1. Timber Harvest and the Effect on Ruffed Grouse Habitat
Introduction:
The Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan is an area well known for its wildlife and timber
harvest. These two influence each other heavily, and not always in a positive fashion. An
ongoing battle between foresters and wildlife managers occurs due to this relationship. Foresters
focus primarily on timber harvests and maintaining the sustainability of the area’s forests, while
wildlife managers focus more upon the animals that inhabit the forests. The primary animal of
importance in this project is the Ruffed Grouse. Ruffed Grouse typically dwell in aspen stands
from twenty to fifty years of age. These same aspen stands are desired for industrial timber
harvest. Timber harvest is important to foresters because it creates revenue and many products
such as furniture, paper, and plywood. This project aims to show the spatial relationship between
timber harvest and Ruffed Grouse habitat, and how they interact with each other.
The purpose of this model is to first, identify suitable locations for timber harvest. Locations
are deemed suitable if they meet certain criteria. If it is publically owned land, harvest must
occur 100 feet from major water bodies, the stands must be larger than twenty acres, older than
fifty years old, and must have a well-drained soil type (well-drained loamy sand, well-drained
loam, well-drained sandy loam). If the land is classified as industrial, harvest must occur 100 feet
from major water bodies and the trees must be older than forty years of age. The second step will
be to identify the projected volume and area of the harvested timberlands. The third step will be
to identify the impact timber harvest will have on Ruffed Grouse habitat by comparing high,
medium and low habitat before timber harvest (2015) and after timber harvest (2025). High
quality habitat is consists of aspen stands less twenty years old, adjacent to aspen stands greater
than fifty years old. Medium quality habitat is classified as aspen stands less than twenty years
old, adjacent to old oaks stands. Low quality habitat is classified as aspen stands less than twenty

2. years old that are not adjacent to old aspen or oak. This data will be mapped graphically and
tabularly to gauge the impact a timber harvest could have on Ruffed Grouse habitat before and
after timber harvest. This model should answer the following five questions:
1. How much area (in acres) of aspen is there in state-owned public and industrial forests?
2. How much area of aspen will be harvested?
3. How much volume of timber will be harvested from state-owned public and industrial
private forests?
4. How much area can be considered potential Ruffed Grouse habitat prior to timber
harvest?
5. Does the amount of potential Grouse habitat increase or decrease following
implementation of the timber harvest plan? By how much?
Methods:
This data model was represented in ESRI’s ArcCatalog using a geodatabase. The
geodatabase was titled Timber_Harvest.gdb. Vector data was used because raster would not suit
our purpose for most of the data. Our database will be formatted as follows in table 1. Question
one was calculated through the use of select by attribute tool by selecting the aspen that is
located on industrial or state-owned public lands. Question two is a continuation of the select by
attribute process from question one but then also adding a one-hundred foot buffer around
hydrology lines. Using the erase tool, the overlap can be deleted between the buffer and the state
owned and public land that contains aspen. Finally, harvested aspen on industrial and state-
owned lands can be calculated through the use of the select by attribute tool by following the
harvested lands criteria (previously mentioned). Question three was calculated with the use of the
field calculator within the attribute tables for industrial and state-owned private lands by
multiplying the volume and the area with an answer in cords per acres. Question four was

3. calculated with the use of the select by attribute tool and select by location tool by follow the
high, medium, and low criteria (previously mentioned). Question five is the same process as
question four, except a field must be created to take all the harvested lands and add 10 years to
calculate ruffed grouse habitat post timber harvest. Non spatial data was acquired in a Microsoft
Excel file and was joined into the Forests feature class
Geodatabase design for Timber Harvest Data Model
Table 1
Geodatabase
Feature
Dataset
Feature
Class
Class
Type Field Name Field Type Sample Value
Possible
Domain
Type Acceptable Values
Keys /
Joins
Stand ID long integer 2344066
Vegatation_Ty
pe
Text (10
characters) Aspen Coded Aspen, Oak
Acres double 12.02 acres
Age short integer 40 years Ranged <20, >20, <50, >50 Join
Soil_Type
Text (35
characters)
well-drained
loamy sand Coded
Well-Drained
Loamy Sand, Well-
Drained Loam, Well-
Drained Sandy
Loam Join
Ownership
text (45
characters) Public Coded
Public, Industry,
Private (no private) Join
Shape_Area Double 123123.9923
Shape_Length Double 1231.4123
Stand_ID short integer 123
Primary
Key
Area double 12.02 Acres
Quality
Text (10
characters) High Coded High, Medium, Low
Hydrology Lines Length double 12.02 ft Hydro_Clip
FID short integer 2131
Shape length Double
Shape Area Double
Stand_ID short integer 123
Foreign
Key
Veg_Type
Text (10
characters) Aspen Coded Aspen, Oak Join
Soil_Type
Text (35
characters)
well-drained
loamy sand Coded
Loamy Sand, Well-
Drained Loam, Well-
Drained Sandy
Loam Join
Ownership
text (45
characters) Public Coded
Public, Industry,
Private (no private) Join
Non-
Spatial
Data
Stand_Dat
a
Timber_Harv
est.gdb
Timber_
Harvest_
Features
Table
PolygonStudy Area
Grouse
Habitat
Forests Polygon
Polygon

4. Results:
As listed on Table 1, there is a total of 5,583
acres to be harvested; producing 124,878 cords of
wood on state-owned public lands. Industrial lands on
the other hand will have about 355 acres harvested, producing 6,596 acres (Table 1). Prior to
harvest (2015), high quality habitat comprises about 4,773 acres of land which is 13% (table 3)
of the habitable area, while after harvest (2025) it will make up 6329.4 acres which is 22.98%
(Table 3) of habitable areas. This is an increase in high quality habitat of about 9.67% (table 3)
and a percent change of 32.6% (table 3) between 2015 and 2025. Medium quality habitat prior to
timber harvest totals about 1036 acres which is 2.9% of the total habitable lands and 1061.7 acres
or 3.85% of the habitable lands after
harvest (Table 3). Medium quality habitat
increased by 0.96% between 2015 and
2025. This is a percent change of 2.4%
(table 3). Low quality habitat makes up
30074 acres of land or 83.8% of habitable
area before timber harvest as opposed to
20156.6 acres or 73.17% of the habitable
lands after harvest (table 3). This is a decrease of 10.64% of low quality habitat from 2015 to
2025 and illustrates a percent change of -32.98% (table 3). Overall this timber harvest will
decrease ruffed grouse habitat in Marquette and Dickinson County by about 8337 acres of land,
which is a -23.23 percent change (table 23 from 2015 to 2025. The locations of different quality
of habitats in 2015 and 2025 can be seen graphically on Map 1.
Table 2
Table 3
Ownership Area (Acres) Volume (Cords)
State Public 5583.7 124878.5
Industrial 355.2 6596.4
Total 5938.9 131474.9
Industrial and State-Owned Public Aspen
Harvest
Habitat
Quality 2015 (Acres) 2025 (Acres)
Difference
(Acres)
Percent
Change
High 4773.5 6329.4 1555.9 32.59
Medium 1036.8 1061.7 24.9 2.40
Low 30074.8 20156.6 -9918.2 -32.98
Total
Habitat 35885.1 27547.7 -8337.4 -23.23
Non-
Habitat 456561.7 464899.1 8337.4 1.83
Total Land
Acres 492446.8 492446.8
Difference (%)
Habitat
Percent of
Total Area 7.3 5.6 -1.7
2015 to 2025 Comparison

5. Map 1- A comparison of how timber harvest has on Ruffed Grouse habitat between 2015 and 2025.