Seney National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Seney
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Approval
Concur:
1./301oq
Date
Nita M. Fuller
Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System
Seney
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
i
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................1
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................................1
The National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................................................................................................1
Michigan’s Eastern Upper Peninsula Ecoregion .........................................................................................................3
Seney National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................................................5
Refuge Purposes ........................................................................................................................................................5
Refuge Vision .............................................................................................................................................................5
Purpose and Need for Plan ........................................................................................................................................6
History of Refuge Establishment and Management ...................................................................................................6
Whitefish Point Unit ...........................................................................................................................................7
Legal Context ............................................................................................................................................................8
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ...............................................................................................................................9
Internal Agency Scoping ............................................................................................................................................9
Open Houses ..............................................................................................................................................................9
Refuge Program Reviews .........................................................................................................................................10
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities .....................................................................................................10
Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP .....................................................................11
Public Comments on the Draft CCP ...........................................................................................................................11
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment ................................................................................................................................12
Seney National Wildlife Refuge ...............................................................................................................................12
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................12
Climate .....................................................................................................................................................................12
Climate Change Impacts ..........................................................................................................................................13
Midwest Key Issues .........................................................................................................................................14
Reduction in Lake and River Levels ............................................................................................................14
Agricultural Shifts .....................................................................................................................................14
Changes in Semi-natural and Natural Ecosystems ....................................................................................15
Seney NWR and Climate Change .............................................................................................................................15Contents
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ii
Geology and Glaciation ............................................................................................................................................16
Soils ..........................................................................................................................................................................17
Surface Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................................17
Archeological and Cultural Values ............................................................................................................................22
Social and Economic Context ...................................................................................................................................22
Environmental Contaminants ...................................................................................................................................24
Past Activities Contamination.......................................................................................................................... 24
Wildlife Contamination.................................................................................................................................... 24
Air Contamination............................................................................................................................................. 24
Natural Resources.................................................................................................................................................... 25
Habitats ............................................................................................................................................................25
Historic Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................25
Current Habitat Conditions ......................................................................................................................................27
Wildlife .....................................................................................................................................................................31
Birds ..................................................................................................................................................................31
Mammals ..........................................................................................................................................................33
Fish ....................................................................................................................................................................33
Reptiles and Amphibians ..................................................................................................................................34
Resources of Concern .......................................................................................................................................34
Ecosystems of Concern ............................................................................................................................................34
Habitat Conservation, Restoration, and Preservation: Forests and Other Terrestrial Ecosystems ..........................34
Wetland Management ...............................................................................................................................37
Associated Plans and Initiatives ...............................................................................................................................40
Michigan’s Wildlife Action Plan ........................................................................................................................40
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ............................................................................................................40
Wildlife Species of Management Concern ...............................................................................................................40
Current Refuge Programs: Where We Are Today .....................................................................................................41
Habitat Restoration ..........................................................................................................................................41
Prescribed Fire ...........................................................................................................................................41
Invasive Plants and Other Pests .................................................................................................................47
Nuisance Species Control ..........................................................................................................................49
Wildlife Monitoring and Research .............................................................................................................49
Surveys and Censuses ...............................................................................................................................49
Studies and Investigations .........................................................................................................................51
Predator and Exotic Wildlife Management .......................................................................................................53
Sea Lamprey ..............................................................................................................................................53
Interagency Coordination Activities ..........................................................................................................................54
Public Recreation and Environmental Education ...............................................................................................54
Tribal Consent Decree ......................................................................................................................................54
Visitor Services ........................................................................................................................................................55Contents
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iii
Hunting .....................................................................................................................................................55
Fishing .......................................................................................................................................................56
Wildlife Observation .................................................................................................................................56
Wildlife Photography .................................................................................................................................56
Interpretation .............................................................................................................................................56
Volunteer and Friends Contributions ..........................................................................................................57
Archaeological and Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................57
Law Enforcement .....................................................................................................................................................58
Wilderness Area and Wilderness Review ................................................................................................................58
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction: Tomorrow’s Vision ...........................................................................59
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................59
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ...............................................................................................................................74
New and Existing Projects .......................................................................................................................................74
Seney NWR Operating Needs Projects .............................................................................................................74
Future Staffing Requirements .................................................................................................................................76
Step-down Management Plans ...............................................................................................................................76
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................................................76
Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................78
Plan Review and Revision ........................................................................................................................................78
Appendix A: Finding of No Significant Impact .......................................................................................................79
Appendix B: Glossary .................................................................................................................................................83
Appendix C: Species Lists .........................................................................................................................................87
Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations ..........................................................................................................155
Appendix E: Priority Refuge Operations and Maintenance Costs ....................................................................157
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements ................................................................................................................161
Appendix G: Research History at Seney NWR .....................................................................................................169
Appendix H: Mailing List .........................................................................................................................................185
Appendix I: List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................189
Appendix J: Bibliography and References Cited .................................................................................................193Contents
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iv
List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1:Location of Seney NWR, Upper Peninsula, Michigan .....................................................................................2
Figure 2:Conservation Lands of the Eastern Upper Peninsula, Michigan .....................................................................4
Figure 3:Location of Whitefish Point Unit, Seney NWR ................................................................................................7
Figure 4: Land Ownership in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan (MDNR) .......................................................12
Figure 5: Seney Sand Lake Plain .................................................................................................................................16
Figure 6:Soils of Seney NWR ......................................................................................................................................18
Figure 7: Surface Hydrology of the Seney NWR .........................................................................................................21
Figure 8: Historic Landcover of Seney NWR ...............................................................................................................26
Figure 9: Current Landcover of Seney NWR (2007) .....................................................................................................30
Figure 10: Number of Bird Species Found at Seney NWR by Breeding Habitat ...........................................................32
Figure 11: Average Conservation Value for Bird Species Found at Seney NWR
by Habitat Type .............................................................................................................................................33
Figure 12: Administrative and Visitor Facilities and Natural Areas of Seney NWR .....................................................35
Figure 13: Seney NWR Forest Management Units .......................................................................................................36
Figure 14: Bird Conservation Region 12, Boreal Hardwood Transition .........................................................................41
Figure 15: Future Landcover, Seney NWR .....................................................................................................................62
Figure 16: Future Visitor Facilities on Seney NWR .......................................................................................................72
Figure 17:Current Staffing, Seney NWR ........................................................................................................................77
Table 1:Ranked Order of Acres of Soils at Seney NWR .............................................................................................19
Table 2:Average Peak Inflow of Water into Seney NWR ..........................................................................................22
Table 3:Socioeconomic Characteristics of Schoolcraft County, Michigan ................................................................23
Table 4:Recreation-related Expenditures of Visitors to Seney NWR .........................................................................23
Table 5:Ranked Order of Pre-European Settlement Cover Types of Seney NWR by
Acres and Percent of Total .............................................................................................................................25
Table 6:Cross-classification of Disturbance by Frequency of Surface and Crown Fire for
Common Cover Types, Seney NWR and Surrounding Area ...........................................................................27
Table 7:Acreage, Percent Total Area, and Three Dominant Forest Management
Units (FMUs) by Cover Type at Seney NWR ..................................................................................................28
Table 8:Pool Name With Water Control Structures, Initial Flooding Date and Size at Seney NWR ........................38
Table 9:Wildlife Species of Conservation Concern at Seney NWR and Nearby Lands .............................................42
Table 10: Changes in Vegetative Cover Types, Seney NWR .......................................................................................63
Table 11:Step-down Management Plan Schedule, Seney NWR .................................................................................78Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Introduction
The wild land that today is the Seney National Wildlife Refuge (Seney NWR) has not always appeared so wild. This is a land that was once heav­ily logged, burned, ditched, drained, and cultivated. Despite repeated attempts, the soils and harsh con­ditions of this country would not provide a hospita­ble environment for sustained settlement and agriculture. So, nature claimed it once again. What was viewed as a loss by early 20th century entrepre­neurs became a huge gain for the wildlife, natural resources, and the people of Michigan’s Upper Pen­insula.
Seney NWR is located in the east-central portion of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, halfway between Lake Superior and Lake Michigan (Figure 1). The Refuge encompasses 95,238 acres; the Seney Wil­derness Area, which contains the Strangmoor Bog National Natural Landmark, comprises 25,150 acres, or 26 percent of the Refuge. Located in north­eastern Schoolcraft County, the Refuge is removed from major population centers; the three nearest major communities are each more than 80 miles away.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Seney NWR is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Service 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. The Service also man­ages the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Refuge lands are 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 System is a network of 550 refuges and wetland management districts covering more than 150 million acres of public lands and waters.
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
Seney NWR in winter. USFWS photo.Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
2
Figure 1: Location of Seney NWR, Upper Peninsula, MichiganChapter 1: Introduction and Background
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3
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 NWR 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 education programs. Nationwide, nearly 35 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2006.
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 Eastern Upper Peninsula Ecoregion
The Eastern Upper Peninsula Ecoregion can be described as having relatively flat topography, with large expanses of open peatlands, forested lowland swamps and extensive upland forests. Today, the majority of the landscape is still forested, except for some agricultural or pastoral lands occurring on ground moraines and the Clay Lake Plain in the easternmost part of the ecoregion.
The ecoregion covers 17,114 square miles, includ­ing all of Chippewa, Mackinac, Luce, Schoolcraft, Delta and Alger Counties, and portions of Menomi­nee, Dickinson and Marquette Counties. Landcover consists primarily of forest (67 percent), wetlands (20 percent), with scattered agricultural (4 percent) and urban (2 percent) areas. The remaining 7 per­cent landcover consists of open grasslands, sparsely vegetated areas, beaches and rock areas. The exten­sive forests of the region are managed as either national or state forest, with large areas of private and/or corporate forestland (Figure 2).
Ecologically significant communities within the ecoregion include alvar, a globally rare grassland plant community growing on thin soils over lime­stone or dolomite. Other state and globally signifi­cant communities include patterned fens, Great Lakes marsh, wooded dune and swale complex, caves of karst origin and cobble beaches.
One of the greatest threats in this region is inva­sive species, which includes both the spread of established species and introduction of new species (MDNR 2005). Slightly less severe threats include non-consumptive recreation, land subdivision and Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
4
Figure 2: Conservation Lands of the Eastern Upper Peninsula, MichiganChapter 1: Introduction and Background
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5
development, and some forestry practices. Altered hydrologic regimes and altered fire regimes have also been identified as growing resource threats.
