Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment
Shiawassee
National Wildlife Refuge
i
Acknowledgments
Because it will serve as a guide to Refuge management for the next 15 years,
public input into the Comprehensive Conservation Plan is vital. The Shiawas-see
National Wildlife Refuge staff and the planning team are grateful to all of
the people who have contributed their time, expertise and ideas through
open houses, focus group discussions, and written comments. All of your
ideas have been valuable and will contribute to the success of this plan.
We are especially grateful to Kim LeBlanc and Myles Willard for contribut-ing
the superb photographs that appear in this Comprehensive Conservation
Plan. We thank the members of the Friends of Shiawassee National Wildlife
Refuge for their help and dedication to the environment. And, finally, we are
grateful to everyone who contributes time and energy as a Refuge volunteer.
You are truly the backbone of conservation.
Contents
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................... i
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background............................................................................. 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Refuge Purposes ................................................................................................................... 1
The Refuge Mission ...................................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of and Need for the Plan ................................................................................................. 3
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................................................................................ 3
The National Wildlife Refuge System .......................................................................................... 4
Existing Partnerships ..................................................................................................................... 5
Legal and Policy Guidance ............................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 2: The Planning Process .......................................................................................... 6
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6
Issues ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Public Use Issues ................................................................................................................... 6
Resource Protection Issues ................................................................................................... 7
Maintenance Issues .............................................................................................................. 7
General Issues ....................................................................................................................... 7
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ..................................................................................................... 8
The Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem ........................................................................................ 8
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment ...................................................................................... 8
The Saginaw Bay Watershed ............................................................................................... 9
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ...................................................................................... 10
Nongame Bird Conservation Initiatives .............................................................................. 10
North American Waterfowl Management Plan ................................................................. 11
Michigan Wetland Management District ........................................................................... 12
Introduction and Background ...................................................................................... 12
Waterfowl Production Area Resources ...................................................................... 13
Additional Responsibilities ......................................................................................... 14
Future Management ................................................................................................... 14
Region 3 Fish & Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities ........................................................ 15
Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses ............................................................................. 15
General ............................................................................................................................... 15
Geology and Minerals ......................................................................................................... 17
Soils .................................................................................................................................... 17
Water and Hydrology .......................................................................................................... 17
History of Water Management and Flood Control ............................................................. 18
Fish, Wildlife and Plant Resources ..................................................................................... 21
Vegetation ................................................................................................................... 21
Birds ............................................................................................................................ 21
Mammals .................................................................................................................... 24
Reptiles and Amphibians ............................................................................................ 25
Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................... 25
Fish .............................................................................................................................. 25
Invertebrates ............................................................................................................... 27
Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 27
Mosquito Control ................................................................................................................ 27
Contaminants ...................................................................................................................... 27
Socioeconomic and Political Environment .......................................................................... 28
Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 29
Public Use ............................................................................................................................ 29
Special Management Topics ............................................................................................... 30
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................... 30
Saginaw River and Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment Settlement ........... 30
Chapter 4: Refuge Management .......................................................................................... 31
Current Refuge Programs ............................................................................................................ 31
Habitat Management .......................................................................................................... 31
Wetland Management ................................................................................................ 31
Moist Soil Units .......................................................................................................... 31
Marshes ...................................................................................................................... 33
Open Water Pools ....................................................................................................... 33
Greentree Reservoirs .................................................................................................. 33
Forests ......................................................................................................................... 34
Croplands .................................................................................................................... 34
Grasslands ................................................................................................................... 34
Fish and Wildlife Monitoring .............................................................................................. 34
Waterfowl ................................................................................................................... 34
Marsh Birds and Shorebirds ....................................................................................... 35
Passerine/Neotropical Migrants ................................................................................ 35
Raptors ........................................................................................................................ 36
Amphibians ................................................................................................................. 36
White-tailed Deer ....................................................................................................... 36
Habitat Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 36
Public Use ............................................................................................................................ 36
Waterfowl Hunting ..................................................................................................... 37
Deer Hunting ............................................................................................................... 37
Fishing ......................................................................................................................... 37
Wildlife Observation ................................................................................................... 37
Education/Interpretation ............................................................................................. 38
