Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship
Positionality Statement
I approach this research as a first-generation settler from the United Kingdom who grew up in Michigan. While I have spent time in surrounding areas, such as Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, I have not visited Lake Huron Community Forest itself. My decision to focus on this case study stems from a desire to learn more about the role of community forestry in the state where I grew up. I acknowledge that my understanding is limited to the scope of this assignment and shaped by the sources and data available to me. I am not of Indigenous descent and do not intend to speak on behalf of any individual or group, including the Lake Huron Community Forest, Indigenous peoples, or local communities.
Land Acknowledgement
I would like to begin by acknowledging that UBC, the place I am writing my case study from, is located on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the xwməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam) People.[1]
I acknowledge that Lake Huron Community Forest is located on the traditional and ancestral lands of the Anishinaabe people, including the Ojibwe and Odawa Nations. These lands were ceded to the United States government under the coercive Treaty of Washington (1836), which transferred over 13.8 million acres with the promise of permanent reservations and continued access to traditional lands and resources.[2] These promises were later broken, reflecting a history of dispossession and injustice that continues to impact Anishinaabe communities today. I recognize this history with respect and a commitment to learning from and amplifying the voices of the Indigenous peoples whose stewardship of these lands predates colonization and continues today.
Summary of Case Study

Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF), a 17-acre parcel in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula near De Tour Village, exemplifies the ecological richness and collaborative stewardship of the region. Situated on 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline, LHCF includes old-growth pine, northern hardwoods, and early successional forests. Historically part of ceded Ojibwe territory, the forest is now managed by the Superior Watershed Partnership (SWP), a conservation and land trust organization. Acquired with funding from the U.S. Forest Service’s Community Forest Program, LHCF serves as a model for balancing ecological restoration, education, and public participation. SWP holds full management authority but collaborates with partners and volunteers to meet objectives such as protecting the forest from coastal development and fostering community engagement. Despite its modest size, LHCF’s health is tied to the broader Lake Huron ecosystem, emphasizing the interconnectedness of binational water and land management. While challenges like invasive species, climate change, and sedimentation exist, strong governance and proactive strategies have positioned LHCF as a successful community forestry initiative.
Keywords
USA, Michigan, Lake Huron, Community Forest, Superior Watershed Partnership, Land Conservation
Site Description

Michigan, a state rich in forests, features a diverse mosaic of forest types. These range from upland hardwoods dominated by maple, beech, and birch, to mixed forests composed of pine, oak, and aspen, to conifer-dominated forests with spruce and fir species. With 54% of its land covered by forests[3]—significantly higher than the national average of 35%—Michigan bears a substantial responsibility to ensure sustainable management and conservation of these important ecosystems.
Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF), a 17-acre parcel in the southeastern corner of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, exemplifies the ecological richness of the region.[4] Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County[4]—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.[5] Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.[4]
Lake Huron, the fifth-largest lake in the world by volume, spans a 64,497 km2 drainage basin and supports a population of three million people across the United States and Canada.[6] The binational nature of the lake highlights the interconnectedness of land and water management in the region. Decisions made about the stewardship of LHCF influence the surrounding landscapes, and, similarly, the health of LHCF is inextricably tied to the management of surrounding areas.
LHCF is composed of three main forest types:
- Old-growth pine forest, primarily white and red pine (Pinus strobus and resinosa)[4]
- A northern hardwood section, including red oak (Quercus rubra)[4]
- Early successional forest featuring aspen (Populus spp.) and birch (Betula spp.).[4]
Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils[7], and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.[8] Both soil types are found on low slopes, reflecting the area's gentle topography, which ranges from 176 to 182 meters in elevation across the management area.[4] Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.[4]
History of Lake Huron Community Forest
Historical Land Use and Customary Rights of Indigenous People
The Anishinaabe people have inhabited the Lake Huron region since time immemorial, with archaeological evidence tracing their presence back to 3000 BC.[9] The term Anishinaabe, meaning "original people,[9]" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.[10] The Ojibwe —also known as the Chippewa —were the primary stewards of the land now encompassed by Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF).
