering 65.3 percent of the total land area. Timberland area is estimated at 28.5 million 

acres, accounting for 93 percent of the forest land. Reserved forests make up an estimated 

1.7 million acres. Other forest land that has very low productivity, does not meet standards 

for timberland, and is not reserved from harvesting, makes up an estimated 437,000 acres 

(1.4 percent of the total forest land area). The number of forested acres in the LSCT 

increased by about 1.8 million acres between 1980 and 2013.

Figure 3.―Canopy cover (Coulston et al. 2012) within the Lake States ceded territories. Canopy cover is a measure 

of forest density.
12

Assessing timberland by treaty area, there are about 8.3 million acres of timberland in the 

1842 Treaty area, 7.1 million acres in the 1837 Treaty area, 5.4 million acres in the 1836 

Lower Peninsula Treaty area, 3.9 million acres in the 1854 Treaty area, and 3.8 million 

acres in the 1836 Upper Peninsula treaty area.

What this means

In the 34 years of monitoring the LSCT, forest land area has remained relatively stable 

across the region with increases in forest and timberland since the 1980 inventory. Some 

increase is due to areas reverting from nonforest to forest while other increases are due to 

improved digital and aerial imagery and advancements in geographic information systems, 

which resulted in the ability to identify forest land that was previously given a nonforest 

classification. The current forest land and timberland estimates are at the highest level since 

1980, however agriculture and development may cause a loss of these forested areas in the 

future.

OWNERSHIP

Background

Forest ownership has a large impact on how land is managed. It is the forest owners who 

ultimately control their forests’ management and fate. FIA conducts the National Woodland 

Owner Survey (NWOS) to better understand who owns the forests, why they own them, and 

how they are used (Butler et al., in press).

What we found

Most forested land in the LSCT is privately owned. Of the 28.5 million acres of timberland, 

16.4 million acres (57.5 percent) are held by private landowners (2013) (Table 1). The 

private landowner category includes corporate, nongovernmental conservation/natural 

resources organizations, unincorporated partnerships/associations/clubs, Native American 

lands within the reservation boundaries, and individual owners. The States and Federal 

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Area (million acres)

Year 

Timberland

Forest land

Figure 4.―Area of timberland and forest land in the Lake States ceded territories by inventory year. 

Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the estimated mean.
13

government each own 16.1 percent of the timberland and the counties own 10.4 percent. 

The total area of timberland remained relatively stable between 2008 and 2013 with all 

ownership classes increasing in acreage, except for counties, which saw a decrease of 

66,600 acres (Table 1). Considering ownership area as a percentage of the total timberland, 

all ownership classes declined, except for State land, due to a large increase in State 

ownership (309,700 acres of timberland) while the other ownership classes held relatively 

stable.

What this means

Management objectives vary by ownership class. Due to more intense harvesting on State 

and county lands, the percentage of early succession aspen forest type in relation to the 

total acres of timberland is greater on State and county land (21.6 and 30.0 percent of the 

total acreage, respectively) than on Federal or private land (18.5 and 18.6 percent of the 

total acreage, respectively). With most timberland held by private individuals, each owner 

can manage his or her land as desired. Both private forests (which include reservations) 

and public forests have immense social, cultural, ecological, and economic value to tribal 

members. Sound management helps ensure that the desired resources are available and 

protected for future generations to harvest trees and other forest products for spiritual, 

ceremonial, medicinal, subsistence, and economic needs. It is important that harvesting of 

these gifts from the earth is done in a sustainable manner as healthy natural resources are of 

critical importance and enhance the quality of life for the tribal community by feeding the 

body and spirits.

FOREST TYPE DISTRIBUTION

Background

Forest types are logical ecological groupings of species mixes as defined by Eyre (1980). 

Forest type is determined by the stocking (relative density) that tree species contribute to a 

sampled condition. In stands with a mixture of size classes, the assignment of forest types 

is weighted toward the larger trees, which contribute more to stocking. The forest type is 

influenced by many factors ranging from competition between species, natural succession, 

and natural and manmade disturbances. Related forest types are combined into forest-type 

groups (e.g., white/red/jack pine group).

Table 1.― Acres and percent of timberland by ownership, Lake States 

ceded territories, 2008 and 2013

Ownership

2008 Area

(% of total timberland)

2013 Area

(% of total timberland)

Acres (%) Acres (%)

Federal 4,582,626 (16.3) 4,582,700 (16.1)

State 4,275,165 (15.2) 4,584,820 (16.1)

County 3,028,931 (10.8) 2,962,330 (10.4)

Private 16,245,861 (57.7) 16,402,360 (57.5)

Total 28,132,585 (100%) 28,532,212 (100%)
14

What we found

This area supports a diverse mix of forest-type groups. Distribution of forest-type groups 

across the Lake States is shown in Figure 5. Aspen/birch predominates the northwestern 

part of the LSCT, maple/beech/birch the middle, and a mix of aspen/birch and white/red/

jack pine at the eastern edge. The top four forest types (aspen, sugar maple-beech-yellow 

birch, oak, and hard maple-basswood) cover over half of the timberland area. (Common 

names and Latin names for all tree species found in the LSCT are listed in the appendix.)

Most of the timberland in the LSCT is hardwood forest (71.2 percent), followed by 

softwood (28 percent), and nonstocked (<1 percent). Aspen is the dominant forest type, 

occupying 5.8 million acres or 20.3 percent of the timberland area (Fig. 6) and is closely 

followed by the sugar maple-beech-yellow birch forest type, which grows on 5 million 

acres or 17.5 percent of the timberland area. Other forest types that are found on over 

5 percent of the timberland in the LSCT include: oak, hard maple-basswood, lowland 

hardwoods, and red pine. Since 2003, there has been a decrease in the acreage of aspen, 

black spruce, and tamarack and an increase in the other forest types. These trends are 

important to monitor as forests change over time due to succession, insects, disease, and 

other forest threats.

Figure 5.―Forest-type groups (Wilson et al. 2012) in the Lake States ceded territories.
15

20%

17%

8%

8%

7%

6%

5%

4%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

3%

2% 1% 1% 1%

Aspen, 20%

Sugar maple/beech/yellow birch, 17%

Oak, 8%

Hard maple/basswood, 8%

Lowland hardwoods, 7%

Red pine, 6%

Northern white-cedar, 5%

Black spruce, 4%

Upland red maple, 4%

Eastern white pine, 4%

Paper birch, 3%

Other upland hardwoods, 3%

Tamarack, 3%

Jack pine, 3%

Balsam fir, 2%

White spruce, 1%

Nonstocked, 1%

Other softwoods, 1%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Jack pine

Red pine

Eastern white pine

Balsam fir

White spruce

Black spruce

Tamarack

Northern white-cedar

Other softwoods

Oak

Hard maple/basswood

Sugar maple/beech/yellow birch

Upland red maple

Lowland hardwoods

Aspen

Paper birch

Other upland hardwoods

Nonstocked

Timberland (million acres)

Forest Type

1836 Lower Peninsula

1836 Upper Peninsula

1837

1842

1854

Treaty Area

Figure 6.―Proportion of timberland by forest type, Lake States ceded territories, 2013.

Figure 7.―Timberland area by forest type and treaty area, Lake States ceded territories, 2013.

Forest types vary by treaty area (Fig. 7). Oak (1.0 million acres) is the most common 

forest type on timberland of the 1836 Lower Peninsula Treaty area, followed by aspen (0.7 

million acres), and sugar maple-beech-yellow birch (0.7 million acres). In the 1836 Upper 

Peninsula Treaty area, the top three forest types are sugar maple-beech-yellow birch (1.0 

million acres), northern white-cedar (0.6 million acres), and aspen (0.5 million acres). The 
16

1837 Treaty area is dominated by aspen (1.5 million acres) and oak (1.1 million acres). In 

the 1842 Treaty area, sugar maple-beech-yellow birch and aspen are the dominant forest 

types, each occupying over 1 million acres of timberland (2.3 million and 1.6 million acres, 

respectively). The 1854 Treaty area is dominated by aspen, with over 1 million acres in this 

forest type, more than double the acreage of the next most common forest type (black spruce; 

0.5 million acres).

Analyzing the timberland data by ownership category shows interesting differences (Fig. 8). 

In the Federal, State, and county ownership classes, aspen forest type covers the most area, 

followed by sugar maple-beech-yellow birch (Table 2). On Federal land there is slightly 

more timberland with aspen than sugar maple-beech-yellow birch, however on State land, 

the area covered by aspen forest type is nearly double that of sugar maple-beech-yellow 

birch. On county lands, aspen covers nearly three times the acreage of sugar maple-beechyellow birch while in the private ownership category, sugar maple-beech-yellow birch covers 

the greatest amount of timberland area (followed by aspen). These two dominant forest types 

represent from 34 to 40 percent of the forested area in each of the ownership classes.

What this means

Site characteristics, past management, and adaptive abilities of species within forest types 

influence the forest type distribution of the LSCT. The climate, soil, and physiography affect 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Jack pine

Red pine

Eastern white pine

Balsam fir

White spruce

Black spruce

Tamarack

Northern white-cedar

Other softwoods

Oak

Hard maple/basswood

Sugar maple/beech/yellow birch

Upland red maple

Lowland hardwoods

Aspen

Paper birch

Other upland hardwoods

Nonstocked

Timberland (million acres)

Forest Type

Federal

State

County

Private

Ownership

Figure 8.―Timberland area by forest type and ownership, Lake States ceded territories, 2013. 
17

not only the forest type, but also the tree quality and health. Logging, fire, storms, insects, 

and disease also have a large role in altering the forest types. Yet another factor influencing 

the forest is management objectives of the ownership classes. In the late 1800s and early 

1900s major logging changed the once primarily late successional species forests to early 

successional forests. As land is intensively harvested or reverts from nonforest to forest, 

early successional species such as aspen, birch, and red maple become established. If these 

forests are not harvested or disturbed, they become mid- to late-successional forests over 

time and the presence of species like red oak, white pine, beech, and sugar maple increases. 

As these forests change, they offer different habitat and serve various aesthetic and cultural 

purposes.

TREE SPECIES COMPOSITION

Background

The species composition of a forest drives the dynamics of its growth, development, and 

ecosystem function. Some forests are composed of a diverse set of tree species while others 

are composed of very few species or dominated by a single species. Both types of forests 

provide valuable ecological niches for flora and fauna. Diverse forests can have health 

problems but they are less likely to be severely impacted by insect or disease, which can 

reach epidemic levels in monocultures. Knowledge of the species composition reveals the 

different resources available for wildlife and cultural interest as well as information about 

the current and potential future forest ecosystems.

Table 2.— Timberland area by forest type and ownership, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Ownership

Forest type Federal State County Private All Owners

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Jack pine 215,185 4.7 269,750 5.9 50,638 1.7 204,756 1.2 740,329 2.6

Red pine 430,333 9.4 361,385 7.9 167,984 5.7 723,751 4.4 1,683,452 5.9

Eastern white pine 161,432 3.5 210,122 4.6 54,304 1.8 593,991 3.6 1,019,849 3.6

Balsam fir 153,183 3.3 114,503 2.5 68,096 2.3 345,620 2.1 681,402 2.4

White spruce 63,030 1.4 24,589 0.5 15,554 0.5 161,602 1 264,775 0.9

Black spruce 319,914 7 274,301 6 190,720 6.4 473,483 2.9 1,258,418 4.4

Tamarack 90,418 2 157,707 3.4 130,681 4.4 363,478 2.2 742,283 2.6

Northern white-cedar 213,325 4.7 395,254 8.6 110,799 3.7 704,418 4.3 1,423,796 5

Other softwoods -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 173,500 1.1 173,500 0.6

Oak 226,538 4.9 371,759 8.1 237,254 8 1,527,738 9.3 2,363,289 8.3

Hard maple/basswood 406,242 8.9 218,051 4.8 236,102 8 1,438,798 8.8 2,299,194 8.1

Sugar maple/beech/yellow birch 791,885 17.3 572,960 12.5 304,104 10.3 3,315,746 20.2 4,984,695 17.5

Upland red maple 159,373 3.5 156,349 3.4 116,346 3.9 792,993 4.8 1,225,061 4.3

Lowland hardwoods 199,250 4.3 219,955 4.8 212,225 7.2 1,346,772 8.2 1,978,202 6.9

Aspen 846,291 18.5 998,294 21.8 884,970 29.9 3,073,466 18.7 5,803,022 20.3

Paper birch 227,181 5 102,946 2.2 93,352 3.2 433,830 2.6 857,309 3

Nonstocked 14,492 0.3 53,233 1.2 10,563 0.4 149,583 0.9 227,871 0.8

Other upland hardwoods 64,629 1.4 83,662 1.8 78,640 2.7 578,834 3.5 805,766 2.8

Total all forest types 4,582,700 100 4,584,821 100 2,962,331 100 16,402,360 100 28,532,212 100
18

What we found

LSCT forest land contains nearly 5 billion trees at least 5 inches d.b.h. Including the trees 

at least 1 inch d.b.h., the number increases to about 23.8 billion trees and represents 16 

species of softwood trees and 64 species of hardwood trees for a total of 80 species. Among 

softwoods, balsam fir is the most common of trees 1 inch d.b.h. or larger and the second 

most common in the 5 inch d.b.h. or larger class (northern white-cedar has the greatest 

number of trees 5 inches in d.b.h. or greater) (Fig. 9). Among the hardwoods, quaking aspen 

is the most common species. However, when only considering trees 5 inches in diameter or 

greater, sugar maple is the most common species, closely followed by red maple (Fig. 10).

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Sugar maple Red maple Black ash Bigtooth aspen Quaking aspen Paper birch Hophornbeam

Number of Trees (millions) 

Species

1-4.9 inches

5+ inches

Diameter

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Red pine Eastern

white pine

Jack pine Balsam fir White spruce Black spruce Tamarack

(native)

Northern

white-cedar

Number of Trees (millions)

Species

1-4.9 inches

≥5 inches

Diameter

Figure 9. ―Estimated number of trees for the eight most common softwood species on forest land by diameter 

class and species, Lake States ceded territories, 2013. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval 

around the estimated mean.

Figure 10.―Estimated number of trees for the seven most common hardwood species on forest land by diameter 

class and species, Lake States ceded territories, 2013. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval 

around the estimated mean.
19

What this means

The LSCT supports a diverse mix of tree species. The diversity of species provides valuable 

cultural and wildlife benefits and also helps to reduce susceptibility to mortality from 

insects and disease. In the future, balsam fir will likely increase since this species currently 

dominates the sapling size class (1.0 to 4.9 inches d.b.h.). It will be important to monitor 

the change in abundance of tree species with climate change, deer browse, and insect and 

disease risks.

BIOMASS AND GROWING-STOCK VOLUME

Background

Measuring total live-tree biomass and growing-stock volume helps us understand the 

components of a forest stand and the resources available for different uses (e.g., wildlife 

habitat, carbon sequestration, or biofuels). Biomass estimates are measured as all live 

aboveground tree biomass on forest land including the stump, bole, bark, and limbs but 

excluding foliage and roots. Roughly half of the dry tree biomass is carbon. Global climate 

change concerns have focused attention on the capacity of forests to act as carbon sinks.

Growing-stock volume is the amount of sound wood in live, commercial tree species at least 

5 inches d.b.h. and excludes rough, rotten, and dead trees as well as noncommercial species 

such as hophornbeam and apple. This measure has traditionally been used to ascertain wood 

volume potentially available for commercial use. Estimates of the volume of growing-stock 

are important considerations in economic planning and evaluations of forest sustainability.

What we found

Aboveground biomass of live trees at least 1 inch d.b.h. is estimated to be more than 1.1 

billion dry short tons on forest land (averaging 36.7 tons per acre). About 55 percent of 

the forest land biomass and 58 percent of the timberland biomass is found on private land 

(Fig. 11). Hardwoods make up 73.4 percent of the total biomass on forest land, which 

accounts for 825.1 million dry short tons, with hard maple dominating the group (219.3 

million dry short tons) (Table 3). The bole component of trees holds 67 percent of the 

total biomass, tops and limbs hold 17 percent, saplings hold 12 percent, and stumps hold 4 

percent. The total growing-stock volume in the LSCT is estimated at 38.3 billion cubic feet, 

an average of 1,343.7 cubic feet per acre of timberland. Four species groups, eastern white 

and red pines, hard maple, cottonwood and aspen, and soft maple, make up over 50 percent 

of the total growing-stock volume (Fig. 12).

Figure 11.―Aboveground dry 

weight (million dry short tons) 

and proportion of live trees 

(at least 1.0 inch d.b.h.) on 

timberland, by ownership, Lake 

States ceded territories, 2013.

194 million tons 

(18.4%)

247 million tons 

(23.4%)

615 million tons 

(58.3%)

Federal

State and local government

Private

Ownership
20

Table 3.— Aboveground dry weight of live trees (at least 1 inch d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand dry short 

tons, on forest land by species group and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

1.0-4.9 inches ≥ 5.0 inches Total

Percentage of 

all species

Softwood species ---------------------------------- 1,000 tons ----------------------------------

Other yellow pines 493 2,187 2,680 0.2

Eastern white and red pines 3,197 95,360 98,557 8.8

Jack pine 1,986 13,195 15,181 1.3

Spruce and balsam fir 26,500 58,353 84,853 7.5

Eastern hemlock 808 27,368 28,176 2.5

Other eastern softwoods 7,194 63,111 70,305 6.2

Total for all softwoods 40,179 259,572 299,751 26.6

Hardwood species

Select white oaks 1,299 26,903 28,202 2.5

Select red oaks 2,038 63,162 65,200 5.8

Other red oaks 1,533 23,565 25,098 2.2

Hickory 129 1,500 1,629 0.1

Yellow birch 2,157 26,923 29,080 2.6

Hard maple 17,998 201,331 219,329 19.5

Soft maple 17,995 136,936 154,931 13.8

Beech 1,297 12,338 13,635 1.2

Tupelo and blackgum 1 45 46 0

Ash 8,977 48,610 57,587 5.1

Cottonwood and aspen 23,156 104,363 127,519 11.3

Basswood 1,048 26,095 27,143 2.4

Black walnut 0 65 65 0

Other eastern soft hardwoods 9,805 55,949 65,754 5.8

Other eastern hard hardwoods 100 288 388 0

Eastern noncommercial hardwoods 6,491 3,034 9,525 0.8

Total for all hardwoods 94,023 731,108 825,131 73.4

Total for all species groups 134,202 990,680 1,124,882 100

Value of 0 indicates the aboveground tree biomass rounds to less than 1,000 dry tons.

