UBC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T02:28:40Z

EmmaShenton: /* Recommendations */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest.jpg|thumb|354x354px|Aerial view of the Lake Huron Community Forest]]
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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest in Michigan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Locator Map]]
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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
[[File:Superior-watershed-partnership-logo.png|thumb]]
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWP to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> SWP has committed to protecting the land in perpetuity, ensuring it remains a community asset.

==Governance==

=== Management Board ===
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest Plan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Plan]]
The management plan for the Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF) was developed by Superior Watershed Partnership (SWP) staff<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' USFS provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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'''<ref name=":0" /> ===

# '''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.
{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}
=== '''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==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T02:27:59Z

EmmaShenton: /* Recommendations */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest.jpg|thumb|354x354px|Aerial view of the Lake Huron Community Forest]]
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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest in Michigan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Locator Map]]
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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
[[File:Superior-watershed-partnership-logo.png|thumb]]
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWP to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> SWP has committed to protecting the land in perpetuity, ensuring it remains a community asset.

==Governance==

=== Management Board ===
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest Plan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Plan]]
The management plan for the Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF) was developed by Superior Watershed Partnership (SWP) staff<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' USFS provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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'''<ref name=":0" /> ===

# '''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.

=== '''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.{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}
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==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T02:27:29Z

EmmaShenton: /* Additional Recommendations for Enhanced Management and Community Impact */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest.jpg|thumb|354x354px|Aerial view of the Lake Huron Community Forest]]
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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest in Michigan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Locator Map]]
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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
[[File:Superior-watershed-partnership-logo.png|thumb]]
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWP to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> SWP has committed to protecting the land in perpetuity, ensuring it remains a community asset.

==Governance==

=== Management Board ===
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest Plan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Plan]]
The management plan for the Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF) was developed by Superior Watershed Partnership (SWP) staff<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' USFS provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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'''<ref name=":0" /> ===

# '''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.

=== '''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.{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}

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==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T02:27:16Z

EmmaShenton: /* Refenences */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest.jpg|thumb|354x354px|Aerial view of the Lake Huron Community Forest]]
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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest in Michigan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Locator Map]]
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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
[[File:Superior-watershed-partnership-logo.png|thumb]]
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWP to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> SWP has committed to protecting the land in perpetuity, ensuring it remains a community asset.

==Governance==

=== Management Board ===
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest Plan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Plan]]
The management plan for the Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF) was developed by Superior Watershed Partnership (SWP) staff<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' USFS provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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'''<ref name=":0" /> ===

# '''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.

=== '''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.{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}

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==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T02:26:49Z

EmmaShenton: /* Recommendations */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest.jpg|thumb|354x354px|Aerial view of the Lake Huron Community Forest]]
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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest in Michigan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Locator Map]]
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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
[[File:Superior-watershed-partnership-logo.png|thumb]]
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWP to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> SWP has committed to protecting the land in perpetuity, ensuring it remains a community asset.

==Governance==

=== Management Board ===
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest Plan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Plan]]
The management plan for the Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF) was developed by Superior Watershed Partnership (SWP) staff<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' USFS provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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'''<ref name=":0" /> ===

# '''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.

=== '''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.{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}

==Refenences==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T02:26:29Z

EmmaShenton: /* Summary of Case Study */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest.jpg|thumb|354x354px|Aerial view of the Lake Huron Community Forest]]
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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest in Michigan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Locator Map]]
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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
[[File:Superior-watershed-partnership-logo.png|thumb]]
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWP to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> SWP has committed to protecting the land in perpetuity, ensuring it remains a community asset.

==Governance==

=== Management Board ===
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest Plan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Plan]]
The management plan for the Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF) was developed by Superior Watershed Partnership (SWP) staff<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' USFS provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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'''<ref name=":0" /> ===

# '''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.

=== '''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.{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}

==Refenences==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T02:07:19Z

EmmaShenton: /* Management Board */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest.jpg|thumb|354x354px|Aerial view of the Lake Huron Community Forest]]
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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest in Michigan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Locator Map]]
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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
[[File:Superior-watershed-partnership-logo.png|thumb]]
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> SWP has committed to protecting the land in perpetuity, ensuring it remains a community asset.

