Kirtland’s Warbler National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Kirtland's Warbler
Wild@ Mq,nagementArea
Gomprehensive Gonservation Plan Approval
Matthew D. Sprenger
Refuge Supervisol Area 2
Thomas C. Wortllington
Acting Regional Chief, National ldlife Refuge System
Charlesl'll'
ActinB
Submitted bç
0. Melius
l1:i,$
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
i
Kirtland’s Warbler
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................................2
1.3 The National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................................2
1.4 Michigan’s Northern Lower Peninsula Ecoregion ...............................................................................................4
1.5 Refuge Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................5
1.6 Refuge Vision ......................................................................................................................................................5
1.7 Purpose and Need for Plan .................................................................................................................................5
1.8 Scope of the Plan ................................................................................................................................................6
1.9 History of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Establishment and Management ...............................................................6
1.10 Legal Context ....................................................................................................................................................6
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...............................................................................................................................7
2.1 Internal Agency Scoping .....................................................................................................................................7
2.2 Open House Event ...............................................................................................................................................7
2.3 Workshops ..........................................................................................................................................................7
2.4 Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ................................................................................................8
2.4.1 Habitat Management ............................................................................................................................8
2.4.2 Wildlife Management ...........................................................................................................................8
2.4.3 Public Use .............................................................................................................................................8
2.5 Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP ................................................................8
2.6 Public Comments on the Draft CCP ......................................................................................................................9
Chapter 3: The Environment ......................................................................................................................................10
3.1 Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area ................................................................................................10
3.1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................10
3.2 Climate ..............................................................................................................................................................10
3.3 Climate Change Impacts ...................................................................................................................................10
3.4 Climate Change Impacts to Kirtland’s Warbler Habitat ....................................................................................15
3.5 Geology and Glaciation .....................................................................................................................................16
3.6 Soils ...................................................................................................................................................................16
3.7 Surface Hydrology .............................................................................................................................................16
3.8 Archeological and Cultural Values ....................................................................................................................17
3.9 Social and Economic Context .............................................................................................................................17
3.10 Environmental Contaminants ...........................................................................................................................17
3.11 Natural Resources ...........................................................................................................................................18
3.11.1 Historic Habitat Conditions ...............................................................................................................18
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ii
3.11.2 Wildfire History ................................................................................................................................18
3.11.3 Plant Communities and Habitat Types ..............................................................................................18
3.11.4 Wetlands ..........................................................................................................................................18
3.11.5 Uplands .............................................................................................................................................18
3.11.6 Wildlife .............................................................................................................................................22
3.11.6.1 Birds ................................................................................................................................22
3.11.6.2 Mammals .........................................................................................................................22
3.11.6.3 Reptiles and Amphibians .................................................................................................22
3.12 Associated Plans and Initiatives ......................................................................................................................23
3.12.1 Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan .......................................................................................................23
3.12.2 Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ............................................................................................24
3.12.3 Conservation Organization Plans ......................................................................................................24
3.12.4 Nuisance Species Management .......................................................................................................24
3.12.5 Prescribed Fires ................................................................................................................................25
3.12.6 Surveys and Censuses .......................................................................................................................25
3.12.7 Studies and Investigations ................................................................................................................25
3.12.8 Coordination Activities ......................................................................................................................29
3.12.9 Visitor Services .................................................................................................................................29
3.12.9.1 Hunting ............................................................................................................................29
3.12.9.2 Fishing ..............................................................................................................................29
3.12.9.3 Photography, Wildlife Observation, Environmental Education and Interpretation .........29
3.13 Archaeological and Cultural Resources Management ....................................................................................30
3.14 Law Enforcement ............................................................................................................................................30
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision ...........................................................................31
4.1 Goals, Objectives and Strategies .......................................................................................................................31
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ...............................................................................................................................37
5.1 New and Existing Projects ................................................................................................................................37
5.1.1 Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Operating Needs Projects ..........................................................................37
5.1.1.1 Enhance Refuge Management and Administration ..........................................................37
5.2 Current and Future Staffing Requirements ........................................................................................................38
5.3 Step-down Management Plans .........................................................................................................................38
5.4 Partnership Opportunities .................................................................................................................................38
5.5 Wilderness Review ...........................................................................................................................................38
5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................................39
5.7 Climate Change Evaluation ...............................................................................................................................39
5.8 Plan Review and Revision .................................................................................................................................39
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iii
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ................................................................................................................41
Appendix B: Glossary .................................................................................................................................................67
Appendix C: Species Lists .........................................................................................................................................71
Appendix D: Compliance Requirements ..................................................................................................................85
Appendix E: Appropriate Use Determinations .......................................................................................................93
Appendix F: Compatibility Determinations .............................................................................................................99
Appendix G: Bibliography and References Cited ................................................................................................109
Appendix H: List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................115
Appendix I: Mailing List ..........................................................................................................................................119
Figures
Figure 1: Location of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area, Michigan ............................................................3
Figure 2: Conservation Ownership in the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan ........................................................11
Figure 3: Jack Pine Habitat Suitability Hot Spots of Current and Modeled Importance Values (A.D. 2100) .................15
Figure 4: Pre-European Settlement Cover Types of the Northern Lower Peninsula, Michigan .....................................19
Figure 5: Current Landcover of the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan ..................................................................20
Figure 6: Number of Singing Kirtland’s Warbler Males Per Sample Point, Kirtland’s Warbler WMA ..........................27
Figure 7: Frequency of Bird Occurrence Within Sample Stands, Kirtland’s Warbler WMA ..........................................28
Tables
Table 1: Soils of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA ...............................................................................................................16
Table 2: Bird Species Strongly Associated with Young, KW, and Old, Stands of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA ..........23
Table 3: Number of Kirtland’s Warbler Singing Males by Year (2000-2005) at 
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area ...............................................................................................26
Table 4: Parcel-level Abundance Values for Kirtland’s Warbler Singing Males 
Recorded at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA .............................................................................................................26
Table 5: Sites Identified for Potential Exchange .............................................................................................................35
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Introduction
By the mid-twentieth century, the Kirtland’s
Warbler was a bird in trouble. Wildfire, a natural
ecological process vital to producing its habitat, had
been reduced in frequency and extent, severely
reducing the population.
A small, neotropical migrant bird that is a sum-mer
native of Michigan, the Kirtland’s Warbler
relies on a very specific type of fire-dependent for-est
habitat to thrive.
The situation isn’t unique for either bird or habi-tat.
Many native ecosystems of North America have
been altered during the last three centuries due to
human changes in land use and other factors. In
many cases, natural ecological processes such as
flooding and wildfire have been controlled or elimi-nated
in favor of human settlement. A survey of Kirtland’s Warbler in 1951 found 432
singing male birds. By the 1970s, fewer than 200
singing males were surveyed on an annual basis. In
1967, the species was placed on
the Federal Endangered Species
list.
Kirtland’s Warbler female and nest. 
Photo credit: Ron Austing
Due to concerted management
efforts by federal and state agen-cies,
however, beginning in the
1990s the population began to
increase. By 2001, the total esti-mated
population of singing male
Kirtland’s Warblers had reached
the recovery objective of over
1 , 0 0 0 s i n g i n g m a l e s a n d h a s
stayed above this value for seven
consecutive years. In 2008, the
total estimated population of sing-ing
male Kirtland's Warblers in
Michigan was 1,791, the greatest
number yet recorded.
Kirtland’s Warbler Listing Status
The Kirtland’s Warbler population has surpassed numeric recovery goals
and there has been discussion about removing it from the list of threatened
and endangered species. However, prior to delisting, safeguards must be in
place that will ensure continued active management for this species. The
persistence of the Kirtland's Warbler depends on the dynamic management
of jack pine stands, Brown-headed Cowbird control, and monitoring of win-tering
habitat. The Kirtland's Warbler population would sharply decline
without this critical management completed on an annual basis.
Long-term conservation of this species will take the long-term commit-ment
and funding of state and federal agencies that manage nesting habitat
for the species. Jack pine management and cowbird control on the nesting
grounds alone costs hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. To that end,
the Kirtland's Warbler Recovery Team and other partners have proposed
the creation of a private endowment fund to ensure management efforts are
sustained. The endowment, along with a commitment from state and federal
agencies for continued management, may make long-term conservation and
delisting of Kirtland's Warbler a reality.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
The Kirtland's Warbler nests in young jack pine
forest growing on sandy glacial outwash soils. War-blers
prefer to nest in jack pine forests that are 80
acres or larger with numerous small (less than 1
acre), grassy openings. This species tends to nest in
groups; nests are placed on the ground among
grasses or other plants and under limbs of 5-to-16-
foot tall jack pine. As jack pine trees mature, upper
branches block the sun and the lower branches die;
warblers cease to use the area.
The jack pine habitat used by Kirtland's Warbler
is also used by a number of other bird species,
including Spruce Grouse, Nashville Warbler, Yellow-rumped
Warbler, Eastern Towhee, Eastern Blue-bird,
Black-backed Wo odpecker, and Brown
Thrasher. Larger openings in jack pine-dominated
ecosystems are inhabited by Upland Sandpiper,
American Kestrel, and Sharp-tailed Grouse.
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area
was established in 1980 in response to the need for
more land dedicated to the recovery of this species.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) estab-lished
the wildlife management area, in part, due to
the recommendations of the Kirtland's Warbler
Recovery Team. The original goal was to acquire
7,500 acres of land on which habitat would be man-aged
for the benefit of Kirtland's Warbler. At pres-ent,
the area contains 125 separate tracts totaling
6,684 acres (Figure 1). While management for Kirt-land’s
Warbler is paramount, the WMA provides
habitat for a diversity of wildlife species, both
migratory and non-migratory.
The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA does not have a
permanent staff. The staff at Seney National Wild-life
Refuge (NWR) oversees the WMA and provides
limited services on an as-needed basis. These duties
include, but are not limited to, administration of tim-ber
sales, coordinating with the state on harvestng
and replanting efforts, participation in Kirtland’s
Warber Recovery Team efforts, research, the Kirt-land’s
Warbler census, Brown-headed Cowbird
trapping, public education, and on-site law enforce-ment.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is administered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is the primary
federal agency responsible for conserving, protect-ing,
and enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife pop-ulations
and their habitats. It oversees the
enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management
and protection of migratory bird populations, resto-ration
of nationally significant fisheries, administra-tion
of the Endangered Species Act, and the
restoration of wildlife habitat such as wetlands. The
Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge
System, which includes the Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA.
The National Wildlife Refuge
System
The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is part of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, which was
f o u n d e d i n 1 9 0 3 w h e n P r e s i d e n t T h e o d o r e
Roosevelt designated Pelican Island in Florida as a
sanctuary for Brown Pelicans. Today, the Refuge
System is a network of 550 refuges and wetland
management districts covering more than 96 million
acres of public lands and waters.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the
world’s largest collection of lands specifically man-aged
for fish and wildlife. Overall, it provides habitat
for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish,
amphibians, reptiles, and insects. As a result of
international treaties for migratory bird conserva-tion
and other legislation, such as the Migratory
Bird Conservation Act of 1929, many refuges have
been established to protect migratory waterfowl
and their migratory flyways.
Refuges also play a crucial role in preserving
endangered and threatened species. Among the
most notable is Aransas NWR in Texas, which pro-vides
winter habitat for the highly endangered
Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida Panther
Refuge protects one of the nation’s most endan-gered
predators. Refuges also provide unique recre-ational
and educational opportunities for people.
When human activities are compatible with wildlife
and habitat conservation, they are places where
people can enjoy wildlife-dependent recreation such
as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photogra-phy,
environmental education, and environmental
interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers,
wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental
education programs. Nationwide, approximately 30
million people visited national wildlife refuges in
2004.