Columns and rows may not add to their totals due to rounding.

13.3%

16.3%

12.7%

12.3%

45.4%

Eastern white and red pines

Hard maple

Cottonwood and aspen

Soft maple

Other species

Species Group

Figure 12.―Percentage net 

growing-stock volume of the 

four most common species 

groups on timberland, Lake 

States ceded territories, 2013.
21

What this means

The total live-tree biomass of the LSCT is a tremendous resource in terms of both economic 

and environmental importance. These stores of carbon for expanding woody biomass energy 

production make knowledge of the resource vital to additional demands on forest planning 

and management. Biomass is a renewable energy source and can help reduce fossil fuel use 

and offset carbon dioxide emissions.

FOREST GROWTH, REMOVALS, AND MORTALITY

Background

Forest health, vigor, and the rate of woody biomass growth (accretion) and depletion are 

all influenced by dynamic relationship between tree growth, mortality, and removals (i.e., 

harvests and land-use changes). A stand’s capacity for growth is an indication of the overall 

condition of the forest and more specifically of tree vigor, forest health, and successional 

stage. Growth is reported as average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5 

inches d.b.h.) on timberland and is equivalent to gross growth, including ingrowth, minus 

mortality. Mortality is a part of forest stand development that can be caused by insects, 

disease, adverse weather, succession, competition, fire, old age, or human or animal activity. 

Tree mortality due to harvesting or land clearing is considered removals and is not included 

in mortality. Mortality and removals become a particular concern if they surpass growth and 

regeneration of the forest. Removals are based on the trees that are lost due to harvest or 

diversion. Harvest removals include utilized trees and trees that are cut as a result of harvest 

operations (including land clearing) but are not utilized. Diversion removals occur when 

trees are removed from the timberland base due to land-use change. Analysis of each of 

these components (growth, mortality, and removals) can help us to better understand what is 

influencing the net change in volume.

What we found

The average annual net growth on LSCT timberland is 841.9 million cubic feet with 

softwoods at 344.5 million cubic feet and hardwoods accounting for 497.5 million cubic 

feet of growth. The species with the greatest net growth vary by ownership class (Fig. 13). 

Overall, sugar maple dominates the average annual net growth of growing stock, exceeding 

125 million cubic feet per year. Red pine and red maple follow closely with net growth at 

116.4 and 111.6 million cubic feet per year, respectively. Among the six species with the 

greatest net growth, two are softwoods.

Negative annual net growth indicates that mortality is exceeding growth. Black maple, 

paper birch, butternut, and black willow have negative growth. Some of these species are 

relatively rare in the region and sampling error or a minimal fluctuation can result in a 

negative net growth. These species have a negative growth of less than 1 million cubic feet, 

except for paper birch, with an average annual net growth of -8.9 million cubic feet.

Mortality, reported as average annual mortality of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches 

d.b.h.) on timberland, varies across ownership categories (Fig. 14). There are six species 

with net mortality greater than 15 million cubic feet per year. Annual mortality is greatest 
22

for quaking aspen (108.7 million cubic feet per year). Quaking aspen has twice the mortality 

of balsam fir (54.7 million cubic feet per year), the species with the second highest amount 

of mortality. Despite having the highest mortality, quaking aspen is still among the six 

species with the greatest average annual net growth of growing-stock trees at least 5 inches 

d.b.h. (74.5 million cubic feet per year). Average annual mortality of growing-stock trees 

on timberland is 407.7 million cubic feet with 127.2 million cubic feet from softwoods and 

280.5 million cubic feet from hardwoods.

The average annual growing-stock removals on timberland totals 482.5 million cubic feet, 

145.7 million cubic feet from softwoods and 336.8 million cubic feet from hardwoods. 

Removals vary by ownership category (Fig. 15) and are dominated by quaking aspen, sugar 

maple, red pine, and red maple. Eight species have growing-stock removals greater than 20 

million cubic feet per year.

Overall, gross growth is over 1.2 billion cubic feet with softwoods contributing 471.7 

million cubic feet and hardwoods adding 778.0 million cubic feet. Annual mortality 

averages 407.7 million cubic feet of which 127.2 million cubic feet is from softwoods and 

280.5 million cubic feet is from hardwoods. This results in a net growth of 841.9 million 

cubic feet per year where 344.5 million cubic feet is from softwood and 497.5 million cubic 

feet is from hardwoods. Removals of trees due to both harvesting and land-use change is 

482.5 million cubic feet with 145.7 million cubic feet from softwood and 336.8 million 

cubic feet from hardwood. This leaves an annual surplus or net increase of 359.4 million 

cubic feet (198.8 million cubic feet from softwood and 160.7 million cubic feet from 

hardwood).

Another way to assess the forest sustainability is by looking at the ratio of net growth to 

removals. This answers the basic question: is the growth of trees less than, equal to, or 

greater than mortality/removals? A growth-to-removal ratio (G:R) of 1.0 means growth is 

equal to removals, a ratio less than 1.0 means that removals exceed growth, and a value 

greater than 1.0 means growth exceeds removals. For the LSCT, the overall ratio is 1.7; 

hardwoods have a lower ratio (1.5) than softwoods (2.4). By ownership class, the ratio for 

public land is 1.9 and for private land it is 1.7. On public land the G:R for softwoods is 2.2 

while for hardwoods it is 1.6, and on private land the softwood G:R is 2.5 and the hardwood 

ratio is 1.4.

What this means

Overall, the growth to removal ratio is greater than 1.0 for the LSCT across all ownership 

categories. While this suggests sustainable forest management, other factors, such as the 

G:R ratio for each species, ownership class, and the quality of the trees left behind, need to 

be considered. Analyzing the growth, removal, and mortality data suggests some species 

have a negative net growth. Paper birch is the species with the greatest negative growth, 

which is a concern because of its vast cultural importance to the tribes. Further detailed 

analyses of the paper birch data are found on page 54 of this publication as well as in Moser 

et al. (2015).
23

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Sugar maple

Red pine

Red maple

Quaking aspen

Eastern white pine

Northern red oak

Net Growth (million ft3/yr)

Species

Public

Private

Ownership

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Quaking aspen

Balsam fir

Paper birch

Bigtooth aspen

Sugar maple

Red maple

Annual Mortality (million ft3/yr)

Species

Public

Private

Ownership

0 20 40 60 80 100

Quaking aspen

Sugar maple

Red pine

Red maple

Bigtooth aspen

American basswood

Jack pine

Paper birch

Annual Removals (million ft3/yr)

Species

Public

Private

Ownership

Figure 13.―Annual average 

net growth of growing-stock 

trees (≥5.0 inches d.b.h.) on 

timberland, in million cubic feet, 

by species and ownership, Lake 

States ceded territories, 2013. 

Species listed have the greatest 

annual net growth in the Lake 

States ceded territories.

Figure 14.―Average annual 

mortality of growing-stock 

trees (≥ 5.0 inches d.b.h.) on 

timberland, in million cubic feet, 

by species and ownership, Lake 

States ceded territories, 2013. 

Species listed have the greatest 

annual mortality in the Lake 

States ceded territories.

Figure 15.―Average annual 

removals of growing-stock 

trees (≥ 5.0 inches d.b.h.) on 

timberland, in million cubic 

feet, on timberland, by species 

and ownership, Lake States 

ceded territories, 2013. Species 

listed have the greatest annual 

removals in the Lake States 

ceded territories.
24

CARBON

Background

Collectively, forest ecosystems represent the largest terrestrial carbon sink on earth (Pan 

et al. 2011). The accumulation of carbon in forests through sequestration helps to mitigate 

emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from sources such as forest fires and burning 

of fossil fuels. FIA does not directly measure forest carbon stocks in the LSCT. Instead, 

a combination of field measurements and models are used to estimate carbon in tree and 

nontree pools. Descriptions of the measurements and models used in FIA forest carbon 

estimation procedures are described in Smith et al. (2006), Woodall et al. (2008, 2011), and 

Domke et al. (2011, 2013).

What we found

Total carbon density in LSCT forests increased by an average of 0.43 tons per acre 

(SD= 13.92) since the last inventory period (2004-2008) (Fig. 16). On average, forests 

in the LSCT gained an estimated 0.08 tons of carbon per acre per year over the last 5 

years resulting in annual increases in carbon stocks of more than 16.6 million tons — the 

equivalent of offsetting the emissions of more than 6.2 billion gallons of gasoline each year 

(US EIA 2014). The rise in carbon density led to an estimated increase of more than 833 

million tons of carbon over all forest land, bringing the total estimated carbon stocks in the 

LSCT to 3.2 billion tons. The 1842 Treaty area contains most of the forest carbon with an 

estimated 965 million tons, followed by the 1837 Treaty area with more than 704 million 

tons, the 1836 Lower Peninsula Treaty area with 550 million tons, the 1854 Treaty area 

with 535 million tons, and the 1936 Upper Peninsula Treaty area with 464 million tons. Soil 

organic matter (SOM) represents the largest forest ecosystem carbon pool in the LSCT at 

more than 2.1 billion tons, followed by live biomass (i.e., live trees and understory) at 702 

million tons (Fig. 17).

There are substantial differences in the carbon stocks and stock changes between ceded 

territories in the region. These differences can be attributed to the size of each territory, the 

forest type conditions (e.g., stand structure and composition), forest management practices, 

and land-use changes, among other factors. Carbon stocks in the oak/hickory forest-type 

group, for example, increased substantially in the 1836 Lower Peninsula, 1837, and 1842 

Treaty areas but decreased sharply in the 1836 Upper Peninsula and 1854 Treaty areas 

(Fig. 17). There are also differences in the distribution of forest carbon stocks by forest 

type, which are driven by many of the same factors. In the spruce/fir group, for example, 

about 11 percent (79 million tons) of the estimated forest carbon is in live biomass, whereas 

in the maple/beech/birch group, 29 percent (274 million tons) is in live biomass. Most 

of the forest carbon stocks in the LSCT are found in middle-aged stands, 40 to 100 years 

old (Fig. 18). Early in stand development most of the forest ecosystem carbon is in SOM 

and belowground tree components. As forest stands mature, the ratio of aboveground to 

belowground carbon begins to shift and the aboveground components play an increasingly 

important role in ecosystem carbon storage. This trend continues well into stand 

development as carbon accumulates in live and dead aboveground components.
25

−100 −50 0 50 100

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Change in Carbon Density (short tons/acre)

Observations

 Mean = 0.43 tons/acre

SD = 13.92 tons/acre

Carbon loss

Carbon gain

Figure 16.―Distribution of estimated changes in total carbon density (short tons per acre) on forest land 

in the Lake States ceded territories since the last inventory period, 2008 to 2013.

What this means

Carbon stocks in forests of the LSCT have increased substantially over the last decade, 

with the largest increases in the oak/hickory (12 percent), other (8 percent), and elm/

ash/cottonwood (6 percent) forest-type groups (Fig. 17). Most of the forest carbon in the 

region is found in middle-aged stands dominated by relatively long-lived species. This 

suggests that forest carbon stocks will continue to increase in the region as stands mature 

and accumulate carbon in above and belowground components. Given the age class 

structure and species composition of LSCT forests there may be opportunities to increase 

forest carbon stocks. That said, managing for carbon sequestration and/or accumulation 

in combination with other land management objectives will require careful planning and 

creative silviculture.
26

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Carbon Stocks (million short tons)

Maple/beech/birch

Spruce/fir

Aspen/birch

White/red/jack pine

Oak/hickory

Elm/ash/cottonwood

Other

Total C stocks = 3.22 billion tons

C in SOM

C in live biomass

C in forest floor

C in dead wood

−40 −20 0 20 40

Carbon Stock Change (percent)

1854

1842

1837

1836LP

1836UP

Figure 17.―Estimated carbon stocks on forest land by forest-type group and carbon pool for the 2013 inventory and 10-year 

percent change in carbon stocks, Lake States ceded territories. 

Figure 18.―Estimated aboveground and belowground carbon stocks on forest land by stand-age class for the 2013 inventory and 

10-year percent change in carbon stock, Lake States ceded territories.

0−20 61−80 0

100

200

300

400

0−20 41−60 100+ 0

100

200

300

400

0−20 41−60 100+ 0

100

200

300

400

Aboveground biomass 

Belowground biomass

0−20 41−60 100+ 0

100

200

300

400

0−20 61−80 0

100

200

300

400

−100

−50

0

50

100

1836LP

−100

−50

0

50

100

1836UP

−100

−50

0

50

100

1837

−100

−50

0

50

100

1842

−100

−50

0

50

100

1854

Stand Age Class (years)

Carbon Stocks (million short tons) Percent change

Stand Age Class (years) Stand Age Class (years) Stand Age Class (years) Stand Age Class (years)
27

STANDING DEAD TREES

Background

Standing dead trees, also known as snags, are important indicators of wildlife habitat, 

structural diversity, past mortality events, stage of stand development, and carbon storage. 

The abundance of snags, together with decay classes, species, and sizes, define the snag 

resource across LSCT forests. Between 2005 and 2013, FIA collected data on snags of 

numerous species and sizes in varying stages of decay.

What we found

The greatest number of snags is found in the 1842 ceded territory, an estimated 148 million 

in 2005 and increasing to over 167 million snags in 2013 (Fig. 19). The 1854 Treaty 

area has the second highest abundance of snags with approximately 106 million snags in 

2005 increasing to over 120 million in 2013. The other territories have had rather stable 

abundances of snags over the inventory period — all exceeded an estimated 80 million total 

snags. Quaking aspen (110 million), balsam fir (93 million), and paper birch (79 million) are 

the most common snag species in the LSCT (Fig. 20). In terms of decay distribution, nearly 

64 percent of all snags in the LSCT are fresh to moderately decayed (decay classes 1, 2, and 

3) (Fig. 21A). In terms of the diameter distribution, 77 percent of all snags are less than 10 

inches (Fig. 21B). In contrast, there are only an estimated 1 million snags with a diameter 

greater than 25 inches out of an estimated 575 million snags across the LSCT. The most 

abundant tree species in terms of snags also had the highest percentages in terms of snags to 

live trees (Fig. 22). Paper birch has the highest percentage at approximately 38 percent (snag 

abundance compared to live tree abundance). Tree species with the lowest percentages are 

American basswood, bur oak, sugar maple, red pine, and boxelder.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Snags (

millions) 

Year

1837

1842

1854

1836 LP

1836 UP

Treaty Area

Figure 19.―Snags on forest land in the Lake States ceded territories, by treaty year, 2005-

2013. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the estimated mean.
28

Figure 20.―Abundance of the 12 most common species of snags on forest land, Lake States 

ceded territories, 2013. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the 

estimated mean.

Figure 21.―Distribution of snags on forest land by decay class (A) and 

diameter class (B), Lake States ceded territories, 2013.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Quaking aspen

Balsam fir

Paper birch

Jack pine

Red maple

Sugar maple

Northern white-cedar

Black spruce

Bigtooth aspen

Yellow birch

Eastern white pine

American elm

Number of Standing Dead Trees (millions) 

Species 

14%

21%

29%

23%

13%

1: Fresh

2

3

4

5: Highly decayed

Decay Class

77%

18%

4% 1% 0%

5.0-9.9

10.0-14.9

15.0-19.9

20.0-24.9

25.0+

Diameter Class (inches) 

A

B
29

What this means

The abundance and associated attributes of snags across LSCT forest land is a result of 

the unique disturbance, management, and stand development processes that are occurring 

across the region. The slight upward trend in snag abundance over time suggests a maturing 

forest resource, especially with the prominence of small sized snags. An increase in snags 

can also suggest a health issue, so it is important to continue monitoring the forest. As 

LSCT forests recover from widespread logging over a century ago, the self-thinning of 

forests results in the prevalence of mortality of small trees and/or early successional stage 

species (paper birch and quaking aspen). These normal forest maturation dynamics ensure 

gap succession (creation of small openings through tree mortality) which facilitates the 

critical recruitment of tree regeneration in the understory. Given that a preponderance 

of snags is slightly to moderately decayed, one can assume that this mortality process is 

still occurring and should expect a greater abundance of snags in the near future. As an 

indicator of potential sources of snags in the future, the abundance of snags was compared 

to the associated live tree abundance by species. Both paper birch and American elm have 

high percentages of snags compared to other tree species. This suggests that these species 

are still experiencing a long-term mortality event such as Dutch elm disease (Ophiostoma 

novo-ulmi) in the case of American elm. In contrast, tree species that have a very low ratio 

of snags to live trees suggests that some species, such as basswood, may be expanding 

their range/prevalence. Overall, results suggest that the abundance of snags may continue 

to increase across LSCT forests. Additionally, snag abundance of some species (e.g., paper 

birch) suggest that the composition and structure of LSCT forests will continue to evolve, 

potentially benefiting wildlife and stand structural diversity at the expense of stand volume 

production.

0 10 20 30 40

Paper birch

American elm

Jack pine

Balsam fir

Quaking aspen

American basswood

Bur oak

Sugar maple

Red pine

Boxelder

Proportion of Snags to Live Trees (percent)

Species

Least Common

Species 

Most Common

Species 

Figure 22.― Most common and least common tree species in terms of percentage of snags 

to standing live trees, Lake States ceded territories, 2013. Error bars represent a 68 percent 

confidence interval around the estimated mean. (Note: only tree species with at least 100 live 

trees sampled on forest land were included in this analysis)
30

FOREST ECONOMICS

Firewood in Bigfork, Minnesota. Photo by Christie L. Kurtz, used with permission.
31

SAWTIMBER VOLUME AND QUALITY

Background

Sawtimber trees are live trees of commercial species that contain at least one 12-foot or 

two noncontiguous 8-foot logs that are free of defect. Hardwoods must be at least 11 inches 

d.b.h. and softwoods must be at least 9 inches d.b.h. to qualify as a sawtimber-sized tree. 