==Governance==

=== Management Board ===
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest Plan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Plan]]
The management plan for the Lake Huron Community Forest (LHCF) was developed by Superior Watershed Partnership (SWP) staff<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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 bionational 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' they provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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.{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}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'''<ref name=":0" /> ===

# '''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.

=== '''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==

<references />

File:Lake Huron Community Forest Plan.png

2024-12-14T02:06:43Z

EmmaShenton: Uploaded a work by Superior Watershed Partnership from https://superiorwatersheds.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Lake-Huron-Community-Forest-Plan.pdf with UploadWizard

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Lake Huron Community Forest Plan}}
|date=2020-05-01
|source=https://superiorwatersheds.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Lake-Huron-Community-Forest-Plan.pdf
|author=Superior Watershed Partnership
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{cc-by-sa-4.0}}

File:Lake Huron Community Forest Plan.jpg

2024-12-14T02:04:37Z

EmmaShenton: Uploaded a work by Superior Watershed Partnership from https://superiorwatersheds.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Lake-Huron-Community-Forest-Plan.pdf with UploadWizard

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T02:03:11Z

EmmaShenton: /* History of Lake Huron Community Forest */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest.jpg|thumb|354x354px|Aerial view of the Lake Huron Community Forest]]
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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest in Michigan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Locator Map]]
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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
[[File:Superior-watershed-partnership-logo.png|thumb]]
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> 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<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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 bionational 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' they provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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.{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}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'''<ref name=":0" /> ===

# '''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.

=== '''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==

<references />

File:Superior-watershed-partnership-logo.png

2024-12-14T01:57:44Z

EmmaShenton: Uploaded a work by Superior Watershed Partnership from https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust with UploadWizard

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Superior Watershed Partnership Logo}}
|date=2020-05-01
|source=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust
|author=Superior Watershed Partnership
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{cc-by-sa-4.0}}

File:Lake Huron Community Forest.jpg

2024-12-14T01:54:48Z

EmmaShenton: Uploaded a work by Superior Watershed Partnership from https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust with UploadWizard

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Aerial view of the Lake Huron Community Forest}}
|date=2020-05-01
|source=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust
|author=Superior Watershed Partnership
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{cc-by-sa-4.0}}

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T01:52:53Z

EmmaShenton: /* Site Description */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==
[[File:Lake Huron Community Forest in Michigan.png|thumb|Lake Huron Community Forest Locator Map]]
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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> 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<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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 bionational 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' they provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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.{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}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'''<ref name=":0" /> ===

# '''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.

=== '''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==

<references />

File:Lake Huron Community Forest in Michigan.png

2024-12-14T01:51:51Z

EmmaShenton: Uploaded a work by Superior Watershed Partnership from https://superiorwatersheds.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Lake-Huron-Community-Forest-Plan.pdf with UploadWizard

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=Lake Huron Community Forest Locator Map}}
|date=2020-05-01
|source=https://superiorwatersheds.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Lake-Huron-Community-Forest-Plan.pdf
|author=Superior Watershed Partnership
|permission=
|other versions=
}}

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{cc-by-sa-4.0}}

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T01:43:48Z

EmmaShenton: /* History of Lake Huron Community Forest */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> 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<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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 bionational 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' they provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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.{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}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'''<ref name=":0" /> ===

# '''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.

=== '''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==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T01:39:08Z

EmmaShenton: /* Recommendations */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

During this time, 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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> 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<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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 bionational 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' they provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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.{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}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'''<ref name=":0" /> ===

# '''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.

=== '''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==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T01:26:10Z

EmmaShenton: /* Summary of Case Study */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