Figure 1: Location of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area, Michigan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improve-ment
Act of 1997 established several important
mandates aimed at making the management of
national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The prepa-ration
of Comprehensive Conser vation Plans
(CCPs) is one of those mandates. The legislation
directs the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that
the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
and purposes of the individual refuges are carried
out. It also requires the Secretary to maintain the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System
are to:
 Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and
plants and their habitats, including species
that are endangered or threatened with
becoming endangered.
 Develop and maintain a network of habitats
for migratory birds, anadromous and inter-jurisdictional
fish, and marine mammal pop-ulations
that is strategically distributed and
carefully managed to meet important life his-tory
needs of these species across their
ranges.
 Conserve those ecosystems, plant communi-ties,
wetlands of national or international sig-nificance,
and landscapes and seascapes that
are unique, rare, declining, or underrepre-sented
in existing protection efforts.
 Provide and enhance opportunities to partici-pate
in compatible wildlife-dependent recre-ation
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, and environmental educa-tion
and interpretation).
 Foster understanding and instill appreciation
of the diversity and interconnectedness of
fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.
Michigan’s Northern Lower
Peninsula Ecoregion
The Northern Lower Peninsula ecoregion encom-passes
17,109 square miles and includes all or por-tions
of 25 counties. Landcover in this ecoregion is
primarily forest (67 percent) and wetlands (20 per-cent).
Agricultural land use covers 4 percent and
urbanization covers approximately 2 percent. The
remainder of the landcover consists of open grass-lands,
sparsely vegetated areas, beaches and rock
areas.
Retained forest structure in jack pine harvest for
Kirtland’s Warbler habitat management. U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service photo.
This region is characterized by diverse topogra-phy
with extensive outwash plains and large
moraines. The ecoregion remains predominantly
forested with northern hardwoods, early succes-sional
aspen forest, pine systems, and lowland coni-fer.
Most air masses cross the Great Lakes before
entering this ecoregion. As a result, the ecoregion
experiences a climate that differs from that of the
surrounding continent. Lake-effect snow is common
throughout portions of the ecoregion within 20-30
miles of the Great Lakes shoreline. The highest ele-vations
in the Lower Peninsula occur in this ecore-gion
in the High Plains area. The High Plains, which
is also the portion of the ecoregion most distant
from the Great Lakes, experiences the most conti-nental
climatic conditions within the ecoregion: it
has more summer precipitation, the greatest sum-mer
and winter temperature extremes, the shortest
growing season, and the greatest risk of spring
freeze (Denton 1985). The average length of the
growing season for this ecoregion is 126 days
(Albert 1995).
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5
Extensive logging occurred in the latter half of
the 19th century, causing major changes in forest
composition. Early successional forest types (aspen/
birch forest) are more prevalent today because of
past and current management. Fire suppression has
resulted in the conversion of many of the barrens
systems to closed-canopy forest. Following logging,
farming was attempted on a broad range of soil
types within the ecoregion. Farming was unsuccess-ful
on most of the sandy soils of the ecoregion, but
row crops are grown locally on some of the loamy
soils. Some pasturing is also done, especially on the
loamy moraines. Orchards and vineyards are
numerous along the Lake Michigan shoreline,
where microclimatic conditions extend the growing
season and reduce frost damage to fruit crops.
Threats to biodiversity in this ecoregion are
industrial, residential and recreational development
and invasive species, including the spread of estab-lished
species and the introduction of new species
not yet found in the region. Fragmentation, an
altered fire regime, non-consumptive recreation,
disease, pathogens, parasites, social attitudes and
lack of scientific knowledge are additional threats to
this ecosystem.
Refuge Purpose
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area
was established in 1980:
... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are
listed as endangered species or threatened spe-cies
.... or (B) plants ...16 U.S.C.1534 (Endan-gered
Species Act of 1973)
Refuge Vision
The planning team considered the past vision
statements and emerging issues and drafted the fol-lowing
vision statement as the desired future state
for the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA:
“The Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management
Area will be managed to promote jack pine eco-systems
that contribute to a sustainable popula-tion
of Kirtland’s Warblers and associated
wildlife species. Lands will be actively managed
to mimic historic disturbance regimes and
resulting structural and compositional attri-butes,
such as dense stands of jack pine with
barren-like openings, snags and coarse woody
debris. Research will be encouraged and the
public will be invited to learn about the jack
pine ecosystem and the wildlife it supports.”
Purpose and Need for Plan
This CCP articulates the management direction
for Kirtland’s Warbler WMA for the next 15 years.
Through the development of goals, objectives, and
strategies, this CCP describes how the WMA also
contributes to the overall mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. Several legislative man-dates
within the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 have guided the develop-ment
of this plan. These mandates include:
 Wildlife has first priority in the management
of refuges.
 Wildlife-dependent recreation activities,
namely hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental educa-tion
and interpretation are priority public
uses of refuges. We will facilitate these activ-ities
when they do not interfere with our abil-ity
to fulfill the refuge’s purpose or the
mission of the Refuge System.
 Other uses of the refuge will only be allowed
when determined appropriate and compati-ble
with refuge purposes and mission of the
Refuge System.
The plan will guide the management of Kirtland’s
Warbler WMA by:
 Providing a clear statement of direction for
the future management of the WMA.
 Making a strong connection between WMA
activities and conservation activities that
occur in the surrounding area.
 Providing WMA neighbors, users, and the
general public with an understanding of the
Service’s land acquisition and management
actions on and around the WMA.
 Ensuring that WMA actions and programs
are consistent with the mandates of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
 Ensuring that WMA management considers
federal, state, and county plans.
 Establishing long-term continuity in WMA
management.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
 Providing a basis for the development of
budget requests on the WMA’s operational,
maintenance, and capital improvement
needs.
Scope of the Plan
The goals, objectives and strategies presented in
this CCP apply only to the scattered, generally
small parcels managed by the Service as the Kirt-land’s
Warbler WMA. However, the Service works
closely with the Michigan DNR, the U.S. Forest
Service, and other neighboring landowners to
ensure appropriate habitat management of larger
habitat blocks.
The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA was established for
the nesting habitat requirements of the endangered
Kirtland’s Warbler. The habitat needs, protection,
and monitoring of the Kirtland’s Warbler during
wintering and migration are also vital to the survival
of the species. Strategies for management of the
species outside of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA are
beyond the scope of this plan. However, the Kirt-land’s
Warbler Recovery Plan (1985) addresses the
needs of the warbler throughout its life cycle.
History of Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA Establishment and
Management
A survey of Kirtland's Warbler in Michigan in
1951 found 432 singing male birds. By the 1970s,
fewer than 200 singing males were being surveyed
on a yearly basis. Beginning in the 1990s, the popu-lation
began to increase in response to management
that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s through a
multi-agency effort. By 2008, the total number of
counted singing male Kirtland's Warblers in Michi-gan
was 1,791.
In response to the need for more land dedicated
to the recovery of this species, the Service estab-lished
the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA in 1980 due, in
part, to the recommendations of the Kirtland's War-bler
Recovery Team. The original goal was to
acquire 7,500 acres of land on which habitat would
be managed for the benefit of Kirtland's Warbler. At
present, the area contains 125 separate tracts total-ing
6,684 acres.
Legal Context
In addition to the authorizing legislation for
establishing the WMA, and the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, several
federal laws, executive orders, and regulations gov-ern
administration of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA.
Appendix F contains a partial list of the legal man-dates
that guided the preparation of this plan and
those that pertain to WMA management.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
7
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
The CCP for Kirtland’s Warbler WMA has been
written with input and assistance from citizens, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), and staff from
state and local agencies. The participation of these
stakeholders is vital and all of their ideas have been
valuable in determining the future direction of the
WMA.
Internal Agency Scoping
The CCP planning process began in March 2006
with a kickoff meeting between Seney NWR staff
and regional planners from the Service’s office in St.
Paul. The participants in this “internal scoping”
exercise reviewed the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA
vision statements and goals, existing baseline
resource data, planning documents and other infor-mation.
In addition, the group identified a prelimi-nary
list of issues, concerns and opportunities facing
the WMA that would need to be addressed in the
CCP.
A list of required CCP elements such as maps,
photos, and GIS data layers was also developed at
this meeting and during subsequent e-mail and tele-phone
communications. Concurrently, the group
studied federal and state mandates plus applicable
local ordinances, regulations, and plans for their rel-evance
to this planning effort. Finally, the group
agreed to a process and sequence for obtaining pub-lic
input and a tentative schedule for completion of
the CCP. A Public Involvement Plan was drafted
and distributed to participants immediately after
the meeting.
Open House Event
Public input was encouraged and obtained using
several methods, including hosting an open house,
written comments during a public scoping period
and personal contacts.
Initial public scoping for the Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA began in August 2006 with an open house
event held at Kirtland Community College in
Roscommon, Michigan. Turn-out was light with four
people attending despite widespread notification in
area newspapers and in-person contacts. Comment
forms were available at the event and made avail-able
at the Seney NWR headquarters and Visitor
Center during the following weeks.
Those interested in making written comments
had until October 2006 to submit them. Comments
could be sent by U.S. mail, e-mail, or via the Seney
planning website on the Internet. Six comment
forms and other written comments were received
during the scoping process.
Jack pine harvest. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.
Workshops
On February 21, 2007, members of the Kirtland’s
Warbler Recovery Team and others met at the
Michigan DNR, Gaylord Operations Center, at the
Service’s request to discuss the CCP and alterna-tives
for future management of the Kirtland’s War-
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
8
bler WMA. Nearly all members of the team
attended including additional staff from local DNR
offices, several Service field stations, and represen-tatives
from the U.S. Forest Service and two univer-sities.
The group discussed current management of
the widespread land holdings of the Kirtland’s War-bler
WMA and ideas for more efficient management
by all agencies that manage land as Kirtland’s War-bler
habitat.
On April 10, 2008, a small group met to discuss
the possibility of consolidating Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA lands by exchanging lands with the Michigan
DNR and/or the U.S. Forest Service. The group
consisted of two to three representatives from each
agency. It was agreed that consolidation could
increase management efficiency for each agency
involved. Criteria for land consolidation were
agreed upon and will be discussed in the manage-ment
section of this document.
Summary of Issues, Concerns
and Opportunities
The following list of issues was generated by
internal scoping, the public open house event and
the workshop. Each issue will be described in more
detail in the following chapters of this plan.
Habitat Management
 Forest Management: How can we change
current silvicultural practices to better emu-late
historic conditions?
 Fire Management: How can we restore pre-scribed
fire to Kirtland's Warbler WMA
lands?
 Land Consolidation: Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA parcels are inholdings within larger
Michigan DNR parcels. Administration and
habitat management would be more efficient
if WMA parcels were consolidated into
larger blocks by exchanging for other DNR
or U.S. Forest Service lands.
Wildlife Management
 Brown-headed Cowbird Management: Are
there ways other than trapping to deal with
Brown-headed Cowbirds?
 Kirtland’s Warbler Census: Will we be able
to census birds each year?
 Delisting: What can we do from a land man-agement
standpoint to facilitate delisting of
the species?
 Biodiversity: What can be done to improve
habitat for native species other than the
Kirtland’s Warbler?
Public Use
 Hunting: Kirtland’s Warbler WMA units are
open to hunting per state regulations. Some
hunting practices are generally not allowed
on Refuge System lands such as baiting, con-struction
of blinds, all-terrain vehicle (ATV)
use, and using dogs to hunt bears.