The Ojibwe lived in close harmony with the land, relying on its resources for hunting, trapping, fishing, and harvesting.[6] Key food sources included manoomin (wild rice), na’me (lake sturgeon), and adikameg (whitefish).[6] Beyond sustenance, the land held profound cultural and spiritual significance. The Ojibwe believed that all elements of the natural world possessed spirits, manifestations of the Great Spirit, Gitche Manidoo, the Creator.[11] Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.[11]
This way of life persisted until the 1600s, when European settlers began migrating to the region, marking the start of significant changes to the land and lives of the Ojibwe.[9] French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.[12] The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.[12] Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.[12]
By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.[12] Following their victory in the French and Indian War, the Treaty of Paris (1763) forced the French to cede control of the area to the British.[13] After the American Revolution, the Treaty of Paris (1783) transferred legal ownership of Michigan and surrounding regions to the United States of America. However, Britain did not relinquish control for another 13 years.[12]
Throughout this period of settler colonialism, the lives of Indigenous peoples deteriorated dramatically. Forced onto reservations and into boarding schools, they were coerced into assimilating into mainstream culture and systematically dispossessed of their ancestral lands through a series of treaties.[9] The following treaties marked significant cessions of Ojibwe land:
- 1820 Treaty of Sault Ste. Marie: This treaty ceded 16 square miles along the St. Mary’s River in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to the United States for the construction of Fort Brady. In exchange, the Ojibwe were promised an unspecified quantity of goods and perpetual fishing rights in the area.[9][14]
- 1836 Treaty of Washington: Through this treaty, the Anishinaabeg ceded nearly 14 million acres of land in the eastern Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula to the United States.[9][15] While the treaty’s original terms promised permanent land use rights despite the transfer of ownership, the terms were later altered—seemingly without the Anishinaabeg’s full awareness—limiting their tenure to just five years, after which forced removal could occur.[16]
Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.[17] In 1953, they organized as the “Original Bands of Chippewa Indians and Their Heirs,” but they still lacked federal recognition of their tribal status and land sovereignty.[9]
It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.[9] The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.[18] Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.[9] Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.[9]
History of Superior Watershed Partnership

The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization[19], has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.[20] As a local land conservancy, SWP’s multifaceted mission includes reducing community pollution, sustainably managing stormwater, monitoring beaches, and removing invasive species across the three Great Lakes that border the Upper Peninsula: Superior, Michigan, and Huron.[21] The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.[22] Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.[21]
While SWP’s work spans various conservation areas, community forestry is a key focus. The organization currently owns and manages four community forests: Lake Huron Community Forest, Eagle’s Nest Community Forest, Laughing Whitefish Community Forest[23], and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.[24] SWP’s community forestry efforts emerged in response to coastal habitat degradation caused by development and increased tourism. Recognizing the need to protect the unique landscapes of the Upper Peninsula, SWP established a framework to preserve and restore these vital ecosystems.[19]
Land Acquisition
The history of LHCF land after Indigenous stewardship ended remains largely undocumented. It is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.[19] To acquire the land and establish the forest, SWP applied for a grant through the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) Community Forest Program. In 2018, SWP received $400,000 in funding, with a focus on addressing three nonpoint source pollution impacts affecting shore health.[25]
The land itself was valued at $777,000.[23] Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.[26] In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.[19]
To qualify for the Community Forest Program, SWP needed full ownership rights to the property. Eligible entities for this program included qualified nonprofits (i.e. SWP), local governments, and tribal entities.[26] Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit[26], and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.[27] The USFS Community Forest Program program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.[28]
Institutional Context: Community Forestry in the United States
Origins of Community Forestry
Community forestry emerged later in the United States than in many other countries, particularly developing nations.[29] Similar to elsewhere, it arose in response to environmental degradation, primarily driven by the need to address unsustainable timber extraction. However, while community forestry in low-income countries often prioritizes improving local livelihoods[30]—given the direct dependence of many communities on forest resources—the U.S. approach has focused more on efficient land conservation. This reflects a cultural context where people are less reliant on forests for their daily needs, emphasizing ecosystem preservation and sustainable management over direct economic reliance.