Seney National Wildlife Refuge
Seney NWR was established in 1935 by Execu­tive Order under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act for the protection and production of migratory birds and other wildlife. The Refuge encompasses approximately 95,238 acres; 25,150 acres comprise the Seney Wilderness Area in which is contained the Strangmoor Bog National Natural Landmark. While management for migratory birds is para­mount, the Refuge provides habitat for a diversity of wildlife species, both migratory and non-migratory. Approximately 20 species of reptiles and amphibi­ans, 48 species of mammals, 26 species of fish, and over 200 species of birds have been documented on the Refuge. Many of these species are Conservation Priorities for the Midwest Region of the Service.
Refuge Purposes
Seney NWR was established in 1935…
“... as a refuge and breeding ground for migra­tory birds and other wildlife: ...” Executive Order 7246, dated Dec. 10, 1935
“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. ¤ 715d (Migratory Bird Con­servation Act)
“... conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans...” 16 U.S.C. ¤ 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)
Refuge Vision
The planning team considered the past vision statements and emerging issues and drafted the fol­lowing vision statements as the desired future state for the Refuge:
Seney National Wildlife Refuge will continue to be a place of excitement and wonder where wildlife comes first. It will be a place where management decisions are made in the best interest of wildlife and their habitats, and peo­ple are encouraged to explore and learn about the natural world.
The Refuge’s rich mosaic of habitats and eco­systems will be viewed as part of the greater eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan ecore­gion. Priority will be given to managing for those species, habitats, and ecosystems of regional concern that are best suited to Seney’s unique environment. Management will maintain Refuge-level biological diversity while preserv­ing ecological integrity. Habitats will be man­aged for an array of ecological conditions, including the preservation of Wilderness char­acter. When and where appropriate, an empha­sis will be placed on preserving or restoring historic habitat conditions and ecosystem func­tions.
As part of a holistic approach to natural resource stewardship, people will be welcomed to use the Refuge to learn about the natural world. The public will be invited to participate in wildlife-dependent experiences that are in concert with the relatively undeveloped nature of the Refuge. Students and researchers will be encouraged to use the Refuge as an outdoor laboratory for biological and ecological research that focuses on understanding natural patterns and processes and developing habitat manage­ment techniques.
Seney NWR will continue to be a source of pride for the staff, those who visit, and the local community. It will showcase biological and eco­logical diversity, habitat management, and wild­life-dependent public use. It will add to the richness of the broader community by holding in trust a portion of the natural heritage of the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan for the continuing benefit of the American people.Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6
Purpose and Need for Plan
This CCP articulates the management direction for Seney NWR for the next 15 years. Through the development of goals, objectives, and strategies, this CCP describes how the Refuge 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 refuges will only be allowed when determined appropriate and compati­ble with refuge purposes and mission of the refuge system.
This CCP will guide the management of Seney NWR by:
#Providing a clear statement of direction for the future management of the Refuge.
#Making a strong connection between Refuge activities and conservation activities that occur in the surrounding area.
#Providing Refuge neighbors, users, and the general public with an understanding of the Service’s land acquisition and management actions on and around the refuge.
#Ensuring that Refuge actions and programs are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
#Ensuring that Refuge management consid­ers federal, state, and county plans.
#Establishing long-term continuity in Refuge management.
#Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the Refuge’s operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
History of Refuge Establishment and Management
Before its establishment, the forests and soils of the Seney NWR area and surrounding Schoolcraft County were exploited to a considerable degree starting in the late 1800s. Early timber cutting favored the best stands of white pine, followed by “high-grading” in the red pine and hardwood-east­ern hemlock stands. Slash fires fueled by logging debris occurred annually, with most areas burning time and time again. These fires burned deep into the rich organic soil, damaging its quality and killing the seeds that would have produced a new forest. On many areas of the Refuge, the scars from these lum­bering operations remain visible to this day.
As the amount of sawtimber diminished, efforts were shifted to cutting of poles, posts, ties and pulp. At this time, an attempt was made to settle cut-over lands and develop farming communities. By 1912, drainage of the Seney Swamp was underway. A land development company dug many miles of drainage ditches throughout the Seney area. This drained acreage was then sold using extravagant promises of agricultural productivity. The new owners quickly learned that these promises were unfounded. The farms were abandoned one-by-one, and the exploited lands reverted to state ownership.
Trumpeter Swans. USFWS photo.Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
7
Poor drainage of peat soils, poor soil fertility, and the short growing season made the farming venture a disaster and most lands were tax-reverted to the State of Michigan by the early 1930s. In 1934, the Michigan Conservation Department recommended to the Federal Government that the Seney area be protected for wildlife. Seney NWR was then estab­lished in 1935 by Executive Order under the Migra­tory Bird Conservation Act for the protection and production of migratory birds and other wildlife.
Physical development of the Refuge land began soon after establishment. With the aid of the Civil­ian Conservation Corps, an intricate system of dikes, water control structures, ditches, and roads was built. Most of these are still in use today.
Whitefish Point Unit
Under the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996, the USFWS received 33 acres of the former Coast Guard Station at Whitefish Point, in Chip­pewa County. The remaining 11 acres were split between the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society (GLSHS), which received 8.3 acres and the Michigan Audubon Society (MAS), which received 2.8 acres.
The USFWS property is administered as part of Seney NWR and managed as a stop-over location for migratory birds (Figure 3). Currently there are no permanent buildings or designated trails on the property and the USFWS does not administer any programs on site. However, MAS conducts migra­tory bird research and provides natural resource programs at the Whitefish Point Bird Observatory, which is adjacent to the Refuge’s property. Parking and restroom facilities are provided by the GLSHS, which administers the former Coast Guard build­ings, including the lighthouse, and interprets the maritime significance of Whitefish Point.
Management of USFWS property at Whitefish Point is governed by the “Human Use/ Natural Resource Management Plan for Whitefish Point” (Michigan Land Use Institute 2002), which is the result of a 2002 U.S. District Court settlement that binds the Service to the provisions of the plan. This document provides a good historical background and explains the roles and responsibilities of each partner in managing the former Coast Guard Prop­erty. The CCP reader should refer to that plan (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/seney) for more detailed information.
The primary natural features of Whitefish Point are the gravel beaches, sandy beach dunes and stunted jack pine-dominated forest. Soils consist of excessively drained Deer Park soil on ridges and side slopes, while poorly drained Kinross soil is found in depressions and swales. In addition to the abundant jack pine, other tree species include northern white cedar, Eastern white pine, white spruce, black spruce, paper birch, tag alder, and trembling aspen. Many of the jack pines are stunted at an average height of 8 to 10 feet. Some taller specimens of jack pine, white pine, and birch com­pose the overstory in the forested areas. Tag alder and scrub conifers, such as juniper, are associated with marsh areas. Dunes are dominated primarily by American beachgrass.
Some of the species and plant communities that particularly attract attention are lady-slippers, star­flower, bunchberry, and others that can be found on dry, sandy areas and purple bog-laurel and white Labrador-tea, which grow in interdunal swales.
Another important habitat on Whitefish Point described by the Michigan Natural Features Inven­tory is the “Wooded Dune and Swale Complex,” a “distinctive natural community composed of upland
Figure 3: Location of Whitefish Point Unit, Seney NWRChapter 1: Introduction and Background
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
8
and wetland features.” This complex only forms under the conditions that exist in the Great Lakes region, and thus cannot be found elsewhere. The varied topography of the complex itself, along with the unique geologic conditions that formed the dune-swale, supports a diversity of species.
Whitefish Point is renown for it concentrations of birds during migration. Each year thousands of rap­tors, passerines and waterbirds funnel up the point to cross Lake Superior. They are followed by hun­dreds of birders. The Whitefish Point Bird Observa­tory was established by the Michigan Audubon Society in 1997 to document and study migratory birds and their habitats in the Great Lakes. Every year they count and band birds during both the spring and fall migrations. Their data has led to Whitefish Point being recognized as a Globally Important Bird Area. The bird list for Whitefish Point includes 273 species (Appendix C). On April 30, 2001 the USFWS finalized its designation of Critical Habitat for the Piping Plover. All of the property at Whitefish Point was included in that designation.
Legal Context
In addition to the Executive Order establishing the Refuge, and the National Wildlife Refuge Sys­tem Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws, executive orders, and regulations govern adminis­tration of Seney NWR. Appendix F contains a par­tial list of the legal mandates that guided the preparation of this plan and those that pertain to Refuge management.Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
9
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
The Seney NWR CCP has been written with input and assistance from citizens, universities, other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and staff from other federal, 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 Refuge. Refuge and Ser­vice planning staff are grateful to all of those who have contributed time, expertise, and ideas through­out the CCP process. We appreciated the enthusi­asm and commitment expressed by many for the lands and living resources administered by Seney NWR.
Internal Agency Scoping
The CCP process began in March 2006 with a meeting between Refuge staff and regional planners from the Service’s office in the Twin Cities, Minne­sota. The participants in this “internal scoping” exercise reviewed the Refuge’s Vision Statement, goals, existing baseline resource data, planning doc­uments, and other pertinent information. In addi­tion, the group identified a preliminary list of issues, concerns, and opportunities facing the Refuge that would need to be addressed in the CCP.
A list of required CCP elements (e.g., maps, pho­tos, and GIS data layers) was also developed at this meeting and during subsequent e-mail and tele­phone communications between Refuge staff and the Service’s office in the Twin Cities. 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 Houses
Public input was encouraged and obtained using several methods, including an open house, written comments during a public scoping period, and per­sonal contacts.
Initial public scoping for the Seney NWR CCP began in August 2006 with an open house event held at the Refuge Visitor Center. Despite widespread notification in area newspapers, radio and television, the event drew only about 15 people. Comment forms were available at the event and made avail­able at the Refuge 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
Refuge pool, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
10
planning website on the Internet. Approximately 30 comment forms and other written comments were submitted to the Refuge during the scoping process.
Refuge Program Reviews
On August 28-30, 2006, a Biology Program Review was held to obtain detailed input on the issues and opportunities concerning the habitat and biological monitoring program at the Refuge. Thirty people, representing Michigan DNR, U.S. Geologi­cal Survey – Biological Resource Division, universi­ties, NGOs, Refuge staff, conservation organizations, and others attended these discus­sions.
During July 2006, two agency Visitor Service Specialists met with Refuge staff to review the Visi­tor Service program. The review team toured the Refuge facilities and made a number of recommen­dations for improving the quality of visitor experi­ences, environmental education and outreach.
Both of these program reviews were scheduled to coincide with the CCP scoping process and to help formulate objectives and strategies in the plan.
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities
The following list of issue topics was generated by internal Refuge scoping, the public open house sessions, and program reviews. Each topic will be described in more detail in the following chapters of this plan.