 Environmental Education: If land
exchange/consolidation occurs it would
change outreach, interpretation, environ-mental
education, staffing needs and oppor-tunities.
 Residential Development: Rural housing
construction causes direct habitat loss and
complicates prescribed burning.
Northern Flicker. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.
Preparation, Publishing,
Finalization and
Implementation of the CCP
The Kirtland’s Warbler Comprehensive Conser-vation
Plan and Environmental Assessment was
prepared by a team from Seney NWR, the Service’s
Regional Office in Minneapolis and a representative
of the Michigan DNR. The CCP/EA was published
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
9
in two phases (draft and final) and in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The EA (Appendix A) presents a range of
alternatives for future management and identifies
the preferred alternative, which is also the CCP.
Verbal and written comments received by the
Service were incorporated where appropriate. The
alternative that was ultimately selected, Alternative
3, became the basis of the ensuing Final CCP. This
document then becomes the basis for guiding man-agement
on the WMA over the coming 15-year
period. It will guide the development of more
detailed step-down management plans for specific
resource areas, and it will underpin the annual bud-geting
process through Service-wide allocation
databases. Most importantly, it lays out the general
approach to managing habitat, wildlife, and people
at the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA that will direct day-to-
day decision-making and actions.
Public Comments on the Draft
CCP
The Draft CCP/EA was released for public
review on April 3, 2009; the comment period lasted
42 days and ended May 15, 2009. By the conclusion
of the comment period we received five written
responses by organizations and individuals. In
response to these comments we made a number of
minor edits to the final document. All respondents
who expressed an opinion endorsed the selection of
Alternative 3 and the general approach of the pro-posed
future management of the Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA. We were able to incorporate all of the specific
technical and grammatical changes suggested in the
written comments. Consequently, we did not pro-duce
a formal Response to Comments Appendix for
this CCP.
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife
Management Area
Introduction
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA was established in 1980
in response to the need for more land dedicated to
the recovery of this species. The U.S. Fish and Wild-life
Service established the WMA, in part, due to
recommendations of the Kirtland’s Warbler Recov-ery
Team. The original goal was to acquire 7,500
acres of land on which habitat would be managed for
the benefit of Kirtland's Warbler. At present, the
area contains 125 separate tracts totaling 6,684
acres. Most of these tracts are located within or
adjacent to state forest lands also managed for the
Kirtland’s Warbler (Figure 2). While management
for Kirtland’s Warbler is paramount, the WMA pro-vides
habitat for a diversity of wildlife species, both
migratory and non-migratory.
Climate
Due to its inland location, northern latitude and
relatively high elevation, the Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA is characterized by a relative severe climate.
The growing season ranges from 70 to 130 days,
with spring freezes common. Extreme tempera-tures
recorded range from minus 50 degrees Fahr-enheit
to over 105 degrees Fahrenheit. Snowfall is
heavy, with up to 140 inches recorded annually in
some localities. Average annual precipitation is rela-tively
uniform across the area, between 28 inches
and 32 inches (Albert 1995).
Climate Change Impacts
The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an
order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies
under its direction that have land management
responsibilities to consider potential climate change
impacts as part of long range planning endeavors.
The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the
earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual
rise in surface temperature commonly referred to
as global warming. In relation to comprehensive
conservation planning for national wildlife refuges,
carbon sequestration constitutes the primary cli-mate-
related impact that refuges can affect in a
small way. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Car-bon
Sequestration Research and Development”
defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and
secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be
emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.”
Patch-cutting of jack pine to diversify age structure. U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service photo.
Figure 2: Conservation Ownership in the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
11
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
12
Vegetated land is a tremendous factor in carbon
sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts –
grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, and desert –
are effective both in preventing carbon emission and
acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric
CO2. The Department of Energy report’s conclu-sions
noted that ecosystem protection is important
to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent
loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial bio-sphere.
Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the
heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife
refuges and management areas. The actions pro-posed
in this CCP would conserve or restore land
and habitat, and would thus retain existing carbon
sequestration on the WMA. This in turn contributes
positively to efforts to mitigate human-induced
global climate change.
One Service activity in particular – prescribed
burning – releases CO2 directly to the atmosphere
from the biomass consumed during combustion.
However, there is actually no net loss of carbon,
since new vegetation quickly germinates and
sprouts to replace the burned-up biomass and
sequesters or assimilates an approximately equal
amount of carbon as was lost to the air (Boutton et
al. 2006). Overall, there should be little or no net
change in the amount of carbon sequestered at Kirt-land’s
Warbler WMA from any of the proposed man-agement
alternatives.
Several impacts of climate change have been
identified that may need to be considered and
addressed in the future:
 Habitat available for cold water fish such as
trout and salmon in lakes and streams could
be reduced.
 Forests may change, with some species shift-ing
their range northward or dying out, and
other trees moving in to take their place.
 Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breed-ing
habitat due to stronger and more fre-quent
droughts.
 Changes in the timing of migration and nest-ing
could put some birds out of sync with the
life cycles of their prey species.
 Animal and insect species historically found
farther south may colonize new areas to the
north as winter climatic conditions moderate.
The managers and resource specialists responsi-ble
for the WMA need to be aware of the possibility
of change due to global warming. When feasible,
documenting long-term vegetation, species, and
hydrologic changes should become a part of
research and monitoring programs on the WMA.
Adjustments in land management direction may be
necessary over the course of time to adapt to a
changing climate.
Elk were reintroduced to the northern Lower Peninsula
Michigan in 1918. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The following paragraphs are excerpts from the
2000 report: Climate Change Impacts on the United
States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Vari-ability
and Change, produced by the National
Assessment Synthesis Team, an advisory committee
chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act to help the US Global Change Research Pro-gram
fulfill its mandate under the Global Change
Research Act of 1990. These excerpts are from the
section of the report focused upon the eight-state
Midwest region.
Observed Climate Trends
Over the 20th century, the northern portion of
the Midwest, including the upper Great Lakes,
has warmed by almost 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2
degrees Celsius), while the southern portion,
along the Ohio River valley, has cooled by about
1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degrees Celsius).
Annual precipitation has increased, with many
of the changes quite substantial, including as
much as 10 to 20 percent increases over the 20th
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
13
century. Much of the precipitation has resulted
from an increased rise in the number of days
with heavy and very heavy precipitation events.
There have been moderate to ver y large
increases in the number of days with excessive
moisture in the eastern portion of the Great
Lakes basin.
Scenarios of Future Climate
During the 21st century, models project that
temperatures will increase throughout the Mid-west,
and at a greater rate than has been
observed in the 20th century. Even over the
northern portion of the region, where warming
has been the largest, an accelerated warming
trend is projected for the 21st century, with
temperatures increasing by 5 to 10 degrees
Fahrenheit (3 to 6 degrees Celsius). The aver-age
minimum temperature is likely to increase
as much as 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 to 1
degree Celsius) more than the maximum tem-perature.
Precipitation is likely to continue its
upward trend, at a slightly accelerated rate; 10
to 30 percent increases are projected across
much of the region. Despite the increases in
precipitation, increases in temperature and
other meteorological factors are likely to lead to
a substantial increase in evaporation, causing a
soil moisture deficit, reduction in lake and river
levels, and more drought-like conditions in
much of the region. In addition, increases in the
proportion of precipitation coming from heavy
and extreme precipitation are very likely.
Midwest Key Issues:
1. Reduction in Lake and River Levels
Water levels, supply, quality, and water-based
transportation and recreation are all climate-sensitive
issues affecting the region. Despite the
projected increase in precipitation, increased
evaporation due to higher summer air tempera-tures
is likely to lead to reduced levels in the
Great Lakes. Of 12 models used to assess this
question, 11 suggest significant decreases in
lake levels while one suggests a small increase.
The total range of the 11 models' projections is
less than a one-foot increase to more than a five-foot
decrease. A five-foot (1.5- meter) reduction
would lead to a 20 to 40 percent reduction in
outflow to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Lower lake
levels cause reduced hydropower generation
downstream, with reductions of up to 15 percent
by 2050. An increase in demand for water across
the region at the same time as net flows
decrease is of particular concern. There is a pos-sibility
of increased national and international
tension related to increased pressure for water
diversions from the Lakes as demands for water
increase. For smaller lakes and rivers, reduced
flows are likely to cause water quality issues to
become more acute. In addition, the projected
increase in very heavy precipitation events will
likely lead to increased flash flooding and
worsen agricultural and other non-point source
pollution as more frequent heavy rains wash
pollutants into rivers and lakes. Lower water
levels are likely to make water-based transpor-tation
more difficult with increases in the costs
of navigation of 5 to 40 percent. Some of this
increase will likely be offset as reduced ice cover
extends the navigation season. Shoreline dam-age
due to high lake levels is likely to decrease
40 to 80 percent due to reduced water levels.
Adaptations: A reduction in lake and river lev-els
would require adaptations such as re-engi-n
e e r i n g o f s h i p d o c k s a n d l o c k s f o r
transportation and recreation. If flows decrease
while demand increases, international commis-sions
focusing on Great Lakes water issues are
likely to become even more important in the
future. Improved forecasts and warnings of
extreme precipitation events could help reduce
some related impacts.
2. Agricultural Shifts
Agriculture is of vital importance to this region,
the nation, and the world. It has exhibited a
capacity to adapt to moderate differences in
growing season climate, and it is likely that
agriculture would be able to continue to adapt.
With an increase in the length of the growing
season, double cropping, the practice of plant-ing
a second crop after the first is harvested, is
likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fer-tilization
effect is likely to enhance plant growth
and contribute to generally higher yields. The
largest increases are projected to occur in the
northern areas of the region, where crop yields
are currently temperature limited. However,
yields are not likely to increase in all parts of
the region. For example, in the southern por-tions
of Indiana and Illinois, corn yields are
likely to decline, with 10-20% decreases pro-jected
in some locations. Consumers are likely
to pay lower prices due to generally increased
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
14
yields, while most producers are likely to suffer
redu ced prof its du e to dec lining pric es.
Increased use of pesticides and herbicides are
very likely to be required and to present new
challenges.
Adaptations: Plant breeding programs can use
skilled climate predictions to aid in breeding
new varieties for the new growing conditions.
Farmers can then choose varieties that are bet-ter
attuned to the expected climate. It is likely
that plant breeders will need to use all the tools
of plant breeding, including genetic engineer-ing,
in adapting to climate change. Changing
planting and harvest dates and planting densi-ties,
and using integrated pest management,
conservation tillage, and new farm technologies
are additional options. There is also the poten-tial
for shifting or expanding the area where
certain crops are grown if climate conditions
become more favorable. Weather conditions
during the growing season are the primary fac-tor
in year-to-year differences in corn and soy-bean
yields. Droughts and floods result in large
yield reductions; severe droughts, like the
drought of 1988, cause yield reductions of over
30 percent. Reliable seasonal forecasts are
likely to help farmers adjust their practices
from year to year to respond to such events.
3. Changes in Semi-natural and Natural
Ecosystems
The Upper Midwest has a unique combination
of soil and climate that allows for abundant
coniferous tree growth. Higher temperatures
and increased evaporation will likely reduce
boreal forest acreage, and make current forest-lands
more susceptible to pests and diseases. It
is likely that the southern transition zone of the
boreal forest will be susceptible to expansion of
temperate forests, which in turn will have to
compete with other land use pressures. How-ever,
warmer weather (coupled with beneficial
effects of increased CO2), are likely to lead to an
increase in tree growth rates on marginal for-estlands
that are currently temperature-lim-ited.