In the U.S., public pressure largely drove the shift in forest management priorities, moving away from unfettered timber extraction toward conserving ecosystem services and biodiversity.[31] The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s[31] was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,[32] which has contributed to its broad and sometimes ambiguous definition. As the movement grew, the country experienced a paradigm shift from top-down, commercially driven forestry to a more decentralized, participatory approach[30]—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.[33]
It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.[29] For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.[32] These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”[32] This perspective promotes balanced land use to foster ecosystems that thrive sustainably, while also recognizing that overuse can lead to collapse. Today, traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is increasingly integrated into modern forest management systems.[32][34]
Defining Community Forestry
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.[29][33][35] This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.[29] Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.[31][29] In many cases, the notion of community management is more symbolic than practical, as authority typically resides with private organizations or government entities. As a result, these arrangements often function more as collaborative partnerships than as true shared management systems.[31] Adding to the lack of standardization, even when decision-making authority does not formally reside with communities, mechanisms such as advisory boards, committees, and volunteer opportunities can be implemented to foster community involvement and engagement.[33]
Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.[29] This often means the forest is owned either by or on behalf of a community, is managed locally, and provides the community with access and benefits.[29] Most community forests in the U.S. prioritize ecosystem restoration and protection, aligning closely with the principles of LHCF. Even if not as apparent, social and economic benefits can also be primary goals in some places.[33]
Regional Differences
While there is no standard structure for community forests in the United States, regional patterns do emerge. Nationwide, just over 60% of forested land is privately owned, with the remainder under government ownership.[3] Among the 98 self-identified community forests identified in a 2024 study—a likely conservative estimate—private and nonprofit ownership, also known as cooperative management, is most common in the North and Midwest.[33][29] In these regions, authority typically lies with the owner rather than the community, aligning with the structure of LHCF, where ownership is held by SWP entity while engagement with the community is maintained. In contrast, collaborative management models or government/public ownership are more prevalent in the West.[36][29]
The size of community forests also varies by region. Nationwide, over 60% of community forests are less than 100 acres, while only 10% are smaller than 10 acres, like LHCF.[33] In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.[33] In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.[33]
Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests[33], highlighting that strict conservation-focused models like LHCFs are in the minority. However, this approach aligns closely with the broader principles of land trust management, which balance sustainable resource use with ecological preservation.[36]
Tenure Arrangement
The Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF) does not operate under a formal tenure system. Instead, the land is owned and managed by the Superior Watershed Partnership (SWP), which retains near-total authority over management decisions. Although the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) provided $400,000 to SWP for the acquisition of the land[25], they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWP to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.[19] These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.[26] SWP has committed to protecting the land in perpetuity, ensuring it remains a community asset.
Governance
Management Board

The management plan for the Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF) was developed by Superior Watershed Partnership (SWP) staff[19], with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.[37] However, community engagement during this phase was limited, likely due to the area’s low population density compared to other regions with SWP-managed forests.[19]
Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors[38], which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.[19] While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.[19] Although community members and partner organizations do not hold formal decision-making power, they play a significant role in specific aspects of plan implementation, as detailed below.[19]
Information about the Superior Watershed Partnership's (SWP) financing is limited, but they primarily manage the Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF) using general funds. For specific needs, such as invasive species removal or forestry-related initiatives, SWP often applies for targeted grants. If necessary, additional resources can be allocated from their general funds.[19]
As a nonprofit organization, SWP benefits from tax-exempt status, allowing them to direct more financial resources toward conservation efforts. While they occasionally receive community donations, active fundraising has not been a priority due to their busy schedule in recent years.[19]
Management Objectives
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan[4], are as follows:
- Protect and sustainably manage forest health to benefit Lake Huron, plants and wildlife, and the community
- Protect and maintain 1,700 feet of undeveloped Lake Huron shoreline and adjacent forested wetland areas from residential development
- Provide K-12 place-based educational opportunities to regional youth
- Provide recreational benefits and public access for local residents and tourists
- Provide opportunities for sustainable economic development
- Serve as a model for effective forest stewardship to nearby landowners
Community Engagement
Although community members do not have formal decision-making authority at LHCF, SWP places a high value on community participation in management efforts and offers community-focused programming. Overall, they report having a positive relationship with the local community, who appreciate the unique opportunity for free access to the lake.[19]
Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.[4] Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.[4] While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually[19]—a sizeable number considering the area’s relatively small population. Volunteers include both locals and tourists, some of whom incorporate a day of volunteer work into their vacation plans.[4] Additionally, formal groups like the Great Lakes Conservation Corps and Lake Superior Volunteer Corps contribute to these efforts.