Habitat Management:
#Wetland and upland habitat preservation, conservation, and restoration
#Invasive plant species management
#Prescribed burning and the Refuge’s Fire Use Program
#Stream restoration
#Wilderness management
#Role of the Refuge in the landscape
Aquatic Resources:
#Protection of waterbodies from human dis­turbances and invasive species
#Predator and native fish populations
Wildlife Management:
#Wildlife research
#Carrying capacity for Trust species
Visitor Services:
#Hunting
#Fishing
#Visitor capacity
#Outreach
#Access
#A developed picnic area
#Horseback riding and a snowmobile route
Seney NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
11
Preparation, Publishing, Finalization and Implementation of the CCP
The Seney NWR CCP was prepared by a team consisting of Refuge and Regional Office staff. The CCP was published in two phases and in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Draft Environmental Assessment, published as Appendix A in the Draft CCP, pre­sented a range of alternatives for future manage­ment and identified the preferred alternative. The alternative that was selected has become the basis of the Final CCP. This document then becomes the source for guiding management on the Refuge over the coming 15-year period. It will guide the develop­ment of more detailed step-down management plans for specific resource areas and it will underpin the annual budgeting process through competitive sub­missions for funding at the national level. Most importantly, it lays out the general approach to man­aging habitat, wildlife, and people at Seney NWR that will direct day-to-day decision-making and actions.
Public Comments on the Draft CCP
The Draft CCP/EA was released for public review on September 3, 2008; the comment period lasted 35 days and ended October 8, 2008. During the comment period the Refuge hosted an open house event to obtain comments. By the conclusion of the comment period we received 14 written responses by organizations and individuals. In response to these comments we made a number of minor edits to the final document.
All respondents who expressed an opinion endorsed the selection of Alternative 2 and the gen­eral approach of the proposed future management of the Refuge. In fact, many comments emphasized the shortcomings of the Alternative 3, the alternate “action” scenario that was not selected for imple­mentation, in favor of the preferred alternative. We were able to incorporate all of the specific technical and grammatical changes suggested in the written comments. Consequently, we did not produce a for­mal Response to Comments Appendix for this CCP.Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
12
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge
Introduction
Seney NWR is located in Schoolcraft County in Michigan’s eastern Upper Peninsula (U.P.) equidis­tant from Lakes Superior and Michigan. The Ref­uge encompasses 95,238 acres; the Seney Wilderness Area, where the Strangmoor Bog National Natural Landmark is located, covers 25,150 acres or 26 percent of the Refuge. The Ref­uge is removed from major population centers; the three nearest major communities are each more than 80 miles away.
Before its establishment, the forests and soils of the Seney area were exploited to a considerable degree starting in the late 1800s. Early timber cut­ting favored the best stands of white pine, followed by “high-grading” in the red pine and northern hardwood stands. Slash fires fueled by logging debris occurred repeatedly in the region after the “Great Cutover”, with most areas burning time and time again. As the amount of sawtimber diminished, efforts were shifted to cutting of poles, posts, ties and pulp. Following this extensive logging, an attempt was made to settle lands on which forests had been degraded and develop farming communi­ties.
By 1912, drainage of the Seney Swamp was under way. However, poor drainage of peat soils, poor soil fertility and a short growing season made the farm­ing venture a disaster. Many lands were tax-reverted to the State of Michigan by the early 1930s.
Seney NWR was established in 1935 by Execu­tive Order under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act for the protection and production of migratory birds and other wildlife.
Climate
The climate of Seney NWR is considerably lacus­trine-influenced by its close proximity to Lakes Superior and Michigan. The most common spring through early fall winds are from the southwest to northwest, and average approximately 10 m.p.h. Average daily humidity during spring and fall varies from 50 to 60 percent. Temperature extremes range from approximately minus 35 degrees Fahrenheit to 98 degrees Fahrenheit. Precipitation occurs throughout the year, with June being the wettest month and March the driest on average. Average annual precipitation is approximately 32 inches and average annual snowfall is approximately 123 inches. During spring and summer months, on-shore breezes cause frequent afternoon thunder­storms. Lightning strikes are common during such storms. Growing season evaporation averages 25 inches. It is expected that only during 5 percent of the time will drought indices (e.g., Keetch-Byram Drought Index) reach extreme severity levels. The growing season averages 119 days.
Figure 4: Land Ownership in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan (MDNR)Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
13
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 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.”
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 car­bon dioxide. 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. The actions proposed in this CCP would conserve or restore land and habitat, and would thus retain existing carbon sequestration on the Refuge. This in turn contributes positively to efforts to mitigate human-induced global climate change.
One Service activity in particular – prescribed burning – releases carbon dioxide 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 (Dai et al. 2006). Overall, there should be little or no net change in the amount of carbon sequestered at the Refuge 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 on the Refuge 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 Refuge. Adjustments in Refuge management direction may be necessary over the course of time to adapt to a changing cli­mate.
The following paragraphs are excerpts from the 2000 report, Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Vari­Seney
NWR. USFWS photo.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
14
ability and Change, produced by the National Assessment Synthesis Team, an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to help the U.S. 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 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 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 degrees 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
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 1-foot increase to more than a 5-foot decrease. A 5-foot 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.
Agricultural Shifts
Agriculture is of vital importance to the Midwest 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 Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
15
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 percent 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 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.
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 a small 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.
Seney NWR and Climate Change
Climate change is rarely discussed in most man­agement plans because its effects are often assumed to occur more slowly than even the federal planning process. However, for many taxa, recent shifts in phenologic and distribution patterns have been strongly correlated with climate change, and for some species these changes have occurred over a relatively short time frame (Root and Schneider 1995, Stevenson and Bryant 2000, Root et al. 2003). Based on a model assuming a doubling of carbon dioxide, Price (2000) suggests that the distribution patterns of 42 non-game bird species found at the Refuge and in Michigan in general will likely be influenced over an undetermined period of time by climate change: 33 (79 percent) will be extirpated in Michigan, six (14 percent) will experience range expansion, and three (7 percent) will show range contraction. For most species, the influence of cli­mate change is thought to be correlated to changes Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
16
in habitat distribution and abundance. Ongoing research at the Refuge is evaluating how climate change may influence small mammal distribution and abundance patterns (Phil Myers, University of Michigan). Lowland coniferous forests comprised of black spruce, tamarack, and balsam fir are most likely to be affected habitat type at the Refuge since these boreal tree species (especially balsam fir) are near the southern edge of their distribution (Iver­son et al. 1999).
Geology and Glaciation
According to the regional landscape classification system of Albert (1995), Seney NWR lies within the Seney Sand Lake Plain (Sub-Subsection VIII.2.1, Figure 5). This unit is characterized by landforms of lacustrine origin with broad, poorly drained embay­ments containing beach ridges, swales, dunes, and sandbars.
The lands comprising Seney NWR present an area of seemingly little geological variation in com­parison with more scenic areas along the shores of Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. Although rela­tively little topographic relief exists on the Refuge (elevation varies from approximately 803 feet in the northwest to 640 feet in the southeast), the broad, flat lands of the Refuge reflect a subtle, but highly complex, geologic history.
Between 10,000 and 10,500 years ago, the “Valders” pro-glacial lakes in the Superior basin drained southward across the Upper Peninsula. At about the latter date, the Valders ice border was located along the southern shore of Lake Superior allowing meltwater to drain southward across what is now the Refuge. During this period of time, the present land surface appears to have been sculp­tured. At least two phases of drainage seem to be visible in the surface patterns of the area. The first of these is a broad channel eroded into earlier out­wash deposits that carried meltwaters from the area of Long Lake southward through what is now termed the “Strangmoor Bog” (Heinselman 1965). Throughout the length of this channel now occur lin­ear landforms composed of sandy sediments. A sec­ond generation of outwash channels is visible as linear peat-filled depressions trending northwest-southeast across Seney NWR. These landforms are now considered unique patterned bog topography
Figure 5: Seney Sand Lake PlainChapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
17
and are prominently visible near Creighton and in the Refuge lands west of the Driggs River (Seney Wilderness Area). Finally, the current natural drainage patterns present a still different orienta­tion and one that transects the above peat-filled channels. In the Seney area, the Driggs River best exhibits this pattern.
Since 10,500 years ago, the Seney area has been a site for marsh development. At present, from 3 to 9 feet of peat blanket most of the area. Among the more conspicuous landforms in the area are para­bolic sand dunes, which have spread from northwest to southeast across the Refuge in a disjointed pat­tern. These landforms indicate arid conditions in the area, which allowed for the disruption of vegetation that had developed upon the surrounding sand and gravel deposits. At the same time, prevailing north­west winds winnowed the exposed fine to medium grained sands from the earlier outwash sediments and gave rise to the present dune topography.
Soils
Within the Seney Sand Lake Plain, 100 to 200 feet of glacial drift generally cover the bedrock. The soils on the Refuge are generally level to somewhat sloping mucks, peats, and sands. The dominant mucks are interspersed with sand ridges and knolls in such an intricate pattern that the two soils have been mapped together as a complex of Carbondale muck and Rubicon sand (dune phase). The muck has accumulated on the wet sandy plain at a depth of 3 to 9 feet. The material is a dark brown, spongy, felt-like muck, which is more decomposed than peat soils and in general contains a higher percentage of min­eral matter. The natural drainage is very poor in the mucks and excessive in the sands on the ridges and knolls. This complex covers the majority of the Ref­uge.
A large area of Dawson and Greenwood peats exists in the central portion of the Refuge. These level, very poorly drained soils are composed of brown or yellow-brown mixed fibrous and woody material. At depth of 1 to 2 feet, raw yellow peat or muck underlies the peat. Very little decomposition has taken place in the areas of yellow peat. The water table is at the surface most of the year. Areas of Carbondale and Tawas mucks interrupt the peats on the Refuge. Wet sands underlie the entire area.
Along the Manistique River Valley, Driggs River, and the other tributaries draining the Refuge, the soils are predominately sands and sandy loams (see Figure 6). These soils are well or excessively drained and lie on slopes that are level to steeply sloping. The soil surface consists of forest litter, underlain by gray sandy loam or fine sandy loam, with coarser sand beneath the loam. Under the for­mer Soil Conservation Service Capability Class sys­tem, most of the Refuge would be Class V, wet soils. The wet sandy areas are Class II, VI, and VIII, while the better-drained areas are Class II and III. Only small areas along the Manistique River and along the western border of the Refuge are suitable for farming.
Soils associated with each Forest Management Unit are shown in Appendix J.