During this time, 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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> 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<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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 bionational 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' they provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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.{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}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==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T01:20:54Z

EmmaShenton: /* Discussion */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==

==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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

During this time, 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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> 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<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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 bionational 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' they provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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.{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}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==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T01:20:34Z

EmmaShenton: /* Discussion */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==

==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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

During this time, 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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> 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<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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 bionational 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' they provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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==
{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}
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==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-14T00:25:56Z

EmmaShenton: /* Challenges */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==

==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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

During this time, 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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> 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<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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 bionational 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' they provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" /> This plant is harmful to other vegetation, releasing poison that can eradicate native species and create barren areas.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Spotted Knapweed|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/plants/herbs/spotted-knapweed|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" /> The larvae feed on ash tree bark, disrupting the follow 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Invasive Species: Emerald Ash Borer|url=https://www.michigan.gov/invasives/id-report/insects/emerald-ash-borer|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Michigan Invasive Species}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" /> While LHCF is mindful of fire prevention and fuel management strategies to reduce wildfire risk, it is not considered a fire-prone area.<ref name=":0" />

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==
{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}
Discussion of the aims and intentions of the case study, Discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed
==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-13T22:23:03Z

EmmaShenton: /* Affected Stakeholders */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==

==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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

During this time, 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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> 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<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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 bionational 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# '''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.<ref name=":5" />
# '''Lake Superior State University:''' This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# '''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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# '''U.S. Forest Service:''' they provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# '''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==

==Discussion==
{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}
Discussion of the aims and intentions of the case study, Discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed
==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-13T22:22:07Z

EmmaShenton: /* Interested Stakeholders */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==

==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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

During this time, 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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> 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<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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 bionational 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Government of Canada|title=Great Lakes water quality agreement|url=https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/corporate/international-affairs/partnerships-countries-regions/north-america/great-lakes-water-quality-agreement.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Government of Canada}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency|date=2022|title=Lake Huron Lakewide Action and Management Plan, 2022-2026|url=https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Lake-Huron-2022-2026-LAMP.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Binational.net}}</ref>
# 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.<ref name=":5" />
# Lake Superior State University: This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.<ref name=":5" />
# 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=InfoSuperior|title=Binational Lake Superior Watershed Dam Inventory|url=https://infosuperior.com/blog/2018/12/01/binational-lake-superior-watershed-dam-inventory/#:~:text=The%20Superior%20Watershed%20Partnership%20and%20Lakehead%20University%20teamed%20up%20last,of%20Wisconsin%E2%80%93Madison%20and%20funding|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=InfoSuperior}}</ref>
# U.S. Forest Service: they provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality<ref name=":16" />, 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=GLCCC|title=Welcome To The Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps!|url=https://greatlakesccc.org/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps}}</ref>
# 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==

==Discussion==
{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}
Discussion of the aims and intentions of the case study, Discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed
==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-13T22:15:52Z

EmmaShenton: /* Interested Stakeholders */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==

==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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

During this time, 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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> 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<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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 bionational 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=About The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative|url=https://glslcities.org/about/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative}}</ref>
# 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. 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.
# 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.
# Lake Superior State University: This university has collaborated with SWP on various initiatives, including environmental research and conservation projects in the Great Lakes region.
# 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.
# U.S. Forest Service: they provided the $400,000 grant for LHCF to become reality, 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.
# 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==

==Discussion==
{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}
Discussion of the aims and intentions of the case study, Discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed
==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-13T21:43:14Z

EmmaShenton: /* Affected Stakeholders */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==

==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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

During this time, 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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> 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<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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 ===

==Challenges==

==Discussion==
{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}
Discussion of the aims and intentions of the case study, Discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed
==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-13T20:41:17Z