Education is another focus area for SWP. They collaborate with local schools and teachers to deliver forest-based learning opportunities, providing hands-on environmental experiences that help cultivate environmental stewardship from an early age. SWP also partners with Lake Superior State University, engaging in research collaborations, fieldwork restoration projects, and long-term monitoring initiatives.[4]
Tribal Relationships
Although Tribes do not have formal decision-making authority over CF land, SWP has a long history of collaboration with all five Tribes in the Upper Peninsula[19], particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honours Tribal history.[4] While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.[19] This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.[19]
SWP also provides Climate Corps workers to support Tribal programming during the summer. In partnership with the Keweenaw community, they have established the Great Lakes Tribal Corps, a program with hiring preference for Indigenous people.[19] As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.[39] This grant funds initiatives such as coastal protection, climate adaptation, green infrastructure installation, and native species planting, with the Tribal Corps assisting in selecting appropriate native species for these projects.[39]
Overall, SWP and the Sault Tribe share many conservation goals. The Tribe conducts systematic annual surveys to monitor invasive species, funded by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative—the same funding source SWP has utilized.[40] Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffled grouse in the Upper Peninsula. The Sault Tribe is also working to restore culturally and historically significant subsistence species such as manoomin (wild rice) and support efforts like whitefish rearing.[40]
Stakeholders
This is a non-exhaustive list of stakeholders, as the connections to the forest are diverse and varied, encompassing numerous cultural, economic, and ecological relationships that may not be immediately apparent.
Affected Stakeholders
Affected stakeholders are individuals or groups whose long-term welfare is directly influenced by forest activities, often due to deep geographic, cultural, spiritual, or subsistence ties to the land. These may include both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. In the case of the Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF), the small size of the forest suggests that few people have welfare directly tied to this particular area; however, the following groups may be relevant:
- Superior Watershed Partnership Employees: The 14 staff members listed on the SWP website may depend on their roles for economic stability. While their livelihoods are tied to the availability of projects, SWP operates across the Upper Peninsula on a wide range of initiatives, suggesting that no staff members are exclusively reliant on the Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF) for their employment.
- Local Community Members: Access to nature plays a vital role in supporting physical and mental well-being, offering opportunities for recreation, relaxation, and connection with the environment. While the Lake Huron Community Forest may see seasonal variations in use—likely busier during the summer months than in the winter—the area is situated in a sparsely populated region, making it unclear how many residents regularly visit or rely on the forest for their recreational needs.
- Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians: Despite the land having been ceded, strong cultural, spiritual, and ancestral ties to the area persist. These connections reflect deep-rooted relationships with the land, as highlighted above, and are integral to the Tribe’s identity, traditions, and sense of place.
- Tourism Industry: The tourism industry depends on maintaining a clean and well-preserved environment, as well as ensuring public access to beaches, hiking trails, and other natural attractions. These features are key drivers of visitor interest and local economic activity, making the health of the forest and surrounding area vital to sustaining tourism in the region.
Interested Stakeholders
Interested stakeholders are individuals or groups connected to a forest area through a transaction or activity but do not have a long-term dependency on the land. These stakeholders may include officials accountable to external or extra-local entities, as well as individuals or organizations involved in the commercial, governmental, or nonprofit sectors.
- The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative: SWP is a member of this binational coalition that brings together more than 244 municipalities and regions across U.S. and Canada to work toward protecting and restoring the Great Lakes region.[41]
- U.S. and Canada Federal Governments: Both governments signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) in 1972, updated in 2012, to protect the Great Lakes, including Lake Huron.[42] The agreement focuses on priorities like safe drinking water, unrestricted recreational use, safe fish consumption, wildlife habitat protection, and pollutant reductions.
- Lake Huron Partnership: This collaboration includes various government agencies, Tribal groups, academic institutions, and conservation organizations in the U.S. and Canada. Partners adhere to the Lakewide Action and Management Plan (LAMP), which outlines 52 actions to protect the Lake Huron ecosystem, focusing on invasive species, chemical pollutants, and other environmental threats. The latest plan covers 2022-2026.[43]
- K-12 Schools in the Area: Local schools engage in place-based environmental education, fostering future environmental stewards through hands-on learning opportunities in nature that complement traditional classroom instruction.[19]
- Lake Superior State University: This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.[19]
- Lakehead University: Based in Canada, Lakehead University has partnered with SWP to conduct research, including a project involving field crews to inventory over 300 dams across the U.S. and Canada, assessing their condition and impact on ecosystems.[44]
- U.S. Forest Service: USFS provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality[25], they rely on 5-year progress reports indicating requirements continue to be fulfilled.