According to the habitat typing system of Burger and Kotar (2003), a total of 31 soil types at the Ref­uge (61 percent) have either primary or secondary habitat types (Table 1 on page 19). Of these, 18 (58 percent) have white pine as a climax species and 13 (42 percent) have maple (sugar or red) as climax species (Appendix J). This system does not (at pres­ent) provide primary or secondary successional pathways for wetland soils.
Surface Hydrology
Seney NWR lies within the Manistique River watershed, which encompasses portions of Alger, Delta, Luce, Mackinac, and Schoolcraft Counties. The watershed drains approximately 1,465 square miles before emptying into the northeast corner of Lake Michigan (Madison and Lockwood 2004). Gen­eral land slopes are approximately 10 feet per mile and southeasterly in direction. Water enters the Refuge from the north-northwest through the fol­lowing creeks, from west to east: Marsh Creek, Ducey Creek, Walsh Creek, Driggs River, Holland Ditch and Clarks Ditch. Water then flows to the south-southeast to the Manistique River (Figure 7 on page 21 and Table 2 on page 22). The Manistique River then flows into Lake Michigan.
Annual precipitation averages approximately 32 inches per year. This precipitation accounts for approximately 60 percent of the Refuge water intake. The remaining 40 percent of the Refuge water supply comes from the ditches, rivers and creeks. Sheet flow (overland flow) is quite substan­Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
18
Figure 6: Soils of Seney NWRChapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
19
Table 1: Ranked Order of Acres of Soils at Seney NWR
Soil Name
Approximate Acreage
Percent of Refuge
Primary/Secondary Habitat Types1
Markey Mucky Peat
43,751
46
None/None
Deford-AuGres-Rubicon Complex, Deep Water Table, 0-15% Slopes
7,392
8
None/PArV
Water
5,977
6
-
Loxley-Carbondale Complex
5,908
6
None/None
Neconish-Kinross-Wainola Complex, 0-6% Slopes
3,549
4
PVE/None
Deford Muck
3,327
3
None/None
Dawson-Greenwood-Loxley Peats
3,279
3
None/None
Markey-Deford Mucks, Drained
1,951
2
None/None
Rousseau-Neconish-Spot Complex, 0-25% Slopes
1,882
2
PVE/None
Histosols and Aquents, Ponded
1,639
2
None/None
Kinross-AuGres-Rubicon Complex, Deep Water Table, 0-15% Slopes
1,501
2
None/PArV
Carbondale-Lupton-Tawas Mucks
1,452
2
None/None
Deford-AuSable-Tawas Mucks
1,316
1
None/None
Pelkie (Occassionally Flooded)-Deford (Frequently Flooded) Complex, 0-6% Slopes
1,302
1
None/None
Proper Fine Sand, 0-6% Slopes
1,266
1
PVE/None
Rousseau-Proper-Deford Complex, 0-25% Slopes
1,189
1
PVE/None
Meehan-Deford-Seney Complex, 0-3% Slopes
1,057
1
PArVAa/None
Finch-Spot Complex, 0-3% Slopes
888
1
PArVAa/None
Duck-Rubicon, 0-15% Slopes
827
1
PArVAa/PArV
Clemons-Deford Complex, Very Rarely Flooded, 0-15% Slopes
738
1
None/None
Rousseau Fine Sand, 15-35% Slopes
600
1
PVE/PArV
Markey-Deford Mucks, Drained
548
1
None/None
Rousseau Fine Sand, 6-15% Slopes
430
0
PVE/PArV
Graveraet Very Fine Sandy Loam, 1-6% Slopes
410
0
AFOAs/AFPo
Hendrie-Anninias Complex, 0-3% Slopes
278
0
None/None
AuGres Sand, 0-3% Slopes
247
0
PArVAa/None
Kinross Muck
237
0
None/None
Liminga Fine Sand, 15-35% Slopes
224
0
ATFD/None
Cathro and Lupton Mucks
212
0
None/None
Rubicon Sand, 15-35% Slopes
204
0
PArV/PVE
Rousseau Fine Sand, 0-6% Slopes
187
0
PVE/PArV
Noseum Fine Sandy Loam, 0-4% Slopes
181
0
ATFD/NoneChapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
20
tial each spring as a result of winter snow and ice stores melting. Ground water is discharged into the peat and streams and flows under streambeds as hyporheic flow. Peak flows through the Refuge marsh and water system normally occur during spring. Snowmelt, frozen ground, and rain can com­bine to create destructive floods, although such events are rare. Stream flow data for water entering the Refuge is limited to early U.S. Geological Sur­vey gauging station data for the period 1939-50 (Table 2 on page 22). Recent stream flow data (1999 -2000) is available for the western half of the Refuge from Marsh Creek east to Driggs River. Overall the discharges are relatively low due to the large amount of wetland and depression storage located in the watershed.
Seney NWR includes 27 man-made pools, with water control capability on 21 pools. Along with associated potholes, beaver ponds, and ditches, the 27 pools account for approximately 7,456 surface acres of impounded water, or 7.8 percent of the total Refuge acreage.AuGres-Deford Complex, 0-3% Slopes
178
0
PArVAa/None
Rubicon Sand, 6-15% Slopes
133
0
PArV/PVE
Hiawatha Fine Sandy Loam, 0-6% Slopes
130
0
ATFD/None
McMillan-Greylock Complex, 1-6% Slopes
127
0
AFPo/AFOAs
Hiawatha-Rubicon Complex, 0-15% Slopes
122
0
PArVAa/PArV
Rubicon-Deford Complex, 0-35% Slopes
114
0
PArV/None
Brevort-Iosco Complex, 0-3% Slopes
110
0
None/None
Halfaday Sand, 0-6% Slopes
110
0
ATFD/None
Pelkie-Moquah-Arnheim Complex, 0-6% Slopes
95
0
AFPo/None
Duck Fine Sandy Loam, 0-4% Slopes
83
0
ATFD/None
Rubicon Sand, Deep Water Table, 0-6% Slopes
58
0
PArV/None
Paquin Sand, 0-3% Slopes
38
0
ATFD/None
Minocqua Muck
38
0
None/None
Dawson-Kinross Mucks
38
0
None/None
Spot Peat
32
0
None/None
Kalkaska Sand, 6-15% Slopes
32
0
ATFD/None
McMillan-Greylock Complex, 6-15% Slopes
10
0
AFPo/AFOAs
McMillan-Stutts Complex, 15-35% Slopes
7
0
AFPo/ATFD
Angelica Muck
4
0
None/None
Total
95,406
100
-
1. Habitat types: AFOAs = Acer saccharum – Fagus grandifolia/Osmorhiza claytoni – Arisaema atrorubens; AFPo = Acer saccharum - Fagus grandifolia/Polygonatum pubescens; ATFD = Acer saccharum – Tsuga canadensis – Fagus grandifolia/
Dryopteris spinulosa; PArV = Pinus strobus – Acer rubrum/Vaccinium angustifolium; PArVAa = Pinus strobus – Acer
rubrum/Vaccinium angustifolium-Aralia nudicaulis; PVE = Pinus strobus/Vaccinium angustifolium-Epigaea repens
Table 1: Ranked Order of Acres of Soils at Seney NWR (Continued)
Soil Name Approximate
Acreage
Percent of
Refuge
Primary/Secondary
Habitat Types1
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
21
Figure 7: Surface Hydrology of the Seney NWRChapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
22
Historically much of the land in and near what is now Seney NWR in Michigan’s eastern Upper Pen­insula was an expansive, ground-water-supported sedge fen. In support of agricultural development, the largest wetland drainage project in Michigan’s history was begun in 1912 (Wilcox et al. 2006). The Walsh Ditch was constructed to redirect Walsh and Marsh Creeks and to lower the water tables. Despite this effort, agriculture proved unsustain­able and was soon abandoned. The unintended con­sequences of the wetland drainage project were far reaching and will be discussed in another section of the document.
Archeological and Cultural Values
Cultural resources are: “those parts of the physi­cal environment (natural and built) that have cul­tural value to some kind of sociocultural group....[and] those non-material human institu­tions.” Schoolcraft County contains four properties on the National Register of Historic Places. On the Refuge there are 40 recorded cultural resource sites, three of which have been determined ineligi­ble for the National Register. These sites include the several buildings in the Refuge Headquarters area, structures constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps, logging camps, cabins, a farm, a ditch, and other types. No prehistoric sites have been identi­fied on the Refuge. Five Indian tribes have an inter­est in Schoolcraft County and may be concerned about traditional cultural properties and sacred sites if any exist on the Refuge. During a “Master Planning” process in 1976, Commonwealth Associ­ates, Inc. identified areas along the Manistique River as having the best potential for such sites. To date no resources have been found at these areas.
Social and Economic Context
Seney NWR is located in northern Schoolcraft County. One of 15 counties in Michigan’s Upper Pen­insula, it stretches from the shores of Lake Michi­gan north to within 4 miles of Lake Superior. Its poor soils and cold climate contribute to a low human population and limited economic activities. Only 8,903 people live in the 1,178-square-mile county (7.5 people per square mile). The population decreased slightly between 2000 and 2005.
The two nearest towns, Germfask and Seney, host 491 and 108 people, respectively. The closest towns with a population greater that 2,000 people are Man­istique, Munising and Newberry, all of which are 40 miles away from the Refuge. The racial makeup of the county is 89 percent white, 6 percent Native American, 2 percent African American with Asians, Hispanic and other races contributing 3 percent. Interestingly, 16 percent of Upper Peninsula resi­dences claim Finnish ancestry, making it the largest concentration of Finns outside of Europe (Table 3).
The median income for a household in Schoolcraft County was $32,306 in 2005, with about 12 percent of the population living below the poverty line. This compares to $46,291 and 11 percent for the State of Michigan in the same year. In Schoolcraft County, government agencies provide 23 percent of the jobs, followed by service industry at 22 percent, retail at 20 percent, manufacturing at 10 percent and con­struction at 7 percent. Much of the area is forested and attracts summer recreationists who enjoy hunt­ing, hiking, camping and fishing. In the winter, snowmobiling is a big attraction. (U.S. Census Bureau 2005).