Sawtimber volume is defined as the net volume of the saw log portion of a tree, measured in 

board feet (International 1⁄4-inch rule), from a 1 foot stump to the merchantable top (9 inches 

d.b.h. for hardwoods and 7 inches d.b.h. for softwoods). Estimates of sawtimber volume are 

used to determine the potential commercial value of wood and to identify the quantity of 

merchantable wood available.

A system of standards, called tree grades, are used to rate the quality of a tree for producing 

forest products. While grading specifications vary by species group, tree grade is generally 

based on tree diameter, the presence or absence of knots, decay, or curvature of the bole, 

and the length of usable sections in the saw log portion of the tree. Grade 1 is given to the 

highest quality trees. Softwood sawtimber is valued primarily for dimensional lumber while 

hardwood sawtimber is valued for the production of other products, such as flooring or 

furniture stock.

What we found

The net sawtimber volume on all LSCT timberland in 

2013 is estimated at more than 112.6 billion board feet, a 

roughly 9 percent increase over the 2008 estimate of 103 

billion board feet. Hardwoods make up nearly 58 percent 

(65.1 billion board feet) of the total sawtimber volume. 

Softwood volume is 47.5 billion board feet. One-third of 

the total sawtimber volume is located in the 1842 Treaty 

area (Fig. 23). The 1842 Treaty area also contains the 

largest volume of both hardwood and softwood sawtimber 

volume. More than 50 percent of sawtimber volume 

is in trees with diameters between 9.0 and 14.9 inches 

(Fig. 24). The top five species in sawtimber volume, 

containing 52 percent of the total, are sugar maple, red 

pine, eastern white pine, red maple, and northern whitecedar. Thirty-nine percent of the sawtimber volume is 

in grade 3 trees, while 27 percent was in grade 1 trees 

(Fig. 25). Most of the grade 1 sawtimber comes from 

non-pine softwoods such as northern white-cedar, eastern 

hemlock, white spruce, balsam fir, and black spruce. 

Sugar maple has the most grade 1 sawtimber trees among 

hardwoods, with northern red oak, American basswood, 

and white ash also having substantial amounts.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1836 LP 1836 UP 1837 1842 1854

Treaty Area

Volume (billion board feet)

Figure 23.―Sawtimber volume on timberland by treaty 

area, Lake States ceded territories, 2013.
32

Figure 24.―Sawtimber volume on 

timberland by diameter class, Lake 

States ceded territories, 2013.

Figure 25.―Sawtimber volume on 

timberland by tree grade and species, 

Lake States ceded territories, 2013.

0

5

10

15

20

Sugar maple

Red pine

Eastern white pine

Red maple

Northern white-cedar

All other softwoods

All other hardwoods

Species

Volume (billion board feet)

grade 1 grade 2 grade 3 grades 4 & 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

9.0 - 10.9

11.0 - 12.9

13.0 - 14.915.0 - 16.917.0 - 18.919.0 - 20.921.0 - 22.923.0 - 24.925.0 - 26.927.0 - 28.929.0 - 30.931.0 - 32.9

33.0 +

Diameter Class (inches)

Volume (billion board feet)

What this means

Total sawtimber volume has been increasing in the LSCT in recent years. Net growth of 

sawtimber averaged 3.33 billion board feet annually between 2004 and 2008, and averaged 

3.31 billion board feet annually between 2009 and 2013. That average annual net growth 

outpaced the average annual removals for the same time periods (2.8 billion board feet 

removed per year in 2004-2008, 2.9 billion board feet in 2009-2013). This trend will 

ensure that the LSCT will provide quality sawtimber from a diverse range of softwood and 

hardwood species for years to come.
33

FOREST INDICATORS

Wetland. Photo by Christie L. Kurtz, used with permission.
34

GROUND FLORA

Background

Ground flora offers many benefits within the forest. It can filter pollutants, curtail erosion, 

regulate soil temperature, support various wildlife species, sequester carbon, improve air 

quality, and provide various cultural and spiritual values. Plants are ecological indicators 

and offer important information on soil fertility, pollution, and disturbance. Assessing plant 

cover is important to understand forest change and identify species of concern. From 2007 

through 2010, forest vegetation data were collected on 239 Phase 3 plots across the LSCT. 

These plots are a subset of the inventory plots and have a more extensive set of forest health 

data collected on them during the summer measurement window.

What we found

On the Phase 3 plots, 951 species of plants are found on the LSCT. The 33 most commonly 

observed species are shown in Table 4. Canada mayflower, often called false (or wild) lilyof-the-valley, is the most frequently observed species, found on 203 plots (84.9 percent). 

It is a common woodland flower of the boreal forest that has shiny green foliage and 

often forms carpet-like masses in the understory. Canada mayflower blooms in the spring 

and yields small red berries. This herbaceous plant has several traditional medicinal uses 

(Meeker et al. 1993).

Red maple is the second most frequently recorded species and was found on 183 Phase 3 

plots (76.6 percent). This species is found throughout the LSCT. It is the most commonly 

observed tree species on Phase 3 plots where all tree observances (seedling, sapling, pole, 

and saw log), regardless of height or diameter, are recorded. Red maple has the widest 

climatic tolerance of all the maples and is thought to thrive on a wider range of soils with 

varying texture, moisture, pH, and elevation than any other North America forest species. 

At maturity, red maple grows an average of 60 to 90 feet and 18 to 30 inches in diameter. 

It seldom lives more than 150 years and is an important food source for white-tailed deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus) in the winter (Walters and Yawny 1990). The extent of red maple 

has increased throughout eastern North America in the past century. Early land records for 

the northern hardwood/white pine/hemlock forests of Michigan and Wisconsin indicate 

that less than 5 percent of surveyed trees were red maple. Now this tree is one of the most 

abundant and widespread tree species in the eastern United States. Several characteristics 

have helped red maple spread, such as its ability to sprout vigorously, survive on a wide 

variety of sites with varying nutrient, light, and moisture availability, reach sexual maturity 

at a young age, produce a large number of seeds that readily disperse, and minimal 

germination requirements. It is believed that disturbances, such as logging and land 

clearing, and the suppression of fires also contributed to the increase in red maple (Abrams 

1998). Red maple is also an important species for various cultural uses and the sap is 

gathered from this tree to make syrup, though the sweetness of sugar maple is the preferred 

choice (Meeker et al. 1993).
35

Starflower is the third most commonly observed species and is found on 182 Phase 3 plots 

(76.2 percent). This dainty perennial plant is found throughout the boreal forest and can 

tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions. It is found throughout Wisconsin with 

highest presence north of the tension zone (Anderson and Loucks 1973), a zone highly 

fragmented by agriculture, urbanization, and roads. This plant has traditional importance; 

the roots of starflower are used to attract deer to hunters by mixing them with those of other 

plants and creating a smoking scent (Meeker et al. 1993).

Table 4.— Plant species observed on Phase 3 plots in the Lake States ceded 

territories, 2007-2010

Common name Scientific name

Number of plots 

observed

Canada mayflower Maianthemum canadense 203

Red maple Acer rubrum 183

Starflower Trientalis borealis 182

Balsam fir Abies balsamea 145

Black cherry Prunus serotina 138

Wild sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis 135

Pennsylvania sedge Carex pensylvanica 135

Western brackenfern Pteridium aquilinum 133

American red raspberry Rubus idaeus 128

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides 119

Sugar maple Acer saccharum 115

Paper birch Betula papyrifera 115

Bigleaf aster Eurybia macrophylla 115

Bunchberry dogwood Cornus canadensis 113

Common ladyfern Athyrium filix-femina 108

Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale 107

American fly honeysuckle Lonicera canadensis 99

Bluebead Clintonia borealis 97

Spinulose woodfern Dryopteris carthusiana 97

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana 96

Wood anemone Anemone quinquefolia 91

Beaked hazelnut Corylus cornuta 90

Common serviceberry Amelanchier arborea 90

Northern bush honeysuckle Diervilla lonicera 88

Greater bladder sedge Carex intumescens 83

Northern red oak Quercus rubra 81

Dwarf red blackberry Rubus pubescens 80

Threeleaf goldthread Coptis trifolia 78

Lowbush blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium 78

Sensitive fern Onoclea sensibilis 76

Hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana 73

White spruce Picea glauca 71

Eastern white pine Pinus strobus 71
36

What this means

The vast array of plants found within the LSCT is an important resource not only for 

wildlife but also for cultural purposes. It is estimated that there are between 900 and 

1,500 vascular plant species in the ceded territories with specific uses recorded for 25 to 

40 percent of the flora. This represents the considerable plant knowledge of the Ojibwa. 

As a sustainable practice, it is important that the abundance of the species of interest is 

considered and that forest management, land use, and plant harvesting are done in a manner 

that ensures their survival (Meeker et al. 1993).

INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES

Background

Invasive plant species (IPS) can supplant native species and change plant communities. 

They are often aggressive colonizers that readily establish from vegetative propagules 

(e.g., multiflora rose) and/or produce copious amounts of seed (e.g., purple loosestrife). 

After establishment in an area, some IPS can change the soil chemistry by altering nutrient 

availability (e.g., black locust, common buckthorn), which can displace native species 

and support their spread. IPS have spread throughout the United States, costing billions of 

dollars for inspection, monitoring, and eradication (Pimentel et al. 2005). Gathering IPS 

data helps individuals and land managers understand the distribution and abundance of these 

species. In the future, data from remeasured plots will enhance our understanding of how 

these species have spread, their impact to the forest community, and factors that influence 

their presence.

FIA has monitored the distribution, spread, and abundance of invasive species on Phase 2 

(P2) invasive plots in the LSCT since 2005. The invasive plots are a subsample of the total 

P2 plots. In 2005 and 2006, the invasive data were collected on all plots year round, whereas 

from 2007 through 2011, only a 20 percent subsample was collected and only during the 

summer window. Data from 2007 through 2011 are summarized here and are presented to 

provide an overview of the IPS found on forested P2 invasive plots.

What we found

FIA monitors 43 invasive plant species and one undifferentiated genus (Lonicera spp.)1

on P2 invasive plots (Table 5). On the 1,502 P2 invasive plots measured in the LSCT, 28 

IPS are found. Invasive plants occur fairly homogeneously throughout the region with the 

exception of the southern part of the region, which has slightly higher presence. Figure 26 

shows the number of IPS per plot in the LSCT. There are 396 plots (26.4 percent) with 

one or more invasive plants present, with most invaded plots having one invasive species 

present. The highest number of IPS found on a plot is six. Two plots have six IPS, one near 

the Minnesota/Wisconsin border and a second in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. One 

thousand one hundred and six plots (73.6 percent) have no monitored IPS present.

1 Hereafter the 43 species and one genus are collectively referred to as “invasive species” or “IPS”. 

The results reported refer to these 44 selected species.
37

Table 5.― The 43 invasive plant species and one undifferentiated genus monitored on Phase 2 

Invasive plots, 2007 to present

Tree species Vine species

Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) English ivy (Hedera helix)

Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)

Norway maple (Acer platanoides) Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus)

Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)

Princesstree (Paulownia tomentosa) Herbaceous species

Punktree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) Black swallow-wort (Cynanchum louiseae)

Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare)

Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

Silktree (Albizia julibrissin) Creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia)

Tallow tree (Triadica sebifera) Dames rocket (Hesperis matronalis)

Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) European swallow-wort (Cynanchum rossicum)

Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata)

Shrub species Giant knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense)

Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)

Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)

Common barberry (Berberis vulgaris) Bohemian knotweed (Polygonum xbohemicum)

Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)

European cranberrybush (Viburnum opulus) Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe ssp. micranthos)

European privet (Ligustrum vulgare)

Glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus) Grass species

Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) Common reed (Phragmites australis)

Japanese meadowsweet (Spiraea japonica) Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum)

Morrow’s honeysuckle (Lonicera morrowii) Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea)

Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)

Nonnative bush honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.)

Showy fly honeysuckle (Lonicera xbella)

Tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica)
38

Reed canarygrass is the most commonly observed invasive plant (of those monitored), 

occurring on 175 (11.7 percent) of the P2 invasive plots (Table 6). It is found fairly 

homogeneously across the LSCT with the exception of very low occurrence in northeastern 

Minnesota (Fig. 27). Where this invader is observed, it occurs with high average cover2, 

11.4 percent. This problematic species can form dense monocultures that shade out other 

plant species, reducing species diversity and changing wildlife habitat. Agronomists have 

bred cultivars of reed canarygrass that adapt to a range of environmental conditions which 

has increased the use of this noxious graminoid for agriculture and restoration (Kurtz 2013). 

Even though reed canarygrass is native to the United States, many nonnative cultivars exist, 

making it difficult to distinguish native plants.

2 Average cover is based on subplot data and is calculated for only the subplots where the species 

is present.

Figure 26.―Number of invasive plant species (IPS) per Phase 2 invasive plot, Lake States ceded territories, 2007-2011. 

Plot locations are approximate.

Number of Invasive 

Plant Species
39

Figure 27.―Reed canarygrass presence on Phase 2 invasive plots, Lake States ceded territories, 2007-2011. 

Plot locations are approximate.

Canada thistle is the second most commonly observed invasive plant, occurring on 72 

P2 invasive plots (4.8 percent) with an average cover of 2.5 percent. It is most frequently 

observed in an area from central Wisconsin into the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (Fig. 28). 

This herbaceous perennial forms a vast network of roots that can create extensive colonies 

(Kaufman and Kaufman 2007). Within these colonies, each Canada thistle plant is capable 

of producing 5,000 seeds that remain viable for up to 20 years, making restoration difficult 

and costly (Kurtz 2013). Canada thistle plants have been attributed to millions of dollars in 

annual crop loss in agricultural areas (Czarapata 2005).

Common buckthorn is the third most commonly observed IPS, occurring on 62 P2 invasive 

plots (4.1 percent) with an average cover of 6.2 percent. Interest in this shrub dates back to 

the 1800s when it was introduced from Europe as an ornamental. Its use in urban plantings 

Reed Canarygrass

present 

absent
40

and as a windbreak has resulted in its widespread occurrence along the prairie tension 

zone, an area heavily fragmented by agriculture, roads, and cities. Its high presence in this 

zone is shown in Figure 29 (see also Kurtz 2013 and Moser et al. 2009). Within the forest, 

common buckthorn is able to survive under dense canopies, however in deep shade it is less 

vigorous (Knight et al. 2007). Since this IPS leafs out early, it has a competitive advantage 

over native plants, quickly shading the forest floor. In Wisconsin, Delanoy and Archibold 

(2007) found up to 35 percent of its annual carbon is gained before native species leaf out 

and common buckthorn holds its leaves approximately 58 days longer than similar native 

shrubs. Once this shrub matures and produces fruit, birds and mammals readily disperse the 

seeds, facilitating spread.

Data indicate that the presence of invasive plants reduces the numbers of seedlings and 

saplings, and basal area (Table 6) compared to plots without IPS. Looking at IPS that 

occurred on 30 or more plots, the data also suggest that invasive plants tend to occur on 

plots with less forest land (i.e., partially forested plots).

Figure 28.―Canada thistle presence on Phase 2 invasive plots, Lake States ceded territories, 2007-2011. 

Plot locations are approximate.

Canada Thistle

present 

absent
41

Plot data reveal some key factors that are associated with the presence of these IPS. For 

example, Table 7 suggests the closer a plot is to a road, the greater the number of invasive 

plants observed. Table 8 reports the average distance to the nearest road by species and 

suggests that roads may act as a conduit for spread. This offers valuable information for 

managers trying to reduce the number of IPS present.

What this means

IPS are capable of forming dense colonies which are detrimental to the diversity of the 

forest and can cause vast economic and environmental consequences by altering aesthetics, 

habitat quality, sustainability, and nutrient availability (Kurtz 2013). It is important to 

monitor the presence and abundance of these species in the region to determine spread. 

Continued monitoring will offer valuable information for management and help determine 

risk as well as indicate trends such as the impact of IPS on regeneration and the role of 

forest characteristics (e.g., soil, precipitation, temperature, site quality) on their presence.

Figure 29.―Common buckthorn presence on Phase 2 invasive plots, Lake States ceded territories, 2007-2011. 

Plot locations are approximate.

