Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Kirtland’s Warbler
Wildlife Management Area
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
i
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................................2
The National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................................................2
Michigan’s Northern Lower Peninsula Ecoregion ......................................................................................................4
Refuge Purpose ..........................................................................................................................................................5
Refuge Vision .............................................................................................................................................................5
Purpose and Need for Plan ........................................................................................................................................5
History of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Establishment and Management ......................................................................6
Legal Context .............................................................................................................................................................6
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...............................................................................................................................7
Internal Agency Scoping ............................................................................................................................................7
Open House Event ......................................................................................................................................................7
Workshops .................................................................................................................................................................7
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities .......................................................................................................8
Habitat Management .........................................................................................................................................8
Wildlife Management ........................................................................................................................................8
Public Use ...........................................................................................................................................................8
Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP .......................................................................9
Chapter 3: The Environment ......................................................................................................................................10
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area .......................................................................................................10
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................10
Climate .....................................................................................................................................................................10
Climate Change Impacts ..........................................................................................................................................10
Scenarios of Future Climate ..............................................................................................................................13
Midwest Key Issues: ........................................................................................................................................13
1. Reduction in Lake and River Levels ........................................................................................................13
2. Agricultural Shifts .................................................................................................................................13
3. Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ................................................................................14
Climate Change Impacts to Kirtland’s Warbler Habitat ...........................................................................................14
Geology and Glaciation ............................................................................................................................................16
Soils ..........................................................................................................................................................................16
Surface Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................................16
Archeological and Cultural Values ...........................................................................................................................16Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ii
Social and Economic Context ...................................................................................................................................17
Environmental Contaminants ...................................................................................................................................17
Natural Resources ....................................................................................................................................................17
Historic Habitat Conditions ...............................................................................................................................17
Wildfire History ................................................................................................................................................17
Plant Communities and Habitat Types ..............................................................................................................19
Wetlands ..........................................................................................................................................................19
Uplands .............................................................................................................................................................19
Wildlife .............................................................................................................................................................22
Birds ...........................................................................................................................................................22
Mammals ...................................................................................................................................................23
Reptiles and Amphibians ...........................................................................................................................23
Associated Plans and Initiatives ...............................................................................................................................23
Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan ........................................................................................................................23
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ............................................................................................................23
Habitat Management .......................................................................................................................................24
Controlling Invasive Plants .........................................................................................................................24
Nuisance Species Management .......................................................................................................................24
Prescribed Fires ................................................................................................................................................25
Surveys and Censuses ......................................................................................................................................25
Studies and Investigations ...............................................................................................................................25
Coordination Activities .....................................................................................................................................26
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................................................26
Hunting ......................................................................................................................................................26
Fishing .......................................................................................................................................................29
Photography, Wildlife Observation, Environmental Education and Interpretation ....................................29
Archaeological and Cultural Resources Management .............................................................................................29
Law Enforcement .....................................................................................................................................................29
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision ...........................................................................30
Goals, Objectives and Strategies ..............................................................................................................................30
Goal 1: Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................30
Goal 2: Habitat ..................................................................................................................................................32
Goal 3: People ...................................................................................................................................................35
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ...............................................................................................................................36
New and Existing Projects .......................................................................................................................................36
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Operating Needs Projects ........................................................................................36
Enhance Refuge Management and Administration ...................................................................................36
Current and Future Staffing Requirements ...............................................................................................................37
Step-down Management Plans ...............................................................................................................................37
Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................................................................................37
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................................................37
Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................38
Climate Change Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................38
Plan Review and Revision ........................................................................................................................................38Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iii
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment ................................................................................................................39
Appendix B: Glossary .................................................................................................................................................63
Appendix C: Species Lists .........................................................................................................................................67
Appendix D: Compliance Requirements ..................................................................................................................81
Appendix E: Draft Compatibility Determinations ...................................................................................................89
Appendix F: Bibliography and References Cited ...................................................................................................97
Appendix G: List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................101
Appendix H: Mailing List .........................................................................................................................................105
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 .....................................18
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 ..........22
Table 3: Number of Kirtland’s Warbler Singing Males by Year (2000-2005) at Kirtland’s Warbler
Wildlife Management Area ..........................................................................................................................25
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 .............................................................................................................34Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft 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 sum­mer native of Michigan, the Kirtland’s Warbler relies on a very specific type of fire-dependent for­est habitat to thrive.
The situation isn’t unique for either bird or habi­tat. 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 elimi­nated 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. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.