Seney NWR was one of the sample Refuges investigated in a national study of the economic ben­efits to local communities of national wildlife refuge visitation (Laughland and Caudill, 2004). This study found that in 2004 resident and non-resident visitors to Seney NWR spent about $547,300 in the Refuge (Table 4). When this spending had cycled through
Table 2: Average Peak Inflow of Water into Seney NWR
Flowage
Drainage Area (acres)1
Inflow (cubic feet/second)
Marsh Creek2
12,800
122
Walsh Ditch
7,680
156
Driggs River
44,800
512
Holland Ditch
8,320
128
Clark Ditch
5,120
98
1. Drainage area north of the Refuge.
2.Includes Ducey Creek drainage.Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
23
Table 3: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Schoolcraft County, Michigan
Characteristic
Schoolcraft County
Michigan
Population, 2005 estimate
8,819
10,120,860
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005
-0.9%
1.8%
Population, 2000
8,903
9,938,444
Land area (square miles)
1,178
56,803
Persons per square mile, 2000
7.6
175
White persons, percent, 2005 (a)
90.0%
81.3%
Black persons, percent, 2005 (a)
2.0%
14.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2005 (a)
5.4%
0.6%
Asian persons, percent, 2005 (a)
0.5%
2.2%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2005 (b)
1.0%
3.8%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2005
89.2%
77.9%
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000
1.0%
5.3%
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+, 2000
3.0%
8.4%
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000
79.4%
83.4%
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000
11.3%
21.8%
Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000
1,695
1,711,231
Households, 2000
3,606
3,785,661
Persons per household, 2000
2.36
2.56
Median household income, 2003
$32,306
$46,291
Per capita money income, 1999
$17,137
$22,168
Persons below poverty, percent, 2003
11.7%
11.0%
Source: US Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts (2005)
Table 4: Recreation-related Expenditures of Visitors to Seney NWR
Activity
Resident
Non-resident
Total
($ in thousands)
Non-consumptive
$29.0
$442.1
$471.1
Hunting
$11.0
$48.6
$59.6
Fishing
$8.0
$8.6
$16.6
Total
$48.0
$499.3
$547.3
Source: Laughland and Caudill, 2004Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
24
the economy, the Refuge had generated $671,800 in fiscal demand, $235,000 in job income, 11 jobs, and $112,600 in total tax revenue.
Environmental Contaminants
A Contaminant Assessment Process (CAP) was conducted for Seney NWR in 2005. A CAP is an information gathering process and initial assess­ment of a national wildlife refuge in relation to envi­ronmental contaminants.
Past Activities Contamination
During the process, soils, groundwater, and biota were collected from areas where past activities (oil­ing of roads to control dust and wood treatment of fence posts with pentachlorphenol) occurred. Soils were found to have low concentrations of dioxin-like contaminants. Groundwater results indicated that Refuge impoundments were not compromised by hydrocarbon contamination via shallow groundwa­ter discharge. Overall, contamination resulting from previous activities is not at a level great enough in the soil, water or biota to cause adverse affects to Trust resources.
Wildlife Contamination
The Michigan Department of Community Health has issued a fish consumption advisory for all inland lakes. The advisory applies to all the pools at Seney NWR. The advisory provides guidelines regarding the size and frequency of which fish species can be eaten safely. The advisory states that no one should eat more than one meal a week of rock bass, yellow perch, or black crappie over 9 inches in length or any size largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, walleye, northern pike, or muskellunge. Women of childbear­ing age and children under age 15 should not eat more than one meal per month of these fish.
In 1999 a study was conducted to better assess the presence of mercury in fish collected from the Refuge. Four species (northern pike, yellow perch, white sucker, and pumpkinseed) were collected for mercury analysis (Best 1999). Results from the study confirmed the consumption advisory.
The lack of fish passage prevents fish from Lake Michigan, which have greater poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCB) concentrations than inland fish, from being a food source to Refuge wildlife. Mink and river otter on the Refuge were tested in 1995 for mercury and PCB contamination. Results indicated that mercury and PCB concentrations found in the livers were substantially less than concentrations associated with adverse effects (Dansereau et al. 1999). Common Loons, which also feed on fish on the Refuge, are not currently being adversely affected by their exposure to mercury on a population basis (McCormick et al. 2006).
Air Contamination
The National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN) is a nation­wide network of precipitation monitoring sites. The purpose of the network is to collect data on the chemistry of precipitation for monitoring of geo­graphical and temporal long-term trends. In 2000, Seney NWR became a monitoring site for the NADP/NTN. Precipitation is collected weekly and analyzed for hydrogen (acidity as pH), sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, chloride, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium.
In 2003, Seney NWR also became a monitoring site for the Mercury Deposition Network. The objective of the network is to develop a national database of weekly concentrations of total mercury in precipitation and the seasonal and annual flux of total mercury in wet deposition. The data is being used to develop information on spatial and seasonal trends in mercury deposited to surface waters, for­ested watersheds, and other sensitive receptors.
In many of the national maps, Seney NWR is not located in an area of high deposition of many sub­stances (pH, mercury, noxious oxides, NOx) that are elevated further south and east in the Great Lakes Basin.
Due to its remote location, Seney NWR is not near any point-sources of pollution. Therefore, the Refuge is not at risk from spills or other releases from facilities. Instead, the Refuge is more likely to be impacted from air pollution that may originate from other industrialized areas of the Great Lakes basin and beyond. Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
25
Natural Resources
Habitats
Historic Vegetation
The plant species that presently dominate Seney NWR are primarily the result of two major events: (1) species migration in response to climate change after the retreat of the Wisconsin glacier, and (2) human intervention during the last two centuries (Zhang et al. 2000). General Land Office notes depict the Seney area prior to European settlement as consisting of a mosaic of upland and wetland cover types (Table 5, Comer et al. 1995). The scrub-shrub matrix was interspersed by herbaceous spe­cies such as Carex and deciduous and coniferous for­ests of red and white pine, black spruce, balsam fir, American beech, eastern hemlock, sugar maple, and yellow birch (Figure 8).
In the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan, mixed-conifer forests comprised approximately 38 percent of the pre-European landscape (Zhang et al. 2000). The distribution of these forests across the landscape was regulated primarily by the interac­tion of topography, soil moisture, and fire. Generally speaking, wildfires tended to burn more erratically and less frequently on ice-contact landforms than on dry, sandy outwash plains. As a result, many areas of the Refuge were historically dominated by large, interspersed mature red pine and eastern white pine (Vogl 1970, Whitney 1986).
Prior to Refuge establishment, the forests and soils of the Seney area and surrounding Schoolcraft County were exploited to a considerable degree. Early timber cutting favored the best stands of white pine, followed by “high-grading” in the red pine and hardwood-eastern hemlock stands (Kara­manski 1989). Slash fires fueled by logging debris occurred repeatedly, with most areas burning on numerous occasions. As sawtimber diminished, efforts were shifted to cutting of poles, posts, ties, and pulp. At this time, an attempt was made to set­tle cut-over lands and develop farming communities.
On excessively drained to well-drained ice-con­tact landforms with higher water-holding capacity and nutrient levels than outwash barrens, mixed-pine stands dominated by red pine and eastern white pine were common historically at Seney NWR, with jack pine, aspen, and other early succes­sional hardwood species as typical associates (Comer et al. 1995). These mixed-conifer forests existed on primarily linear outwash channels and “pine islands” interspersed among a matrix of low­land swamp forests or patterned fens (Silbernagel et al. 1997). Now, it is estimated that less than 1 per­cent of the primary white and red pine forests exist in the regional landscape and much of the Refuge forests too have been structurally and composition­ally altered due to past management actions (Fre­hlich and Reich 1996, Thompson et al. 2006, Drobyshev et al. In Press).
Table 5: Ranked Order of Pre-European Settlement Cover Types of Seney NWR by Acres1 and Percent of Total
Cover Type
Acres
Percent (%) of Total
Muskeg-Bog
64,678
68.1
Mixed Conifer Swamp
11,699
12.3
White Pine-Red Pine
5,354
5.6
Jack Pine-Red Pine
4,462
4.7
Hemlock-White Pine
2,479
2.6
Beech-Sugar Maple-Hemlock
1,785
1.9
Spruce Fir-Cedar
1,719
1.8
Hemlock-Yellow Birch
859
0.9
Shrub Swamp-Emergent Marsh
661
0.7
Aspen-Birch
595
0.6
Lake or River
264
0.3
Mixed Hardwood Swamp
165
0.2
Black Ash
132
0.1
Cedar Swamp
66
0.07
Sugar Maple-Hemlock
33
0.03
Total
94,851
99.9
1. Above information derived from pre-European cover
type layer supplied by the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR). This information is
based on General Land Office Notes (see Comer et al.
1995). Refuge boundary GIS layer does not
correspond exactly to present-day ownership size of
95,238.Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
26
Figure 8: Historic Landcover of Seney NWRChapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
27
Wildfire History
Both biotic and abiotic natural disturbances have historically regulated composition and structure of Refuge forests and other habitats (Frehlich 2002, Drobyshev et al. In Press). Historically, fire occurred frequently in mixed pine-dominated land
­scapes,
with relatively low-intensity surface fires occurring once every 5-40 years (Simard and Blank 1982, Engstrom and Mann 1991, Loope 1991). These low-intensity fires usually created small gaps or left the basic structure of the overstory unaltered while maintaining a relatively open understory. Over time, these disturbances tended to produce a mixed-coni
­fer
stand with an uneven age structure (Bergeron et al. 1991, Drobyshev et al. In Press). Under certain conditions (e.g., low fuel moisture, low humidity, high temperatures, and strong winds), these fires sometimes intensified and resulted in a stand-replacing fire. The frequency of stand-replacing fires ranged from 160 years for mixed-conifer stands dominated by jack pine, eastern white pine, and red pine, to 320 years for stands not dominated by jack pine (Zhang et al. 1999, Frehlich 2002,
Table
6
).
Major native biotic disturbances to forests included jack pine budworm (Choristoneura pinus) and spruce budworm (C. fumiferana). The eruptive and cyclical nature of the disturbance brought about by these species likely coincided with fire as induced tree mortality altered fuel loading and the connec
­tivity
of fuels.
Current Habitat Conditions
At present, the vast majority of areas that were forested during pre-European times in the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan are still forested. Rel
­ative
to most areas in the Midwest, the eastern Upper Peninsula is still comprised of native cover types and has a high degree of ecological integrity. That is, relative to many other parts of the Midwest, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan represents a region where: 1) many ecological processes are intact and within their natural range of variation; 2) for most species their distribution, composition and relative abundance are within their natural range of variation; and 3) the communities found are resil
­ient,
or able to recover from severe disturbance events. However, only 13 percent (562,125 acres) of the present landscape of the eastern Upper Penin
­sula
is now dominated by mixed-conifer stands, and the structure of these forests on today’s landscape is dramatically different than that on the pre-Euro
­pean
landscape (Zhang et al. 2000; Drobyshev et al. In Press).