EmmaShenton: /* Affected Stakeholders */

__TOC__

== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=UBC|title=Campus Environments|url=https://blogs.ubc.ca/campusenvironments/land-acknowledgments/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Blogs.ubc.ca}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bruess|first=Elena|date=March 15, 2021|title=Treaty Rights Acknowledged For First Time in Oil Pipeline’s Controversial History|url=https://www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/treaty-rights-line-5-oil-pipelines-controversial-history/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=GreatLakesNow}}</ref> 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==

==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<ref name=":14">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. </ref>—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.<ref name=":0">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. </ref> Located near De Tour Village in Chippewa County<ref name=":0" />—named after the Indigenous Ojibwe people—the forest is part of a sparsely populated area with just over 23 residents per square mile.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024|title=Chippewa County, Michigan Population 2024|url=https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/michigan/chippewa-county|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=World Population Review}}</ref> Despite its modest size, LHCF holds ecological significance, encompassing 1,700 feet of Lake Huron shoreline.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":1">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 </ref> 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)''<ref name=":0" />
# A northern hardwood section, including red oak (''Quercus rubra)''<ref name=":0" />
# Early successional species forest featuring aspen (''Populus spp.)'' and birch (''Betula spp.)''.<ref name=":0" />

Within these areas, two main soil types are present: the Kinross-Au Gres complex, characterized by poorly drained sandy soils<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=August, 2012|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/AU_GRES.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref>, and the Shelter-Alpena complex, consisting of well-drained loamy soils.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USDA|date=March, 1999|title=Soil Series|url=https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ALPENA.html|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=USDA.gov}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" /> Additionally, the forest features emergent wetlands and a sandy beach, interconnected by an extensive boardwalk system.<ref name=":0" />

== 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.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|date=January 28, 2017|title=Story of Our People: The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians|url=https://www.saulttribe.com/history-a-culture/story-of-our-people|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians}}</ref> The term ''Anishinaabe,'' meaning "original people,<ref name=":2" />" refers to a collective of Indigenous groups, including the Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga, Nipissing, and Algonquin peoples.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hele|first=Karl S.|date=October 19, 2022|title=Anishinaabe|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/anishinaabe|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=The Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":1" /> Key food sources included ''manoomin'' (wild rise), ''na’me'' (lake sturgeon), and ''adikameg'' (whitefish).<ref name=":1" /> 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web|last=Ondich|first=Jody|date=2021|title=History, Beliefs, Rituals, Legends
The Anishinaabe, the Inca/Quechua, the Yoruba, the Indigenous Australians|url=https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/worldreligionsthespiritsearching/chapter/mythology-folklore-legends/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Minnesota Libraries Publishing Project}}</ref> Practices such as singing, drumming, dancing, and ceremonial smoking were integral forms of worship and connection to the Great Spirit.<ref name=":3" />

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.<ref name=":2" /> French explorers were the first to arrive in the early to mid-1600s, establishing settlements, missions, and military forts around the Great Lakes.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A Brief History of Michigan|url=https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/manual/2001-2002/2001-mm-0003-0026-History.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Michigan Legislature (.gov)}}</ref> The French largely maintained a cooperative relationship with Indigenous groups, primarily engaging through the fur trade, which became highly lucrative.<ref name=":4" /> Some settlers intermarried and lived among Indigenous communities, but there was a relatively low level of interference in their traditional way of life.<ref name=":4" />

By the 1700s, however, the British began making claims to the region, employing a more aggressive approach.<ref name=":4" /> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty of Paris 1763|url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Paris-1763|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Britannica}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

During this time, 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.<ref name=":2" /> 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Chippewa, 1820|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-chippewa-1820-0187|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref>
* 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.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=Treaty with the Ottawa, etc., 1836|url=https://treaties.okstate.edu/treaties/treaty-with-the-ottawa-etc-1836-0450|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Tribal Treaties Database}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=How Michigan Became a State: The Treaty of Washington, 1836|url=https://www.mackinacparks.com/blog/how-michigan-became-a-state-the-treaty-of-washington-1836/|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=Mackinac State Historic Parks}}</ref>