Due to concerted management efforts by federal and state agen­cies, however, beginning in the 1990s the population began to increase. By 2001, the total esti­mated population of singing male Kirtland's Warblers had reached recovery objective of over 1,000 singing males and has stayed above this value for seven consec­utive years. In 2008, the total esti­mated population of singing 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, cowbird control, and monitoring of wintering habitat.
The Kirtland's Warbler population would sharply decline without this criti-cal
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 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
The Kirtland's Warbler nests in young jack pine forest growing on sandy glacial outwash soils. War­blers 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 Blue­bird, Black-backed Woodpecker, 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) estab­lished 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 man­aged for the benefit of Kirtland's Warbler. At pres­ent, the area contains 125 separate tracts totaling 6,684 acres (Figure 1). While management for Kirt­land’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 Wild­life Refuge (NWR) oversees the WMA and provides limited services on an as-needed basis. These duties include, but are not limited to, administration of tim­ber sales, coordinating with the State on harvestng and replanting efforts, participation in Kirtland’s Warber Recovery Team efforts, research, the Kirt­land’s Warbler census, Brown-headed Cowbird trapping, public education, and on-site law enforce­ment.
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, protect­ing, and enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife pop­ulations and their habitats. It oversees the enforcement of federal wildlife laws, management and protection of migratory bird populations, resto­ration of nationally significant fisheries, administra­tion 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 founded in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt designated Pelican Island in Florida as a sanctuary for Brown Pelicans. Today, the Refuge System is a network of 547 refuges and wetland management districts covering about 95 million acres of public lands and waters. Most of these lands (82 percent) are in Alaska, with approximately 16 million acres located in the lower 48 states and sev­eral island territories.
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands specifically man­aged 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 conserva­tion 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 pro­vides winter habitat for the highly endangered Whooping Crane. Likewise, the Florida Panther Refuge protects one of the nation’s most endan­gered predators. Refuges also provide unique recre­ational 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, photogra­phy, environmental education, and environmental interpretation. Many refuges have visitor centers, wildlife trails, automobile tours, and environmental Figure 1: Location of Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area, Michigan
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
education programs. Nationwide, approximately 30 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2004.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improve­ment Act of 1997 established several important mandates aimed at making the management of national wildlife refuges more cohesive. The prepa­ration of Comprehensive Conservation 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 inter­jurisdictional fish, and marine mammal pop­ulations that is strategically distributed and carefully managed to meet important life his­tory needs of these species across their ranges.
#Conserve those ecosystems, plant communi­ties, wetlands of national or international sig­nificance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or underrepre­sented in existing protection efforts.
#Provide and enhance opportunities to partici­pate in compatible wildlife-dependent recre­ation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental educa­tion 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 encom­passes 17,109 square miles and includes all or por­tions of 25 counties. Landcover in this ecoregion is primarily forest (67 percent) and wetlands (20 per­cent). Agricultural land use covers 4 percent and urbanization covers approximately 2 percent. The remainder of the landcover consists of open grass­lands, 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 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. 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 ele­vations in the Lower Peninsula occur in this ecore­gion 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 conti­nental climatic conditions within the ecoregion: it has more summer precipitation, the greatest sum­mer and winter temperature extremes, the shortest growing season, and the greatest risk of spring Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5
freeze (Denton 1985). The average length of the growing season for this ecoregion is 126 days (Albert 1995).
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 unsuccess­ful 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.
The greatest threat to biodiversity in this ecore­gion is industrial, residential and recreational devel­opment, followed closely by invasive species, which includes the spread of established species and intro­duction of new species not yet found in the region. Slightly less severe threats are fragmentation and altered fire regime. The next level of severity includes non-consumptive recreation, disease, pathogens, and parasites, social attitudes and lack of scientific knowledge.
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 spe­cies .... or (B) plants ...16 U.S.C.1534 (Endan­gered Species Act of 1973)
Refuge Vision
The planning team considered the past vision statements and emerging issues and drafted the fol­lowing 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 eco­systems that contributes to a sustainable popu­lation of Kirtland’s Warblers and associated wildlife species. Lands will be actively managed to mimic historic disturbance regimes and resulting structural and compositional attri­butes, 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 man­dates within the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 have guided the develop­ment 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 educa­tion and interpretation are priority public uses of refuges. We will facilitate these activ­ities when they do not interfere with our abil­ity 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 compati­ble 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.Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
#Ensuring that WMA management considers federal, state, and county plans.