Based upon General Land Office (GLO) survey records, the mean stem density in the pre-European mixed-conifer forests of the eastern Upper Penin
­sula
was significantly lower than in current mixed-conifer stands. With these presently higher stem densities and corresponding lower stand basal areas, sites that were originally mixed-conifer stands are presently dominated by jack pine and thus differ from their pre-European condition in both composition and structure (
Table
7
).
Table 6: Cross-classification of Disturbance by Frequency of Surface and Crown Fire for Common Cover Types, Seney NWR and Surrounding Area
1
Surface Fires
Crown/Severe Surface Fire
Frequent
(25-100 yr)
Infrequent
(100-500 yr)
Rare
(500-1,000 yr)
Very Rare
(>1,000 yr)
Very Frequent
(<25 yr)
Jack Pine Barrens/Aspen Parklands
__
__
__
Frequent
(25-100 yr)
__
Red-White Oak/Red-White Pine
__
__
Infrequent
(>100 yr)
Jack Pine-Black Spruce/Spruce-Fir-Birch
Black Spruce Peatlands
__
Sugar Maple-Ameri
­can
Basswoood-Sugar Maple-East
­ern
Hemlock
1.
Adapted from Frehlich 2002Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
28
Table 7: Acreage, Percent Total Area, and Three Dominant Forest Management Units (FMUs) by Cover Type at Seney NWR
1
Cover Type (Code Description)
Acres
Percent
Total Area
Ranked Order Top Three FMUs (Acres)
Percent in Top Three FMUs
Scrub/Shrub (Lowland)
26,354
27
20 (7720), 4 (2527), 10 (1932)
46
Sedge/Bluejoint Grass
9,385
10
20 (1549), 13 (1301), 14 (1021)
41
Forested Broadleaf/Coniferous Mix (Low
­land)
5,915
6
20 (2799), 3 (434), 8 (284)
59
Aspen/Pine
5,855
6
20 (1977), 1 (501), 12 (440)
50
Sphagnum/Leatherleaf
4,162
4
20 (3453), 12 (446), 10 (209)
99
Water
3,928
4
7 (1275), 9 (451), 8 (398)
54
Forested Coniferous Mix (Upland)
3,238
3
17 (476), 20 (394), 9 (258)
35
Tamarack/Spruce
3,156
3
20 (718), 13 (551), 16 (283)
49
Forested Broadleaf/Coniferous Mix (Upland)
3,110
3
20 (844), 17 (428), 9 (297)
51
Mixed Emergents/Grasses/Forbs
2,884
3
11 (480), 7 (344), 13 (322)
40
Forested Coniferous Mix (Lowland)
2,399
2
4 (430), 20 (337), 9 (271)
43
Aspen/Birch/Fir/Spruce (Lowland)
2,305
2
20 (709), 12 (330), 16 (199)
54
Red Pine/Jack Pine
2,098
2
14 (265), 15 (199), 9 (182)
31
Northern Hardwoods/White Pine/Hem
­lock
1,891
2
20 (803), 18 (261), 17 (221)
68
Aspen (Upland)
1,891
2
20 (859), 12 (383), 17 (144)
73
Aspen (Lowland)
1,681
2
20 (796), 12 (287), 1 (162)
74
Tag Alder
1,634
2
20 (416), 12 (308), 11 (196)
56
Northern Hardwoods (Maple/Beech/Yel
­low
Birch)
1,576
2
20 (534), 17 (460), 18 (263)
80
Black Spruce
1,133
1
19 (147), 16 (143), 13 (133)
37
Jack Pine
1,066
1
15 (182), 16 (162), 17 (127)
44
Red Pine/White Pine
935
1
4 (199), 8 (110), 20 (103)
44
Forested Broadleaf Mix (Upland)
905
1
20 (597), 18 (139), 1 (52)
87
Grass/Ferns
900
1
20 (329), 1 (124), 3 (88)
60
Tamarack
821
1
20 (326), 12 (120), 13 (108)
67
Forested Broadleaf Mix (Lowland)
810
1
1 (271), 20 (266), 2 (125)
82
Red Pine
726
1
1 (203), 20 (115), 18 (83)
55
Willow
711
1
20 (301), 11 (89), 12 (64)
64Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
29
For the purpose of this plan, we combined the resulting 41 vegetative cover types (not including “Developed” and “No Photo Coverage”) into 10 hab
­itat
types. In ranked order by acreage, these 10 hab
­itat
types (
Figure
9
) are:
#
Scrub-Shrub (28,954 acres)
#
Open Wetlands (16,617 acres)
#
Mixed Forest-Uplands (11,396 acres)
#
Coniferous Forest-Uplands (8,857 acres)
#
Mixed Forest-Lowlands (8,221 acres)
#
Coniferous Forest-Lowlands (7,825 acres)
#
Open Water (5,103 acres)
#
Deciduous Forest-Uplands (4,372 acres)
#
Deciduous Forest-Lowlands (2,515 acres)
#
Upland Old Fields and Openland (1,302 acres)
Scrub-Shrub Habitat Type (28,954 acres): This habitat type includes scrub-shrub lowland, tag alder, willow, and scrub shrub upland cover types. This habitat type dominates the Refuge. Common species (and species groups) include alder, red osier dogwood, willow, meadowsweet, current, bedstraw, joe-pye-weed, goldenrod, and marsh fern.
Open Wetland Habitat Type (16,617 acres): This habitat type includes sedge-bluejoint grass, mixed emergents-grasses-forbs, cattail, and sphagnum-leatherleaf cover types. This habitat type contains many different herbaceous species, with composi
­tion
related to moisture, exposure, and soil condi
­tions.
Submergent Vegetation
691
1
19 (175), 8 (145), 9 (130)
65
Aspen/Birch/Fir/Spruce (Upland)
540
1
20 (89), 16 (83), 15 (73)
45
Spruce/Fir
509
1
15 (124), 19 (103), 17 (77)
60
Cattail
493
1
5 (165), 13 (102), 6 (59)
66
Hayfields
402
<1
18 (120), 3 (117), 17 (102)
84
Developed
308
<1
20 (110), 6 (45), 1 (32)
61
Scrub/Shrub (Upland)
255
<1
20 (98), 3 (46), 1 (26)
67
Northern White Cedar (Lowland)
189
<1
18 (108), 1 (32), 10 (31)
90
Rooted-Floating Vegetation
179
<1
6 (67), 7 (51), 9 (19)
77
Hemlock (Upland)
170
<1
20 (119), 1 (35), 15 (9)
96
Hemlock (Lowland)
127
<1
3 (37), 17 (24), 8 (15)
60
White Pine
104
<1
13 (22), 20 (21), 8 (14)
55
Hardwoods (Lowland)
25
<1
20 (7), 18 (6), 9 (4)
71
No Photo Coverage
24
<1
19 (21), 20 (3)
100
Northern White Cedar (Upland)
12
<1
9 (10), 16 (2)
100
1.
Cover types are shown in ranked order and are based on U. S. Geological Survey-interpreted 2004 aerial photos.
Table 7: Acreage, Percent Total Area, and Three Dominant Forest
Management Units (FMUs) by Cover Type at Seney NWR1
Cover Type (Code Description) Acres Percent
Total
Area
Ranked Order Top Three
FMUs (Acres)
Percent in
Top Three
FMUs
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
30
Figure 9: Current Landcover of Seney NWR (2007)Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
31
Mixed Forest-Upland Habitat Type (11,396 acres): This habitat type contains aspen-pine, upland forested broadleaf-coniferous mix, northern hardwood-white pine, eastern-hemlock, and aspen-birch-fir-spruce upland cover types. Common over
­story
species include white pine, red pine, and jack pine, and deciduous species such as red maple, quaking and large-toothed aspen. Understory spe
­cies
include wild raisin, bracken fern, hazels, wild strawberry, princess pine, blueberry, and huckle
­berry.
Coniferous Forest-Upland Habitat Type (8,857 acres): This habitat type includes upland forested coniferous mix, red pine-jack pine, jack pine, red pine-white pine, red pine, upland spruce-fir; hem
­lock,
white pine, and upland northern white cedar cover types. Understory species include wild raisin, bracken fern, hazels, wild strawberry, princess pine, blueberry, and huckleberry. Lichens, grasses and sedges are also represented, especially in the sec
­ond
growth aspen stands.
Mixed Forest-Lowlands Habitat Type (8,221 acres): includes forested broadleaf-coniferous mix, lowland and aspen-birch-fir-spruce, and other low
­land
cover types. Overstory species include conifer
­ous
species such as black spruce, balsam fir, and tamarack, as well as deciduous species such as black ash, quaking aspen, and red maple.
Coniferous Forest-Lowland Habitat Type (7,825 acres): Habitat includes tamarack-spruce, forested coniferous mix lowland; black spruce; tamarack; northern white cedar, lowland; and hemlock lowland cover types. This habitat type represents a combina
­tion
of two basic forests types: the spruce-fir or boreal forest, and the northern lowland or swamp conifer forest. White spruce and balsam fir comprise the majority of tree species in the first forest type (with some eastern hemlock), while white cedar, black spruce and tamarack constitute the majority in the second forest type. Typical associates, in this habitat type, include paper birch, red maple, and alder. Common shrubs include round-leafed dog
­wood,
hazel, honeysuckle, thimbleberry, and blue
­berries.
Other understory plants include sweet gale, leatherleaf, bog rosemary, and cranberry. However, when the canopy is closed little understory exists.
Open Water Habitat Type (5,103 acres): Habitat includes water; rooted-floating vegetation; and sub
­mergent
vegetation cover types. Open water con
­sists
of anthropogenic pools and natural stream channels. The pools were created by using dikes and channels to impound water on what was once scrub-shrub and lowland coniferous forest.
Deciduous Forest-Upland Habitat Type (4,372 acres): Habitat includes aspen upland, northern hardwoods (maple-beech-yellow birch), forested broadleaf mix, and other upland cover types. This habitat type is commonly referred to as the broad
­leaf
forest, northern mesic, northern hardwood, or hardwood-hemlock forest, and is comprised of sugar maple, American beech, and yellow birch, with east
­ern
hemlock as an important associate. Other asso
­ciates
include American basswood, black cherry, paper birch, white spruce, white ash, and balsam fir. When the tree canopy closes in, the herbaceous plants disappear. However, in suitable areas, several shrubs (e.g., Canada yew, elderberry, leatherwood, and hazel) and other plants (e.g., partridge berry, bunchberry, twinflower, baneberry, trillium) can occur. This forest type is scattered through the Ref
­uge,
usually on the most nutrient rich soils.