Common Buckthorn

present 

absent
42

Table 6.— Attributes for plots with and without invasive plant species, Lake States ceded territories, 2007-2011

Invasive species

Number 

of plots 

observed

Average 

proportion 

forested

Average 

seedlings 

per acre

Average 

saplings per 

acre

Average basal 

area ≥1 inch 

d.b.h. (ft2/ac)

Average basal 

area ≥5 inches 

d.b.h. (ft2/ac)

Amur honeysuckle 2 100 1,949 412 102 91

Autumn olive 12 80.3 3,126 126 160 155

Black locust 3 100 6,522 150 130 120

Bull thistle 48 94.7 3,037 517 79 61

Canada thistle 72 94.6 3,371 669 87 67

Common barberry 1 72.3 0 0 59 59

Common buckthorn 62 81.4 1,942 376 92 79

Common reed 7 88.9 1,725 563 75 58

Creeping jenny 5 98.5 945 361 75 61

Dames rocket 1 75 1,999 408 112 94

European privet 1 72.3 0 0 59 59

Garlic mustard 3 71.5 3,608 371 96 79

Giant knotweed 1 100 4,048 156 42 40

Glossy buckthorn 32 83.6 2,141 388 96 80

Japanese barberry 7 100 3,780 542 87 66

Japanese honeysuckle 2 93.5 4,535 1,244 70 42

Leafy spurge 2 100 3,711 0 75 75

Morrow’s honeysuckle 5 65 3,089 815 84 69

Multiflora rose 8 96.1 2,027 313 83 74

Nonnative bush honeysuckles 34 75.4 2,660 427 94 80

Norway maple 1 72 0 108 49 46

Purple loosestrife 1 100 750 600 29 19

Reed canarygrass 175 90.8 3,129 504 76 61

Russian olive 4 100 2,211 513 80 64

Showy fly honeysuckle 13 80.4 2,744 311 91 79

Siberian elm 3 91.7 1,641 285 66 54

Spotted knapweed 36 86 2,930 371 79 67

Tatarian honeysuckle 11 97.3 2,031 484 92 73

No invasive species present 1,106 93.4 3,582 610 99 79
43

Table 7.― Average distance to the nearest road for Phase 

2 Invasive plots with or without observed invasive plant 

species in the Lake States ceded territories, 2007-2011

Number of invasive 

plant species Number of plots

Average road 

distance (ft)

0 1,106 3,785

1 292 2,185

2 68 1,992

3 25 1,401

4 8 1,042

5 1 201

6 2 125

Table 8.— Average distance to the nearest road for invasive plant species observed on 

Phase 2 Invasive plots in the Lake States ceded territories, 2007-2011

Invasive plant species 

(number of plots observed)

Average road distance 

(ft)

Standard error

Reed canarygrass (175) 1,828 117

Canada thistle (72) 2,600 380

Common buckthorn (62) 1,571 136

Bull thistle (48) 3,379 374

Spotted knapweed (36) 1,378 292

Nonnative bush honeysuckles (34) 974 139

Glossy buckthorn (32) 1,667 243

Showy fly honeysuckle (13) 631 130

Autumn olive (12) 1,004 243

Tatarian honeysuckle (11) 1,218 273

Multiflora rose (8) 1,473 331

Japanese barberry (7) 982 192

Common reed (7) 1,515 848

Creeping jenny (5) 1,998 569

Morrow’s honeysuckle (5) 6,146 4,815

Russian olive (4) 1,011 362

Garlic mustard (3) 5,568 2,883

Siberian elm (3) 758 434

Black locust (3) 1,607 214

Japanese honeysuckle (2) 7,933 2,628

Leafy spurge (2) 3,960 0

Amur honeysuckle (2) 1,392 642

Purple loosestrife (1) 1,821 0

Norway maple (1) 751 0

Common barberry (1) 50 0

Dames rocket (1) 50 0

European privet (1) 50 0

Giant knotweed (1) 3,960 0
44

TREE SPECIES OF CULTURAL 

SIGNIFICANCE

Harvesting birch bark. Photo by Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission staff, used with 

permission.
45

INTRODUCTION

LSCT tribes care about the plants of the region and recognize that each is a being and 

has a spirit. The tribes respect and honor the plant life on this planet, Aki, our Mother the 

Earth, and express their thankfulness through ceremony, prayer, and offerings (Meeker et 

al. 1993). It is important that the ecosystems are protected and harvested in a sustainable 

manner as everything has a role in the web of life.

LSCT tribes have great interest and understanding of the species found in the region. 

While the focus of this report is to provide information on the forest resources of the 

region, we provide further information on six tree species of high cultural significance. 

For each of the six species, the Anishinabe name is provided along with the common and 

Latin names for these species. The collection of nontimber forest products (NTFPs)3 from 

these six species for traditional and other uses is an important part of life to many residents 

of this region. This collection of products can range from low intensity levels that have no 

impact on the resource (e.g., collecting a few leaves, needles, or twigs for medicinal use) to 

large scale personal use or commercial levels (e.g., tapping large numbers of sugar maples 

for syrup production or clipping balsam boughs for wreath production) that can have 

significant impacts on current and future resources in a stand. The six species are found 

in a diverse range of forest sites across the region. The current status of these species and 

changes in this resource serve as indicators of the overall trends in the forest resources of 

the region.

The six species of high cultural interest are highlighted in Table 9, which shows the 28 

most common tree species (in terms of number of live trees on forest land) with five 

measures of their relative abundance in the region. The six species of cultural significance 

(highlighted) are among the 10 most common species in terms of total number of trees 5 

inches d.b.h. or larger across the region. At least one of the six species was found growing 

on nearly 80 percent of all forest stands in the region (see Table 9, last row), an indication 

of how widespread and important these trees are to the forest ecosystems of this region. 

Two species (northern white-cedar and black ash) are typically found growing in lowland 

forests, sugar maple and hophornbeam inhabit mostly upland sites, and the others can be 

found on a wide range of physiographic sites. Soil nutrient requirements for these species 

range from relatively low for paper birch and balsam fir to much higher for sugar maple 

and hophornbeam. There is also a broad range in shade tolerance levels among these 

species with sugar maple, hophornbeam, and northern white-cedar among the most tolerant 

species in there region and paper birch and black ash among the least tolerant species.

3 Nontimber forest products (NTFPs) are useful substances, materials, and/or commodities 

obtained from forests which do not require harvesting (logging) trees. Some traditional uses of 

forest trees that require the cutting of a few select trees, such as hophornbeam for lodge poles and 

black ash for basket making, are also included.
46

Table 9.― Relative abundance of tree species in the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Abundance Relative to Total (percent)

Species Seedlings a Saplings b Small trees c Large trees d Forest area e

Balsam fir 11.1 19.8 8.1 0.9 47.5

Quaking aspen 7.6 15.9 9.8 8.6 43.2

Red maple 11.1 10.4 12.5 11.6 61.1

Sugar maple 18.7 8.0 12.2 16.4 37.3

Black spruce 3.6 5.7 6.1 0.6 18.6

Northern white-cedar 2.2 3.1 10.1 9.1 15.4

Black ash 4.6 3.8 4.2 1.8 21.7

Paper birch 1.2 2.9 4.5 2.8 31.9

Bigtooth aspen 0.9 2.7 2.4 2.8 13.8

Hophornbeam 3.4 3.0 0.5 0.0 19.8

Tamarack 0.8 2.1 2.4 0.7 9.6

Red pine 0.3 0.8 5.5 7.7 11.5

Jack pine 0.5 1.6 2.7 1.4 8.0

Black cherry 3.5 1.8 1.2 1.0 29.6

White spruce 1.0 1.5 2.3 2.1 21.6

Eastern white pine 1.2 1.3 1.8 4.5 18.5

Northern red oak 1.7 1.0 1.5 6.0 20.9

American basswood 0.4 0.8 1.9 4.6 16.1

Yellow birch 0.6 0.9 1.6 2.6 17.6

American beech 2.7 1.1 0.6 1.2 8.9

Eastern hemlock 0.6 0.7 1.4 4.5 10.6

Mountain maple 3.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 10.6

American hornbeam 1.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 5.6

White ash 4.0 1.0 0.6 1.4 15.1

Balsam poplar 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.5 6.1

Green ash 1.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 9.4

Northern pin oak 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.5 6.1

American elm 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.3 12.7

All others 9.7 4.4 3.0 4.7 51.4

Six species of interest 41.3 40.6 39.7 31.0 79.1

a Seedlings – trees less than 1 inch d.b.h. and at least 1 foot tall (hardwood species) or 6 inches tall (softwood species)

b Saplings – trees 1.0 to 4.9 inches d.b.h.

c Small trees – trees 5.0 to 10.9 inches d.b.h.

d Large trees – trees 11 inches d.b.h. or larger

e Forest area – Values in this column indicate the percent of the total forest land area where the species indicated was 

found to occur as live seedlings, saplings, or trees of any size.

The percentage of trees in a size class (the first four columns) all sum to 100 percent as they are expressed as the percent 

of the total number of trees in that size class. The last column indicates the percentage of the total forest land area where 

trees of any size were observed in the stand. Since most forest stands have many tree species present, this column sums 

to a value much greater than 100 percent.
47

SUGAR MAPLE (ININAATIG)

Acer saccharum

Background

Sugar maple wood is used for flooring, cabinetry, furniture, and other purposes. Sugar maple 

also has traditional medicinal uses (Meeker et al. 1993). But it is best known for the sweet 

syrup and sugar made by boiling down its sap. Maple syrup (zhiiwaagamizigan), sugar 

(ziinzibaakwad), and the activity known as sugaring are so important to the Anishinabe 

people that one of the 13 moons of the year is named the maple sugar moon (iskigamiigegiizis) (Erickson 2006). Syrup can be produced from many species (e.g., sugar maple, 

red maple, boxelder, paper birch, and fireweed), but sugar maple has high sugar content 

and is often preferred to other sources. In addition to its cultural importance, maple syrup 

production is a significant industry in the ceded territories. In 2013, over 400,000 gallons of 

maple syrup were produced in the Lake States for sale in the commercial market (National 

Agricultural Statistics Service 2014). Recent research estimates this is only a portion of the 

potential commercially viable syrup production from the region (Farrell 2013). Within the 

LSCT, sugar maple grows on a wide variety of soil, ranging from sands to silty loams, but it 

does best on well-drained loams. Sugar maple does not grow well on dry, shallow soils and 

is rarely, if ever, found in swamps (Godman et al. 1990).

What we found

In 2013, 630 million sugar maple trees (5 inches and larger in diameter) were found on 

timberland in the LSCT. This represents a 10.6 percent increase from 1980 (Table 10). 

Since 1980, the number of trees increased in all size classes except the smallest (5.0 to 

6.9 inches d.b.h.). Sugar maple is distributed unevenly throughout the ceded territories 

with the greatest abundance located in lands ceded in 1842 and the least in those ceded in 

1854 (Fig. 30). Just over one-third of the sugar maple resource is on public forest lands. 

On both public and private lands, the number of large diameter (≥11 inches) sugar maple 

has increased (Fig. 31). The number of sugar maple trees 11 inches diameter and greater 

increased 75.9 percent on private land and by 163.8 percent on public land since 1980.

Table 10.— Number of live sugar maple trees on timberland by diameter class and inventory 

year, Lake States ceded territories

Diameter class (inches) 1980 1990 2008 2013

Percent change

1980 - 2013

----------------------------- millions ---------------------------

5.0-6.9 279.9 317.0 219.9 208.1 -25.6

7.0-8.9 143.6 179.6 164.4 156.2 8.8

9.0-10.9 68.9 105.6 113.3 111.4 61.8

11.0-12.9 33.7 54.7 67.5 71.8 112.8

13.0-14.9 19.3 28.4 34.8 41.4 115.1

15.0-16.9 11.7 16.0 17.2 20.6 75.2

17.0-18.9 6.4 9.0 9.2 11.0 71.5

19.0-20.9 3.2 4.9 4.1 4.8 50.2

21.0-28.9 2.7 4.6 4.2 4.4 60.9

29.0+ 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 42.9

All sizes 569.6 720.1 634.8 629.9 10.6
48

Figure 30.―Sugar maple basal area by treaty area, Lake States ceded territories, 2013 (Wilson et al. 2012, 2013).

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980 1990 2008 2013 1980 1990 2008 2013

Sugar Maple Trees (millions) 

Private Public 

 5.0-6.9

7.0-8.9

9.0-10.9

11.0-12.9

13.0-14.9

15.0-16.9

17.0-18.9

19.0+

Diameter Class 

(inches)

Figure 31.―Number of sugar maple trees on timberland by ownership, diameter class, and 

inventory year, Lake States ceded territories. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence 

interval around the estimated mean.

Sugar Maple Basal Area 

 (ft2

/acre)
49

The highest concentration of forest stands currently suitable for maple syrup production are 

located in the 1836 Lower Peninsula and 1842 Treaty areas (Fig. 32). The potential for a 

forest stand to be utilized as a sugar bush for the production of syrup is based on the size and 

number of sugar maple trees in the stand. Suitable sugar bushes are those that currently meet 

criteria4 and potential stands are those that with growth and management will meet these 

criteria in ten years or less. Suitable sugarbush area has increased between 1980 and 2013 on 

both public and private lands with nearly three times the area of public timberlands meeting 

the requirements of suitable and a 66 percent increase on private timberlands (Fig. 33). 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1836 Lower

Peninsula

1836 Upper

Peninsula

1837 1842 1854

Suitable Sugar Area (million acres)

Treaty Area

Public

Private

Ownership

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1980 2013 1980 2013

Timberland Area (million acres) 

Private Public 

Future sugar bush

Suitable sugar bush

Figure 32.―Area of 

timberland suitable for 

maple syrup production by 

treaty area and ownership, 

2013. Error bars represent 

a 68 percent confidence 

interval around the 

estimated mean.

Figure 33.―Area of timberland 

currently suitable, and 

potentially suitable in the future, 

for maple syrup production, 

by ownership, Lake States 

ceded territories, 1980 and 

2013. Error bars represent a 

68 percent confidence interval 

around the estimated mean.

4 Suitable stands are those with a minimum of 25 square feet per acre in sugar maple trees that are 

10 inches in diameter or larger and where sugar maple makes up at least one quarter of the total 

basal area of all species of trees. Future stands are those that do not meet the standard for suitable 

but have at least 10 square feet per acre in sugar maple trees that are 5 inches in diameter or larger 

and sugar maple makes up at least one quarter of the total basal area of all species of trees.
50

Future sugarbush area decreased on both public and private land but this category decreased 

by much less than the increase in suitable sugarbush, as some areas matured from future 

stands to suitable. These future stands have the potential to become good sugarbush stands 

as they mature.

Sugar maple is a primary component of two major forest types, the sugar maple-beechyellow birch forest type and the hard maple-basswood forest type. In the LSCT, 89 percent 

of sugar maple trees (5 inches diameter and larger) grow in these two forest types. However 

sugar maple only comprises 45 percent of the trees in these two forest types, with a number 

of other species (e.g., red maple, American basswood, yellow birch, balsam fir, eastern 

hemlock, white ash, green ash, American beech, black cherry, and hophornbeam) making 

up the rest of the forest. The management of these two forest types, primarily through 

timber harvesting practices, has a major impact on the sugar maple resource. Over the 15 

year period (1999-2013), harvesting rates (frequency of timber harvesting) in these two 

forest types differed substantially between public and private timberlands. In this period, 

harvesting on private timberlands occurred at an annual rate of 4.6 percent of the total area. 

Public timberlands were harvested at an annual rate of 2.3 percent, half the rate seen on 

private lands. The intensity of the harvest was nearly identical for both ownerships—an 

average of 33 percent of the total standing volume of all trees was cut. And likewise, the 

harvesting intensity of sugar maple on both ownerships was 29 percent. The intensity of 

harvesting other species is not statistically different (36 percent on public lands versus 38 

percent on private lands), suggesting that both owner types may be electing to harvest other 

species and to leave more sugar maple for future growth.

On sugar maple-beech-yellow birch and hard maple-basswood forest types, where 

harvesting of any species took place, public timberlands have an average standing volume 

of 2,100 cubic feet per acre, about 12 percent greater than the 1,900 cubic feet per acre 

observed on private timberlands that were harvested. For these two forest types, the ratio 

of net growth to removals of live trees is 1.02 for private lands and 1.65 for public lands 

across all timberlands in the LSCT. This indicates an overall balance between growth and 

harvesting is occurring on private lands and an increasing resource on public lands.

What this means

Our analysis suggests good potential for future maple sugaring on LSCT lands and an 

increase in the sugar maple resource on public lands. In 2002 GLIFWC staff, working with 

elders from member tribes, identified a number of potential sugarbushes on national forest 

lands in the ceded territories in addition to stands on tribal lands (Danielsen 2002a). This 

extends opportunities for sugaring off reservation lands.

Optimal forest lands for sugaring are considerably less common in the lands ceded in 1837 

and 1854, as well as the eastern half of the Upper Peninsula lands covered by the 1836 

Treaty. Sugarers in these territories may have to travel further to gain access to a sugarbush 

if their goal is to produce syrup at volumes considered suitable for commercial sale. When 

looking for sugar camp sites, the potential forest types will vary between treaty areas.
51

BLACK ASH (WIISAGAAK)

Fraxinus nigra

Background

Black ash is found throughout the northern portion of eastern North America in areas with 

high water tables such as wetlands, bogs, along streams, and poorly drained soils (Wright 

and Rauscher 1990). It is a slow growing and relatively shade-intolerant species. Black 

ash is an important species of the black ash-American elm-red maple forest type and is 

commonly found in association with the northern white-cedar forest type, as well as with 

speckled alder, red osier dogwood, bog laurel, Labrador tea, willow, small cranberry, and 

common winterberry (Wright and Rauscher 1990). Black ash is used for many purposes 

including basket making. It also provides food for wildlife and browse for deer and moose. 

All ash species throughout the region, including black ash, are threatened by the emerald ash 

borer (EAB) (Garske 2013).

What we found

Black ash is found throughout the LSCT (Fig. 34). The forest type where black ash is 

most prevalent is in the elm-ash-cottonwood type followed by the maple-beech-birch type 

(Fig. 35). Black ash is also found frequently in the spruce-fir forest types in all treaty areas. 

In the 1837 treaty area, some black ash is found in the oak-hickory forest type. It is also 

found in the aspen-birch forest types throughout the LSCT.

Figure 34.―Black ash basal area by treaty area, Lake States ceded territories, 2013 (Wilson et al. 2012, 2013).
52

The 1837 Treaty area contains the largest volume of black ash trees followed by the 1842 

and 1854 Treaty areas (Fig. 36). The 1836 Treaty areas has the least amount of ash volume. 

Most of the volume occurs in trees that are in the 5.0 to 10.9 inch categories in each treaty 

area. From 1980 to 2013, volume has generally increased for each diameter class. In other 

words, there has been growth within or recruitment into each diameter class.

Black ash resources appear to be stable and even increasing in volume over the 

measurement periods within the ceded territories, however EAB is expected to increase 

mortality within the LSCT. Ash mortality in the 11 counties in southeast Michigan, where 

Figure 35.―Volume of live black ash trees on timberland by forest type and treaty area, 2013. 

Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the estimated mean.

Figure 36.―Volume of live black ash trees on timberland by inventory year and treaty area, 2013. 

Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the estimated mean.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1836 Lower

Peninsula

1836 Upper

Peninsula

1837 1842 1854

Black Ash Volume (million ft3)

Treaty Area 

Spruce-fir

Oak-pine

Oak-hickory

Maple-beech-birch

Elm-ash-cottonwood

Aspen-birch

Forest Type

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1836 Lower

Peninsula

1836 Upper

Peninsula

1837 1842 1854

Black Ash Volume (million ft3)

Treaty Area 

1980

1990

2008

2013

Year
53

EAB was first discovered, may serve as an indication of what may happen to ash resources 

in the ceded territories (Fig. 37). The 11 county area has more urban, agricultural, and 

other nonforest lands, but the mortality that has been observed in this area is expected in 

the forests of the LSCT as the EAB becomes established in these forests. Between 2005 

and 2007 ash mortality rates in the 11 county area were already around 4 percent per year. 