Although many faced the threat of forced removal, many Anishinaabeg communities successfully advocated for rights within federal/settler frameworks, gaining conditional citizenship in 1850.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karamanski|first=Theodore J.|date=2011|title=State citizenship as a tool of Indian persistence: A case study of the Anishinaabeg of Michigan|url=https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119|journal=Michigan Historical Review|volume=37(1)|pages=119-138|via=JSTOR}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":2" />

It took over two decades of persistent effort to gain federal recognition.<ref name=":2" /> The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act was the initial catalyst for Tribes to self-organize, draft constitutions, and establish formal governance.<ref>{{Cite web|last=History.com Editors|date=June 18, 2024|title=1934 Indian Reorganization Act is signed into law|url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/indian-reorganization-act-signed-into-law-fdr|url-status=live|access-date=December 11, 2024|website=History}}</ref> Ultimately, after presenting legal arguments in Washington, D.C., the group was granted federal status in 1972.<ref name=":2" /> Today, they are known as the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized tribe with 44,000 members.<ref name=":2" />

=== History of Superior Watershed Partnership ===
The Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy (SWP), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization<ref name=":5">Geri Grant, Senior Planner at Superior Watershed Partnership, personal interview, November 18, 2024.</ref>, has been a dedicated steward of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula since its founding in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=SWP Team|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/swp-team|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=100% Local|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/100-local|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> The organization also prioritizes economic development through nature-based tourism and offers educational programming.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=How We Work|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/how-we-work|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> Notably, SWP stands out by allocating 85% of its budget to mission-driven projects, significantly exceeding the nonprofit average of 75%.<ref name=":6" />

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<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Land Conservancy|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/what-we-do/great-lakes-watersheds/land-trust|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 22024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, and most recently, Gratiot River Community Forest.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Community Forest Plans|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/publications/swp-plans|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Land Acquisition ===

The history of LHCF land prior to since Indigenous stewardship remains largely undocumented, but it is known that the land was privately owned as a family estate before becoming a community forest.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web|date=March 31, 2024|title=Projects|url=https://www.glri.us/projects|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Great Lakes Restoration}}</ref>

The land itself was valued at $777,000.<ref name=":7" /> Typically, the Community Forest Program requires a 50% funding match from a non-federal source.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=How the Community Forest Program Works|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest/program|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> In this case, the value of the land, which was donated by the estate, fulfilled this requirement.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":8" /> Additional requirements include maintaining public access to the site, managing the land according to a community forest plan that prioritizes community benefit<ref name=":8" />, and ensuring the property is at least five acres in size and 75% forested.<ref>{{Cite web|last=USFS|title=Community Forest Program|url=https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/private-land/community-forest|url-status=live|archive-date=December 12, 2024|website=Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture}}</ref> The program has an annual request for applications through Grants.gov, offering funding opportunities across the country to support community forestry initiatives.<ref>{{Cite web|title=View Grant Opportunity|url=https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/356124|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Grants.Gov}}</ref>

== 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.<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last=Frey|first=G.E.|last2=Hajjar|first2=R.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=McGinley|first4=K|last5=Schelhas|first5=J.|last6=Tarr|first6=N.A.|last7=McCaskill|first7=L.|last8=Cubbage|first8=F.W.|date=2024|title=Community Forests” in the United States–How do we know one when we see one?|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2024.2361413|journal=Society & Natural Resources|pages=1-13|via=Taylor & Francis}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Glasmeier|first=A.K.|last2=Farrigan|first2=T.|date=2005|title=Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case|url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00149.x|journal=Geographical Journal|volume=171(1)|pages=56-69|via=Royal Geographical Society}}</ref>—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.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last=Charnley|first=S.|last2=Poe|first2=M.R.|date=2007|title=Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now?|url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36(1)|pages=301-336}}</ref> The emergence of formalized community forestry in the 1990s<ref name=":12" /> was not a centralized movement; it developed through multiple, independent initiatives across the country,<ref name=":10">{{Cite book|title=Community Forestry in the United States: Learning from the past, crafting the future|last=Baker|first=M.|last2=Kusel|first2=J.|publisher=Island Press|year=2013}}</ref> 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<ref name=":9" />—a notable contrast to many low-income countries, where community forestry often remains structured within top-down frameworks.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last=Hajjar|first=R.|last2=McGinley|first2=K.|last3=Charnley|first3=S.|last4=Frey|first4=G.E.|last5=Hovis|first5=M.|last6=Cubbage|first6=F.W.|last7=Schelhas|first7=J.|last8=Kornhauser|first8=K.|date=2024|title=Characterizing community forests in the United States|url=https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvad054|journal=Journal of Forestry|volume=122(3)|pages=273-284|via=Oxford Academic}}</ref>