Most climate models indicate that higher
air temperatures will cause greater evaporation
and hence reduced soil moisture, a situation
conducive to forest fires. As the 21st century
progresses, there will be an increased likelihood
of greater environmental stress on both decidu-ous
and coniferous trees, making them suscepti-ble
to disease and pest infestation, likely
resulting in increased tree mortality.
As water temperatures in lakes increase, major
changes in freshwater ecosystems will very
likely occur, such as a shift from cold water fish
species, such as trout, to warmer water species,
such as bass and catfish. Warmer water is also
likely to create an environment more suscepti-ble
to invasions by non-native species. Runoff of
excess nutrients (such as nitrogen and phospho-rus
from fertilizer) into lakes and rivers is likely
to increase due to the increase in heavy precipi-tation
events. This, coupled with warmer lake
temperatures, is likely to stimulate the growth
of algae, depleting the water of oxygen to the
detriment of other living things. Declining lake
levels are likely to cause large impacts to the
current distribution of wetlands. There is some
chance that some wetlands could gradually
migrate, but in areas where their migration is
limited by the topography, they would disap-pear.
Changes in bird populations and other
native wildlife have already been linked to
increasing temperatures and more changes are
likely in the future. Wildlife populations are par-ticularly
susceptible to climate extremes due to
the effects of drought on their food sources.
Bird trap sign at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service photo.
Figure 3: Jack Pine Habitat Suitability Hot Spots of Current and Modeled Importance
Values (A.D. 2100)
The figure shows hot spot patches of the current and modeled distribution and the average of three. Hot spots are defined as the
top 10 percent of importance values (Matthews et al. 2004)
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
15
Climate Change Impacts to
Kirtland’s Warbler Habitat
The predicted climate change scenarios for the
Midwest Region include a shift in forested ecosys-tems
as well as hydrologic factors. The future of the
Kirtland’s Warbler is in a large part tied to the
extent and availability of suitable jack pine forests.
These forests will likely change in extent over time
due to global climate change.
The U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research
Center, modeled and mapped 134 tree species from
the eastern United States for potential response to
several scenarios of climate change (Prasad et al.
2007). The scenarios, built upon three independent
climate models, predicted for both low and high
intensity CO2 emissions through the year 2100. The
model only depicted potential suitable habitats of
species and not actual changes in ranges of the spe-cies.
Factors that influence actual migration of a
tree species include fragmentation of landscapes,
competition with other species, and other possible
inhibiting and accelerating factors. These factors
are beyond the scope of the model.
Of the 134 species, approximately 66 species
would gain and 54 species would lose at least 10 per-cent
of their suitable habitat under climate change.
In general, the results show that species will have a
lot less pressure to move to more suitable habitats if
lower emission of greenhouse gases occurs. Under
the lower emission scenario, jack pine might well
persist within its current range although the extent
and quality may be reduced by an unknown amount.
Under the highest emissions scenario, we may see a
greater reduction in the current extent of jack pine
in Michigan and a shift in environmental conditions
suitable for jack pine growth and development to
the west in Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Table 1: Soils of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA
Soil Mapping Units/ Associations Acres % of WMA
Grayling- Graycalm- Au Gres 2,286.00 34.7
Rubicon- Grayling- Croswell 2,217 33.7
Grayling- Rubicon- Au Gres 1,340 20.4
Graycalm- Kalkaska- Montcalm 307 4.7
Rubicon- Graycalm- Montcalm 226 3.4
Rubicon- Croswell- Au Gres 202 3.1
Menominee- Markey- Montcalm 4 0.1
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
16
The two scenarios, when averaged, show that
jack pine will have approximately the same potential
habitat value, with some changes in distribution,
within the eight-state Midwest Region. Current
jack pine forests of the Lower and Upper Peninsula
of Michigan, including the Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA, could decrease in extent and/or quality. How-ever,
new areas of potential habitat for jack pine will
be found to the west of Michigan in western and
north-western Wisconsin and at the prairie-boreal
forest transition area in northwest Minnesota
(Figure 3).
Several national wildlife refuges and wetland
management districts are located in or near these
new potential “hotspots.” Thus, if climate scenarios
play out as predicted, there may be reduction in the
current distribution and quality of jack pine forests
in Michigan and an expansion in the distribution of
suitable environmental conditions for jack pine for-ests
in west Wisconsin and west-central Minnesota.
Service lands in these regions that host remnant
jack pine stands might allocate some management
effort into preserving these trees and hence seed
sources. Should conditions for jack pine improve
this will provide a basis for future stand develop-ment.
If the population of Kirtland’s Warbler contin-ues
to rise, there is greater potential for individuals
to disburse into new areas of suitable habitat or
serve as source populations for transplants to new
habitats.
Geology and Glaciation
Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula is under-lain
by Paleozoic bedrock and was completely glaci-ated
during the Late Wisconsinan period. The
underlying bedrock, which was deposited in marine
and near-shore environments, includes sandstone,
shale, limestone and dolomite (Dorr and Eschman
1984). Limestone bedrock is locally exposed along
the Lake Huron and Lake Michigan shorelines, but
the sandy glacial deposits over most of the ecore-gion
are generally thick; the thickest deposits are
600-1,100 feet near Cadillac and Grayling. Common
glacial landforms include lake plain, outwash plain,
end moraine and ground moraine.
Soils
The physical characteristics of the Kirtland’s
Warbler WMA are consistent with most of the
northern half of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan.
Topographically, the land is flat to gently rolling and
landforms are glacially derived. In terms of physi-ography
and land classification, the majority of the
stands (94 percent) are in the Highplains Landtype
Association with 6 percent in the Presque Isle Land-type
Association. Three soil associations dominate
the tracts namely Grayling – Graycalm - Au Gres
(35 percent), Rubicon – Grayling - Croswell (34 per-cent),
and Grayling – Rubicon - Au Gres (21 per-cent).
All of the soil series in the three soil
associations are sands (Goebel et al. 2007). See
Table 1.
Surface Hydrology
All of the parcels within the Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA are located on well-drained upland soils
(Table 1). However, the northern Lower Peninsula
has a variety of surface waters. Interior open wet-
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
17
lands found within this ecoregion include intermit-tent
wetlands, bogs, northern wet meadows,
northern fens, and poor fens. Coastal wetlands
include interdunal wetlands, wooded dune and swale
complexes, and Great Lakes marshes.
Archeological and Cultural
Values
The Service has almost no information about cul-tural
resources (in this case historic and prehistoric
archeological sites, buildings and structures, places
of historic events or persons, traditional cultural
properties including sacred sites, and properties on
or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places) within these eight counties of Michigan. For
example, some counties have no historic properties
on the National Register of Historic Places listed
and the total of historic properties in the eight coun-ties
is 15. Furthermore, none of the historic proper-ties
are archeological sites and none are on or in the
vicinity of current Kirtland’s Warbler WMA tracts.
Even the chronology of prehistoric cultures and his-toric
settlements is absent.
The Service has records of 37 historic period
sites, mostly cabin sites, on Service land and no
recorded prehistoric sites. A number of 19th and
early 20th century logging camps and related log-ging
facilities are expected to be located in the area
and if any are on Service land they likely would be
considered eligible for the National Register. The
Service has no archeological collections from the
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA.
Social and Economic Context
The eight counties in the Michigan’s northern
Lower Peninsula that encompass the Kirtland’s
Warbler WMA are primarily rural in nature. The
economy is limited by a lower population, few indus-tries
and reduced agriculture compared to southern
Michigan. Seasonal and tourism related employ-ment
is significant. For example, Ogemaw County is
typical of the region and has the most Kirtland’s
Warbler WMA parcels and acreage. As of the census
of 2000, there were 21,645 people, 8,842 households,
and 6,189 families residing in the county. The popu-lation
density was 38 people per square mile (15/
km²).
The racial makeup of the county was 97.48 per-cent
White, 0.13 percent Black or African American,
0.60 percent Native American, 0.38 percent Asian,
0.03 percent Pacific Islander, 0.13 percent from
other races, and 1.25 percent from two or more
races. Just 1.16 percent of the population was His-panic
or Latino of any race and 97.9 percent spoke
only English at home.
In the county, the age of the population was
spread out with 23.50 percent under 18, 6.40 percent
from 18 to 24, 24.40 percent from 25 to 44, 27 per-cent
from 45 to 64, and 18.80 percent who were 65
years of age or older. The median age was 42 years.
For every 100 females there were 98.40 males.
The median income for a household in the county
was $30,474, and the median income for a family was
$34,988. Males had a median income of $31,003 ver-sus
$20,544 for females. The per capita income for
the county was $15,768. About 11 percent of families
and 14 percent of the population were below the
poverty line, including 18.50 percent of those under
age 18 and 9.90 percent of those age 65 or over (U.S.
Census Bureau 2005).
Environmental Contaminants
In national maps, the northern Lower Peninsula
of Michigan is not located in an area of high deposi-tion
of many substances (pH, Hg, NOx) that are ele-vated
further south and east in the Great Lakes
Basin.
Due to remote locations, most Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA parcels are not near any point-sources of pol-lution.
Therefore, most parcels are not at risk from
spills or other releases from facilities. However, at
least seven of the parcels are encumbered with oil
and gas leases and some may have active wells. The
level of oil and gas production is relatively low on
these isolated sites. However, petroleum spills are a
possibility on any active site.
The landscape is likely to be impacted from air
pollution that may originate from other, ore indus-trialized,
areas of the Great Lakes basin and
beyond.
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
18
Natural Resources
Historic Habitat Conditions
Historical evidence indicates that prior to Euro-pean
settlement pine barrens of the northern Lower
Peninsula of Michigan were large, relatively open,
xeric tracts with clusters of jack pine and red pine of
varying density scattered throughout. Common
shrubs and herbaceous plants included cherry,
Amelanchier spp., sweet fern, and bluestem. Fire,
both anthropogenic and other, and biotic factors like
jack pine budworm (Choristoneura pinus) acted as
the primary disturbance mechanisms that main-tained
these ecosystems and created the diverse
pattern of thickly forested conifer stands scattered
among openings (Figure 4).
Wildfire History
Fire always has been an important disturbance
factor in the jack pine barrens. The young jack
pines upon which the Kirtland's Warbler depends
for nesting habitat grow after fire removes older
trees and rejuvenates the forest. Heat from fire
opens jack pine cones to release seeds. Fire also
prepares the ground for the germination of the
seeds.
Historically, the jack pine barrens were main-tained
by naturally occurring wildfires that swept
through the region. The jack pine held little value
for the lumbermen who came in search of white
pine. Once logging activity ended in the 1880s, the
continuing forest fires helped increase the area of
jack pine in the northern Lower Peninsula, creating
more potential nesting habitat.
Plant Communities and Habitat Types
Landcover in the northern Lower Peninsula of
Michigan is primarily forest (67 percent) and wet-lands
(20 percent). Agricultural land use covers 4
percent and urbanization covers approximately 2
percent (Figure 5 on page 20). The remainder of the
landcover consists of open grasslands, sparsely veg-etated
areas, beaches and rock areas. This region is
characterized by diverse topography with extensive
outwash plains and large moraines. The ecoregion
remains predominantly forested with northern
hardwoods, early successional aspen forest, pine
systems, and lowland conifer (Michigan DNR 2005).
Wetlands
Approximately 2 percent of the Kirtland’s War-bler
WMA, or 137 acres, is characterized by wetland
ecosystems and 0.6 percent is classified as lakes. No
detailed inventories or research have been con-ducted
within these habitat types, however.
Uplands
According to the assessment of Goebel et al.