Black ash shows a dramatic increase in mortality starting in the 2009 sampling year when 

mortality was just under 6 percent per year. As the EAB infestation became acute in the 

11 county area, the mortality rates increased dramatically to around 8.5 and 14.6 percent 

per year in 2011 and 2013, respectively (Fig. 38). To put these figures into perspective, a 

forest stand with mortality rates of 10 percent per year would lose about 40 percent of the 

trees in around 5 years and 70 percent in 10 years. Lands outside of the ceded territories 

in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula show increasing ash mortality in 2013. Only in the 1836 

Lower Peninsula Treaty area—the closest LSCT area to the initial EAB outbreak—did ash 

mortality increase in 2013; no increase in ash mortality was observed in the other ceded 

territories.

What this means

Trends suggest that black ash is stable and growing in terms of volume throughout the 

ceded territories. These trends, however, are not expected to continue due to increased ash 

mortality associated with the emerald ash borer. EAB infects and kills all species of ash 

found in the ceded territories. It is expected that as EAB moves into the unaffected areas of 

the ceded territories, ash mortality will increase following mortality trends similar to the 11 

county area where EAB was first discovered. These trends will have a negative impact on 

Figure 37.―Eleven southeast Michigan counties (in red) where emerald ash borer was first detected 

and where mortality rates of over 14 percent per year were observed in 2013. 
54

black ash availability. While mortality increases greatly once EAB is established in an area, 

research conducted with American Indian basket makers indicates it is possible to submerge 

infected ash logs for future use (Poland et al. 2005, 2011). It also suggests that ash mortality 

could be less severe in northern Minnesota and a small portion of northwestern Wisconsin 

due to colder winter temperatures limiting EAB survival (DeSantis et al. 2013). However 

winter low temperature trends have been increasing in the same region and projections 

forecast continued higher winter temperatures (Hayhoe et al. 2010). The interaction among 

EAB, ash mortality, and climate change are unknown at this time.

PAPER BIRCH (WHITE BIRCH; WIIGWAAS)

Betula papyrifera

Background

Paper birch grows throughout the ceded territories and can be found on any soil and 

topographic situation ranging from rocky outcrops of the Canadian Shield to flat poorly 

drained swamps. It grows best, as measured by volume over time, on deeper well-drained to 

moderately well-drained Spodosol, Inceptisols, and Entisols that are common to the glacial 

deposits of the region (Safford et al. 1990). It is a relatively short-lived species that matures 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Michigan 11

county area

Michigan

Lower

Peninsula

outside the LSCT

1836 Lower

Peninsula

1836 Upper

Peninsula

1837 1842 1854

Annual Black Ash Mortality Rate 

Treaty Area 

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

Year

Figure 38.― Average annual mortality rates (percent mortality per year) of black ash, 2005-2013, for 

the five ceded territories and rest of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula (LP). The 11-county area of southeast 

Michigan is the location where emerald ash borer was first detected (see Fig. 36). Michigan LP outside 

the Lake States ceded territories refers to the portion of the LP that is not part of the 11-county area or 

the 1836 treaty area. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the estimated mean.
55

in 60 to 70 years and seldom lives beyond 140 years. In this region it often forms nearly 

pure stands following major stand disturbances such as fire or logging, usually only lasts for 

one generation, and is replaced by more shade tolerant trees as stands mature in the absence 

of a major disturbance.

Paper birch is an important species for the timber industry and is harvested for both the 

pulpwood and sawtimber markets. In addition, the white bark of the paper birch is gathered for 

a variety of uses and is an important material in water transportation, shelter, and food storage 

for the Ojibwe. Canoes (jiiman), baskets (makak), winnowing trays (nooshkaachinaagan), 

and buckets (negwaakwaanan) are among the many items that are made from the bark that 

is harvested from live standing trees typically in late June and early July. When gathered 

using proper techniques, the bark can be harvested from a live tree with little or no harm 

to the tree, but improper methods can result in damage or mortality. Birch bark has many 

characteristics that vary substantially from tree to tree and determine its suitability for 

various uses. A tree that has bark suitable for canoe building may not be suitable for baskets. 

It is important to gatherers that large numbers of birch are available for consideration when 

searching for bark to harvest. In recent years, harvesters have reported shortages of birch 

with many dead or dying trees in areas where they have traditionally gathered bark.

What we found

Paper birch is found across the entire region (Fig. 39), although it is most abundant in the 

“Arrowhead” region of northeastern Minnesota, the location of lands ceded as a result of 

the 1854 Treaty (Fig. 40). Across the entire region, paper birch has decreased dramatically 

in both total numbers and as a percentage of the total population of trees. Paper birch is 

now about one half of what it was in 1980 for all treaty areas (Fig. 41). In 1980 paper birch 

accounted for 13.9 percent of all live trees on timberlands in the 1854 Treaty area, but only 

6.7 percent of the trees in 2013. Considering the number of trees 9 inches d.b.h. and larger, 

the decrease is less drastic. Figure 41 shows the trend in total number of paper birch trees 

9 inches diameter and larger (those typically used for bark harvesters) and all of the treaty 

areas have a 10 percent (1836 Upper Peninsula Treaty area) to 38 percent reduction (1842 

Treaty area) between 1980 and 2013.

What this means

Paper birch is decreasing in abundance across the region, a trend that will likely continue in 

the near future. FIA plot data was used to classify stands as large diameter stands (at least 10 

paper birch trees per acre, 10 inches d.b.h or larger) and small diameter stands (at least 50 

paper birch trees per acre, 5 inches d.b.h. or larger). The area covered by stands with large 

diameter birch, where bark and timber products are harvested, has decreased by 18 percent 

between 1980 and 2013 (Fig. 42). The area covered by small diameter stands, which can be 

expected to grow into large diameter stands and provide a future resource, has decreased by 

75 percent over the same period.

The reduction in birch reflects changes in land management and forest succession over 

the past 50-plus years. Increased wild fire suppression, fewer and smaller clear cuts, and 

increases in management for multi-aged stands all contribute to less regeneration of this 

pioneer species. The presence and vigor of paper birch should be closely monitored.
56

Figure 39.―Paper birch basal area by treaty area, Lake States ceded territories, 2013 (Wilson et al. 2012, 2013).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1836 Lower

Peninsula

1836 Upper

Peninsula

1837 1842 1854

Percent Paper Birch 

Treaty Area 

1980

1990

2008

2013

Year

Figure 40.―Paper birch abundance as a percent of all live trees 5 inches d.b.h. and larger 

on timberland, by inventory year and Lake States ceded territories treaty area. Error bars 

represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the estimated mean.
57

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1836 Lower

Peninsula

1836 Upper

Peninsula

1837 1842 1854

Paper Birch Trees (millions)

Treaty Area

1980

1990

2008

2013

Year

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

1980 1990 2008 2013

Timberland Area (million acres)

Year

Large diameter stands

Small diameter stands

Figure 41.―Number of live paper birch 9 inches diameter and larger on timberland, by 

Lake States ceded territories treaty area and inventory year. Error bars represent a 68 

percent confidence interval around the estimated mean.

Figure 42.―Area of large and small diameter paper birch stands by inventory year, in 

Lake States ceded territories. Large diameter stands are those with at least 10 paper 

birch trees per acre 10 inches d.b.h. or larger. Small diameter stands are stands with at 

least 50 paper birch per acre 5 inches d.b.h. or larger. Error bars represent a 68 percent 

confidence interval around the estimated mean.
58

NORTHERN WHITE-CEDAR (GIIZHIK)

Thuja occidentalis

Background

Every part of the northern white-cedar tree has important uses for the tribes of the ceded 

territories. Its spiritual and material meaning is illustrated by the fact that a cedar tree plays 

an important role in one of the stories about Nenabozho, the Ojibwe cultural hero and 

trickster (Densmore 1974). Recently documented uses of the wood include (wild) ricing 

knockers and push poles, spigots for tapping and paddles for stirring maple sap, frames for 

birch bark canoes, and cradle boards. Bark is used for lodge coverings and insect repellant 

bedding. Leaves and boughs also have many uses, including tea, incense, wreaths, and other 

decorations, and prevention of maple sap boil-over (Danielsen 2002b). Historically, peeled 

and split roots were used to make baskets and mats. The northern white-cedar trees were also 

used for flooring, bedding, partitions, and sheathing for lodges (Lyford 1953). Northern whitecedar also has (proprietary) medicinal uses (Densmore 1974, Meeker et al. 1993). In addition 

to the many subsistence uses of northern white-cedar, harvest and sale of its boughs are 

also important commercial activities (Danielsen 2002b). Native peoples of the LSCT gather 

northern white-cedar on and off reservation lands. As early as the 1990s, representatives 

of the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission member tribes became concerned 

about future availability of northern white-cedar. Factors affecting its supply include 

changes in hydrology due to road networks (Danielsen 2002b), and forest and wildlife 

management practices (Callan et al. 2013, Cornett et al. 2000, Davis et al. 1998, Forester et al. 

2008, Heitzman et al. 1999, Hofmeyer et al. 2009, Rooney et al. 2002, White 2012).

What we found

There are 460.5 million live northern white-cedar trees 5 inches d.b.h. and larger on LSCT 

timberland as of 2013, a 24.1 percent increase since 1980. Between 1980 and 2013, the 

number of trees increased in all size classes except the smallest (5.0 to 6.9 inches d.b.h.), 

which decreased by 5.6 percent (Table 11). Northern white-cedar is distributed unevenly 

throughout the ceded territories (Fig. 43), with the greatest number of trees on lands ceded 

Table 11.― Number of live northern white-cedar trees on timberland by diameter class 

and inventory year, Lake States ceded territories

Diameter class

(inches)

1980 1990 2008 2013 Percent change

--------------------------- millions --------------------------- 1980 - 2013

5.0-6.9 189.7 201.5 179.8 179.2 -5.6

7.0-8.9 97.8 120.3 121.5 125.4 28.3

9.0-10.9 46.7 62.9 70.6 77.0 65.0

11.0-12.9 21.8 30.6 36.7 41.5 90.8

13.0-14.9 8.8 13.7 17.9 20.3 131.4

15.0-16.9 3.7 5.5 8.3 9.5 160.4

17.0-18.9 1.4 2.5 3.3 4.1 185.9

19.0-20.9 0.6 1.0 1.6 1.7 178.9

21.0+ 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.6 208.2

All sizes 371.0 438.7 440.8 460.5 24.1
59

in the Upper Peninsula portion of the 1836 Treaty (40 percent of the total) and the fewest on 

lands ceded in 1837 (5 percent of the total). Northern white-cedar is found on Federal, State, 

county, and private lands. Across the ceded territories, just over half are growing on private 

lands; however the proportion varies by treaty area (Fig. 44).

What this means

The population of northern white-cedar is currently robust. However, the population is 

aging and the (modest) decrease in the smallest diameter trees may signal a long-term 

downward trend in numbers. Deer browse may represent a particular concern. Recruitment 

and survival of seedlings is adversely affected by high white-tailed deer populations in the 

region. However, hunting management practices on tribal lands, which significantly reduce 

deer numbers over those on adjacent state-managed lands, have been shown to result in 

improved regeneration of northern red oak (Reo and Karl 2010), offering one potential 

model for addressing this issue. In addition to the biological availability of northern whitecedar, access to lands with rights to harvest also affects the supply for commercial and 

cultural uses. It is noteworthy that the 1836 upper peninsula ceded territory has the greatest 

proportion of northern white-cedar trees (25 percent of all live trees 5 inches diameter and 

larger are northern white-cedar) with nearly equal numbers on public and private lands. 

In the 1842 ceded territories, northern white-cedar is also a large component of the forest 

Figure 43.―Northern white-cedar basal area, Lake States ceded territories, 2013 (Wilson et al. 2012, 2013).
60

(8 percent of the live trees 5 inches diameter or larger) with the largest portion on private 

lands. State lands are home to a substantial portion of the northern white-cedar population 

of these areas. As a consequence, access to northern white-cedar in much of the ceded 

territories depends largely on State regulations and the capacity to negotiate harvesting 

rights on private, nontribal lands.

HOPHORNBEAM (EASTERN HOPHORNBEAM, IRONWOOD; 

MAANANOONS)

Ostrya virginiana

Background

Hophornbeam is a small short-lived understory tree species found throughout eastern North 

America (Metzger 1990). Throughout its range, hophornbeam grows on a wide variety of 

soils and can be found on xeric soils and rock outcroppings as well as mesic soils within 

the ceded territories. It is found in low abundance in most forest types throughout its range 

and often produces stump sprouts after fire. Typical silvicultural treatments select against 

hophornbeam in favor of more commercially valuable timber species (e.g., it is often 

removed during forest management operations). Hophornbeam grows slowly and produces 

very hard wood, which can be used for many purposes. In addition, the buds and catkins are 

eaten by many species of wildlife, especially wild turkey and sharp-tailed grouse.

What we found

Hophornbeam is found throughout the four ceded territories (Fig. 45), but it is most 

abundant within the 1837, 1842, and 1836 Lower Peninsula Treaty areas (Fig. 46). While 

most of these trees can be found on private land (this category includes tribal lands), there 

are substantial amounts occurring on public land in these three treaty areas as well. Few 

hophornbeams are found in the 1836 Upper Peninsula or 1854 Treaty areas.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private

Northern White-cedar Trees (millions) 

1980

1990

2008

2013

1836 Lower

Peninsula

1836 Upper

Peninsula

1837 1842 1854

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Year

Figure 44.―Number of northern white-cedar trees 5 inches d.b.h. and larger on timberland by Lake 

States ceded territories treaty area and ownership. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence 

interval around the estimated mean.
61

Figure 45.―Hophornbeam basal area, Lake States ceded territories, 2013 (Wilson et al. 2012, 2013).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1836 Lower

Peninsula

1836 Upper

Peninsula

1837 1842 1854

Hophornbeam Trees ≥3 Inches (millions)

Treaty Area

Public

Private

Ownership

Figure 46.―Number of hophornbeam trees (≥3.0 inches d.b.h.) on timberland by Lake 

States ceded territories treaty area and ownership, 2013. Error bars represent a 68 

percent confidence interval around the estimated mean.
62

The trends for hophornbeam from 3.0 to 6.9 inches in diameter between 1980 and 2013 

show increases or stability in numbers over the sampling periods. The 1837 area shows 

a large increase from 1980 through 2008 and then a slight decrease from 2008 to 2013 

(Fig. 47). Trends for large diameter trees (greater than 7 inches d.b.h.) are similar (Fig. 48) 

with the noticeable decrease in the number of large diameter trees found in the 1842 Treaty 

area. Finally, the number of small diameter hophornbeam is increasing in all treaty areas 

(Fig. 49).

What this means

Trends for recruitment from small to large diameter hophornbeam suggest that there will 

continue to be hophornbeam throughout the treaty areas in the future. These trends are 

supported by looking at potential future recruitment of medium sized pole trees5 (referred 

to as poles) (Fig. 50). One area of concern is the dramatic decreases of large diameter 

trees in the 1842 Treaty area. This could indicate a lower potential to find large diameter 

hophornbeam in the near future. This may be due to forest management activities that 

removed larger diameter trees within the area or it could indicate that these trees were 

mature and are coming to the end of their life spans. In either case, forest management 

activities could be adapted to maintain a steady recruitment into larger diameter classes 

from the pool of smaller individuals. A noteworthy trend in the LSCT is that there appears 

to be a lot of recruitment from the small and medium sized trees which could eventually add 

to the number of large diameter trees in this treaty area.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1836 Lower

Peninsula

1836 Upper

Peninsula

1837 1842 1854

Hophornbeam Trees 3.0-6.9 inches (millions)

Treaty Area

1980

1990

2008

2013

Figure 47.―Number of medium-sized hophornbeam trees (3.0 to 6.9 inches d.b.h.) 

on timberland by Lake States ceded territories treaty area and inventory year. Error 

bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around the estimated mean.

1 = possible future stands, those where hophornbeam was found but did not rank good or future

2 = future stands for collecting poles, with at least 50 hophornbeam trees per acre that are 1 inch 

d.b.h. or larger

3 = good stands for collecting poles, with at least 25 hophornbeam trees per acre that are 3 inches 

d.b.h. or larger

5
63

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1836 Lower

Peninsula

1836 Upper

Peninsula

1837 1842 1854

Hophornbeam Trees ≥7.0 inches (millions)

Treaty Area

1980

1990

2008

2013

0

50

100

150

200

250

1836 Lower

Peninsula

1836 Upper

Peninsula

1837 1842 1854

Hophornbeam Trees 1.0 to 2.9 inches (millions)

Treaty Area

1980

1990

2008

2013

Figure 48.―Number of large 

hophornbeam trees (≥7.0 

inches d.b.h.) on timberland by 

Lake States ceded territories 

treaty area and inventory 

year. Error bars represent a 

68 percent confidence interval 

around the estimated mean.

Figure 49.―Number of small 

hophornbeam trees (1.0 to 2.9 

inches d.b.h.) on timberland by 

Lake States ceded territories 

treaty area and ownership. 

Error bars represent a 68 

percent confidence interval 

around the estimated mean.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1980 1990 2008 2013

Timberland Area (million acres) 

Year

 Possible HH Poles

Future HH Poles

Good HH Poles

Recruitment Status

Figure 50.―Area of timberland 

by hophornbeam recruitment 

status in the Lake States 

ceded territories by inventory 

year. See footnote 5 for 

status definitions. Error bars 

represent a 68 percent 

confidence interval around the 

estimated mean.
64

BALSAM FIR (ZHINGOB)

Abies balsamea

Background

Balsam fir is a shade tolerant conifer that can establish in the dense shade of other species. It 

is an important conifer in this region. Commercial harvesting is primarily for pulp and light 

frame construction lumber. The harvesting of balsam fir boughs and Christmas trees is one 

of the NTFP collections that supports a commercial industry in the Lake States and provides 

seasonal income and enjoyment to many residents of this area. Traditional uses of balsam fir 

by the Ojibwe include medicinal uses of the needles, sap, and bark in various ways. Balsam 

fir resin blisters provide an easily harvestable source of sap that is used in canoe and boat 

caulk. Historic uses of balsam resin for mounting microscopic specimens and for optical 

glass cement have been replaced by synthetic substitutes. Wildlife relies extensively on this 

tree for food and shelter (Frank 1990).