- Great Lakes Climate Corps (GLCC): Operating under the AmeriCorps umbrella, the GLCC conducts protection, restoration, and monitoring projects in the U.P., including the LHCF. The program provides valuable work experience in conservation and climate adaptation for recent college graduates.[45]
- Tourists: The tourism industry in the Upper Peninsula plays a significant role in the region's economy, with visitors traveling from far and wide to experience the natural beauty and recreational opportunities around Lake Huron.
Challenges
Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF) faces relatively few challenges, but some notable issues include invasive species and the impacts of climate change.
Invasive species, such as spotted knapweed, tend to appear after disturbances like the construction of the parking lot.[19] This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.[46] However, most invasives are under control due to extensive monitoring and intentional volunteer efforts to remove them.
Emerald ash borer, an invasive beetle native to Asia, has also been observed.[19] The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the flow of nutrients and water, ultimately killing the tree. While it poses a threat, it has not become a major issue for LHCF, as ash is not a dominant species in the forest.[47]
The impacts of tourism are not closely monitored, though they are visible through trash accumulation, with the forest being quieter compared to other community forests.[19] Human-caused degradation is not currently a major concern at LHCF.
One of the biggest challenges is climate change. In recent years, increased rainfall events have brought 35% more water to the region compared to the previous 50 years, which can lead to issues like sedimentation and fertilizer runoff, contributing to harmful algal blooms, dead zones, and increased E.coli contamination, which can result in beach closures.[4] There are also concerns about changing species composition, with declines in birch, aspen, fir, and spruce, and a potential increase in oak, hickory, and pine. Additionally, higher temperatures may place increased stress on trees.[4] While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.[4]
There do not appear to be any significant governance challenges for LHCF. The forest benefits from strong relationships with the local community and partners, ensuring effective collaboration and support for ongoing management efforts.
Discussion
Limited publicly available information and the consultation of only one staff member make it challenging to provide a detailed analysis of the governance and success of LHCF. However, based on the accessible information, LHCF appears to be a well-functioning example of ecological and educational stewardship. It would, however, be valuable to gather additional input from local community members, Tribal groups, partner organizations, and visitors to better understand their perspectives on the forest’s management. While SWP actively encourages public participation and input, it would be interesting to assess whether these relationships are perceived as reciprocal by stakeholders.
Although small in size at 17 acres, LHCF is managed as part of SWP’s broader mission, which benefits from being embedded in a larger network of partnerships and collaborative governance. While SWP retains full authority over the forest’s management, they foster public engagement through open comment periods, educational programming, and volunteer opportunities, helping to cultivate a sense of stewardship within the community. The forest’s management very clearly prioritizes environmental and social benefits, with a less apparent emphasis on economic objectives. While the management plan mentions supporting sustainable economic development, it is unclear how this directly applies to LHCF beyond its alignment with SWP’s larger goals and other projects.
As community forestry in the United States relies heavily on self-identification, it raises the question of whether LHCF would continue to be classified as a community forest under stricter federal or state definitions. If formal frameworks with rigid governance structures were implemented, LHCF’s current governance model may or may not align, offering an interesting point of consideration for the evolving role of community forestry in policy contexts.
Recommendations
To ensure the longevity of the Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF) and maximize its value to the community, the following best management practices are recommended. These include both actions outlined in the existing LHCF forest management plan and additional suggestions to enhance its impact:
Existing Recommendations from the Forest Management Plan[4]
- Maintain Conservation Focus: LHCF should maintain its conservation focus as outlined in its current plan. The property should remain a conservation area with no timber production, and any tree removal should be limited to cases such as understory thinning, addressing safety concerns, or ensuring forest health. Manual removal methods should be used to minimize environmental impact.