(2007), 41 percent of the stands (2,695 acres) are
between 5-23 years old, while 14 percent (959 acres)
are less than 5 years old and 45 percent (2,298 acres)
are greater than 23 years old. It is important to note
that many of the stands have multiple cohorts; to
determine the age of each stand the most extensive
cohort was considered indicative of the overall stand
age.
Seventeen overstory (stems greater than 4 inches
dbh) tree species have been found at Kirtland’s War-bler
WMA, with jack pine, red pine, scarlet oak,
trembling aspen, black cherry, black oak, northern
red oak, and bigtooth aspen as common overstory
species. Other less common species include eastern
white pine, red maple, balsam fir, green ash, black
ash, white spruce, northern pin oak and fire cherry
The younger stands are dominated by several
species including jack pine, trembling aspen, and
black cherry, while the 5-23 year old stands are
dominated by jack pine. In some instances, the 5-23
year old stands occur under sparsely distributed
canopy of older red pine. The older stands (greater
than 23 years old) have variable composition, but for
the most part are dominated by mature jack pine.
The understory (stems less than 4 inches dbh and
greater than 1 inch dbh) included 23 species, the
most frequent being:
 jack pine
 red pine
 white pine
 black cherry
 fire cherry
 white oak
 scarlet oak
 northern pin oak
 northern red oak
 black oak
Figure 4: Pre-European Settlement Cover Types of the Northern Lower Peninsula, Michigan
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
19
Figure 5: Current Landcover of the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
21
 trembling aspen
 bigtooth aspen
Although present, red maple, green ash, black
ash, white ash, balsam fir, white spruce, tag alder,
witch-hazel, serviceberry, hawthorn and birch were
less common. Jack pine was the most common
understory tree sampled and is characteristic of the
understory in all three age classes. Black cherry,
trembling aspen, and northern red oak are also com-mon
but are generally associated with those stands
less than 5 years old and 5-23 years old.
The seedling layer (stems less than 1 inch dbh) is
characterized by 29 woody plants including:
 jack pine
 red pine
 eastern white pine
 bigtooth aspen
 trembling aspen
 white oak
 scarlet oak
 northern pin oak
 northern red oak
 black oak
 black cherry
 fire cherry
 choke cherry
 red maple
 green ash
 black ash
 American basswood
 balsam fir
 witch-hazel
 serviceberry
 alternate-leaf dogwood
 dogwood
 hawthorne
 eastern hophornbeam
 willow
 honeysuckle
 currant
 gooseberry
In terms of stand structure, the primary interest
for Kirtland’s Warbler management is jack pine
stem density. On the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA,
overstory stem density is highest in the older age
class (greater than 23 years old) than the other two
younger age classes, while understory stem density
tends to be highest on average in the youngest age
class (less than 5 years old). There is also consider-able
variability in overstory and understory stem
density within each age group, especially the young-est
age class. This trend is largely due to the range
of conditions associated with recent harvest activi-ties
where portions of the stands may not have been
harvested.
Clear cuts with reserves at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service photo.
Most importantly to Kirtland’s Warbler, mean
total stem density in the 5 to 23-year-old stands is
lower than is optimal. For instance, average total
stem density is 73.1 (10.8) stems per acre in the 5 to
23-year-old stands and 333.0 (14.5) stems per acre in
the older stands. Similarly, jack pine densities in the
5 to 23-years-old stands have on average 12.5 (5.2)
overstory stems per acre and 24.7 (2.5) understory
stems per acre for a total average of 37.2 (6.1) jack
pine stems per acre (91.8 (15.0) stems ha-1). While
these estimates are indicative of under-stocking in
these Kirtland’s Warbler WMA stands, it is impor-tant
to point out that the variability within a tract
may “depress” these estimates when mean values
are calculated. It is also important to realize that
overstory and understory density tended to be quite
“patchy” in many of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA
stands.
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
22
As observed in the overstory and understory
stem density values, seedling densities are also
quite variable within age groups, with an average of
1,779 (n=302) total seedlings ac-1 in the young age
class (less than 5 years old), 2,514 (155) seedlings ac-
1 in the 5-23 year old class, and 2,804 (209) seedlings
ac-1 in the oldest age class (greater than 23 years
old). Jack pine seedling densities are considerably
lower, comprising less than 25 percent of the total
seedling community in all three age classes.
The inventory of Geobel et al. (2007) suggests
that none of the stands between 5-23 years old in the
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA appear to have optimal
stocking for breeding Kirtland’s Warbler (greater
than 1,012 stems ac-1). However, as mentioned pre-viously,
it is important to keep in mind that there is
considerable variation between stands in terms of
seedling density. These results suggest that past
regeneration efforts, which appear to vary consider-ably
in terms of the methods used, did not always
provide the preferred stocking levels of jack pine for
Kirtland’s Warbler. In the future, other regenera-tion
methods may be advisable, including direct
seeding and the use of prescribed fire.
It is also important to point out that the species
composition and structure (including age structure)
is not only variable among Kirtland’s Warbler WMA
stands, but also within individual stands. In some
areas regeneration methods have left a “patchwork”
pattern where small gaps have purposely been left
unplanted in an effort to provide foraging habitat
for nesting birds or have resulted from failed regen-eration
efforts. In other stands, natural distur-bances
(such as wildfire) have lef t a patchy
distribution of overstory and understory stems.
Finally, other stands may have wetland areas or
different soil types that do not lend themselves to
jack pine forest ecosystems. A good example of this
pattern can be found in a stand located in Oscoda
County. Using the on-screen digitizing tool in Arc-
GIS® and 2005 1-m resolution NAIP orthophotog-raphy,
we estimate that only 116 acres or 15 percent
of the 780 acres total is considered Kirtland’s War-bler
habitat (between 5-23 years old). The remain-der
of the tract is dominated by wetlands in the
interior (200 acres or 26 percent), older jack pine in
the northwestern portion of the tract (200 acres or
26 percent), and mixed jack pine and hardwood in
the eastern portion of the tract (265 acres or 33 per-cent).
However, due to the heterogeneous nature of
some stands, digital imagery should be examined or
a site visit be made before making conclusions
regarding the composition and structural character-istics
of each stand.
Wildlife
Birds
The first known non-Kirtland’s Warbler bird sur-veys
conducted on the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA
occurred as part of the assessment work contracted
by the Service in 2006 (Goebel et al. 2007). Sixty
bird species were documented during point counts
conducted in jack pine-dominated tracts; 75 percent
were breeding species recorded on the evidence of
singing males.
Whereas jack pine plantations provide food and
shelter for a certain suite of species, other jack pine
ecosystems offer habitat for a different suite of
birds, many of which are either officially listed or of
conservation priority (Table 2). Species that use
mature jack stands include Black-backed Wood-pecker,
Spruce Grouse, and Olive-sided Flycatcher.
In the younger jack pine stands and more open
areas, many openland (grassland and shruland)
birds of conservation concern breed. Species found
in the early successional stages of jack pine ecosys-tems
include (of course) Kirtland’s Warbler, Palm
Warbler, Black-billed Cuckoo, Brown Thrasher,
Eastern Towhee, Prairie Warbler, and Nashville
Warbler. The American Kestrel, Northern Harrier,
Upland Sandpiper, and Clay-colored Sparrow can be
found in the larger, more open areas.
Mammals
Based on state-wide distribution patterns (Kurta
2001), there are approximately 52 extant mammal
species possible within the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA
(Appendix C). However, range expansion of some
species is likely to occur soon. For instance,
although not prevalent within the Lower Peninsula
of Michigan now, gray wolf (a federally listed endan-gered
species) is likely to become established in the
future. Species of high public interest include river
otter, beaver, snowshoe hare, and white-tailed deer.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Based on state-wide distribution patterns (multi-ple
authors), 36 species of herptofauna possibly
exist within the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA and many
of these species are of conservation priority (Appen-dix
C). Much more inventory work is required at the
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. Future considerations
Table 2: Bird Species Strongly Associated with Young, KW, and Old,
Stands of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA
Young
(Less than 5 years old)
KW
(5-23 years old)
Old
(More than 23 years old)
Indigo Bunting*** Kirtland’s Warbler*** Eastern Wood-Pewee***
Eastern Bluebird*** Nashville Warbler*** Hermit Thrush***
Field Sparrow*** Eastern Towhee*** Ovenbird***
Lincoln's Sparrow*** Brown Thrasher** Rose-breasted Grosbeak***
Black-billed Cuckoo* Alder Flycatcher** Red-breasted Nuthatch***
Red-eyed Vireo***
Black-capped Chickadee**
Chipping Sparrow**
Mourning Dove*
*P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.
Table 2 provides the results of a statistical procedure that assigns species to each of the three stand ages based
on frequency of encounters. It also only shows species whose P-value is <0.05. Some species are also highly
associated with these stands, but at greater P-values. See Figure 6 on page 27.
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
23
should be made to include management appropriate
for other species of concern and rare species such as
the Massasauga rattlesnake and Blanding's turtle.
Associated Plans and
Initiatives
Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan
In 2005, Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan (WAP)
was completed to better manage wildlife species and
their habitats of “greatest conservation need” in
Michigan. The plan was developed with the support
of funding from the State Wildlife Grant Program
created by Congress in 2001. The goal of the plan is
to provide a common strategic framework that will
enable Michigan's conservation partners to jointly
implement a long-term holistic approach for the
conservation of all wildlife species. Members of the
partnership include the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice,
the U.S. Forest Service, The Nature Conser-vancy,
Michigan Natural Features Inventory,
academics from several Michigan universities, as
well as many other agencies and conservation orga-nizations.
The action plan:
 provides an ecological, habitat-based frame-work
to aid in the conservation and manage-ment
of wildlife;
 identifies and recommends actions to
improve habitat conditions and population
status of species with the greatest conserva-tion
need (SGCN), which are those species
with small or declining populations or other
characteristics that make them vulnerable;
 recommends actions that will help to keep
common species common;
 identifies and prioritizes conservation
actions, research and survey needs, and
long-term monitoring needed to assess the
success of conservation efforts;
 complements other conservation strategies,
funding sources, planning initiatives, and
legally mandated activities;
 incorporates public participation to provide
an opportunity for all conservation partners
and Michigan residents to influence the
future of resource management;
 provides guidance for use of State Wildlife
Grant funds; and
 provides a clear process for review and revi-sion
as necessary to address changing condi-tions
and to integrate new information as it
becomes available.
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
24
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Several migratory bird conservation plans have
been published over the last decade that can be used
to help guide management decisions for the refuges
and WMAs. Bird conservation planning efforts have
evolved from a largely local, site-based orientation
to a more regional, even inter-continental, land-scape-
oriented perspective. Several trans-national
migratory bird conser vation initiatives have
emerged to help guide the planning and implemen-tation
process. The regional plans relevant to Kirt-land’s
Warbler WMA are:
Aerial photo of intensely managed jack pine plantations
(left) and prescribed fire jack pine habitat (right).
 The Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes
Joint Venture Implementation Plan of the
North American Waterfowl Management
Plan;
 The Partners in Flight Boreal Hardwood
Transition [land] Bird Conservation Plan;
 The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes
Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan; and
 The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes
Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan.
All four conservation plans are integrated under
the umbrella of the North American Bird Conserva-tion
Initiative. Each of the bird conservation initia-tives
has a process for designating priority species,
modeled to a large extent on the Partners in Flight
method of computing scores based on independent
assessments of global relative abundance, breeding
and wintering distribution, vulnerability to threats,
area importance, and population trend. These
scores are often used by agencies in developing lists
of priority bird species. The Service based its 2001
list of Non-game Birds of Conservation Concern
primarily on the Partners in Flight, shorebird, and
waterbird status assessment scores.