Deciduous Forest-Lowland Habitat Type (2,515 acres): Habitat includes aspen lowland, forested broadleaf mix lowland, and hardwoods lowland cover types. This habitat type is comprised of red maple, black and white ash, and American basswood and is scattered through the Refuge, usually next to riparian corridors.
Upland Old Fields and Openland Habitat Type(1,302 acres): This habitat type includes grass-ferns and hayfields cover types. This habitat type consists of primarily anthropogenic habitats created prior to the Refuge establishment in 1935. Many non-native grass species, such as Kentucky bluegrass and sev
­eral
brome species, characterize these areas.
Wildlife
Birds
Relative to pre-European times, it is likely that Seney NWR is presently richer in bird species due to anthropogenic habitats such as Refuge pools and upland old fields and openland. A total of 231 bird species comprise the Refuge’s species list of migrants and residents, including breeding and stopover species (Appendix C). It comes as no sur
­prise
then that Seney NWR is an Important Bird Area (American Bird Conservancy) and has 46 USFWS R3 Priority Species, 23 of which utilize pri
­marily
terrestrial habitats. The Refuge also has Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
32
many species that are listed on United States Forest Service and Michigan Department of Natural Resources conservation lists (
Table
9 on page
42
).
Species of high public interest include Common Loon, Bald Eagle, Osprey, Yellow Rail, Sandhill Crane, Trumpeter Swan, Sharp-tailed and Spruce Grouse, Black-backed Woodpecker, Connecticut Warbler, Le Conte’s Sparrow, and game species such as American Woodcock and Ruffed Grouse.
To better assess the Refuge’s bird community and help prioritize habitat preservation, conserva
­tion,
and restoration, Brosnan and Corace (2006) compiled a bird assessment for the Refuge that linked the Refuge’s bird species list with (1) pre
­ferred
breeding habitat types (Brewer et al. 1991) classified per the Refuge’s USGS cover type map; (2) nest locations (Ehrlich et al. 1988); (3) global breeding population percentages estimates for Michigan (Rich et al. 2004); (4) Breeding Bird Sur
­vey
(BBS) regional and national population trends (Sauer et al. 2005); and (5) Partners in Flight (PIF) Midwest conservation priority scores (PIF 2006).
Results indicated that most bird species at Seney NWR are associated with forested habitats. Sixty bird species of Seney NWR breed in wet coniferous forests alone (
Figure
10
). A significant number of
birds also utilize open water and open wetlands for breeding habitat. On a finer spatial scale, there were 13 primary nest location types used by the bird spe
­cies
found on the Refuge. An estimated 40 percent of the Refuge bird species are ground-nesters, with tree, snag, and shrub structures also yielding a higher than average number of species.
A total of 135 species had percent global popula
­tion
scores, and 192 species had information on national population trend data from the BBS survey. A total of 171 bird species had information on regional population trend data within the Boreal Hardwood Transition zone. There were PIF Mid
­west
priority scores for 151 of the bird species. A summary of these scores is shown in
Figure
11
.
Because of the spatial habitat heterogeneity at Seney NWR, the Refuge should continue to have a high degree of bird diversity, while providing for many species of conservation concern in most exist
­ing
habitat types. In particular, because Seney NWR has more area in forest habitat types relative to other refuges in the Midwest (and even Lower 48 states), the Refuge has the opportunity to be a leader in forest habitat management for bird con
­servation.
Figure 10: Number of Bird Species Found at Seney NWR by Breeding Habitat
1
1.
According to Brewer et al. (1991)Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
33
Mammals
There are approximately 50 extant mammal spe
­cies
at the Refuge, with other species (e.g., fox squirrel and opossum) likely to colonize the area in future years due to range expansion in light of cli
­mate
change (Appendix C). Some of the mammals found at the Refuge are listed as USFWS Region 3 Priority Species (e.g., gray wolf), and many other species are listed on United States Forest Service and Michigan Department of Natural Resources conservation lists (
Table
9 on page
42
). Species of
high public interest include gray wolf, fisher, Ameri
­can
marten, river otter, beaver, snowshoe hare, and white-tailed deer. Seney NWR’s mammal commu
­nity
composition is likely similar to what it was dur
­ing
pre-European times, and thus the predator-prey systems are likely not significantly altered at the Refuge. For instance, the predator-prey relation
­ship
that now exists between the small number of gray wolves on the Refuge and the white-tailed deer and beaver they prey upon seems to be in concert, with neither the predator nor the prey species caus
­ing
considerable ecological concern. Moreover, as a site for the release of individuals, the Refuge has played an integral part, for instance, in the regional restoration of populations of species such as fisher and American marten.
Fish
Seventeen species of fish have been known to occur in the pools on the Refuge. If the Manistique River, the southern boundary of the Refuge, is included the possible total number of fish species present increases to 43. Northern pike, yellow perch, black crappie, brown bullhead, and bluegill are five species of popular game fish in the pool sys
­tem.
Species of fish that are in the rivers and streams within the boundaries of the Refuge include the previous mentioned and walleye, smallmouth
Figure 11: Average Conservation Value for Bird Species Found at Seney NWR by Habitat TypeChapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
34
bass, brook trout, and brown trout. The brook trout is listed as a Region 3 Conservation Priority Spe
­cies.
Seney NWR’s fish community composition is likely very different to what it was during pre-Euro
­pean
times, primarily due to the large number of non-native salmonids and other species such as sea lamprey. Therefore, unlike the mammal community, the fish predator-prey systems are likely signifi
­cantly
altered at the Refuge.
Reptiles and Amphibians
The herptofauna community at Seney NWR con
­sists
of approximately 22 extant species (Appendix C). Although none of these species are listed as USFWS Region 3 Conservation Priority Species, some are listed on United States Forest Service and Michigan Department of Natural Resources conser
­vation
lists (
Table
9 on page
42
). Of special interest
in Michigan, for instance, is the Refuge’s mink frog population. This species is at its southern range periphery in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and is not widely distributed in the region.
Resources of Concern
Resources of Concern were identified by litera
­ture
review and expert opinion. Refuge resources of concern include special areas, habitats, ecosystems, and individual species. Lists of vertebrates occur
­ring
on the Refuge and surrounding area and their conservation status according to FWS Region 3, the USFS Regional Forester, and the State of Michigan are shown in
Table
9 on page
42
.
Ecosystems of Concern
Ecosystems of greatest conservation concern at Seney NWR include patterned fens, rivers, old-growth-virgin deciduous forests, and mature-old growth red and white pine forests (Noss and Scott 1997). A number of specific parcels of land have been set-aside or removed from active management, including the Seney Wilderness Area (1970), the Strangmoor Bog National Natural Landmark (des
­ignation
date 1973), and a number of Research Nat
­ural
Areas and Public Use Natural Areas (
Figure
12
). The five Research Natural Areas are
Strangmoor Bog (640 acres), SAF 15 Red Pine (100 acres), SAF 23 Hemlock (50 acres), and SAF 25 Sugar Maple-Beech-Yellow Birch (350 acres). The two Public Use Natural Areas are White Pine (30 acres) and Northern Hardwoods (68 acres).
Habitat Conservation, Restoration, and Preservation: Forests and Other Terrestrial Ecosystems
Seney NWR contains 20 Forest Management Units (FMUs,
Figure
13 on page 36
). These long-
standing FMUs were devised based upon existing and potential vegetation features, location to access sites, size and shape, as well as management man
­dates
that dictate management strategies to a con
­siderable
degree, including Wilderness Area and the designation of other natural areas. Other crite
­ria,
such as proximity to human development, were deemed not significant enough to further delineate FMUs.
Forests of Seney NWR have seen dramatic alter
­ations
due to exploitation (Verme 1996, Losey 2003), utilitarianism, and “edge management” (Leopold 1933). Now, the proposed philosophy for manage
­ment
of these ecosystems stems from a perspective of landscape (Forman 1995) and disturbance (Fre
­hlich
2002) ecology within a conservation biology context (Hunter 1990, Askins 2000).
Black bear. USFWS photo.Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
35
Figure 12: Administrative and Visitor Facilities and Natural Areas of Seney NWRChapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
36
Prior to Refuge establishment, forests that con
­tained
valuable timber and were accessible either by road or stream were degraded and altered from their pre-European settlement conditions by log
­ging
and, in xeric, conifer-dominated areas, result
­ing
wildfires fueled by logging debris (Karamanski 1989, Comer et al. 1995, Verme 1996, Drobyshev et al., In Press). The degree to which these forests were altered from their pre-European settlement condition is thought to be positively correlated to their proximity to roads and/or streams (Corace et al., Ongoing Refuge Research).
After Refuge establishment in 1935, forest man
­agement
objectives were primarily concerned with managing for early successional habitats, such as aspen and jack pine. Consequently, in many (but not all) forest patches, compositional and structural pat
­terns
that now exist are considerably different rela
­tive
to pre-European benchmark conditions. For instance, in many sites that once grew long-lived, later seral stage, red and white pine, past manage
­ment
activities have shifted stand dominance to shorter-lived, earlier seral stage, jack pine with a concomitant loss of structural diversity. Similarly, in northern hardwood stands, salvage logging for utili
­tarian
objectives during the 1970s and the recent arrival of Beech Bark Disease have together decreased the ecological integrity of many of these forests as well, with adverse impacts to many wild
­life
species (especially neotropical migrant birds) of national, regional, or local concern.
The goal of forest management at the Refuge is to conserve the diversity of cover types and seral stages at the landscape scale, while providing eco
­systems,
habitats, or seral stages important for spe
­cies
of national, regional, state, or local conservation concern. At the patch scale, management focuses on conserving and restoring historic compositional and structural patterns to forests that were degraded by past human activities. In doing so, the Refuge pro
­vides
a model for the Forest Bird Conservation Area (FBCA) concept posed by Matteson et al. (In Review).
Forest management at the Refuge should be eco
­logically-
based (Seymour and Hunter 1999), should de-emphasize single-species management (Simber
­loff
1997), maintain Refuge biodiversity, and strive to conserve and restore nationally, regionally, or locally imperiled ecosystems and habitat types (Hol
­ling
and Meffe 1996, Lambeck 1997). Management should also increase mean patch size (Crozier and Niemi 2003) across the Refuge, and increase con
­nectivity
between similar forests or habitat types. Forest management should also focus on the spatial arrangement of existing forests or habitat types and conserve and restore forest stand structure and composition where and when possible (Askins 2000). For instance, early successional forests (e.g., aspen, jack pine) that now exist on the Refuge boundary (e.g., Forest Management Units 1 to 6) should be conserved so as to produce larger overall patches by linking with similar cover types managed by the pri
­mary
surrounding land owner, the State of Michi
­gan.