- Annual Monitoring and Maintenance: The plan’s emphasis on annual monitoring and maintenance is vital to LHCF’s ongoing success. Forest health should be assessed yearly, with particular attention to invasive species and pollutants, accompanied by systematic inventories to track ecological changes. Sustainable, integrated pest management practices should be implemented as needed, with a preference for manual removal methods to limit stress on the ecosystem. Additionally, ongoing maintenance is essential to ensure safety and accessibility for visitors, including the upkeep of parking areas, trails, boardwalks, and beach access. Dead or hazardous trees in open or high-use areas should be removed promptly in collaboration with certified arborists or foresters.
- Plan Updates: Updating the forest management plan regularly is essential. SWP typically updates watershed plans every 10 years, and a similar timeline should be applied to the LHCF plan to ensure its relevance and effectiveness. This process should involve collaboration with professional foresters to guide intentional and adaptive site management.
| Theme: Community Forestry | |
| Country: USA | |
| Province/Prefecture: Michigan | |
| City: Lake Huron | |
This conservation resource was created by Emma Shenton. It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0. | |
Additional Recommendations for Enhanced Management and Community Impact
- Volunteer and Visitor Tracking: While LHCF already engages volunteers, a more formal volunteer tracking system could enhance its operations. A database requiring volunteers to sign in and out during sessions would allow for more precise documentation of community involvement, which could support grant applications and meet specific engagement requirements for funding opportunities. Similarly, implementing visitor tracking—such as using counters to measure foot traffic—would provide valuable data to inform management decisions and funding proposals while helping to gauge the forest’s usage levels and potential wear on amenities.
- Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) Management: Managing non-timber forest products (NTFPs) is another area for potential growth. A thorough inventory of trees, shrubs, and plants should be conducted to identify possible NTFPs. Based on this inventory, clear policies for the sustainable use and harvesting of these products could be established, ensuring that local communities can benefit equitably while maintaining ecological integrity.
- Enhanced Community Engagement: Community engagement could be further expanded beyond the open comment periods currently used. Establishing ongoing forums or feedback channels would provide community members with continuous opportunities to share their ideas and concerns regarding LHCF programming and management. Additionally, increasing transparency about participation opportunities, such as volunteer events and public consultations, would strengthen ties between LHCF and the surrounding community.
By continuing to implement the practices in the existing management plan and adopting these additional strategies, LHCF can further solidify its position as a model of community forestry, fostering ecological preservation and deeper community collaboration.
Refenences
- ↑ UBC. "Campus Environments". Blogs.ubc.ca. Retrieved December 11, 2024.
- ↑ Bruess, Elena (March 15, 2021). "Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline's Controversial History". GreatLakesNow. Retrieved December 11, 2024.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 USDA Forest Service. (2021). Forests of Michigan, 2020. Resource update FS-329. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2p. https://doi.org/10.2737/FS-RU-329.
- ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 Superior Watershed Partnership Land Conservancy. (2020). Community forest plan: Lake Huron Community Forest. Retrieved from https://superiorwatersheds.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Lake-Huron-Community-Forest-Plan.pdf.
- ↑ "Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024". World Population Review. 2024. Retrieved December 11, 2024.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2022). Lake Huron lakewide action and management plan, 2022-2026. Retrieved from https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf
- ↑ USDA (August, 2012). "Soil Series". USDA.gov. Retrieved December 11, 2024. Check date values in:
|date=(help) - ↑ USDA (March, 1999). "Soil Series". USDA.gov. Retrieved December 11, 2024. Check date values in:
|date=(help) - ↑ 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 "Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians". Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. January 28, 2017. Retrieved December 11, 2024.
- ↑ Hele, Karl S. (October 19, 2022). "Anishinaabe". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 11, 2024.
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Ondich, Jody (2021). "History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians". Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project. Retrieved December 11, 2024. line feed character in
|title=at position 35 (help) - ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 "A Brief History of Michigan" (PDF). Michigan Legislature (.gov). Retrieved December 11, 2024.
- ↑ "Treaty of Paris 1763". Britannica. Retrieved December 11, 2024.
- ↑ "Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820". Tribal Treaties Database. Retrieved December 11, 2024.
- ↑ "Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836". Tribal Treaties Database. Retrieved December 11, 2024.
- ↑ "How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836". Mackinac State Historic Parks. Retrieved December 11, 2024.