Conservation Organization Plans
Several non-governmental organizations have
implemented planning initiatives in the northern
Lower Peninsula region. Plans and publications of
note inclue Michigan Important Bird Areas
(National Audubon Society, 2009), Great Lakes
Ecoregional Plan (The Nature Conservancy, 2000)
and the publication Conservation Planning for the
Grayling Subdistrict of Michigan (Mulladore et al.,
2006)
Nuisance Species Management
No inventories of invasive plants have been done
at the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. However, it is
known that some of the wetland areas contain pur-ple
loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and that spotted
knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) can be locally
common in the openlands. Autumn olive (Elae-agnus
umbellata) is not currently found in the jack
pine systems, but does occur in richer soils nearby.
It is unknown what invasive species may come
into jack pine ecosystem due to climate change.
However, future planning will likely need to address
such an issue and focus on early detection and rapid
response efforts, and outreach to owners of nurser-ies
or other potential vectors of invasive species and
pathogens.
Control of the Brown-headed Cowbird is a vital
part of Kirtland’s Warbler management (Probst et
al. 2003). Without Cowbird control, up to 70 percent
of Kirtland’s Warbler nests may be parasitized
(Walkinshaw 1972). According to Chris Mensing
(U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, East Lasing Field
Office), biologists from the East Lansing Field
Office have trapped Brown-headed Cowbirds annu-ally
since 1972 in Kirtland’s Warbler nesting areas
to reduce nest parasitism. Traps are operated each
year from mid-April through June, with trapping
beginning approximately one month before Kirt-land’s
Warblers arrive to take advantage of cowbird
migration chronology and behavior. Cowbirds usu-ally
begin arriving in the northern Lower Peninsula
of Michigan in April. At that time Cowbirds are in
flocks and tend to exhibit a higher degree of social
or gregarious behavior. This behavior seems to
make them more susceptible to decoy trapping than
later in the season when they disperse across the
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
25
landscape to breed. Consequently, it is important to
initiate trapping at approximately the time cowbirds
arrive in the area for optimal trap effectiveness.
The decoy traps require live decoys for effective
operation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wild-life
Services (USDA-APHIS-WS), at Sandusky,
Ohio, capture and temporarily house the necessary
cowbirds which arrive in northern Ohio each spring
weeks before they arrive in northern Michigan.
Brown-headed Cowbirds are trapped to reduce Kirtland’s
Warbler nest parasitism. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
photo.
In 2008, 3,135 Brown-headed Cowbirds were cap-tured,
8.2 percent fewer birds than last year’s total
of 3,415. Since 1972, 140,040 cowbirds have been
removed from Kirtland’s Warbler nesting areas,
averaging 3,893 per year. The 54 traps caught an
average of 58 cowbirds per trap over 3,647 trap
days. The number of cowbirds removed each year
has increased 16 times and decreased 20 times dur-ing
the 37 years of the program. This is likely due to
normal fluctuations in the cowbird population, and
may indicate that the trapping program has had no
long-term effect on the area’s Brown-headed Cow-bird
population.
Although a member of the native faunal commu-nity,
the dramatic population increase noted in
white-tailed deer numbers across much of the north-ern
Lower Peninsula over the last century has
resulted in numerous adverse effects to ecosystems,
supporting the argument that the effects of over
abundant deer may be as substantial as some exotic
species. In some area of the Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA, deer densities are higher than desired. The
effects of browsing may be locally intense, especially
in the few hardwood stands found at the Kirtland’s
Warbler WMA. Consideration should be given to lib-eralizing
the take of this game species at the Kirt-land’s
Warbler WMA.
Prescribed Fires
Prescribed fire is an effective way to regenerate
jack pine stands and maintain younger stands for
breeding warblers. In the past, prescribed and natu-ral
fires were the primary method of habitat cre-ation
used in the area. The first management action
at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA was a successful pre-scribed
fire in 1992. However, the terrain and cli-mate
of the pine barrens, the history and threat of
fire escape, and local residents’ aversion to burning
severely limit the use of fire for jack pine manage-ment.
Surveys and Censuses
Endangered and Threatened Species
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA tracts are included as
part of the annual Kirtland’s Warbler census con-ducted
by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. It is estimated that, on average, 4 per-cent
of the known world population of Kirtland’s
Warbler have been found on the WMA since 2000
(Table 3 on page 26). In occupied WMA stands, over
three singing males have been recorded on average
per sampling plot (Table 4 on page 26).
The first known non-Kirtland’s Warbler wildlife
surveys conducted on the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA
occurred as part of the assessment work contracted
by the Service in 2006 (Goebel et al. 2007). Sixty
bird species were documented during point counts
conducted in jack pine-dominated tracts; 75 percent
were breeding species recorded on the evidence of
singing males. Bird communities and individual spe-cies
abundance and frequency of encounter patterns
generally differed among stand age classes (see
Figure 6 on page 27 and Figure 7 on page 28).
Studies and Investigations
Research is an integral component of land man-agement
for wildlife population preservation, con-s
e r v a t i o n , a n d r e s t o r a t i o n a n d s h o u l d b e
incorporated along with future inventory and moni-toring.
Historically, the majority of research on
many refuges pertained to single species of wildlife
and their habitats. However, as theories and con-cepts
regarding wildlife and habitat management
have changed, so too should the focus of research.
For instance, in recent years, upland research in the
Table 3: Number of Kirtland’s
Warbler Singing Males by Year
(2000-2005) at Kirtland’s Warbler
Wildlife Management Area
Year Number of
Singing
Males
Percentage (%) of
Total Michigan
Singing Male
Population
2000 5 0.6
2001 30 2.8
2002 27 2.6
2003 59 4.9
2004 72 5.3
2005 100 7.0
2006 124 8.4
2007 137 8.1
Average
(±1SD)
48.8 (34.7) 3.9 (2.3)
Data provided by K. Kintigh (MDNR)
Table 4: Parcel-level Abundance Values for Kirtland’s Warbler
Singing Males Recorded at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA
Stand Age
Class
County Tract-ID Sampling Points Singing KW per
sampling point
KW Clare CL-08 2 3.00
KW Clare CL-11 1 3.00
KW Clare CL-18 3 4.33
KW Clare CL-21 2 5.00
KW Crawford CR-09 1 4.00
KW Crawford CR-10 1 3.00
KW Oscoda OS-02 6 2.50
KW Oscoda OS-03 2 3.50
KW Oscoda OS-14 1 2.00
KW Oscoda OS-18 1 1.00
KW Ogemaw OG-26 3 4.33
KW Ogemaw OG-28 4 1.75
YOUNG Ogemaw OG-01 1 1.00
YOUNG Ogemaw OG-25 1 4.00
TOTAL 29 3.07
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
26
Figure 6: Number of Singing Kirtland’s Warbler Males Per Sample Point, Kirtland’s
Warbler WMA
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
27
Figure 7: Frequency of Bird Occurrence Within Sample Stands, Kirtland’s Warbler WMA
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
28
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
29
region has increasingly been focused on ecosystem
patterns and processes, such as the ecological dis-turbance
history of forest stands in the context of
restoration of stand composition and structure in
stands altered by past human activities. Future
research should continue to pursue aspects of dis-turbance
ecology, restoration ecology, landscape
ecology, forest ecology, and conservation biology and
related fields in the context of wildlife habitat con-servation,
preservation, and restoration at the Kirt-land’s
Warbler WMA. Other future research should
examine the effects of invasive species and climate
change on ecosystem patterns and processes.
Coordination Activities
The Seney NWR staff who manage Kirtland’s
Warbler WMA invest a significant amount of energy
and time representing the WMA in its role as a part-ner
with other resource agencies and non-govern-ment
organizations. The Refuge Manager serves as
a member of the Kirtland’s Warber Recovery Team
and the Refuge Forester participates as a team
member on various committees and groups.
Visitor Services
The 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act emphasizes wildlife management
and that all prospective public uses on any given
unit of the Refuge System must be found to be com-patible
with the wildlife-related purposes before
they can be allowed. The Refuge System Improve-ment
Act also identifies six priority uses of national
wildlife refuges that in most cases will be considered
compatible uses:
 wildlife observation
 wildlife photography
 hunting
 fishing
 environmental education
 interpretation of nature
Opportunities to participate in all of these wild-life-
dependent activities, with the exception of fish-ing,
exist at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA.
Hunting
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is open for hunting of
all legal game species in Michigan per state regula-tions.
However, little is known regarding the statis-tics
regarding hunting use. Due to the nature of the
habitats at the Management Area, the species most
likely hunted are white-tailed deer, Wild Turkey,
Ruffed Grouse, snowshoe hare, American Wood-cock,
and black bear. In early successional stands
(recent clear cuts waiting regeneration for Kirt-land’s
Warbler) hunting is probably limited to Wild
Turkey and white-tailed deer. As stands mature and
become close-canopy with more mature trees, more
species are hunted and more hunting likely occurs.
The use of bait, snowmobiles, or ATVs is prohibited.
Black bear. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo
Fishing
Although a few parcels of the Management Area
are adjacent to streams, most parcels do not have
fishable waters. Fishing is likely not a very common
event at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA.
Photography, Wildlife Observation, Environmental
Education and Interpretation
The majority of the Visitor Services that are pro-vided
by the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA are interwo-ven
into the yearly Kirtland’s Warbler tours
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
30
conducted by the Service’s East Lansing Field
Office, Michigan Audubon Society and the U. S. For-est
Service. According to Service records, during
2008 a total of 775 people from 40 states and three
foreign countries attended a tour to see Kirtland’s
Warbler and hear about habitat management. These
tours occur yearly from May 15 to July 4.
Although parcels inhabited by Kirtland’s Warbler
during the breeding season are closed to entry, unin-habitated
areas and the network of two-track roads
that connect them afford photographers of all skill
levels opportunities to photograph wildlife and
excellent hiking and biking opportunities.
Archaeological and Cultural
Resources Management
No active cultural resources management occurs
on the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. In general, cul-tural
resources management in the Service is the
responsibility of the Regional Director and is not
delegated to field managers for the Section 106 pro-cess
when historic properties could be affected by
Service undertakings, for issuing archeological per-mits,
and for Indian tribal involvement. The
Regional Historic Preservation Officer advises the
Regional Director about procedures, compliance,
and implementation of cultural resources laws. The
field manager assists by informing the Regional
Historic Preservation Officer about Service under-takings,
by protecting archeological sites and his-toric
properties, by monitoring archeological
investigations by contractors and permittees, and
by reporting violations.
Law Enforcement
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is dedicated to safe-guarding
the resources under its jurisdiction,
including natural resources, cultural resources, and
facilities. Resource management on the WMA
includes both protective and preventive functions.
Protection is safeguarding the visiting public, staff,
facilities and natural and cultural resources from
criminal action, accidents, negligence and acts of
nature such as wildfires. Preventing incidents from
occurring is the best form of protection and requires
a known and visible law enforcement presence as
well as other proactive steps to address potential
threats and natural hazards.
Over the years, the most common violations on
the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA have been vandalism
and trespass. Vandalism incidents have included
damage to signs and other structures and dumping
on side roads.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
31
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction:
Tomorrow’s Vision
Goals, Objectives and
Strategies
The planning team developed goals and objec-tives
for three management alternatives at Kirt-land’s
Warbler WMA. Cooperating agencies,
conservation organizations and Seney NWR staff all
participated in this endeavor. The three alternatives
were:
 Alternative 1: Current Direction of Habitat
Management (No Action)
 Alternative 2: Management from an Ecologi-cal
Perspective
 Alternative 3: Ecological Management and
Land Ownership Consolidation (Preferred
Alternative)
The preferred alternative, Ecological Manage-ment
and Land Ownership Consolidation forms the
basis for the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA CCP and the
goals, objectives and strategies presented on the fol-lowing
pages. The planning team established goals
for the WMA as a whole, objectives for achieving
those goals, and the specific strategies that will be
employed by Refuge staff. The goals are organized
into the broad categories of wildlife, habitat, and
people.