#Establishing long-term continuity in WMA management.
#Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the WMA’s operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
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 popu­lation 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 Michi­gan was 1,791.
In response to the need for more land dedicated to the recovery of this species, the Service estab­lished the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA in 1980 due, in part, 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 managed for the benefit of Kirtland's Warbler. At present, the area contains 125 separate tracts total­ing 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 gov­ern administration of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. Appendix F contains a partial list of the legal man­dates 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 / Draft 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 (NGO’s), 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 infor­mation. In addition, the group identified a prelimi­nary 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 tele­phone communications. Concurrently, the group studied federal and state mandates plus applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans for their rel­evance to this planning effort. Finally, the group agreed to a process and sequence for obtaining pub­lic 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’s Community College, 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 avail­able 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 alterna­tives for future management of the Kirtland’s War­Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft 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 represen­tatives from the U.S. Forest Service and two univer­sities. The group discussed current management of the widespread land holdings of the Kirtland’s War­bler WMA and ideas for more efficient management by all agencies that manage land as Kirtland’s War­bler 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 manage­ment 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 emu­late historic conditions?
#Fire Management: How can we restore pre­scribed 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 man­agement 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, con­struction 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, environ­mental education, staffing needs and oppor­tunities.
#Residential Development: Rural housing construction causes direct habitat loss and complicates prescribed burning. Northern Flicker. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
9
Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP
The Kirtland’s Warbler draft Comprehensive Conservation 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 will be published in two phases and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Draft EA (Appendix A) presents a range of alternatives for future management and identifies the preferred alternative, which is also the Draft CCP. A public review period of at least 30 days, which will include a public meeting, will follow release of the draft plan.
Verbal and written comments received by the Service will be incorporated where appropriate and perhaps result in modifications to the preferred alternative or in the selection of one of the other alternatives. The alternative that is ultimately selected will become the basis of the ensuing Final CCP. This document then becomes the basis for guiding management 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; it will underpin the annual bud­geting 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.Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft 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 Wild­life Service established the WMA, in part, due to recommendations of the Kirtland’s Warbler 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 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 pro­vides 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 tempera­tures recorded range from minus 50 degrees Fahr­enheit to over 105 degrees Fahrenheit. Snowfall is heavy, with up to 140 inches recorded annually in some localities. Average annual precipitation is rela­tively 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 cli­mate-related impact that refuges can affect in a small way. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Car­bon 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 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
11
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft 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 conclu­sions noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial bio­sphere.
Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife refuges and management areas. The actions pro­posed 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 Kirt­land’s Warbler WMA from any of the proposed man­agement 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 shift­ing their range northward or dying out, and other trees moving in to take their place.
#Ducks and other waterfowl could lose breed­ing habitat due to stronger and more fre­quent droughts.
#Changes in the timing of migration and nest­ing 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 responsi­ble 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 Variabil­ity 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 Pro­gram 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 / Draft 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 very 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 Midwest, 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 average minimum temperature is likely to increase as much as 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.5 to 1 degree Celsius) more than the maximum tempera­ture. 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 temperatures 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 possibil­ity 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 transportation 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 damage 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 levels would require adaptations such as re-engineering of ship docks and locks for transportation and recre­ation. If flows decrease while demand increases, international commissions 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 planting a second crop after the first is harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization 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 portions of Indiana and Illinois, corn yields are likely to decline, with 10-20% decreases projected in some locations. Consumers are likely to pay lower prices due to generally increased yields, while most producers are likely to suffer reduced profits due to declining prices. 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 better attuned to Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
14
the expected climate. It is likely that plant breeders will need to use all the tools of plant breeding, including genetic engineering, in adapting to climate change. Changing planting and harvest dates and planting densities, and using integrated pest man­agement, conservation tillage, and new farm tech­nologies are additional options. There is also the potential 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 factor in year-to-year differences in corn and soybean 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 forestlands 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. However, warmer weather (coupled with beneficial effects of increased CO2), are likely to lead to an increase in tree growth rates on marginal forest­lands that are currently temperature-limited. 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 deciduous and coniferous trees, mak­ing them susceptible 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 susceptible to invasions by non-native species. Runoff of excess nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer) into lakes and rivers is likely to increase due to the increase in heavy precipitation 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 disappear. 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 particularly 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.
