I agree with Matthew's comments on the legend items and colours; perhaps you could also assign similar items - like the pines and grassland/shrubland/wetland - different colour scales to accentuate their similarity. On first looking at the legend, I thought your name was the title
Not every reader will be as dim as me in this regard, but a box around the legend or line separating it from the text would make sure of it.
As someone unfamiliar with the area and the state boundaries, it took me a while to realise that the wiggly line through the middle is not a river. I'd suggest extending it beyond the boundary of your classified area to draw more attention to it, and add labels for Minnesota and Ontario. Since you've used grey to depict urban areas, maybe a different colour would be better.
Sticking with the grey theme, the two tones on the extent maps work well. Choosing something like greens here would give the map more personality and also tie-in with the colours of the logos in the opposite corner. It's personal preference but I'd swap the words "See Map to Right" for zoom-lines (which I'm sure have a proper name) connecting the corners of the box with the second frame. There needs to be more labels here too, like states and the name of the region shown.
Why not add the park outlines to the main map? Land cover classes seems to correlate with Quetico Provincial Park in particular .
The text in the map description looks great following the mapped area's outline but you have some strange line breaks in there. There's also a full stop (or period or whatever you folks across the pond call it) missing at the end after "Conservancy". In the italicised text at the bottom of the page I'd rephrase a couple of bits: it's not quite clear whether "They may be developed from sources of differing accuracy" is referring to the GIS data or the product accuracy, and you should lose the 'or' in "Using GIS products for purposes other than those or for which they were created". I'm a bit of stickler for grammar
Lastly, you could give an indication of the resolution(s) of the data on the map for completeness. Oh, and it could just be my viewer but the logos seem quite pixelated relative to the rest of the map.
Hope this helps!