Three goals were established for Kirtland’s War-bler
WMA:
 Goal 1: Wildlife – Management will play an
integral role in the recovery of the Kirtland’s
Warbler. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands will
support the broad array of wildlife species
that are dependent on each seral stage of the
jack pine ecosystems (from barrens to
mature jack pine).
 Goal 2: Habitat – Manage habitat to support
Kirtland’s Warblers and associated wildlife
species by providing near benchmark condi-tions
across all seral stages of the jack pine
ecosystem. Employ sound management
practices that emulate patterns of structure
and composition resulting from wildfire and
other natural disturbances.
 Goal 3: People – Encourage the public to
explore jack pine ecosystems and learn about
its associated wildlife.
Goal 1: Wildlife
Management will play an integral role in the recovery of
the Kirtland’s Warbler. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands will
support the broad array of wildlife species that are depen-dent
on each seral stage of the jack pine ecosystems (from
barrens to mature jack pine).
Objective 1.1
Continue to be an active partner in the Kirtland’s
Warbler recovery effort.
Spruce Grouse. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
32
Rationale: The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA was
established in 1980, under authority of the Endan-gered
Species Act, to aid in the recovery of the Kirt-land’s
Warbler. Since that time, the Service has been
an active participant in a partnership that has
brought the Kirtland’s Warbler population from the
brink of extinction to numbers surpassing the recov-ery
objective for the last 7 years. Guided by the
Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Team, this partnership
has developed techniques to census the population,
limit nest parasitism, and regenerate jack pine to
create suitable nesting habitat.
American badger. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo
Examples of Service Resource Conservation Pri-ority
Species that will benefit under this manage-ment
include: Black-billed Cuckoo, Field Sparrow,
Northern Flicker, and Upland Sandpiper.
Strategies:
1. Participate in the annual Kirtland’s Warbler
Census to aid in monitoring the population
trends.
2. Work with Ecological Services to continue
annual trapping efforts to remove Brown-headed
Cowbirds from nesting areas and
explore new ways to eliminate Cowbirds para-sitism
of Kirtland’s Warbler nests.
3. Coordinate harvest and regeneration of jack
pine on Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands with
the Michigan DNR to ensure that the Ser-vices
lands are contributing to the Kirtland’s
Warbler recovery effort.
4. Conduct and participate in research to better
understand the ecology and management of
Kirtland’s Warbler populations.
Objective 1.2
By 2016, implement a monitoring program to
track the presence, abundance, population
trends, and/or habitat associations of Trust
Resources and determine ways to emulate natu-ral
species diversity.
Rationale: The jack pine ecosystem is known to
support a vast array of wildlife, many of which are
listed as Resource Conservation Priority Species in
Region 3 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Since
the creation of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA, recov-ery
of Kirtland’s Warbler has been the only goal of
its management. Now, with Kirtland’s Warbler pop-ulations
exceeding recovery goals for 7 consecutive
years, the Service has an opportunity to manage
more from an ecological perspective and benefit
species across the seral stages of the jack pine eco-system.
Research should be conducted to determine
how to best manage the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA
for all Trust Species, without diminishing its contri-bution
to Kirtland’s Warbler recovery.
Strategies:
1. Determine the presence, abundance and habi-tat
associations of Trust Resources currently
using Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands.
2. Develop and implement a monitoring pro-gram
to track population trends, and/or habi-tat
associations of Trust Resources.
3. Conduct annual reviews of trends to deter-mine
if there are priorities for research or
management.
4. If a Trust Resource research or management
issue is identified, initiate action at the local
level. If the issue goes beyond the boundary
of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA, take the lead
role in coordinating with federal, state, and
non-government organization partners to
develop broader scale projects to resolve
issues.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
33
Goal 2: Habitat
Manage habitat to support Kirtland’s Warblers and associ-ated
wildlife species by providing near benchmark condi-tions
across all seral stages of the jack pine ecosystem.
Employ sound management practices that emulate patterns
of structure and composition resulting from wildfire and
other natural disturbances.
Objective 2.1
Continue to manage jack pine stands in conjunc-tion
with the Michigan DNR, but place greater
emphasis on promoting ecological integrity
within managed stands.
Rationale: Michigan DNR forest managers have
devised a system of intensively managing jack pine
that provide suitable nesting habitat for the Kirt-land’s
Warbler. However these plantations are eco-logically
simplified and lack the diversity of stands
produced by the natural disturbance mechanism,
wildfire. This loss of structural and compositional
diversity has negatively impacted populations of
many wildlife species in Michigan.
Future management should consider all seral
stages of jack pine ecosystem development, from
barrens to mature forest, and strive to emulate nat-ural
conditions in each stage. This is important,
because each stage offers habitat for a different
suite of species, many of which are on the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Conservation Priority list.
Young stands (grassland and shrubland) can provide
breeding habitat for openland birds, including
Upland Sandpiper, Prairie Warbler, and Clay-col-ored
Sparrow. Bird species that use later seral
stages or the “biological legacies” of these stands
include Red Crossbill, Black-backed Woodpecker
and Olive-sided Flycatcher.
Strategies:
1. Work with federal, state and local officials to
garner support for the use of prescribed fire
in the management of jack pine to create Kirt-land’s
Warbler nesting habitat.
2. Work with federal, state and local fire officials
to employ prescribed fire as a management
tool where it can be applied safely without
risk to life and property.
3. Elsewhere, attempt to emulate the composi-tional
and structural patterns of jack pine
stands resulting from wildfire through
mechanical treatments (i.e. timber sales).
Place increased emphasis on maintaining
“legacy” trees (e.g., large red and white pine,
red and white oak, etc.) and providing more
(and larger) standing snags and coarse woody
debris.
4. Parcels that contain habitats other than jack
pine will be managed to emulate patterns
resulting from natural disturbances.
5. Develop research demonstration sites that
exemplify ecologically-based jack pine man-agement
and illustrate how emulating natural
conditions can provide multiple species bene-fits.
6. Develop a map and monitor spotted knapweed
distribution within and near Kirtland’s War-bler
WMA parcels. Initiate removal if the spe-cies
spreads into nesting areas.
Objective 2.2
Within 5 years of completion of this CCP, develop
a land consolidation plan for the Kirtland’s War-bler
WMA that maintains or increases habitat for
the warbler and increases management efficiency
for all agencies involved.
Mechanical treatment of mature jack pine to prepare site
for replanting of jack pine for Kirtland's Warbler,
Kirtland's Warbler WMA.
Rationale: The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA consists
of 125 separate tracts of land located in eight coun-ties
of Michigan’s northern Lower Peninsula. Their
size ranges from 2 to 600 acres and most tracts are
located within larger tracts of land owned by the
state of Michigan. There is no local office or dedi-
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
34
cated staff assigned to the Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA; staff at the Seney NWR, which is located
between 150 and 300 miles from most parcels, is
responsible for administrative oversight. Currently,
management is accomplished through a cooperative
agreement between the Service and the Michigan
DNR. Under this agreement, the Service retains
ownership and oversight functions on Kirtland’s
Warbler WMA lands while the Michigan DNR
determines when timber on a given parcel should be
cut and regenerated. The Service is responsible for
the timber harvest and the DNR contracts for
replanting services.
Consolidation of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands
is being considered to increase management effi-ciency.
Currently the travel distances between
Seney NWR and WMA lands limits administrative
oversight and management effectiveness. Due to
their small size, WMA lands cannot be managed
independent of the surrounding landscape. There-fore
a high degree of coordination with the Michigan
DNR is required to accomplish any meaningful
management.
A consolidation has the potential to increase the
amount of land dedicated to Kirtland’s Warbler
management. Both state and federal regulations
require that lands exchanged be equal, based on an
appraisal value, not acreage. Consequently, if the
state were to exchange lands not currently managed
for the Kirtland’s Warbler for Service land with a
higher appraised value, there would be a net gain
because the Service would manage its new lands for
the warbler. This scenario is likely because of the
variation in land values from county to county.
The Service has completed many land exchanges
with states, including six with the state of Michigan
in the last 20 years. The primary purpose of most of
these exchanges was to improve management effi-ciency.
The Service will always have the option to
retain the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA name for any
new lands acquired. Thus, if consolidation is
achieved, we would effectively be moving the Kirt-land’s
Warbler WMA to a new location. The most
significant benefit of consolidation would be increas-ing
habitat to further ensure full recovery and long-term
survival the species. In addition, consolidation
would result in larger parcels owned and managed
under each agency. Larger parcels allow for
improved control and prevention of invasive species
and reduced habitat fragmentation.
The concept of land consolidation is supported by
all agencies involved in Kirtland’s Warbler manage-ment.
In general, the Service, the Michigan DNR,
and the U.S. Forest Service would seek lands to
exchange amongst the agencies to consolidate own-ership
and increase the land base managed for the
Kirtland’s Warbler habitat. Public input on any
exchange proposal would be sought in compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act. All
parties recognize that any exchanges may take
years to complete, but they agree it will be worth
the effort.
Background:
The idea of consolidating lands has been dis-cussed
since inception of the Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA more that 25 years ago. In a letter dated
November 13, 1979, from Wayne H. Tody, Deputy
Director of the Bureau of Resources for the Michi-gan
DNR to Harvey K. Nelson, Regional Director
for Region 3 of the Service, land consolidation is
listed as a condition for support of a federal Kirt-land’s
Warbler land acquisition program in Michi-gan.
The 1991 cooperative agreement between the
Service and Michigan DNR states that they mutu-ally
agree “to exchange interest in land of high nest-ing
habitat capability where necessary for effective
management.” In addition, we understand that the
Michigan DNR is working to implement a Land
Consolidation Strategy. We believe that the CCP
planning process and the Land Consolidation Strat-egy
make the timing right to fully explore land con-solidation.
On February 21, 2007, members of the Kirtland’s
Warbler Recovery Team met at the Michigan DNR,
Gaylord Operations Center, at the Service’s request
to discuss the CCP and alternatives for future man-agement
of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. Nearly all
members of the team attended as well as additional
staff from local DNR offices, several Service field
stations, and representatives from the U.S. Forest
Service and two universities. The primary purpose
of this meeting was to explore the possibility of con-solidating
the widespread land holdings of the Kirt-l
a n d ’ s Wa r b l e r W M A f o r m o r e e f f i c i e n t
management by all agencies that manage land for
Kirtland’s Warbler habitat.
It was decided at the February meeting that a
smaller interagency committee should convene to
formulate specific land consolidation proposals. The
members of this committee should be land manag-
Table 5: Sites Identified for Potential Exchange
Location Concept Potential Sites
Northern Lower Peninsula Large acreage of Service lands currently
exists. Exchanges would include Michigan
DNR and Service lands only and would cre-ate
fewer and larger parcels.
 Pere Cheney Management Area -
Staley Lake Mgmt. Area,
 NW Ogemaw Management Area,
 Leota Management Area,
 Big Creek Management Area
Northern Lower Peninsula Create fewer and larger parcels closer to
Seney NWR, but still within the northern
lower Peninsula. Exchanges would include
only Michigan DNR and Service lands.
 Clear Lake
Northern Lower Peninsula Consolidate into fewer, larger parcels and
include Service, Forest Service and Michi-gan
DNR lands.