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous practices have profoundly influenced the evolution of community forestry in the U.S.<ref name=":11" /> For centuries, Indigenous peoples shaped ecosystems through sustainable practices like cultural burns, intentional species selection, and multi-aged forest cultivation.<ref name=":10" /> These approaches challenge the romanticized notion of a pre-colonial “untouched” wilderness, highlighting a philosophy that “use brings abundance.”<ref name=":10" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hoagland|first=Serra J.|date=2017|title=Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal natural resource management|url=https://doi.org/10.18113/P8ik359744|journal=Scientific Journal|volume=3(1)|pages=1-15|via=USFS}}</ref>

=== Defining Community Forestry ===
In the United States, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of a community forest.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=McCarthy|first=J.|date=2005|title=Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism|url=https://doi.org/10.1068/a36266|journal=Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space|volume=37(6)|pages=995-1014|via=Sage Journals}}</ref> This ambiguity stems from the absence of a unified tenure system, a standardized legal framework, or a consistent governance structure.<ref name=":11" /> Even the concept of "community" is inherently fluid, often lacking clarity in terms of spatial boundaries, shared norms, or social organization.<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":12" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

Community forests in the U.S. are primarily defined through self-identification.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":13" />

=== 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.<ref name=":14" /> 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.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":11" /> 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.<ref name=":15">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.[https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/64808]</ref><ref name=":11" />

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.<ref name=":13" /> In the North and East, community forests are generally smaller, often originating from family-owned forestlands.<ref name=":13" /> In contrast, those in the West tend to be larger, reflecting their historical ties to former corporate holdings.<ref name=":13" />

Timber production occurs on more than two-thirds of community forests<ref name=":13" />, 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.<ref name=":15" />

==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<ref name=":16" />, they do not have authority over the land beyond requiring SWO to submit 5-year reports demonstrating compliance with Community Forest Program requirements.<ref name=":5" /> These requirements include adherence to a management plan and maintaining public access.<ref name=":8" /> 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<ref name=":5" />, with the draft published in 2020 for public comment.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|date=July 20, 2020|title=Lake Huron Community Forest|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/community-forests/lake-huron-community-forest|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":5" />

Plan implementation is overseen by a six-member board of directors<ref>{{Cite web|last=SWP|title=Board of Directors|url=https://superiorwatersheds.org/about/board-of-directors|url-status=live|access-date=December 12, 2024|website=Superior Watershed Partnership}}</ref>, which, according to SWP's senior planner, is both representative of and active within the local community.<ref name=":5" /> While most day-to-day decisions are made by the executive director, the director ensures transparency and regular communication with the board.<ref name=":5" /> 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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" />

=== Management Objectives ===
The management objectives for Lake Huron, as outlined in the 2020 management plan<ref name=":0" />, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Volunteers play a crucial role in their operations, serving as one of their main implementation strategies.<ref name=":0" /> Volunteers assist with key projects, such as invasive species removal, trail construction, maintenance, interpretive signage installation, cleanup events, and native planting activities.<ref name=":0" /> While SWP does not have a formal volunteer tracking system, they estimate hosting 150 to 200 volunteers annually<ref name=":5" />—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.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

