Great Lakes Regional
Land Cover Change Report
1996–2010
About This Report
The Great Lakes Regional Land Cover Change Report, 1996–2010, is one in a series of regional reports that summarize
the land cover status of the coastal United States in 2010 and land cover changes over the previous decade and a
half. This report provides an overview of key ndings using reader-friendly maps and graphics.
About the Coastal Change Analysis Program
Satellite imagery is a great way to get a big-picture view of the cumulative impacts of changes along our nation’s
coasts. The Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Oce for Coastal Management produces nationally standardized land cover and land cover change
information for coastal regions of the United States, including the Great Lakes, using multiple dates of satellite
imagery. C-CAP’s data products provide inventories of coastal intertidal areas, wetlands, and adjacent uplands at
approximately ve-year intervals. This information helps to support decision-making about coastal resources and
communities. The raster-based maps generated by C-CAP serve as a baseline for studies of coastal changes and
evaluations of past or future management actions.
To learn more about the C-CAP data products used in this report and to access the data sets, please visit
www.coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/ccapregional.
About the NOAA Oce for Coastal Management
NOAA’s Oce for Coastal Management works at the center of the nation’s coastal management eorts. From
implementing the National Coastal Zone Management Program to providing technical assistance to coastal
communities through the Digital Coast, the organization strives to help the nation’s coastal communities prosper in
the face of numerous natural and man-made challenges. To learn more, visit the website at www.coast.noaa.gov.
GREAT LAKES REGIONAL LAND COVER CHANGE REPORT, 1996–2010
T
HE GREAT LAKES
REGION covers
177,702 square miles and
extends from Minnesota’s
border with Canada in the
west to the northern areas of
New York state that drain to
the north in the east. The region includes all the coastal portions of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. The ve lakes of the Great Lakes Basin make up 95% of the
freshwater supply in the U.S. With approximately 9,000 miles of shoreline, the Great Lakes are nicknamed the
“Third Coast.” The region is home to approximately 27 million people.
Flora and fauna of the Great Lakes are part of a large and diverse freshwater ecosystem. The region’s city
centers and coastal assets have supported its manufacturing, recreation, and tourism industries. However,
some signicant stressors have degraded the ecosystem integrity that the region relies on, including toxic
substances, invasive species such as the Asian carp, nonpoint source pollution, and habitat change (resulting
in areas known as “Areas of Concern”).
Many types of land cover, such as forest, grassland, and shrub/scrub, occur in the Great Lakes, and the amount
of each land cover type changes over time. Using images and data collected by satellites, NOAA’s Coastal
Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) measured the area of each land cover type gained or lost from 1996 to 2010.
In this report, 18 land cover classes are grouped into eight general categories: developed, agriculture, grass,
shrub, upland forest, wetland, barren, and water.
Location of the Great Lakes region (red)
within the Coastal Change Analysis
Program’s mapping coverage area (dark
gray) in the contiguous United States.
The Great Lakes region is composed of 16
major coastal drainages and portions of
nine additional watersheds, indicated on
the map by dierent colors. Thin gray lines
indicate boundaries of smaller watersheds.
1
INTRODUCTION
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
This map shows the distribution of land cover
types in the Great Lakes in 2010.
2
LAND COVER
Cultivated Crops
Pasture/Hay
Grassland/Herbaceous
Shrub/Scrub
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Unconsolidated Shore
Bare Land
Open Water
Palustrine Forested Wetland
Palustrine Shrub/Scrub Wetland
Palustrine Emergent Wetland
Developed, High Intensity
Developed, Medium Intensity
Developed, Low Intensity
Developed, Open Space
Palustrine Aquatic Bed
Estuarine Aquatic Bed
GREAT LAKES REGIONAL LAND COVER CHANGE REPORT, 1996–2010
WetlandForest
32.5% 17.3%
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
6,294
Developed
3.5%
12,808
Agriculture
27.9%
602
49,585
Shrub
7.2%
3,959
Barren
0.3%
30,749
9.0%
% of Region
Area (mi
2
)
57,728
15,977
Grass
2.2%
Water
Each block represents 1% of the total
area of the Great Lakes region.