Climate Change Impacts to Kirtland’s Warbler Habitat
The predicted climate change scenarios for the Midwest Region include a shift in forested ecosys­tems 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 spe­cies. Factors that influence actual migration of a 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 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
15
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 per­cent 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.
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. How­ever, 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 for­ests in west Wisconsin and west-central Minnesota. Service lands in these regions that host remnant 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 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
16
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 develop­ment. If the population of Kirtland’s Warbler contin­ues 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 under­lain by Paleozoic bedrock and was completely glaci­ated 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 ecore­gion 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 physi­ography and land classification, the majority of the stands (94 percent) are in the Highplains Landtype Association with 6 percent in the Presque Isle Land­type Association. Three soil associations dominate the tracts namely Grayling – Graycalm - Au Gres (35 percent), Rubicon – Grayling - Croswell (34 per­cent), and Grayling – Rubicon - Au Gres (21 per­cent). 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 wet­lands found within this ecoregion include intermit­tent 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 cul­tural 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 coun­Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
17
ties is 15. Furthermore, none of the historic proper­ties 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 his­toric 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 log­ging 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 indus­tries and reduced agriculture compared to southern Michigan. Seasonal and tourism related employ­ment 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 popu­lation density was 38 people per square mile (15/km²).
The racial makeup of the county was 97.48 per­cent 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 His­panic 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 per­cent 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 ver­sus $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 deposi­tion of many substances (pH, Hg, NOx) that are ele­vated 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 pol­lution. 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 indus­trialized, areas of the Great Lakes basin and beyond.
Natural Resources
Historic Habitat Conditions
Historical evidence indicates that prior to Euro­pean 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 main­tained 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 Figure 4: Pre-European Settlement Cover Types of the Northern Lower Peninsula, Michigan
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
18
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
19
opens jack pine cones to release seeds. Fire also prepares the ground for the germination of the seeds.
Historically, the jack pine barrens were main­tained 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 wet­lands (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 veg­etated 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 War­bler WMA, or 137 acres, is characterized by wetland ecosystems and 0.6 percent is classified as lakes. No detailed inventories or research have been con­ducted 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 War­bler 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
#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 com­mon 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 oakFigure 5: Current Landcover of the Northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
21
#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 consider­able variability in overstory and understory stem density within each age group, especially the young­est age class. This trend is largely due to the range of conditions associated with recent harvest activi­ties where portions of the stands may not have been harvested.
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 impor­tant 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.
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. Clear cuts with reserves at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.
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 pre­viously, 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 consider­ably 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 regenera­tion methods may be advisable, including direct seeding and the use of prescribed fire. 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.
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
22
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 regen­eration efforts. In other stands, natural distur­bances (such as wildfire) have left 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 Arc­GIS® and 2005 1-m resolution NAIP orthophotog­raphy, we estimate that only 116 acres or 15 percent of the 780 acres total is considered Kirtland’s War­bler habitat (between 5-23 years old). The remain­der 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 per­cent). 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 character­istics of each stand.
Wildlife
Birds
The first known non-Kirtland’s Warbler bird 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.
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 Wood­pecker, 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 ecosys­tems 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.Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
23
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 endan­gered 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 (multi­ple authors), 36 species of herptofauna possibly exist within the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA and many of these species are of conservation priority (Appen­dix C). Much more inventory work is required at the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA. Future considerations should be made to include management appropriate for other species of concern, such as the Karner blue butterfly and other 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 Ser­vice, the U.S. Forest Service, The Nature Conser­vancy, Michigan Natural Features Inventory, academics from several Michigan universities, as well as many other agencies and conservation orga­nizations.
The action plan:
#provides an ecological, habitat-based frame­work to aid in the conservation and manage­ment of wildlife;
#identifies and recommends actions to improve habitat conditions and population status of species with the greatest conserva­tion 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; Aerial photo of intensely managed jack pine plantations (left) and prescribed fire jack pine habitat (right).
#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 revi­sion as necessary to address changing condi­tions and to integrate new information as it becomes available.
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 Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
24
to a more regional, even inter-continental, land­scape-oriented perspective. Several trans-national migratory bird conservation initiatives have emerged to help guide the planning and implemen­tation process. The regional plans relevant to Kirt­land’s Warbler WMA are:
#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 Conserva­tion Initiative. Each of the bird conservation initia­tives 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.