One of largest threats to balsam fir populations is the spruce budworm, a native insect 

which, despite its name, prefers fir over spruce. This pest causes heavy damage and 

mortality, especially in stands that contain mature fir, are densely stocked with balsam fir, 

or have a high proportion of fir in relation to other species. Periodic outbreaks of spruce 

budworm have caused extensive mortality across large areas when the balsam fir population 

reaches high levels (Bakuzis and Hansen 1965).

What we found

Of the six species of cultural significance, balsam fir is the most abundant on the landscape 

and was found in 47.5 percent of all forest stands in the region (Table 9). The range of 

balsam fir extends across all of the northern parts of the region but is not found in the very 

southern portions of the of 1836 and 1837 Treaty areas (Fig. 51). Balsam fir’s presence in 

the LSCT forests is increasing and was found to occur on 140,000 more acres in 2013 than 

in the 2008 inventory, an increase of almost 1 percent. In relation to other tree species in 

the LSCT, balsam fir is generally a smaller than average tree; balsam fir makes up nearly 

20 percent of saplings (trees 1.0 to 4.9 inches d.b.h.) but slightly less than 1 percent of 

the large trees (trees 11 inches d.b.h. and larger) (Table 9). The increase in balsam fir has 

been primarily in small diameter trees. The total number of 5.0 to 6.9 inch diameter trees 

increased by 10.5 percent between 2008 and 2013, however the number of trees 7 inches in 

diameter and over increased by only 0.5 percent over the same period.

Balsam boughs are clipped primarily from smaller diameter trees in stands that are not 

dominated by an overstory of large diameter trees. These conditions allow enough light 

to reach the lower branches of the trees and lead to growth of healthy needles. There is 

standard criteria for ranking stands for suitability of harvesting boughs: good, medium, 

poor, or balsam fir not present.6 Area of timberland ranked as “good” or “medium” showed 

6 To be classed as “good” for harvesting balsam fir boughs a stand must have at least 250 small 

diameter (1.0 to 4.9 inch) balsam fir trees per acre, less than 50 square feet per acre in trees 5 

inches d.b.h. and greater (all species) and small diameter trees of other species are less than 

50 percent of the small diameter trees are ranked as good. To be classed as “medium” for 
65

a 1.1 percent decrease in area between 2008 and 2013. However, the overall decrease varies 

significantly (p=0.05) by ownership. There was a 4.6 percent decrease in timberland area 

ranked “good” or “medium” on privately owned forest lands and a 2.9 percent increase in 

similarly ranked timberland on public lands (Fig. 52).

Large areas of public timberland ranked as good balsam fir bough harvesting are present in 

all of the treaty areas except the Lower Peninsula portion of the 1836 Treaty area (Fig. 53). 

Most of the public (Federal, State, and county) agencies that manage these timberlands have 

programs that permit regulated harvesting of boughs for both personal and commercial use. 

Harvesting of boughs and other NTFPs on private lands occurs under arrangements with the 

owners. Tribes regulate gathering on reservation lands within their jurisdictions.

Changes in the total number of balsam fir versus all other species between the 2008 and 

2013 inventories are shown in Table 12. For small trees (5.0 to 6.9 inches d.b.h.), the rate 

of increase in balsam fir is much greater than the rate for all other species combined (10.5 

percent vs. 1.6 percent). However for large trees (13 inches or greater d.b.h.) the opposite 

Figure 51.―Balsam fir basal area by treaty area, Lake States ceded territories, 2013 (Wilson et al. 2012, 2013).

harvesting balsam fir boughs a stand must not meet the criteria for good and have at least 10 small 

diameter (1.0 to 4.9 inch) balsam fir trees per acre and less than 80 square feet per acre in trees 

5 inches and greater diameter (all species). Other stands where balsam fir is present are ranked 

“poor”. Based on criteria in Smith et al. (2009). 
66

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2008 2013 2008 2013

Timberland Area (million acres) 

Public Private

Medium Good

Bough Harvesting Class

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1836 Lower

Peninsula

1836 Upper

Peninsula

1837 1842 1854

Timberland Area (thousand acres) 

Treaty Area

Public

Private

Ownership

Figure 52.―Timberland area ranked as medium or good for harvesting of balsam 

fir boughs by ownership, Lake States ceded territories, 2008 and 2013. See 

footnote 6 for stand-ranking criteria. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence 

interval around the estimated mean.

Figure 53.―Timberland area ranked good for harvesting of balsam fir boughs by 

ownership and Lake States ceded territories treaty area, 2013. See footnote 6 for 

stand-ranking criteria. Error bars represent a 68 percent confidence interval around 

the estimated mean.

is true, with balsam fir showing a decrease of 1.7 percent and all other species showing 

an increase of 11.7 percent over the same period. It appears that current harvesting and 

management practices on timberlands are tending to provide for the regeneration and 

development of smaller balsam fir while other species are developing into large trees more 

often than balsam fir.
67

What this means

Balsam fir is a relatively short-lived species compared to others (e.g., sugar maple) and as 

stands are harvested at older ages and/or managed under multi-age management strategies, 

longer-lived species are favored. The maturing of forests, along with climate change, are 

concerns for this species as the LSCT are already at the southern edge of the region where 

balsam fir grows. The presence of balsam fir has remained relatively stable, but the trend 

should be watched as we are seeing a reduction in quality boughs on private lands.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the numerous individuals who contributed to the inventory 

and analysis of this region. Primary field crew and QA staff that collected field data 

included Sue Abrahamsen, Joshua Anderson, Steve Aysta, John Benaszeski, Kristen 

Bergstrand, Thom Bergstrom, Andrew Bird, Patrick Blanzy, James Blehm, Celie Borndall, 

John Campbell, Tom Castonguay, Patrick Churack, Brian Clennon, Shawn Conrad, Gary 

Cummings, Albert Dietz, Michael Downs, Steve Flackey, Dustin Gibbons, Brian Giersdorf, 

Bruce Giersdorf, Stan Grossman, Tim Halberg, Brandon Hanko, Jared Hayes, Larry Hoyt, 

Dan Huberty, Gary Inhelder, Chandler Johnson, Katherine Johnson, Dan Kaisershot, Mike 

Kangas, Dennis Kepler, Zackary Klessing, Peter Koehler, Troy Korpi, Cassandra Kurtz, 

Rebecca Landewe, Rebecca Langenecker, Dominic Lewer, Mark Majewsky, Kelly Meier, 

Bobby Morris, Paul Mueller, Sheldon Murphy, Joe Musolf, Pat Nelson, Rachel Nicoll, 

Grant Nielsen, Benjamin Nurre, Jeff Nyquist, Charles Paulson, Melissa Powers, Wilfred 

Previant, Scott Pugh, Jason Reed, Bob Rother, Sjana Schanning, Heidi Schmidt, Terry 

Schreiber, Jennifer Smith, Willard Smith, Jonathan Stelter, Aimee Stephens, Brad Totten, 

Brian Wall, Brittany Wedgewood, Mike Whitehill, Derek Wilkerson, Kris Williams, Dan 

Woitalla, and Caleb Wolden. Reviewers of report drafts included Stephanie Snyder, Michael 

Benedict, David Bisonette, and Keller Pape.

Table 12.— Total number of live trees on timberland for balsam fir and all other 

species, Lake States ceded territories 2008 and 2013

Diameter class (inches) 2008 2013

Percent change 

2008 to 2013

Balsam fir

 5.0-6.9 186.3 205.8 10.5%

 7.0-8.9 72.4 72.8 0.5%

 9.0-10.9 23.5 23.2 -1.1%

 11.0-12.9 5.7 6.1 7.3%

 13.0+ 2.2 2.2 -1.7%

Total 290.1 310.1 6.9%

All other species

 5.0-6.9 1,695.3 1,721.9 1.6%

 7.0-8.9 1,090.3 1,086.7 -0.3%

 9.0-10.9 675.8 679.1 0.5%

 11.0-12.9 391.0 403.1 3.1%

 13.0+ 441.0 492.6 11.7%

Total 4,293.5 4,383.4 2.1%
68

GLOSSARY

All live tree: All living trees. All size classes, all tree classes, and both saw log and non-saw 

log species are included.

Average annual mortality: The average annual change in mortality of trees during 

the period between inventories. This estimate can be provided in cubic feet for live and 

growing-stock trees that died or in board feet for sawtimber trees that died.

Average annual net growth: The average annual change in the volume of trees during the 

period between inventories. Components include the change in volume of trees that have 

met the minimum size requirements over the inventory period, plus the volume of trees 

reaching the minimum size during the period (ingrowth), minus the volume of trees that died 

during the period, minus the volume of cull during the period. Mortality removals (trees 

killed in the harvesting process and left on site) and diversion removals (trees removed from 

the forest-land base due to a change from forest to nonforest land) are not included. This 

estimate can be provided in cubic feet for live and growing-stock trees or in board feet for 

sawtimber trees.

Average annual removals: The average annual change in removals of trees during the 

period between inventories. The estimate includes harvest removals, mortality removals 

(trees killed in the harvesting process and left on site), and diversion removals (trees 

removed from the forest-land base due to a change from forest to nonforest land). This 

estimate can be provided in cubic feet for live and growing-stock trees or in board feet for 

sawtimber trees.

Biomass: The aboveground weight of live trees (including bark but excluding foliage) 

reported in dry tons (dry weight). Biomass has four components:

Bole: Biomass of a tree from 1 foot above the ground to a 4 inch top outside bark or 

to a point where the central stem breaks into limbs.

Tops and limbs: Total biomass of a tree from a 1 foot stump minus the bole.

1-to 5-inch trees: Total aboveground biomass of a tree from 1 to 5 inches in d.b.h.

Stumps: Biomass of a tree 5 inches d.b.h. and larger from the ground to a height of 

1 foot.

Board foot: A unit of lumber measuring 1 foot long, 1 foot wide, and 1 inch thick, or its 

equivalent. International 1⁄4-Inch Rule is used as the U.S. Forest Service standard log rule in 

the eastern United States; however, the Scribner rule is mainly used in the Black Hills area.

Coarse woody debris (CWD): Dead branches, twigs, and wood splinters 3 inches in 

diameter and larger measured at the smallest end.

Commercial species: Tree species suitable for industrial wood products.
69

Cull tree: A live tree, 5 inches in d.b.h. or larger, that is unmerchantable for saw logs now 

or prospectively because of rot, roughness, or species (see definitions for rotten and rough 

trees).

Decay class: Qualitative assessment of stage of decay (5 classes) of coarse woody debris 

based on visual assessments of color of wood, presence/absence of twigs and branches, 

texture of rotten portions, and structural integrity.

Diameter at breast height (d.b.h.): The diameter for tree stem, located at 4.5 feet above 

the ground (breast height) on the uphill side of a tree. The point of diameter measurement 

may vary on abnormally formed trees.

Diameter class: A classification of trees based on d.b.h. With 2 inch diameter classes, the 6 

inch class, for example, includes trees 5.0 through 6.9 inches d.b.h.

Down woody material (DWM): Woody pieces of trees and shrubs that have been uprooted 

(no longer supporting growth) or severed from their root system, not self-supporting, and 

lying on the ground.

Dry Weight: The weight of wood and bark as it would be if it had been oven dried; usually 

expressed in pounds or short tons.

Duff: A soil layer dominated by organic material derived from the decomposition of 

plant and animal litter and deposited on either an organic or a mineral surface. This layer 

is distinguished from the litter layer in that the original organic material has undergone 

sufficient decomposition that the source of this material (e.g., individual plant parts) no 

longer can be identified.

Epidemic: (1) Entomology: pertaining to populations of plants, animals, and viruses 

that build up, often rapidly, to unusually and generally injuriously high levels. Synonym: 

outbreak. Many insect and other animal populations cycle periodically or irregularly 

between endemic and epidemic levels. (2) Pathology: a disease sporadically infecting a 

large number of hosts in an area and causing considerable loss (Helms 1998).

Fiber products: Products derived from wood and bark residues, such as pulp, composition 

board products, and wood chips.

Fine woody debris (FWD): Dead branches, twigs, and wood splinters 0.1 to 2.9 inches in 

diameter.

Forest land: Land at least 10 percent stocked by trees of any size, including land that 

formerly had such tree cover and that will be naturally or artificially regenerated. Forest 

land includes transition zones, such as areas between heavily forested and nonforested lands 

that are at least 10 percent stocked with trees and forest areas adjacent to urban and builtup lands. Also included are pinyon-juniper and chaparral areas and afforested areas. The 

minimum area for classification of forest land is 1 acre and 120 feet wide measured stem-tostem from the outer-most edge. Unimproved roads and trails, streams, and clearings in forest 

areas are classified as forest if less than 120 feet wide.
70

Forest type: A classification of forest land based on the species presently forming a 

plurality of the live-tree stocking. If softwoods predominate (50 percent or more), then the 

forest type will be one of the softwood types and vice versa for hardwoods.

Forest-type group: Combinations of forest types that share closely associated species or 

site requirements and are generally combined for brevity of reporting.

Growing stock: A classification of timber inventory that includes live trees of commercial 

species meeting specified standards of quality or vigor. Rough and rotten cull trees are 

excluded. When associated with volume, this includes only trees 5 inches d.b.h. and larger.

Hardwood: A dicotyledonous tree, usually broad-leaved and deciduous.

Soft hardwoods: A category of hardwood species with wood generally of low 

specific gravity (less than 0.5). Notable examples include red maple, paper birch, 

quaking aspen, and American elm. 

Hard hardwoods: A category of hardwood species with wood generally of high 

specific gravity (greater than 0.5). Notable examples include sugar maple, yellow 

birch, black walnut, and oaks.

Industrial wood: All commercial roundwood products except fuelwood.

Litter: Undecomposed or only partially decomposed organic material that can be readily 

identified (e.g., plant leaves, twigs).

Live cull: A classification that includes live, cull trees. When associated with volume, it is 

the net volume in live, cull trees that are 5 inches d.b.h. and larger.

Mean annual increment (MAI) at culmination: A measure of the productivity of forest 

land expressed as the average increase in cubic feet of wood volume per acre per year. For 

a given species and site index, the mean is based on the age at which the MAI culminates 

for fully stocked natural stands. The MAI is based on the site index of the plot (Azuma et al. 

2004).

Merchantable: Refers to a pulpwood or saw log section that meets pulpwood or saw log 

specifications, respectively.

National Forest: An ownership class of Federal lands, designated by executive order or 

statute as National Forests or purchase units, and other lands under the administration of the 

U.S. Forest Service, including experimental areas.

Net volume in cubic feet: The gross volume in cubic feet less deductions for rot, roughness, 

and poor form. Volume is computed for the central stem from a 1 foot stump to a minimum 

4 inch top diameter outside bark, or to the point where the central stem breaks into limbs. 

Noncommercial species: Tree species of typically small size, poor form, or inferior quality, 

which normally do not develop into trees suitable for industrial roundwood products.
71

Nonforest land: Land that has never supported forests and lands formerly forested where 

use of timber management is precluded by development for other uses. (Note: Includes area 

used for crops, improved pasture, residential areas, city parks, improved roads of any width 

and adjoining clearings, powerline clearings of any width, and 1.0 to 4.5 acre areas of water 

classified by the Bureau of the Census as land. If intermingled in forest areas, unimproved 

roads and nonforest strips must be more than 120 feet wide, and clearings, etc., must be 

more than 1 acre in area to qualify as nonforest land.)

Nonstocked areas: Timberland less than 10 percent stocked with live trees.

Poletimber trees: Live trees at least 5 inches in d.b.h. but smaller than sawtimber trees.

Pulpwood: Roundwood, whole-tree chips, or wood residues used for the production of 

wood pulp.

Reserved forest land: Forest land withdrawn from timber utilization through statute, 

administrative regulation, or designation without regard to productive status.

Residues: Bark and woody materials that are generated in primary wood-using mills when 

roundwood products are converted to other products. Examples include slabs, edgings, 

trimmings, miscuts, sawdust, shavings, veneer cores and clippings, and pulp screenings. 

Includes bark residues and wood residues (both coarse and fine materials) but excludes 

logging residues.

Rotten tree: A live tree of commercial species that does not contain a saw log now or 

prospectively primarily because of rot (that is, when rot accounts for more than 50 percent 

of the total cull volume).

Rough tree: (a) A live tree of commercial species that does not contain a saw log now or 

prospectively primarily because of roughness (that is, when sound cull due to such factors 

as poor form, splits, or cracks accounts for more than 50 percent of the total cull volume); or 

(b) a live tree of noncommercial species.

Roundwood products: Logs, bolts, and other round timber generated from harvesting trees 

for industrial or consumer use.

Salvable dead tree: A downed or standing dead tree considered currently or potentially 

merchantable by regional standards. 

Sampling Error: Difference between a population value and a sample estimate that 

is attributable to the sample, as distinct from errors due to bias in estimation, errors in 

observation, etc. Sampling error is measured as the standard error of the sample estimate 

(Helms 1998).

Saplings: Live trees 1.0 inch through 4.9 inches d.b.h.

Saw log: A log meeting minimum standards of diameter, length, and defect, including logs 

at least 8 feet long, sound and straight, and with a minimum diameter inside bark of 6 inches 
72

for softwoods and 8 inches for hardwoods, or meeting other combinations of size and defect 

specified by regional standards.

Sawtimber tree: A live tree of commercial species containing at least a 12 foot saw log 

or two noncontiguous saw logs 8 feet or longer, and meeting regional specifications for 

freedom from defect. Softwoods must be at least 9 inches d.b.h. Hardwoods must be at least 

11 inches d.b.h.

Sawtimber volume: Net volume of the saw log portion of live sawtimber in board feet, 

International 1⁄4-inch rule (unless specified otherwise), from stump to a minimum 7 inches 

top d.o.b. for softwoods and a minimum 9 inches top d.o.b. for hardwoods.

Seedlings: Live trees less than 1 inch d.b.h. and at least 1 foot in height.