 Wurtsmith Block to Forest Service,
Michigan DNR gets all Service lands,
and Service gets unidentified Forest
Service lands (multiple compart-ments).
Upper Peninsula Maintain close proximity to Seney NWR;
opportunity to use prescribed fire as a man-agement
tool; minimal impact to existing
ORV trails. Consolidation will only involve
Service and Michigan DNR lands.
 M-94 southwest of Seney NWR,
 M-28 lands north of Seney NWR,
 Danaher Plains Complex,
 Ishpeming Area,
 Big Two-Hearted River Country,
 Private lands purchased in the Upper
Peninsula by Michigan DNR going to
the Service, Michigan DNR getting
northern Lower Peninsula Service
lands,
 Baraga Plains,
 Yellow Dog Plains.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
35
ers or biologists with specific knowledge of affected
lands and Kirtland’s Warbler management. The pre-liminary
proposals will then be presented to each
agency’s leadership for review and recommenda-tion.
The interagency committee met on April 10, 2008
in Grayling, Michigan. Attendees included three
representatives from Michigan DNR, two from the
U.S. Forest Service and three from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. The committee concluded this
meeting with a list of ideas for future land consolida-tion.
These ideas are presented in the following
paragraphs as a set of guidelines. These guidelines
may be refined as individual agency discussions
move forward and specific planning continues in the
next several years.
Land Consolidation Guidelines:
1. Lands must be manageable for Kirtland’s
Warbler (i.e. sites of sufficient size with jack
pine as a major constituent of seral stages).
2. Must improve management efficiency for all
agencies involved.
3. No substantial buildings or improvements.
4. Sites do not contain hazardous materials or
environmental contaminants.
Sites Identified for Possible Exchange:
The sites described in Table 5 were suggested by
the interagency committee that met in April 2008 as
possibilities to explore for an exchange. These sites
are mentioned for illustration purposes only; no offi-cial
endorsement has been sought or obtained
through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Michigan DNR or U.S. Forest Service.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
36
Strategies:
1. Interagency team will follow land consolida-tion
guidelines to establish priority exchange
scenarios.
2. Land appraisals, following federal and state
guidelines, will be conducted on all lands iden-tified
for exchange.
Goal 3: People
Encourage the public to explore jack pine ecosystems and
learn about its associated wildlife.
Objective 3.1: Hunting
Provide the public with opportunities to hunt on
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands in accordance
with state and federal regulations.
Rationale: Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is open for
hunting of all legal game species in Michigan per
state regulations. However, little is known regard-ing
the statistics regarding hunting use. Due to the
nature of the habitats at the Management Area,
most hunting is likely confined to white-tailed deer,
Wild Turkey, Ruffed Grouse, snowshoe hare, Ameri-can
Woodcock, and black bear. In early successional
stands (recent clear cuts waiting regeneration for
Kirtland’s Warbler) hunting is probably confined to
Wild Turkey and white-tailed deer. As stands
mature and become close-canopy with more mature
trees, more species are hunted and more hunting
likely occurs. The use of bait, snowmobiles, or ATVs
are prohibited on Service lands.
Strategies:
1. Increase law enforcement on Service proper-ties
to ensure consistency with federal hunt-i
n g r e g u l a t i o n s ( e . g . n o d e e r b a i t i n g ,
permanent blinds, bear hunting with dogs,
and off-road vehicle use).
2. In cooperation with the Michigan DNR, pro-duce
maps to show the hunting public areas
subject to federal regulations.
Objective 3.2: Wildlife Observation, Wildlife
Photography, Environmental Education and
Environmental Interpretation
Within 5 years of approval of the plan, increase
opportunities for wildlife observation and photog-raphy,
environmental education and interpreta-tion
to correspond with an increase (from 2008
level) in WMA visitation. The level of knowledge
about, and the positive attitude toward, the WMA
will increase among visitors throughout the next
15 years.
Rationale: The majority of the visitor services
that are provided by the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA
are interwoven into the yearly Kirtland’s Warbler
tours conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice’s
East Lansing Field Office, Michigan Audubon
Society, and the U. S. Forest Service. According to
Service records, during 2008 a total of 775 people
from 40 states and three foreign countries attended
a tour to see Kirtland’s Warbler and hear about hab-itat
management. These tours occur yearly from
May 15 to July 4.
Interpretive sign at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service photo.
Although parcels inhabited by Kirtland’s Warbler
during the breeding season are closed to entry,
uninhabitated areas and the network of two-track
roads that connect them afford photographers of all
skill levels opportunities to photograph wildlife and
hiking and biking activities.
Strategies:
1. Continue active support of the annual Kirt-land’s
Warbler Festival and Tours.
2. Encourage wildlife-dependent activities on
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands by providing
outreach materials, such as brochures and
displays, at local public events and in commu-nity
facilities.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
37
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation
New and Existing Projects
This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action
for the future management of the Kirtland’s War-bler
WMA. The ability to enhance wildlife habitats
on the Area and provide additional quality public
use opportunities will require a significant commit-ment
of staff and funding from the Service. The
WMA will continually need appropriate operational
and maintenance funding to implement the objec-tives
in this plan.
The following provides a brief description of the
highest priority projects for Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA, as chosen by the Seney NWR staff and listed
in the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS).
Staffing, maintenance and operation needs will
change if land consolidation occurs in the future.
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Operating
Needs Projects
Enhance Refuge Management and Administration
 Hire an onsight resource specialist to coordi-nate
management efforts, interface with the
public and provide oversight of WMA lands.
Estimated cost: $150,000
 Hire a technician to conduct wildlife surveys,
post boundaries and oversee timber harvest
and habitat regeneration. Estimated cost:
$120,000
 Post boundaries of the WMA. Currently no
boundaries are posted. Surveys need to be
conducted and posts and signs purchased. A
contract to post the boundary, in accordance
with the Refuge Mannual, would be awarded.
Estimated cost: $200,000
 Provide for public use by designating trails,
constructing observation blinds and develop-ing
interpretive signs. Estimated cost:
$100,000
 Habitat regeneration is a critical component
of managing Kirtland’s Warbler populations.
Given the current size of the WMA, 300 acres
would need to be regenerated annually at a
minimum cost of $100 per acre. Estimated
cost: $30,000
 Law enforcement is a necessary component
of land management at the Kirtland’s War-bler
WMA. Funds are needed to hire a full-time
law enforcement officer to ensure the
protection of nesting areas during the breed-ing
season, that hunting regulations are fol-lowed
and that habitat is not destroyed by
illegal timber harvest, off-road vehicles or
other means. Estimated cost: $150,000
A contractor plants trees at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.
 Fire management is necessary to protect and
manage habitat. A Fire Management Officer
would be hired to coordinate fire suppression
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
38
and prescribed burning with State and Ser-vice
officials. Estimated cost: $200,000
 Establish an office and hire administrative
support. To fully manage the Kirtland’s War-bler
WMA an office would need to be estab-lished
to house the Resource Specialist and
Technician. This office would need an Office
Automation Clerk to manage the office and
serve as a contact point for the public. Esti-mated
cost: $100,000
Current and Future Staffing
Requirements
The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA does not have a
permanent staff. The staff at Seney NWR oversees
the WMA and provides limited services on an as-needed
basis. These duties include, but are not lim-ited
to, administration of timber sales, coordinating
with the state on harvesting and replanting efforts,
participation in Kirtland’s Warbler Recovery Team
efforts, research, the Kirtland’s Warber census,
Cowbird trapping, public education and on-site law
enforcement. Full-time oversight may be required in
the future if the land holdings of the Kirtland’s War-bler
WMA are consolidated.
Step-down Management Plans
Step-down management plans describe specific
actions that support the accomplishment of objec-tives.
The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA does not
require many step-down plans due to relatively
small size of properties, limited activities and the
lack of staff and funding. The objectives and strate-gies
outlined in this CCP will provide adequate
detail for most of the programs at the Kirtland’s
Warbler WMA.
Partnership Opportunities
Partnerships have become an essential element
for the successful accomplishments of Kirtland’s
Warbler WMA goals, objectives, and strategies. The
objectives outlined in this CCP need the support
and the partnerships of federal, state and local
agencies, non-governmental organizations and indi-vidual
citizens. This broad-based approach to man-aging
fish and wildlife resources extends beyond
social and political boundaries and requires a broad
foundation of support. The Kirtland’s Warbler
WMA will continue to seek creative partnership
opportunities to achieve its vision for the future.
Notable existing partners include:
 Michigan DNR
 East Lansing Field Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
 U.S. Forest Service
 Kirtland Community College
 Michigan Audubon Society
 The Nature Conservancy
Baiting a Brown-headed Cowbird trap at Kirtland’s
Warbler WMA. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.
Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, we reviewed lands
within the legislative boundaries of Kirtland’s War-bler
WMA for wilderness suitability. No lands were
found suitable for designation as Wilderness as
defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964. The WMA
does not contain 5,000 contiguous, roadless acres
nor does it have any units of sufficient size to make
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
39
their preservation practicable as Wilderness. Lands
acquired for the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA have
been substantially affected by humans, particularly
through intense forestry, agriculture and transpor-tation
infrastructure.
Monitoring and Evaluation
The direction set forth in this CCP and specifi-cally
identified strategies and projects will be moni-tored
throughout the life of this plan. On a periodic
basis, the Regional Office will assemble a station
review team whose purpose will be to visit the Kirt-land’s
Warbler WMA and evaluate current activities
in light of this plan. The team will review all aspects
of management, including direction, accomplish-ments
and funding. The goals and objectives pre-sented
in this CCP will provide the baseline from
which this field station will be evaluated.
Climate Change Evaluation
The potential impacts of climate change will
receive increasing attention and study during the
life of this plan. All strategies for plan implementa-tion,
including consolidation of land holdings of the
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA, will be periodically evalu-ated
in the light of new predictions and progress in
carbon emission reduction.
Plan Review and Revision
The CCP for Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is meant
to provide guidance to managers and staff over the
next 15 years. However, the CCP is also a dynamic
and flexible document and several of the strategies
contained in this plan are subject to such things as
drought, floods, windstorms and other uncontrolla-ble
events. Likewise, many of the strategies are
dependent upon Service funding for staff and proj-ects.
Because of all these factors, the recommenda-tions
in the CCP will be reviewed periodically and, if
necessary, revised to meet new circumstances.
Environmental Assessment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
41
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment
Kirtland’s Warbler
Wildlife Management Area
Environmental Assessment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
43
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................................................49
1.1. Background .......................................................................................................................................................49
1.2. Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................49
1.3. Need for Action ................................................................................................................................................49
1.4. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Goals ........................................................................................................................51
1.5. Vision Statement ..............................................................................................................................................51
1.6. Decision Framework .........................................................................................................................................51
1.7. Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ..............................................................................................51
1.8. Scoping of the Issues .......................................................................................................................................51
1.8.1. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Issues, Concerns and Opportunities .............................................................51
1.8.1.1. Habitat Management ...............................................................................................................51
1.8.1.2. Wildlife Management ..............................................................................................................52
1.8.1.3. Public Use ...............................................................................................................................52
Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives ..............................................................................................................53
2.1. Formulation of Alternatives ..............................................................................................................................53
2.2. Management Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................53
2.2.1. Alternative 1: Current Direction of Habitat Management (No Action) ..................................................53
2.2.2. Alternative 2: Management from an Ecological Perspective .................................................................53
2.2.3. Alternative 3: Ecological Management and Land Ownership Consolidation (Preferred Alternative) ...53
2.2.4. Comparison of No Action and Preferred Alternatives ............................................................................54
Chapter 3: Affected Environment ..............................................................................................................................59
3.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................