Habitat Management
Controlling Invasive Plants
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 pur­ple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and that spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) can be locally common in the openlands. Autumn olive (Elae­agnus umbellata) is not currently found in the jack pine systems, but does occur in richer soils nearby.
Nuisance Species Management
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 annu­ally 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 Kirt­land’s Warblers arrive to take advantage of cowbird migration chronology and behavior. Cowbirds usu­ally 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 landscape to breed. Consequently, it is important to initiate trapping at approximately the time cowbirds arrive in the area for optimal trap effectiveness. Brown-headed Cowbirds are trapped to reduce Kirtland’s Warbler nest parasitism. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo.
The decoy traps require live decoys for effective operation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wild­life 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.
In 2008, 3,135 Brown-headed Cowbirds were cap­tured, 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 dur­ing the 37 years of the program. This is likely due to normal fluctuations in the cowbird population, and 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
(±1SD)
48.8 (34.7)
3.9 (2.3)
Data provided by K. Kintigh (MDNR)
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
25
may indicate that the trapping program has had no long-term effect on the area’s Brown-headed Cow­bird population.
Although a member of the native faunal commu­nity, the dramatic population increase noted in white-tailed deer numbers across much of the north­ern 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 lib­eralizing the take of this game species at the Kirt­land’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 natu­ral fires were the primary method of habitat cre­ation used in the area. However, the terrain and climate 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 manage­ment.
Surveys and Censuses
Endangered and Threatened Species
Studies and InvestigationsTable 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 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
26
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 part­ner with other resource agencies and non-govern­ment 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 com­patible with the wildlife-related purposes before they can be allowed. The Refuge System Improve­ment 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 wild­life-dependent activities, with the exception of fish­ing, exist at Kirtland’s Warbler WMA.
Hunting
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is open for hunting of all legal game species in Michigan per State regula­tions. However, little is known regarding the statis­tics 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 Wood­cock, and black bear. In early successional stands (recent clear cuts waiting regeneration for Kirt­land’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. 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 / Draft 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 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
28
Chapter 3: The Environment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
29
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 pro­vided by the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA are interwo­ven into the yearly Kirtland’s Warbler tours conducted by the Service’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 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, unin­habitated 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, cul­tural resources management in the Service is the responsibility of the Regional Director and is not delegated to field managers for the Section 106 pro­cess when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archeological per­mits, 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 under­takings, by protecting archeological sites and his­toric properties, by monitoring archeological investigations by contractors and permittees, and by reporting violations.
Law Enforcement
Kirtland’s Warbler WMA is dedicated to safe­guarding 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. Black bear. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service photo
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 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
30
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision
Goals, Objectives and Strategies
The planning team developed goals and objec­tives for three management alternatives at Kirt­land’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 Ecologi­cal Perspective
#Alternative 3: Ecological Management and Land Ownership Consolidation (Preferred Alternative)
The preferred alternative, Ecological Manage­ment and Land Ownership Consolidation forms the basis for the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA CCP and the goals, objectives and strategies presented on the fol­lowing 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 War­bler 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 condi­tions 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 depen­dent 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 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
31
Rationale: The Kirtland’s Warbler WMA was established in 1980, under authority of the Endan­gered Species Act, to aid in the recovery of the Kirt­land’s Warbler. Since that time, the Service has been an active participant in a partnership which has brought the Kirtland’s Warbler population from the brink of extinction to numbers surpassing the recov­ery 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
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 para­sitism 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 Ser­vices 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 natu­ral species diversity.
Rationale: The jack pine ecosystem is known to support a vast array of wildlife, many of which are listed as Conservation Priority Species in Region 3 of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Since the cre­ation of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA, recovery of Kirtland’s Warbler has been the only goal of its management. Now, with Kirtland’s Warbler popula­tions 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 eco­system. Research should be conducted to determine how to best manage the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA for all Trust Species, without diminishing its contri­bution to Kirtland’s Warbler recovery.
Strategies:
1.Determine the presence, abundance and habi­tat associations of Trust Resources currently using Kirtland’s Warbler WMA lands.
2.Develop and implement a monitoring pro­gram to track population trends, and/or habi­tat associations of Trust Resources.
3.Conduct annual reviews of trends to deter­mine 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 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
32
Goal 2: Habitat
Manage habitat to support Kirtland’s Warblers and associ­ated wildlife species by providing near benchmark condi­tions 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 conjunc­tion 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 Kirt­land’s Warbler. However these plantations are eco­logically 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 nat­ural 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-col­ored 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 Kirt­land’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 composi­tional 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 man­agement and illustrate how emulating natural conditions can provide multiple species bene­fits.