=== 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<ref name=":5" />, particularly the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians near LHCF. SWP actively involves Tribal staff in developing public education materials and signage that honors Tribal history.<ref name=":0" /> While not legally required, SWP often consults with Tribes on projects conducted on ceded territory lands, such as new tree plantings.<ref name=":5" /> This may include seeking input on project proposals or requesting letters of support. Staff members report maintaining a strong relationship with the Sault Tribe.<ref name=":5" />

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.<ref name=":5" /> As of January 2024, SWP secured a $323,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s “Sustain Our Great Lakes” program.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web|date=January 25, 2024|title=Superior Watershed Partnership Receives $323,000 Grant from the Sustain Our Great Lakes Program|url=http://www.keweenawreport.com/news/superior-watershed-partnership-receives-323000-grant-from-the-sustain-our-great-lakes-program/|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Keeweenaw Report}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":17" />

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.<ref name=":18">{{Cite web|last=Great Lakes Restoration|date=2022|title=2022 Tribal Great Lakes Restoration Report|url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/glri_brochure_section_508_compliant.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=December 13, 2024|website=Indian Affairs.gov}}</ref> Both organizations are committed to protecting critical wildlife habitats, including those for ruffed 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.<ref name=":18" />

==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:

· '''Affected Stakeholders'''

o This is a small community forest, and there do not seem to be people whose long-term welfare is strongly dependent on the land.

o SWP employees: for their economic livelihoods, many depend on having projects to work on to retain their roles. However, SWP works on a lot of projects, not specific to Lake Huron Community Forest.

o Local community members: Having access to nature is important for physical and mental well-being

o Tribal groups, mainly Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians: although land has been ceded, there are still strong ties to the land

o Tourism industry: reliant on having clean environment, public access to beaches and hikes

=== Interested Stakeholders ===

==Challenges==

==Discussion==
{{CFRC FRST522|names=Emma Shenton|share=yes|theme=Community Forestry|country=USA|province=Michigan|city=Lake Huron}}
Discussion of the aims and intentions of the case study, Discussion of critical issues or conflicts in this community and how they are being managed
==Recommendations==
Your recommendations about this community forestry project

==References==

<references />

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-13T20:19:05Z

EmmaShenton: /* Tribal Relationships */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-13T19:58:37Z

EmmaShenton:

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-13T06:47:16Z

EmmaShenton: /* Recommendations */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-13T06:34:41Z

EmmaShenton: /* Management Objectives */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-13T06:22:58Z

EmmaShenton: /* Management Board */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-13T01:38:00Z

EmmaShenton: /* Affected Stakeholders */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-13T01:33:40Z

EmmaShenton: /* Tenure arrangements */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T23:56:31Z

EmmaShenton: /* Regional Differences */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T21:23:14Z

EmmaShenton: /* Defining Community Forestry */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T21:08:13Z

EmmaShenton: /* References */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T20:53:10Z

EmmaShenton: /* Origins of Community Forestry */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T20:42:18Z

EmmaShenton: /* Origins of Community Forestry */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T18:50:33Z

EmmaShenton:

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T18:48:02Z

EmmaShenton: /* Land Acquisition */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T18:44:37Z

EmmaShenton: /* References */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T18:43:47Z

EmmaShenton: /* Land Acquisition */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T18:41:18Z

EmmaShenton: /* References */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T18:40:17Z

EmmaShenton: /* References */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T18:40:08Z

EmmaShenton: /* References */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T18:39:31Z

EmmaShenton: /* References */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T18:37:42Z

EmmaShenton: /* References */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T18:37:10Z

EmmaShenton: /* References */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T18:36:00Z

EmmaShenton: /* References */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T18:35:38Z

EmmaShenton: /* Land Acquisition */

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/Lake Huron Community Forest, Michigan, USA: A Nonprofit Model for Ecological and Educational Stewardship

2024-12-12T18:16:55Z

EmmaShenton: /* History of Superior Watershed Partnership */