I
IN 2010, UPLAND FOREST 33%, AGRICULTURE 28%, AND WETLANDS 17%were the most common
categories of land cover in the region, accounting for approximately 78% of the area. The next most common
cover types were water (9%), development (7%), and shrub (4%). Grass and barren land made up less than 3%
of the total area.
The 18 land cover classes in the Great Lakes region have been grouped into eight major categories that are displayed in
the map graphic to highlight their relative distribution in 2010. More detailed information about these eight categories is
displayed in the bar chart.
33
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
–106 mi
2
F
ROM 1996 TO
2010, LAND
COVER changed on
7,144 square miles, or
approximately 4%, of the
Great Lakes region. Areas of
change were most common
in the northern areas of Minnesota and Wisconsin, as
well as the northern portion of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. Much of this
change is associated with timber management activities, but a signicant
amount of development also occurred in the region. This developed related
change can be seen in the counties surrounding Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit,
Chicago, Milwaukee, as well as the area between Green Bay and Appleton.
With gains of 1,259 and 609 square miles, respectively, developed and
shrub/scrub were the two land covers with the greatest net increases in
area. Upland forest (1,282 square miles) and agriculture (723 square miles)
had the largest net decreases.
TOTAL CHANGE IN LAND COVER
Net change per land cover category from 1996 to 2010. Arrows
indicate the net loss or gain in each land cover category.
Total Area of Change Equivalent to
3,457,663
Football Fields
1 Football Field Every
2 minutes
+ 609 mi
2
Shrub
+68 mi
2
-723 mi
2
Wetland
+62 mi
2
Water
+113 mi
2
Grass
–1,282 mi
2
Forest
AREA OF CHANGE
7,144 square miles
4% OF REGION
4
15 to 25%
10 to 15%
5 to 10%
2.5 to 5%
0 to 2.5%
+1,259 mi
2
Developed
AgricultureBarren
GREAT LAKES REGIONAL LAND COVER CHANGE REPORT, 1996–2010
5
I
N 2010, DEVELOPMENT accounted for 7% of the Great
Lakes. This development is concentrated in the southern
porons of the region, in areas surrounding (and between)
the large metropolitan areas that include Milwaukee,
Wisconsin; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Cleveland,
Ohio; and Bualo, New York.
DEVELOPED
2010 development map for the Great
Lakes region of the United States. This
map depicts intensity of development.
DEVELOPED AREA
12,808 square miles
7% OF REGION
Developed, High Intensity
Developed, Medium Intensity
Developed, Low Intensity
Developed, Open Space
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Shrub
115
500
600
700
400
300
200
100
0
Area (mi
2
)
ForestAgriculture Wetland
815
181
54
Grass
34
Barren
27
167
Water
15
800
900
Developed*
F
ROM 1996 TO
2010, THE AMOUNT
OF DEVELOPED AREA
increased in the region by
1,259 square miles, or at
an almost 11% rate of growth.
Approximately 80% of this new
development was classied as low
intensity or open space developed,
which typically includes the suburban
and rural neighborhoods surrounding
metropolitan areas and the associated parks, golf courses, and housing with
large lawns. The counes surrounding Milwaukee, Chicago, Grand Rapids,
and Detroit are areas of high increasing growth. The counes surrounding
Green Bay and Appleton, Wisconsin, and Cleveland, Ohio, both have
signicant amounts of development as well.
New development across the Great Lakes during the 14-year me period
came from lands previously categorized as agriculture (63%), upland
forest (14%), and grass (13%). Barren and wetland features contributed
an addional 4%. Development intensity increased on 115 square miles of
already developed land; this type of change is commonly associated with
increasing density of housing or inll development within city limits.
INCREASE IN DEVELOPED AREA
6
Increase in Developed Area Equivalent to
609,554
Football Fields
1 Football Field Every
12 minutes
This bar graph shows the area of each land cover that was converted to development between 1996 and 2010.