6.Develop a map and monitor spotted knapweed distribution within and near Kirtland’s War­bler WMA parcels. Initiate removal if the spe­cies spreads into nesting areas.
Objective 2.2
Within 5 years of completion of this CCP, develop a land consolidation plan for the Kirtland’s War­bler WMA that maintains or increase 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 coun­ties 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 dedi­Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
33
cated staff assigned to the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA; staff at the Seney NWR, which is located over 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 effi­ciency. 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. There­fore 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 effi­ciency. 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 Kirt­land’s Warbler WMA to a new location. The most significant benefit of consolidation would be increas­ing habitat to further ensure full recovery and long-term survival the species.
The concept of land consolidation is supported by all agencies involved in Kirtland’s Warbler manage­ment. In general, the Service, the Michigan DNR, and the U.S. Forest Service would seek lands to exchange amongst the agencies to consolidate own­ership 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 dis­cussed 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 Michi­gan 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 Kirt­land’s Warbler land acquisition program in Michi­gan. The 1991 cooperative agreement between the Service and Michigan DNR states that they mutu­ally agree “to exchange interest in land of high nest­ing 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 Strat­egy make the timing right to fully explore land con­solidation.
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 man­agement 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 con­solidating the widespread land holdings of the Kirt­land’s Warbler WMA for more efficient 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 manag­ers or biologists with specific knowledge of affected lands and Kirtland’s Warbler management. The pre­Table 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 cre­ate 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 Michi­gan DNR lands.
#Wurtsmith Block to Forest Service, Michigan DNR gets all Service lands, and Service gets unidentified Forest Service lands (multiple compart­ments).
Upper Peninsula
Maintain close proximity to Seney NWR; opportunity to use prescribed fire as a man­agement 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 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
34
liminary proposals will then be presented to each agency’s leadership for review and recommenda­tion.
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 consolida­tion. 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 offi­cial endorsement has been sought or obtained through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Michigan DNR or U.S. Forest Service.
Strategies:
1.Interagency team will follow land consolida­tion guidelines to establish priority exchange scenariosChapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
35
2.Land appraisals, following Federal and State guidelines, will be conducted on all lands iden­tified 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 regard­ing 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, Ameri­can 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 proper­ties to ensure consistency with Federal hunt­ing regulations (e.g. no deer baiting, permanent blinds, bear hunting with dogs, and off-road vehicle use).
2.In cooperation with the Michigan DNR, pro­duce 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 photog­raphy, environmental education and interpreta­tion 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 Ser­vice’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 hab­itat 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 Kirt­land’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 commu­nity facilities.Chapter 5: Plan Implementation
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
36
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation
New and Existing Projects
This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action for the future management of the Kirtland’s War­bler WMA. The ability to enhance wildlife habitats on the Area and provide additional quality public use opportunities will require a significant commit­ment of staff and funding from the Service. The WMA will continually need appropriate operational and maintenance funding to implement the objec­tives 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 coordi­nate 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 develop­ing 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 War­bler WMA. Funds are needed to hire a full-time law enforcement officer to ensure the protection of nesting areas during the breed­ing season, that hunting regulations are fol­lowed and that habitat is not destroyed by illegal timber harvest, off-road vehicles or other means. Estimated cost: $150,000A 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 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
37
and prescribed burning with State and FS officials. Estimated cost: $200,000
#Establish an office and hire administrative support. To fully manage the Kirtland’s War­bler WMA an office would need to be estab­lished 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. Esti­mated 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 lim­ited 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 War­bler WMA are consolidated.
Step-down Management Plans
Step-down management plans describe specific actions that support the accomplishment of objec­tives. 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 strate­gies 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 draft CCP need the sup­port and the partnerships of federal, state and local agencies, non-governmental organizations and indi­vidual citizens. This broad-based approach to man­aging 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’s Community College
#Michigan Audubon Society
#The Nature Concervancy 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 War­bler 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 / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
38
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 transpor­tation infrastructure.