Snag: A standing dead tree. In the current inventory, a snag must be 5 inches d.b.h. and 4.5 

feet tall, and have a lean angle less than 45 degrees from vertical. A snag may be either selfsupported by its roots, or supported by another tree or snag.

Softwood: A coniferous tree, usually evergreen, having needles or scale-like leaves.

Stand: A group of trees on a minimum of 1 acre of forest land that is stocked by forest trees 

of any size.

Stand age: A stand descriptor that indicates the average age of the live dominant and 

codominant trees in the predominant stand size-class of a condition.

Stand origin: A classification of forest stands describing their means of origin.

Planted: Planted or artificially seeded.

Natural: No evidence of artificial regeneration.

Stand-size class: A classification of forest land based on the size class of live trees in the 

area. The classes are as follows:

Sawtimber: Forest land stocked with at least 10 percent of full stocking with live 

trees with half or more of such stocking in poletimber or sawtimber trees or both, 

and in which the stocking of sawtimber is at least equal to that of poletimber.

Poletimber: Forest land stocked with at least 10 percent of full stocking with live 

trees with half or more of such stocking in poletimber or sawtimber trees or both, 

and in which the stocking of poletimber exceeds that of sawtimber.

Seedling-sapling: Forest land stocked with at least 10 percent of full stocking with 

live trees with half or more of such stocking in seedlings or saplings or both. 

Nonstocked: Forest land stocked with less than 10 percent of full stocking with live 

trees. Examples are recently cutover areas or recently reverted agricultural fields.
73

Stocking: The degree of occupancy of land by trees, measured by basal area or number of 

trees by size and spacing, or both, compared to a stocking standard; that is, the basal area or 

number of trees, or both, required to fully utilize the growth potential of the land. 

Timberland: Forest land that is producing or is capable of producing crops of industrial 

wood and not withdrawn from timber utilization by statute or administrative regulation. 

(Note: Areas qualifying as timberland are capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet 

per acre per year of industrial wood in natural stands. Currently inaccessible and inoperable 

areas are included.) 

Timber products output: All timber products cut from roundwood and byproducts of 

wood manufacturing plants. Roundwood products include logs, bolts, or other round 

sections cut from growing-stock trees, cull trees, salvable dead trees, trees on nonforest 

land, noncommercial species, sapling-size trees, and limbwood. Byproducts from primary 

manufacturing plants include slabs, edging, trimmings, miscuts, sawdust, shavings, veneer 

cores and clippings, and screenings of pulpmills that are used as pulpwood chips or other 

products.

Tree: A woody plant usually having one or more erect perennial stems, a stem diameter at 

breast height of at least 3 inches, a more or less definitely formed crown of foliage, and a 

height of at least 15 feet at maturity.

Tree grade: A classification of the saw-log portion of sawtimber trees based on: (1) the 

grade of the butt log, or (2) the ability to produce at least one 12 foot or two 8 foot logs in 

the upper section of the saw-log portion. Tree grade is an indicator of quality; grade 1 is the 

best quality (see U.S. Forest Service 2013, Appendix E for grading specifications).

Tree-size class: A classification of trees based on diameter at breast height, including 

sawtimber trees, poletimber trees, saplings, and seedlings.

Sawtimber-sized trees: Softwood timber species ≥ 9 inches d.b.h., and hardwood 

timber species ≥ 11 inches d.b.h.

Poletimber-sized trees: Softwood timber species 5.0 to 8.9 inches d.b.h. and 

hardwood timber species 5.0 to 10.9 inches d.b.h.

Saplings: Live trees 1.0 to 4.9 inches d.b.h.

Seedlings: Live trees less than 1 inch d.b.h. and at least 1 foot in height.

Tops: The wood of a tree above the merchantable height (or above the point on the stem 

4 inches diameter outside bark (d.o.b.) or to the point where the central stem breaks into 

limbs). It includes the usable material in the uppermost stem.

Upper stem portion: Portion of a sawtimber tree that is above the saw log portion. Begins 

at a top of 7 inches d.o.b. for softwoods and 9 inches d.o.b. for hardwoods, or where the 

central stem breaks into limbs.
74

LITERATURE CITED

Abrams, M.D. 1998. The red maple paradox. BioScience. 48(5): 355-364.

Anderson, R.C.; Loucks, O.L. 1973. Aspects of the biology of Trientalis borealis Raf. 

Ecology. 54(4): 798-808.

Azuma, D.L.; Dunham, P.A.; Hiserote, B.A.;Veneklase, C.F. 2004. Timber resource 

statistics for eastern Oregon, 1999. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-238. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 42 p.

Bakuzis, E.V.; Hansen, H.L. 1965. Balsam fir-a monographic review. Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota Press. 445 p.

Bechtold, W.A.; Patterson, P.L., eds. 2005. The enhanced forest inventory and analysis 

program - national sampling design and estimation procedures. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SRS-80. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 85 p.

Butler, B.J.; Hewes, J.H.; Dickinson, B.J.; Andrejczk, K.; Butler, S.M.; MarkowskiLindsay, M. In press. U.S. Forest Service National Woodland Owner Survey: 

national, regional, and state statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships 

with 10+ acres, 2011-2013. Resource Bulletin. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

Callan, R.; Nibbelink, N.P.; Rooney, T.P.; Wiedenhoeft, J.E.; Wydeven, A.P. 2013. 

Recolonizing wolves trigger a trophic cascade in Wisconsin (USA). Journal of 

Ecology. 101(4): 837-845.

Cornett, M.W.; Frelich L.E.; Puettmann K.J.; Reich P.B. 2000. Conservation implications 

of browsing by Odocoileus virginianus in remnant upland Thuja occidentalis forests.

Biological Conservation. 93(3): 359-369.

Coulston, J.W.; Moisen, G.G.; Wilson, B.T.; Finco, M.V.; Cohen, W.B.; Brewer, C.K. 2012. 

Modeling percent tree canopy cover: a pilot study. Photogrammetric Engineering & 

Remote Sensing. 78(7): 715-727.

Czarapata, E.J. 2005. Invasive plants of the upper Midwest: an illustrated guide to their 

identification and control. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 215 p. 

Danielsen, K. 2002a. Tribal sugarbush and birch bark gathering sites on national forest 

lands. Mazina’igan Supplement. Fall 2002: 1-7.

Danielsen, K.C. 2002b. The cultural importance, ecology, and status of giizhik 

(northern white cedar) in the ceded territories. Odanah, WI: Great Lakes Indian Fish 

and Wildlife Commission. 34 p.
75

Danielsen, K.C.; Gilbert, J.H. 2002. Ojibwe off-reservation harvest of wild plants. In: 

Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United 

States. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas: 282-292. 

Davis, A.; Puettmann, K.; Perala, D. 1998. Site preparation treatments and browse 

protection affect establishment and growth of northern white-cedar. Res. Pap. NC330. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station. 9 p.

Delanoy, L.; Archibold, O.W. 2007. Invasive plants: a guide to identification and the 

impacts and control of common North American species. Mechanicsburg, PA: 

Stackpole Books. 458 p. 

Densmore, F. 1974. How Indians use wild plants for food, medicine, and crafts. Mineola, 

NY: Dover Publications. 160 p.

DeSantis, R.D.; Moser, W.K.; Gormanson, D.D.; Bartlett, M.G.; Vermunt, B. 2013. Effects 

of climate on emerald ash borer mortality and the potential for ash survival in 

North America. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 178: 120-128.

Domke, G.M.; Woodall, C.W.; Walters, B.F., Smith, J.E. 2013. From models to 

measurements: comparing down dead wood carbon stock estimates in the U.S. 

forest inventory. PLoS One. 8(3): e59949.

Domke, G.M.; Woodall, C.W.; Smith, J.E. 2011. Accounting for density reduction and 

structural loss in standing dead trees: Implications for forest biomass and carbon 

stock estimates in the United States. Carbon Balance and Management. 6:14.

Erickson, S. 2006. Iskigamizigan (sugarbush): a sequel to Growing Up Ojibwe.

Mazina’igan Supplement: 2006. 1-2, 4-8.

Eyre, F.H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, 

DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p.

Farrell, M. 2013. Estimating the maple syrup production potential of American forests: 

an enhanced estimate that accounts for density and accessibility of tappable maple 

trees. Agroforestry Systems. 87(3): 631-641.

Forester, J.D.; Anderson, D.P.; Turner, M.G. 2008. Landscape and local factors affecting 

northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) recruitment in the Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forest, Wisconsin (U.S.A.). American Midland Naturalist. 160(2): 438-453.

Frank, R.M. 1990. Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.; balsam fir. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, 

B.H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America: Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Hndbk. 654. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 26-35.

Garske, S. 2013. Risk assessment from emerald ash borer and other forest pests upon 

commonly harvested forest trees (ash, balsam, birch, maple, and oak) in the Ojibwe 
76

ceded territories. Project Report 13-03. Odana, WI: Great Lakes Indian Fish and 

Wildlife Commission. 92 p.

Godman, R.M.; Yawney, H.W.; Tubbs, C.H. 1990. Acer saccharum Marsh.; sugar 

maple. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America: Volume 

2. Hardwoods. Agric. Hndbk. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service: 78-91.

Hahn, J.T. 1984. Tree volume and biomass equations for the Lake States. Res. Pap. NC250. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest 

Experiment Station. 10 p.

Hayhoe, K.; VanDorn, J.; Croley, T., II; Schlegal, N.; Wuebbles, D. 2010. Regional climate 

change projections for Chicago and the US Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes 

Research. 36: 7-21.

Heath, L.S.; Hansen, M.H.; Smith, J.E.; Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D. 2009. Investigation into 

calculating tree biomass and carbon in the FIADB using a biomass expansion factor 

approach. In: McWilliams, W.; Moisen, G.; Czaplewski, R., comps. Forest Inventory 

and Analysis (FIA) symposium 2008; 2008 October 21-23; Park City, UT. Proc. RMRSP-56CD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 24 p. [1 CD]

Heitzman, E.; Pregitzer, K. S.; Miller, R. O.; Lanasa, M.; Zuidema, M. 1999. Establishment 

and development of northern white-cedar following strip clearcutting. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 123(2-3): 97-104.

Helms, J.A. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Bethesda, MD: Society of American 

Foresters. 210 p.

Hofmeyer, P.V.; Kenefic, L.S.; Seymour, R.S. 2009. Northern white-cedar ecology and 

silviculture in the Northeastern United States and Southeastern Canada: a synthesis 

of knowledge. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 26(1): 21-27.

Kaufman, S.R.; Kaufman, W. 2007. Invasive plants: a guide to identification and the 

impacts and control of common North American species. Mechanicsburg, PA: 

Stackpole Books. 458 p.

Knight, K.S.; Kurylo, J.S.; Endress, A.G.; Stewart, J.R.; Reich, P.B. 2007. Ecology and 

ecosystem impacts of common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica): a review. Biological 

Invasions. 9:925-937.

Kurtz, C.M. 2013. An assessment of invasive plant species monitored by the Northern 

Research Station Forest Inventory and Analysis program, 2005 through 2010. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. NRS-109. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 70 p.
77

Lyford, C.A. 1953. Ojibwa crafts. (2nd ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Department of the Interior. 216 p.

McRoberts, R.E. 1999. Joint annual forest inventory and monitoring system, the North 

Central perspective. Journal of Forestry. 97(12): 27-31.

Meeker, J.E.; Elias, J.E.; Heim, J.A. 1993. Plants used by the Great Lakes Ojibwa.

Odanah, WI: Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. 440 p.

Metzger, F.T. 1990. Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) K. Koch; eastern hophornbeam. In: Burns, 

R.M.; Honkala, B.H.,tech. coords. Silvics of North America: Volume 2. Hardwoods. 

Agric. Hndbk. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 

490-496.

Miles, P.D.; Smith, W.B. 2009. Specific gravity and other properties of wood and bark 

for 156 tree species found in North America. Res. Pap. NRS-38. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 35 p. 

Miles, P. D.; Heinzen, D.; Mielke, M. E.; Woodall, C. W.; Butler, B. J.; [et al.]. 2011. 

Minnesota’s Forests 2008. Resour. Bull. NRS-50. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northen Research Station. 67 p. [DVD 

included].

Moser, W.K.; Hansen, M.H.; Nelson, M.D.; McWilliams, W.H. 2009. Relationship of 

invasive groundcover plant presence to evidence of disturbance in the forests of the 

upper Midwest of the United States. In: Kohli, R.K.; Jose, S.; Singh, H.P.; Batish, D.R., 

eds. Invasive plants and forest ecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press: 29-58.

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2014. Maple syrup production. Harrisburg, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.

nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_England_includes/Publications/0605mpl.pdf . 

News release. (accessed December 8, 2014).

Pan, Y.; Birdsey, R.A.; Fang, J.; Houghton, R,; Kauppi, P.E.; [et al.]. 2011. A large and 

persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science. 333(6045): 988-993.

Perry, Charles H.; Everson, Vern A.; Butler, Brett J.; Crocker, Susan J.; Dahir, Sally E.; 

[et al.] 2012. Wisconsin’s Forests 2009. Resour. Bull. NRS-67. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 62 p. [DVD 

included].

Pimentel, D.; Zuniga, R.; Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and 

economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological 

Economics. 52: 273-288.

Poland, T.M.; Ciaramitaro, T.M.; Emery, M.R.; Crook, D.J.; Pigeon, E.; Pigeon, A. 2015. 

Submerging black ash logs on control emerald ash borer and preserve wood for 

American Indian basketmaking. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. doi: 10.1111/

afe.12122
78

Poland, T.M.; Crook, D. J.; Ciaramitaro, T.M. 2011. Evaluation of log submergence 

to control EAB and preserve black ash for native American basketry. In: Parra, 

G.; Lance, D.; Mastro, V.; Reardon, R.; Benedict, C., comps. 2011 emerald ash borer 

national research and technology development meeting; 2011 October 12-13; Wooster, 

OH. FHTET-2011-06. Morgantown, WV: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Forest Health Technology 

Enterprise Team: 150-151.

Pugh, S.A.; Pedersen, L.D.; Heym, D.C.; Piva, R.J.; Woodall, C.W.; [et al.]. 2012. 

Michigan’s Forests 2009. Resour. Bull. NRS-66. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 68 p. [DVD 

included].

Raile, G.K. 1982. Estimating stump volume. Res. Pap. NC-224. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 4 p.

Reo, N.; Karl, J.W. 2010. Tribal and state ecosystem management regimes influence 

forest regeneration. Forest and Ecology Management. 260(5): 734-743.

Rooney, T.P.; Solheim, S.L.; Waller, D.M. 2002. Factors affecting the regeneration of 

northern white cedar in lowland forests of the Upper Great Lakes region, USA.

Forest Ecology and Management. 163(1-3): 119-130.

Safford, L.O.; Bjorkbom, J.C.; Zasada, J.C. 1990. Betula papyrifera Marsh.; paper 

birch. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America: Volume 

2. Hardwoods. Agric. Hndbk. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service: 158-171.

Smith, J.E.; Heath, L.S.; Skog, K.E.; Birdsey, R.A. 2006. Methods for calculating forest 

ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the 

United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-343. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 216 p.

Smith, W.B. 1991. Assessing removals for North Central forest inventories. Res. Pap. 

NC-299. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central 

Forest Experiment Station. 48 p.

Smith, W.B.; Miles, P. D.; Perry, C.H.; Pugh, S.A. 2009. Forest resources of the United 

States, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-78. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Washington Office. 336 p.

U.S. Forest Service. 2013. Forest Inventory and Analysis national core field guide; 

Volume I: Field data collection procedures for Phase 2 plots, version 6.0.2. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Available at http://

www.nrs.fs.fed.us/fia/data-collection/ (accessed July 17, 2014).
79

U.S. Energy Information Administration (US EIA). 2011. Voluntary reporting of 

greenhouse gases program – carbon dioxide emission factors for transportation 

fuels. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html#tbl2 (accessed July 2014).

Walters, R.S.; Yawny, H.W. 1990. Acer rubrum L.; red maple. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala, 

B.H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America. Volume 2. Hardwoods. Agric. Hndbk. 654. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service : 60-69.

White, M.A. 2012. Long-term effects of deer browsing: Composition, structure and 

productivity in a northeastern Minnesota old-growth forest. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 269: 222-228.

Wilson, B.T.; Lister, A.J.; Riemann, R.I. 2012. A nearest-neighbor imputation approach 

to mapping tree species over large areas using forest inventory plots and moderate 

resolution raster data. Forest Ecology and Management. 271: 182-198.

Wilson, B.T.; Lister, A.J.; Riemann, R. I.; Griffith, D.M. 2013. Live tree species basal area 

of the contiguous United States (2000-2009). Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. http://dx.doi.org/10.2737/

RDS-2013-0013. Dataset. (accessed September 23, 2013)

Woodall, C.W.; Heath, L.S.; Domke, G.M.; Nichols, M. 2011. Methods and equations for 

estimating aboveground volume, biomass, and carbon for forest trees in the U.S.’s 

national inventory, 2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-88. Newtown Square, PA: USDA 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 30 p.

Woodall C.W.; Monleon, V.J. 2008. Sampling, estimation, and analysis procedures for 

the Down Woody Materials indicator Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-22. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 68 p.

Wright, J.W.; Rauscher, M.H. 1990. Fraxinus nigra Marsh.; black ash. In: Burns, R.M.; 

Honkala, B.H., tech. coords. Silvics of North America. Volume 2. Hardwoods. Agric. 