* Increases in development intensity
LAND COVER CONVERTED TO DEVELOPED AREA
Square Miles
20 to 27
10 to 20
5 to 10
2.5 to 5
0 to 2.5
square miles
1,259
GREAT LAKES REGIONAL LAND COVER CHANGE REPORT, 1996–2010
INCREASE IN DEVELOPED AREA
7
These images of large metropolitan areas within the Great Lakes region show patterns of new development
(red) and increased density or inll development (yellow). This development often forms a halo pattern
around a preexisting city core, reecting the expansion of major roads and population growth away from
the downtown. Background images: Esri
Appleton, WI
Green Bay, WI
Chicago, IL
Detroit, MI
Clevland, OH
Increased Intensity New Development
HIGHLIGHT: METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
Pre-1996 High Intensity Pre-1996 Moderate Intensity
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
I
N 2010, FOREST covered 43% of the Great Lakes
region, including 32% upland forest and 11% wetland
forest. While this report thus far has placed wetland
forest types in the wetlands category, this secon
considers upland and wetland forests together for a
more comprehensive view. Forest is clearly the dominant
cover type for the region, with greater densies of
forested areas in the northern regions, away from the
large metropolitan areas and the dominant agricultural
areas in the southern poron of the region. Deciduous
and freshwater wetland forests are the dominant forest
types, accounng for 53% and 24% of all forested areas,
respecvely.
FORESTED AREA
76,670 square miles
43% OF REGION
FOREST
8
2010 forest map for the Great Lakes. This map
depicts three upland forest categories and
one wetland forest category.
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest
Palustrine Forested Wetland
GREAT LAKES REGIONAL LAND COVER CHANGE REPORT, 1996–2010
FOREST AREA LOST
2,773 square miles
+ =
NET CHANGE
IN FOREST AREA
100 to 194
20 to 100
10 to 20
5 to 10
0 to 5
150 to 384
50 to 150
20 to 50
10 to 20
0 to 10
9
Decrease in Forest Area Equivalent to
839,609
Football Fields
1 Football Field Every
9 minutes
square miles
1,735
Square Miles
Square Miles
Square Miles
-100 to -194
-50 to -100
-25 to -50
-10 to -25
0 to -10
F
ROM 1996 TO 2010, 2,773 SQUARE MILES OF FOREST
changed to other types of land cover (above le), and 1,038
square miles of other land cover changed to forest (above
center). The result was a net loss of 1,735 square miles of forest;
most of these changes occurred in the northernmost areas away
from development and agriculture.
FOREST AREA GAINED
1,038 square miles
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
M
OST OF THE LOSSES IN FOREST LAND COVER
consisted of changes from forest to shrub and grass
(85% of all forest losses, combined). At the same time, most
forest gains came from these same two classes (89% of
all gains). This pattern suggests that many of the region’s
forested areas are undergoing transitions that do not result
in permanent loss. However, losses of forest to development
are more likely to be permanent. Approximately 213 square
miles of forest were lost to development during the study
period, accounting for 8% of the net losses. Of these losses,
181 square miles were upland forest and 32 square miles
were wetland forest.
+
=
NET CHANGE OF FOREST TO
OTHER LAND COVER
FOREST GAINED FROM
OTHER LAND COVER
FOREST LOST TO
OTHER LAND COVER
These graphs show the categories of land cover that forests were lost to or gained from, along with the resulting net change
between each of these categories and forests between 1996 and 2010.
HIGHLIGHT: FOREST FIRE IMPACTS
Several forest res in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness of Minnesota (along the border
with Canada) have had dramatic eects on the landscape. The Cavity Lake re (2006) and the Ham
Lake re (2007) burned over 106,000 acres. The two images below show the forest extent before
these res (left) and the areas of grass and shrub that have regrown in the wake of the burn and
forest loss (right). An area of regrowth (grass in 1996 to scrub in 2010) can also be seen and highlights
recovery of the area after the 1996 Temperance re (which burned more than 4,450 acres).