Monitoring and Evaluation
The direction set forth in this CCP and specifi­cally identified strategies and projects will be moni­tored 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 Kirt­land’s Warbler WMA and evaluate current activities in light of this plan. The team will review all aspects of management, including direction, accomplish­ments and funding. The goals and objectives pre­sented 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 implementa­tion, including consolidation of land holdings of the Kirtland’s Warbler WMA, will be periodically evalu­ated in the light of new predicitons 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 uncontrolla­ble events. Likewise, many of the strategies are dependent upon Service funding for staff and proj­ects. Because of all these factors, the recommenda­tions in the CCP will be reviewed periodically and, if necessary, revised to meet new circumstances.Environmental Assessment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
39
Appendix A: Environmental AssessmentKirtland’s Warbler
Wildlife Management Area
Environmental Assessment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
41
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................................................45
1.1. Background .......................................................................................................................................................45
1.2. Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................45
1.3. Need for Action ................................................................................................................................................45
1.4. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Goals ........................................................................................................................47
1.5. Vision Statement ..............................................................................................................................................47
1.6. Decision Framework .........................................................................................................................................47
1.7. Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ..............................................................................................47
1.8. Scoping of the Issues .......................................................................................................................................47
1.8.1. Kirtland’s Warbler WMA Issues, Concerns and Opportunities .............................................................47
1.8.1.1. Habitat Management ...............................................................................................................47
1.8.1.2. Wildlife Management ..............................................................................................................48
1.8.1.3. Public Use ...............................................................................................................................48
Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives ..............................................................................................................49
2.1. Formulation of Alternatives ..............................................................................................................................49
2.2. Management Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................49
2.2.1. Alternative 1: Current Direction of Habitat Management (No Action) ..................................................49
2.2.2. Alternative 2: Management from an Ecological Perspective .................................................................49
2.2.3. Alternative 3: Ecological Management and Land Ownership
Consolidation (Preferred Alternative) .................................................................................................49
2.2.4. Comparison of No Action and Preferred Alternatives ............................................................................50
Chapter 3: Affected Environment ..............................................................................................................................55
3.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................55
3.2. Archeological and Cultural Values ...................................................................................................................55
3.3. Social and Economic Context ............................................................................................................................55
3.4. Natural Resources ............................................................................................................................................55
3.4.1. Habitats .................................................................................................................................................55
3.4.1.1. Wetlands .................................................................................................................................55
3.4.1.2. Uplands ...................................................................................................................................55
3.4.2. Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................................56
3.4.2.1. Birds ........................................................................................................................................56
3.4.2.2. Mammals ................................................................................................................................56
3.4.2.3. Fish ..........................................................................................................................................56
3.4.2.4. Reptiles and Amphibians .........................................................................................................56
3.4.2.5. Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................................56
3.5. Visitor Services ................................................................................................................................................57Environmental Assessment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
42
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences ...............................................................................................................58
4.1. Effects Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................................................................58
4.1.1. Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................................58
4.1.2. Climate Change Impacts ........................................................................................................................58
4.1.3. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................58
4.1.4. Other Common Effects ............................................................................................................................59
4.2. Cumulative Impacts Analysis ...........................................................................................................................59
Chapter 5: List of Preparers .......................................................................................................................................60
Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination with Stakeholders ............................................................................61
Figure 1: Location of Kirtland’s Warbler WMA...............................................................................................................46
Table 1: Comparison of Objectives and Environmental Consequences by Management Alternatives .........................51
Table 2: Bird Species Strongly Associated with Young (< 5 years old), KW (5-23 years old),
and old (> 23 years old) Stands of the KWWMA ..........................................................................................56Environmental Assessment
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area / Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
43
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN FOR KIRTLAND’S WARBLER WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA
Abstract: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area (WMA) located in the northern Lower Penin­sula of Michigan. This Draft Environmental Assessment considers the biological, environmental and socio­economic effects that implementing the CCP (which is the preferred alternative in this assessment), or an alternative, would have on the issues and concerns identified during the planning process. The purpose of the proposed action is to establish the management direction for the WMA for the next 15 years. The manage­ment action will be achieved by implementing a detailed set of goals, objectives, and strategies described in the CCP.
Responsible Agency and Official:
Thomas O. Melius, Regional Director
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Bishop Henry Whipple Building
1 Federal Drive
Ft. Snelling, MN 55111
Contacts for additional information about this project:
Tracy Casselman, Manager
Kirtland’s Warbler Wildlife Management Area
1674 Refuge Entrance Road
Seney, MI 49883
Office Phone: (906) 586-9851
Fax: (906) 586-3800
Gary Muehlenhardt
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
NWRS/Conservation Planning
Bishop Henry Whipple Building