Hndbk. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service : 344-347.
80

APPENDIX

Tree species observed on FIA plots in the Lake States 

ceded territories

Common name Scientific name

balsam fir Abies balsamea

boxelder Acer negundo

black maple Acer nigrum

striped maple Acer pensylvanicum

Norway maple Acer platanoides

red maple Acer rubrum

silver maple Acer saccarinum

sugar maple Acer saccharum

mountain maple Acer spicatum

Ohio buckeye Aesculus glabra

common serviceberry Amelanchier arborea

serviceberry spp. Amelanchier spp.

yellow birch Betula alleghaniensis

river birch Betula nigra

paper birch betula papyrifera

American hornbeam, musclewood Carpinus caroliniana

bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis

pignut hickory Carya glabra

shagbark hickory Carya ovata

hackberry Celtis occidentalis

flowering dogwood Cornus florida

hawthorn spp. Crataegus spp.

cockspur hawthorn Crataegus crus-galli

downy hawthorn Crataegus mollis

Russian-olive Elaeagnus angustifolia

American beech Fagus grandifolia

white ash Fraxinus americana

black ash Fraxinus nigra

green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica

butternut Juglans cinerea

walnut spp. Juglans spp.

black walnut Juglans nigra

eastern redcedar Juniperus virginiana

tamarack (native) Larix laricina

larch spp. Larix spp.

apple spp. Malus spp.

white mulberry Morus alba

blackgum Nyssa sylvatica

eastern hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana

Norway spruce Picea abies
81

Common name Scientific name

jack pine Pinus banksiana

white spruce Picea glauca

black spruce Picea mariana

Austrian pine Pinus nigra

blue spruce Picea pungens

red pine Pinus resinosa

eastern white pine Pinus strobus

Scotch pine Pinus sylvestris

silver poplar Populus alba

balsam poplar Populus balsamifera

eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides

bigtooth aspen Populus grandidentata

quaking aspen Populus tremuloides

American plum Prunus americana

Canada plum Prunus nigra

pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica

black cherry Prunus serotina

chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii

white oak Quercus alba

swamp white oak Quercus bicolor

northern pin oak Quercus ellipsoidalis

bur oak Quercus macrocarpa

pin oak Quercus palustris

northern red oak Quercus rubra

black oak Quercus velutina

black locust Robinia pseudoacacia

sassafras Sassafras albidum

peachleaf willow Salix amygdaloides

Bebb willow Salix bebbiana

willow spp. Salix spp.

black willow Salix nigra

American mountain-ash Sorbus americana

northern mountain-ash Sorbus decora

mountain-ash spp. Sorbus spp.

northern white-cedar Thuja occidentalis

American basswood Tilia americana

eastern hemlock Tsuga canadensis

American elm Ulmus americana

Siberian elm Ulmus pumila

slippery elm Ulmus rubra

rock elm Ulmus thomasii

APPENDIX—continued
82

Included on the CD found in the back cover of this report are data tables providing summaries of 

the forest resource in the Lake States ceded territories. The tables are organized into two folders: 

“All Lands” and “Treaty Area”. All table titles are listed below.

All Lands Table Titles

Table LSCT-1.—Percentage of area by land status, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-2.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by owner class and forest-land status, Lake 

States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-3.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group and site-productivity class, 

Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-4.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, ownership group, and 

forest-land status, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-5.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group and stand-size class, Lake 

States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-6.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group and stand-age class, Lake 

States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-7.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group and stand origin, Lake 

States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-8.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group and disturbance class, 

Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-9.—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by forest-type group and stand-size class, Lake 

States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-10.—Number of live trees (at least 1 inch d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand trees, on forest land by 

species group and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-10a.—Number of live trees (at least 1 inch d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand trees, on forest land 

by species group, species, and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-11.—Number of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in thousand trees, on 

timberland by species group and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-11a.—Number of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in thousand trees, on 

timberland by species group, species, and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-12.—Net volume of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, by owner 

class and forest- land status, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-13.—Net volume of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on forest 

land by forest- type group and stand-size class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-14.—Net volume of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c), in million cubic feet, on forest 

land by species group and ownership group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-14a.—Net volume of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c), in million cubic feet, on forest 

land by species group, species, and ownership group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-15.—Net volume of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on forest 

land by species group and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-15a.—Net volume of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on 

forest land by species group, species, and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-16.—Net volume of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, on forest 

land by forest- type group and stand origin, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-17.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in million cubic feet, on 

timberland by species group and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013
83

Table LSCT-17a.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in million cubic feet, on 

timberland by species group, species, and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-18.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in million cubic feet, on 

timberland by species group and ownership group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-18a.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in million cubic feet, on 

timberland by species group, species, and ownership group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-19.—Net volume of sawtimber trees, in million board feet (International 1/4-inch rule), on 

timberland by species group and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-19a.—Net volume of sawtimber trees, in million board feet (Doyle rule), on timberland by 

species group and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-19b.—Net volume of sawtimber trees, in million board feet (Doyle rule), on timberland by 

species group,

species, and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-19c.—Net volume of sawtimber trees, in million board feet (International 1/4-inch rule), 

on timberland by species group, species, and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-20.—Net volume of saw-log portion of sawtimber trees, in million cubic feet, on timberland 

by species group and ownership group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-21.—Average annual net growth of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million 

cubic feet, by owner class and forest-land status, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-21a.—Average annual net growth of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million 

cubic feet, by owner class and forest-land status using accounting method (U.S. Forest Service 

2013), Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-22.—Average annual net growth of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million 

cubic feet, on forest land by forest-type group and stand-size class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-23.— Average annual net growth of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million 

cubic feet, on forest land by species group and ownership group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-23a.—Average annual net growth of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million 

cubic feet, on forest land by species group and ownership group using accounting method (U.S. 

Forest Service 2013), Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-23b.—Average annual net growth of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million 

cubic feet, on forest land by species group, species, and ownership group, Lake States ceded 

territories, 2013

Table LSCT-23c.—Average annual net growth of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million 

cubic feet, on forest land by species group, species, and ownership group using accounting method 

(U.S. Forest Service 2013), Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-24.—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in million 

cubic feet, on timberland by species group and ownership group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-24a.—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

million cubic feet, on timberland by species group and ownership group using accounting method 

(U.S. Forest Service 2013), Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-24b.—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

million cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and ownership group, Lake States Ceded 

territories, 2013

Table LSCT-24c.—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

million cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and ownership group using accounting 

method (U.S. Forest Service 2013), Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-25.—Average annual mortality of trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, 

by owner class and forest-land status, Lake States ceded territories, 2013
84

Table LSCT-26.—Average annual mortality of trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, 

on forest land by forest-type group and stand-size class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-27.—Average annual mortality of trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic feet, 

on forest land by species group and ownership group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-27a.—Average annual mortality of trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic 

feet, on forest land by species group, species, and ownership group, Lake States ceded territories, 

2013

Table LSCT-28a.—Average annual mortality of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

million cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and ownership group, Lake States ceded 

territories, 2013

Table LSCT-29.—Average annual removals of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic 

feet, on forest land by species group and ownership group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-29a.—Average annual removals of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in million cubic 

feet, on forest land by species group, species, and ownership group, Lake States ceded territories, 

2013

Table LSCT-30.—Average annual removals of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in million 

cubic feet, on timberland by species group and ownership group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-30a.—Average annual removals of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

million cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and ownership group, Lake States ceded 

territories, 2013

Table LSCT-31.—Aboveground dry weight of live trees (at least 1 inch d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand dry 

short tons, by owner class and forest-land status, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-32.—Aboveground dry weight of live trees (at least 1 inch d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand dry 

short tons, on forest land by species group and diameter class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-54.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by inventory unit, state, county, and forestland status, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-55.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by inventory unit, state, county, ownership 

group, and forest-land status, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-56.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by inventory unit, state, county, and foresttype group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-57.—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by inventory unit, state, county, and stand-size 

class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-58.—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by inventory unit, state, county, and stocking 

class, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-59.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in million cubic feet, and 

sawtimber trees, in million board feet (International 1/4-inch rule), on timberland by inventory unit, 

state, county, and major species group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-59a.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in million cubic feet, 

and sawtimber trees, in million board feet (Doyle rule), on timberland by inventory unit, state, county, 

and major species group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-59b.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in million cubic feet, 

and sawtimber trees, in million board feet (Scribner rule), on timberland by inventory unit, state, 

county, and major species group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-60.—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in million 

cubic feet, and sawtimber trees, in million board feet (International 1/4-inch rule), on timberland by 

inventory unit, state, county, and major species group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-60a.—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

million cubic feet, and sawtimber trees, in million board feet (Doyle rule), on timberland by inventory 

unit, state, county, and major species group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013
85

Table LSCT-60b.—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

million cubic feet, and sawtimber trees, in million board feet (Scribner rule), on timberland by inventory 

unit, state, county, and major species group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-61.—Average annual removals of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in million 

cubic feet, and sawtimber trees, in million board feet (International 1/4-inch rule), on timberland by 

inventory unit, state, county, and major species group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-61a.—Average annual removals of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in million 

cubic feet, and sawtimber trees, in million board feet (Doyle rule), on timberland by inventory unit, 

state, county, and major species group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-61b.—Average annual removals of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in million 

cubic feet, and sawtimber trees, in million board feet (Scribner rule), on timberland by inventory unit, 

state, county, and major species group, Lake States ceded territories, 2013
86

Treaty Area Table Titles

Table LSCT-62a.—Percentage of area by land status, 1836 Treaty area (Lower Peninsula) of the 

Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-62b.—Percentage of area by land status, 1836 Treaty area (Upper Peninsula) of the 

Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-62c.—Percentage of area by land status, 1837 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded 

territories, 2013

Table LSCT-62d.—Percentage of area by land status, 1842 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded 

territories, 2013

Table LSCT-62e.—Percentage of area by land status, 1854 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded 

territories, 2013

Table LSCT-63a.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, ownership group, and 

forest-land status, 1836 Treaty area (Lower Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-63b.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, ownership group, and 

forest-land status, 1836 Treaty area (Upper Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-63c.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, ownership group, and 

forest-land status, 1837 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-63d.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, ownership group, and 

forest-land status, 1842 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-63e.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, ownership group, and 

forest-land status, 1854 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-64a.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, forest type, and owner 

category, 1836 Treaty area (Lower Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-64b.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, forest type, and owner 

category, 1836 Treaty area (Upper Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-64c.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, forest type, and owner 

category, 1837 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-64d.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, forest type, and owner 

category, 1842 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-64e.—Area of forest land, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, forest type, and owner 

category, 1854 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-65a.—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by major forest-type group, stand origin, and 

owner category, 1836 Treaty area (Lower Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-65b.—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by major forest-type group, stand origin, and 

owner category, 1836 Treaty area (Upper Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-65c.—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by major forest-type group, stand origin, and 

owner category, 1837 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-65d.—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by major forest-type group, stand origin, and 

owner category, 1842 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-65e.—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by major forest-type group, stand origin, and 

owner category, 1854 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-66a.—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, forest type, and standsize class, 1836 Treaty area (Lower Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-66b.—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, forest type, and standsize class 1836 Treaty area (Upper Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013
87

Table LSCT-66c.—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, forest type, and standsize class, 1837 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-66d.—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, forest type, and standsize class, 1842 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-66e.—Area of timberland, in thousand acres, by forest-type group, forest type, and standsize class, 1854 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-67a.—Net volume of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand cubic feet, on 

forest land by species group, species, and owner category, 1836 Treaty area (Lower Peninsula) of 

the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-67b.—Net volume of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand cubic feet, on 

forest land by species group, species, and owner category, 1836 Treaty area (Upper Peninsula) of 

the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-67c.—Net volume of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand cubic feet, on 

forest land by species group, species, and owner category, 1837 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded 

territories, 2013

Table LSCT-67d.—Net volume of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand cubic feet, on 

forest land by species group, species, and owner category, 1842 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded 

territories, 2013

Table LSCT-67e.—Net volume of live trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand cubic feet, on 

forest land by species group, species, and owner category, 1854 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded 

territories, 2013

Table LSCT-68a.—Net volume of live and salvable dead trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by class of timber and softwood/hardwood species category, 1836 

Treaty area (Lower Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-68b.—Net volume of live and salvable dead trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by class of timber and softwood/hardwood species category, 1836 

Treaty area (Upper Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-68c.—Net volume of live and salvable dead trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by class of timber and softwood/hardwood species category, 1837 

Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-68d.—Net volume of live and salvable dead trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by class of timber and softwood/hardwood species category, 1842 

Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-68e.—Net volume of live and salvable dead trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by class of timber and softwood/hardwood species category, 1854 

Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-69a.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand cubic 

feet, on timberland by forest-type group, forest type, and softwood/hardwood species category, 1836 

Treaty area (Lower Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-69b.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand cubic 

feet, on timberland by forest-type group, forest type, and softwood/hardwood species category, 1836 

Treaty area (Upper Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-69c.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand cubic 

feet, on timberland by forest-type group, forest type, and softwood/hardwood species category, 1836 

Treaty area (Lower Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-69d.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand cubic 

feet, on timberland by forest-type group, forest type, and softwood/hardwood species category, 1842 

Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013
88

Table LSCT-69e.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand cubic 

feet, on timberland by forest-type group, forest type, and softwood/hardwood species category, 1854 

Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-70a.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand 

cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and diameter class, 1836 Treaty area (Lower 

Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-70b.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand 

cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and diameter class, 1836 Treaty area (Upper 

Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-70c.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand 

cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and diameter class, 1837 Treaty area of the Lake 

States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-70d.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand 

cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and diameter class, 1842 Treaty area of the Lake 

States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-70e.—Net volume of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand 

cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and diameter class, 1854 Treaty area of the Lake 

States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-71a.—Net volume of sawtimber trees, in thousand board feet (International 1/4-inch rule), 

on timberland by species group, species, and diameter class, 1836 Treaty area (Lower Peninsula) of 

the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-71b.—Net volume of sawtimber trees, in thousand board feet (International 1/4-inch rule), 

on timberland by species group, species, and diameter class, 1836 Treaty area (Lower Peninsula) of 

the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-71c.—Net volume of sawtimber trees, in thousand board feet (International 1/4-inch rule), 

on timberland by species group, species, and diameter class, 1837 Treaty area of the Lake States 

ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-71d.—Net volume of sawtimber trees, in thousand board feet (International 1/4-inch rule), 

on timberland by species group, species, and diameter class, 1842 Treaty area of the Lake States 

ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-71e.—Net volume of sawtimber trees, in thousand board feet (International 1/4-inch rule), 

on timberland by species group, species, and diameter class, 1854 Treaty area of the Lake States 

ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-72a.—Aboveground dry weight of live trees (at least 1 inch d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand 

dry short tons, on forest land by owner category, softwood/hardwood species category, and tree 

component, 1836 Treaty area (Lower Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-72b.—Aboveground dry weight of live trees (at least 1 inch d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand 

dry short tons, on forest land by owner category, softwood/hardwood species category, and tree 

component, 1836 Treaty area (Upper Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-72c.—Aboveground dry weight of live trees (at least 1 inch d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand 

dry short tons, on forest land by owner category, softwood/hardwood species category, and tree 

component, 1837 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-72d.—Aboveground dry weight of live trees (at least 1 inch d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand 

dry short tons, on forest land by owner category, softwood/hardwood species category, and tree 

component, 1842 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-72e.—Aboveground dry weight of live trees (at least 1 inch d.b.h./d.r.c.), in thousand 

dry short tons, on forest land by owner category, softwood/hardwood species category, and tree 

component, 1854 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013
89

Table LSCT-73a.—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category using accounting 

method (U.S. Forest Service 2013), 1836 Treaty area (Lower Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded 

territories, 2013

Table LSCT-73b.—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category using accounting 

method (U.S. Forest Service 2013), 1836 Treaty area (Upper Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded 

territories, 2013

Table LSCT-73c.—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category using accounting 

method (U.S. Forest Service 2013), 1837 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-73d.—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category using accounting 

method (U.S. Forest Service 2013), 1842 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-73e.—Average annual net growth of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category using accounting 

method (U.S. Forest Service 2013), 1854 Treaty area of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-74a.—Average annual removals of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category, 1836 Treaty area 

(Lower Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-74b.—Average annual removals of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category, 1836 Treaty area 

(Upper Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-74c.—Average annual removals of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category, 1837 Treaty area 

of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-74d.—Average annual removals of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category, 1842 Treaty area

of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-74e.—Average annual removals of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category, 1854 Treaty area

of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-75a.—Average annual mortality of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category, 1836 Treaty area 

(Lower Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-75b.—Average annual mortality of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category, 1836 Treaty area 

(Upper Peninsula) of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-75c.—Average annual mortality of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category, 1837 Treaty area

of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-75d.—Average annual mortality of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category, 1842 Treaty area

of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013

Table LSCT-75e.—Average annual mortality of growing-stock trees (at least 5 inches d.b.h.), in 

thousand cubic feet, on timberland by species group, species, and owner category, 1854 Treaty area

of the Lake States ceded territories, 2013
Kurtz, Cassandra M.; Moser, W. Keith; Hansen, Mark H.; Gormanson, Dale D.; 

Hatfield, Mark A.; Sowers, Paul A.; Dockry, Michael J.; Emery, Marla R.; Woodall, 

Christopher W.; Walters, Brian F.; Domke, Grant M.; Gilbert, Jonathan; Wrobel, 

Alexandra. 2015. Forest resources within the Lake States ceded territories 

1980 - 2013. Resour. Bull. NRS-96. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 89 p. [CD-ROM included].

The Lake States ceded territories are the portions of northern Michigan, northeastern 

Minnesota, and northern Wisconsin that were ceded by tribes of the Ojibwe to the 

government of the United States of America in the treaties of 1836, 1837, 1842, and 

1854. The tribes retain rights to hunt, fish, and gather in the 1837, 1842, and 1854 

treaty areas. This report summarizes the results of a series of forest inventories in the 

region between 1980 and 2013. Inventory results show the region has 30.7 million 

acres of forest land with forests covering 65.3 percent of the total land area. Forest 

features reported here focus on the status of six species of trees (sugar maple, black 

ash, paper birch, northern white-cedar, hophornbeam, and balsam fir) that have 

special historic and cultural value to the Ojibwe, in addition to the standard reporting 

of volume, biomass, growth, removals, and mortality of all trees that are typically 

included in the state-level reports produced by the Forest Inventory and Analysis 

program of the U.S. Forest Service. Sections of this report also focus on carbon, 

standing dead trees, invasive plant species, and ground flora.

KEY WORDS: Ojibwe, FIA, GLIFWC, nontimber forest products, tribal forest 

resources
Printed on Recycled Paper

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations 

and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering 

USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender 

identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, 

income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights 

activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies 

and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, 

large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a 

letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a 

copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.
Northern Research Station

www.nrs.fs.fed.us