Area (mi
2
)
0
-1000
1000
-2000
Agriculture
Developed
Grass
Shrub
Barren
Water
Agriculture
Developed
Barren
Water
Agriculture
Developed
Barren
Water
Shrub
Grass
Shrub
Grass
10
GREAT LAKES REGIONAL LAND COVER CHANGE REPORT, 1996–2010
11
A
PPROXIMATELY 17% OF THE GREAT LAKES REGION
was covered by wetlands in 2010. These wetlands
are entirely freshwater wetlands (100%). Freshwater
forested wetlands accounted for 62% of the total, while
shrub and emergent wetlands accounted for 24% and
14%, respectively. Unconsolidated shore features along
the coasts and rivers made up less than 1% of the area.
WETLAND
WETLAND AREA
30,749 square miles
17% OF REGION
2010 wetland map for the Great Lakes. This
map depicts four wetland categories.
Palustrine Forested
Palustrine Emergent
Palustrine Shrub/Scrub
Unconsolidated Shore
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
W
ETLAND AREAS ACROSS THE REGION experienced a net increase of 68 square
miles from 1996 to 2010, reecting a loss of 150 square miles (above left) and a
gain of 218 square miles (above center). While some areas had a net gain and others
had a net loss, the overall net change was very small. Development around Chicago,
Cleveland, and Bualo dominate the areas of loss. Low water levels, such as those seen
around Saginaw Bay, Michigan, and Horicon Marsh, Wisconsin (the largest freshwater
cattail marsh in the United States), dominate the areas of wetland gains.
WETLAND AREA LOST
150 square miles
WETLAND AREA GAINED
218 square miles
+
=
NET CHANGE
IN WETLAND AREA
1 to 3
0 to 1
0 to -1
-1 to -3
-3 to -9
10 to 25
5 to 10
2 to 5
1 to 2
0 to 1
10 to 11
5 to 10
2 to 5
1 to 2
0 to 1
12
square miles
68
Square Miles
Square Miles
Square Miles
GainLoss
HIGHLIGHT: DROUGHT AND LOW LAKE LEVEL IMPACTS
This area along the shore of Saginaw Bay in Arenac County, Michigan, is just one example where C-CAP data have
captured impacts of drought and lower-than-average lake levels, resulting in the addition of wetlands along the shore,
as well as in ponds and other riparian features throughout the area. From 1996 to 2010 this county gained 973 acres
of wetlands converted from formerly open water features. The following imagery shows the shoreline area of Arenac
County in 1998, 2006, and 2013.
GREAT LAKES REGIONAL LAND COVER CHANGE REPORT, 1996–2010
Area (mi
2
)
0
-100
100
200
-200
Agriculture
Barren
Water
Agriculture
Developed
Barren
Water
Agriculture
Barren
Water
Developed
Developed
+
=
NET CHANGE BETWEEN WETLAND
AND OTHER LAND COVER
WETLAND GAINED FROM
OTHER LAND COVER
WETLAND LOST TO
OTHER LAND COVER
These graphs show the categories of land cover that wetlands were lost to or gained from, along with the resulting
net change between each of these categories and wetlands between 1996 and 2010.
13
HIGHLIGHT: MARSH RESTORATION FROM FORMER AGRICULTURAL AREAS
Dedicated on June 14, 2007, the Zeloski Marsh in Jeerson County, Wisconsin, is a 1,500-acre wetland restored from
drained farmland. The marsh, forming the core of the Lake Mills Wildlife Area, owned and operated by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), was restored in a collaborative eort of Wisconsin DNR, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Madison Audubon Society. The image on the left
shows the predominantly agricultural area in 1996. The image on the right highlights the area after restoration. The
Glacial Drumlin bicycle trail can be seen crossing the marsh.
W
ETLANDS IN THE GREAT LAKES were primarily lost to development (43%) and water (33%).
Most of the gains were from water features (72%), as well as formerly agricultural features
(25%). These gains can be attributed to both the recent years of drought and the consequent low
water levels in the lakes and ponds, as well as individual areas of restoration (in former agricultural
areas).