Elsewhere, however, management should be directed at moving succession primarily “forward” and provide near benchmark conditions for later successional red and white pine and northern hard
­wood
forests as near-benchmark examples of these forests are especially imperiled nationally, region
­ally,
and locally (Noss and Scott 1997). Thus, forest management should provide a gradient from earlier successional forest cover types (e.g., aspen and jack pine) at the northern periphery of the Refuge to later successional ecosystems and seral stages within the interior and at the southern portion of the Refuge while maintaining existing stands of late successional forests wherever they are found.
The patch-scale focus of forest management should promote ecological integrity by restoring composition, structure, and processes in altered stands and maintaining these characteristics in rela
­tively
unaltered stands. In late successional forests
Figure 13: Seney NWR Forest Management UnitsChapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
37
comprised of red and white pine, eastern hemlock, and northern hardwood-associated tree species, an increased focus should be placed on providing coarse woody debris and standing snags. According to a literature review by Sallabanks and Arnett (2005), of all the characteristics of forest ecosystems that can be altered by management, the size, diver
­sity,
and abundance of snags may be the most important factor affecting bird diversity and abun
­dance
at the stand scale. Research conducted at the Refuge also indicated that stands with more compo
­sitional
and structural diversity (including increased coarse woody debris and snags) have more diverse small mammal communities, an important compo
­nent
of ecologically integrity in northern forest eco
­systems
(Harrington 2006).
Refuge forest patches with pre-European settle
­ment
forest conditions contain many large-diameter snags (Drobyshev et al. In Press). However, most forest patches on the Refuge are even-aged and less compositionally or structurally diverse. Except for a few, highly scattered individuals, there are very few snags and cavities present in some areas, except those in near benchmark conditions. Most of the snags that are present are of limited value to many cavity-nesting species (e.g., Wood Duck, Black-backed Woodpecker, Pileated Woodpecker) due to their relatively small diameter. The creation of snags will accomplish several objectives:
#
Improve forest stand structural and compo
­sitional
diversity.
#
Increase the patchiness of canopy coverage and thereby enhance age structure of the stands.
#
Provide nesting sites for cavity-nesting wild
­life
species.
#
Increase woody debris on the forest floor for wildlife such as salamanders and inverte
­brates.
#
Promote ecological processes.
#
Provide organic material to soil layers altered by turn-of-the-century wildfires.
Forest management at the Refuge should use all the necessary tools to meet ecologically-based objectives. In most stands, prescribed fire will not move succession forward as it may compound the effects of past wildfires by consuming soil organic matter, and promoting the establishment of jack pine. However, where patches of early successional species such as aspen and jack pine are to be main
­tained,
prescribed fire may be applied, and in some later successional stands in near benchmark condi
­tion,
prescribed fire here too may be used to main
­tain
existing conditions. Elsewhere, commercial and non-commercial mechanical treatments may be used to move succession forward or maintain exist
­ing
conditions. In all instances, Michigan Best Man
­agement
Practices (MDNR) are used to provide the minimum standards for management. In particular, wherever streams, pools, or wetlands exist manage
­ment
should be buffered from the effects of logging activities (the exception is on pool dikes where many of the existing trees should be removed). At a mini
­mum,
a 100-foot management buffer on either side of streams and surrounding pools will be used to minimize soil disturbances.
Wetland Management
Seney NWR is blessed with an abundance of water for its pool system (
Table
8
). As a result,
drought and growing season flooding are not extremely important factors influencing water man
­agement.
This unique and biologically complex pool system was constructed during the late 1930s and early 1940s, making it at least 65-70 years old. The pool system at Seney NWR uses gravity flow to manipulate water levels in all pools. Water enters the north end of the Refuge via rivers, ditches or creeks and flows generally southeast to the Manis
­tique
River. General ground slope is southeast at approximately 10 feet per mile. Existing impound
­ments
have been developed by constructing dikes across the general slope to intercept rivers, creek, ditches and overland water flow.
White pine stump and jack pine, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
38
Water Rights: Because of the general land slope of 10 feet per mile and the location of water control structures, upstream landowners are not affected by water management on the Refuge. In the State of Michigan, a land owner of the water course is entitled to have the stream flow by or through his or her property substantially undiminished in quantity and quality. The natural flow of the stream, however, is subject to the privilege of the upstream riparian owner to make “reasonable” use of the water as it flows past or through his or her land. The owner of Seney NWR, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is a riparian landowner and can make reasonable use of the water passing through the Refuge as long as such use is not to the detriment of lower riparian
Table 8: Pool Name With Water Control Structures, Initial Flooding Date and Size at Seney NWR
Unit
Pool
Initial Flooding Date
Acreage (Open Water)
1
Show Pools (North and South)
Spring 1937
57
Upper Goose Pen
Spring 1937
27
Lower Goose Pen
Spring 1937
93
A-1
Spring 1937
259
B-1
Spring 1937
243
C-1
Spring 1937
302
D-1
Spring 1937
197
E-1
Spring 1937
490
F-1
Fall 1936
258
G-1
Spring 1937
202
H-1
Spring 1937
111
I-1
Spring 1937
129
J-1
Spring 1937
214
Unit 1 Total: 2,582
2
A-2
Fall 1939
282
C-2
Fall 1939
501
M-2
Spring 1941
863
T-2 East
Spring 1941
233
Unit 2 Total: 1,879
3
C-3
Fall 1942
702
Marsh Creek
Late 1950s
950
Delta Creek
Late 1950s
50
Unit 3 Total: 1,702
Total Pool Acreage
6,163Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
39
owners. Currently, water flows from the Refuge into the Manistique River without any major detriment in quantity to the downstream users.
The Refuge has received a few requests to hold as much water as possible during spring periods of high flow in the Manistique River. These requests were made during flood stage conditions when the Refuge was unable to retain any more water. Water management will, when possible, attempt to reduce discharge into the Manistique River during these times as long as water levels on the Refuge are not high enough to damage dikes or control structures.
Water Supply: Annual average precipitation is approximately 32 inches per year. Precipitation accounts for 60 percent of Refuge water intake. The bundant rainfall is essential to maintaining water evels in the managed pools because all 60 miles of Refuge dikes are constructed of sand and they have high profile seeps and subsequent high water loss. he remaining 40 percent of the Refuge water supply comes from the ditches, rivers, and creeks. Peak lows through the Refuge marsh and water system normally occur during spring. Snowmelt, frozen ground, and rain can combine to create destructive floods, although such events are rare. However dur
­ing
spring run-off daily attention to pool levels and structures is required.
Pool History and Management: Most water level management prior to 1963 consisted of holding the pools at a stable levels throughout the year (Fjet
­land
1973). Some experimentation with drawdowns occurred when pools levels were lowered to facili
­tate
repair work. As a result, the pools have a vari
­ety
of management histories. From 1963-1969 the approach was to manage the pools with fluctuating water levels. The general practice was to maintain low level through the winter, raise them in the spring, hold high through the nesting season and then drop the levels through the rest of the summer. In 1970, partly as a result of recommendations by Fjetland (1973), stable level water management resumed until 1983.
The current program is based on water level manipulations and maintenance of approximately 6,163 surface acres within 21 man-made impound
­ments
with water control structures (1993 Long Range Marsh and Water Management Plan). An additional 65,000 wetland acres are maintained nat
­urally
by precipitation, surface runoff, or by diver
­sions
and ditches associated with the man-made structures. Rotational water level drawdown and flooding management within the 21 pool provides resident and migratory birds with approximately 1,500 acres of moist soil plant production annually. In addition, full and partial draw-downs produce an estimated 2,300 acres of emergent vegetation for nesting and brood habitat.
Each pool is managed for specific wildlife objec
­tives
as detailed in the current Annual Water Man
­agement
Plan. This Plan is used to define detail pool objectives and associated water levels. It takes into account maintenance requirements and the objec
­tives
and water levels in adjacent pools’ Annual Water Management Plans are guided by Long Range Marsh and Water Management Plan, written in 1993.
During spring and early summer, pools will be filled to the maximum permissible level unless the annual plan specifies otherwise. During late sum
­mer,
water levels on most pools will be lowered approximately 1 foot to facilitate use of submergent vegetation by staging and migrating waterfowl and to provide some mudflats for use by Sandhill Crane, shorebirds, and Canada Goose. After October 15, impoundment levels will be maintained to accommo
­date
over wintering of fish species and initial spring runoff. All Annual Water Level Management Plans are subject to change given the current environmen
­tal
conditions.
Once the CCP is completed for Seney NWR, the Long Range Marsh and Water Management Plan will be revised and incorporated into the Seney NWR Habitat Management Plan.
F-Pool, Seney NWR. USFWS photo.Chapter 3: Refuge Environment
Seney National Wildlife Refuge / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
40
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 (SWG) created by Congress in 2001. The goal of the plan is to provide a common strategic framework that will enable Michigan’s conservation partners to jointly implement a long-term holistic approach for the conservation of all wildlife species. Members of the partnership include the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser
­vice,
the U.S. Forest Service, The Nature Conser
­vancy,
Michigan Natural Features Inventory, academics from several Michigan universities, as well as many other agencies and conservation orga
­nizations.
The Michigan Wildlife Action Plan:
#
Provides an ecological, habitat-based frame
­work
to aid in the conservation and manage
­ment
of wildlife;
#
Identifies and recommends actions to improve habitat conditions and population status of species with the greatest conserva
­tion
need (SGCN), which are those species with small or declining populations or other characteristics that make them vulnerable;
#
Recommends actions that will help to keep common species common;
#
Identifies and prioritizes conservation actions, research and survey needs, and long-term monitoring needed to assess the success of conservation efforts;
#
Complements other conservation strategies, funding sources, planning initiatives, and legally mandated activities;
#
Incorporates public participation to provide an opportunity for all conservation partners and Michigan residents to influence the future of resource management;
#
Provides guidance for use of SWG funds; and
#
Provides a clear process for review and revi
­sion
as necessary to address changing condi
­tions
and to integrate new information as it becomes available.
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 refuges. Bird conservation planning efforts have evolved from a largely local, site-based orientation to a more regional, even inter-continental, landscape-oriented perspective (
Figure
14
). Several trans-national
migratory bird conservation initiatives have emerged to help guide the planning and implemen
­tation
process. The regional plans relevant to Seney NWR 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 plan