- ↑ Karamanski, Theodore J. (2011). "State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan". Michigan Historical Review. 37(1): 119–138 – via JSTOR.
- ↑ History.com Editors (June 18, 2024). "1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law". History. Retrieved December 11, 2024.
- ↑ 19.00 19.01 19.02 19.03 19.04 19.05 19.06 19.07 19.08 19.09 19.10 19.11 19.12 19.13 19.14 19.15 19.16 19.17 19.18 19.19 19.20 19.21 19.22 Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.
- ↑ SWP. "SWP Team". Superior Watershed Partnership. Retrieved December 12, 2024.
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 SWP. "100% Local". Superior Watershed Partnership. Retrieved December 12, 2024.
- ↑ SWP. "How We Work". Superior Watershed Partnership. Retrieved December 12, 2024.
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 SWP. "Land Conservancy". Superior Watershed Partnership. Retrieved December 12, 22024. Check date values in:
|access-date=(help) - ↑ SWP. "Community Forest Plans". Superior Watershed Partnership. Retrieved December 12, 2024.
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 "Projects". Great Lakes Restoration. March 31, 2024. Retrieved December 12, 2024.
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 USFS. "How the Community Forest Program Works". Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved December 12, 2024. line feed character in
|website=at position 15 (help) - ↑ USFS. "Community Forest Program". Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture. line feed character in
|website=at position 15 (help) - ↑ "View Grant Opportunity". Grants.Gov. Retrieved December 12, 2024.
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.8 Frey, G.E.; Hajjar, R.; Charnley, S.; McGinley, K; Schelhas, J.; Tarr, N.A.; McCaskill, L.; Cubbage, F.W. (2024). "Community Forests" in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?". Society & Natural Resources: 1–13 – via Taylor & Francis.
- ↑ 30.0 30.1 Glasmeier, A.K.; Farrigan, T. (2005). "Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case". Geographical Journal. 171(1): 56–69 – via Royal Geographical Society.
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 Charnley, S.; Poe, M.R. (2007). "Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?". Annual Review of Anthropology. 36(1): 301–336.
- ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 Baker, M.; Kusel, J. (2013). Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future. Island Press.
- ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.6 33.7 33.8 Hajjar, R.; McGinley, K.; Charnley, S.; Frey, G.E.; Hovis, M.; Cubbage, F.W.; Schelhas, J.; Kornhauser, K. (2024). "Characterizing community forests in the United States". Journal of Forestry. 122(3): 273–284 – via Oxford Academic.
- ↑ Hoagland, Serra J. (2017). "Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management". Scientific Journal. 3(1): 1–15 – via USFS.
- ↑ McCarthy, J. (2005). "Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism". Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. 37(6): 995–1014 – via Sage Journals.
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 McGinley, K. A., Charnley, S., Cubbage, F. W., Hajjar, R., Frey, G. E., Schelhas, J., Hovis, M., & Kornhauser, K. (2022). Community forest ownership, rights and governance regimes in the United States. In J. Bulkan, J. Palmer, A. M. Larson, & M. Hobley (Eds.), Handbook of Community Forestry. Routledge.[1]
- ↑ SWP (July 20, 2020). "Lake Huron Community Forest". Superior Watershed Partnership. Retrieved December 12, 2024.
- ↑ SWP. "Board of Directors". Superior Watershed Partnership. Retrieved December 12, 2024.
- ↑ 39.0 39.1 "Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program". Keeweenaw Report. January 25, 2024. Retrieved December 13, 2024.
- ↑ 40.0 40.1 Great Lakes Restoration (2022). "2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report" (PDF). Indian Affairs.gov. Retrieved December 13, 2024.
- ↑ "About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative". Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. Retrieved December 13, 2024.
- ↑ Government of Canada. "Great Lakes water quality agreement". Government of Canada. Retrieved December 13, 2024.
- ↑ Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2022). "Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026" (PDF). Binational.net. Retrieved December 13, 2024.
- ↑ InfoSuperior. "Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory". InfoSuperior. Retrieved December 13, 2024.
- ↑ GLCCC. "Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!". Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps. Retrieved December 13, 2024.
- ↑ "Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed". Michigan Invasive Species. Retrieved December 13, 2024.
- ↑ "Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer". Michigan Invasive Species. Retrieved December 13, 2024.