Pest Management ............................................................................................................... 38
Animal Pests ............................................................................................................... 38
Plant Pests ................................................................................................................... 39
Management of Insect Pests ...................................................................................... 39
Archaeological and Cultural Resources .............................................................................. 39
Special Management Areas ............................................................................................... 40
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ...................................................................... 40
Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements ........................................... 40
Planned Refuge Programs ........................................................................................................... 42
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 42
Fish and Wildlife ......................................................................................................... 42
Wildlife-dependent Recreation .................................................................................. 43
Environmental Education and Outreach ..................................................................... 43
Refuge Habitats .......................................................................................................... 43
Avoidance of Adverse Impacts to Listed Species ....................................................... 46
Climate Change Impacts ............................................................................................. 48
Primary Facilities ......................................................................................................... 49
Land Exchange ............................................................................................................ 52
Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................... 54
Goal 1: Habitat Management ................................................................................................................ 54
Goal 2: Fish and Wildlife Population Management .......................................................................... 59
Goal 3: Public Use .................................................................................................................................. 61
Goal 4: Outreach ..................................................................................................................................... 65
Goal 5: Protection ................................................................................................................................... 65
Goal 6: Private Lands .............................................................................................................................. 67
Goal 7: Conservation Easements .......................................................................................................... 68
Mosquito Control ......................................................................................................................... 69
Policy .................................................................................................................................. 70
Determination of Human Health Emergency ...................................................................... 70
Responsibility for Prescription of Treatment of Refuge Lands ........................................... 70
Implementation of the Policy .............................................................................................. 70
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation......................................................................................... 71
Personnel Needs ......................................................................................................................... 71
Funding ....................................................................................................................................... 73
Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 73
Partnership Opportunities ........................................................................................................... 74
Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 74
Index ............................................................................................................................ 75
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 79
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment........................................................................... 81
Appendix B: Glossary .......................................................................................................... 105
Appendix C: RONS and MMS Lists .................................................................................... 111
Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations ..................................................................... 121
Appendix E: Species List ..................................................................................................... 145
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements ........................................................................... 173
Appendix G: Bibliography ................................................................................................... 179
Appendix H: Mailing List ..................................................................................................... 185
Appendix I: List of Preparers .............................................................................................. 189
Appendix J: Summary and Disposition of Public Comments ...................................... 193
List of Tables
Table 1: Threatened and Endangered Species in the Shiawassee Flats Area ...................... 26
Table 2: Acreage of Management Units on Shiawassee NWR ............................................ 33
Table 3: Major Habitats – Current and Future ....................................................................... 45
Table 4: Additional Staff Needs ............................................................................................. 73
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Refuge Location .................................................................................................... 1
Figure 1.2: National Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Flyways ............................................ 4
Figure 3.1: The Saginaw Bay Watershed ............................................................................... 9
Figure 3.2: Shiawassee NWR and Other Wildlife Areas ....................................................... 10
Figure 3.3: Wetland Management District/Waterfowl Production Areas ............................ 13
Figure 3.4: Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................... 15
Figure 3.5: Shiawassee NWR Boundaries ............................................................................. 16
Figure 3.6: Current Land Cover ............................................................................................... 22
Figure 3.7: Route Used in Bird Counting ................................................................................ 23
Figure 4.1: Locations of Management Units .......................................................................... 32
Figure 4.2: Refuge Visits ......................................................................................................... 37
Figure 4.3: Shiawassee Fish and Wildlife Management District .......................................... 41
Figure 4.4: Long-term Vision for Refuge Habitats .................................................................. 44
Figure 4.5: Land Exchange Proposal ....................................................................................... 53
Figure 4.6: Public Use Facilities .............................................................................................. 62
Figure 5.1: Present Staffing Needs ........................................................................................ 71
Figure 5.2: Proposed Organizational Chart ............................................................................. 72
Chapter 1 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge – a large area of wetlands1 and forests within the agricultural and
urban landscape of Michigan’s lower peninsula – is recognized as globally significant to migratory waterfowl
and is proximate to a large urban and tourist population. In this plan we describe how we will provide for
migratory species within our boundaries, work with partners to improve habitats beyond our boundaries,
expand opportunities for wildlife viewing and fishing, and develop environmental education and outreach
programs to increase appreciation of fish and wildlife.
Introduction
The Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) was established in 1953 and is 9,706
acres in size. The Refuge is located within Saginaw County, Michigan and is surrounded
by both urban and agricultural areas.
Refuge Purposes
The Refuge was authorized by the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission under the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715 - 715s) “... for use
as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other manage-ment
purpose, for migratory birds.” Additional
purposes designated under the Refuge Recreation
Act (16 U.S.C. § 460k-l) are “... (1) incidental fish and
wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the
protection of natural resources, [and] (3) the conser-vation
of endangered and threatened species.”
The Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge is respon-sible
for managing three other facilities: the 304-
acre Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge; the 602-
acre Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge; and
the Saginaw City-owned, 80-acre Green Point
Environmental Learning Center (ELC). The
management of the Wyandotte and Michigan Islands
national wildlife refuges are described in separate
comprehensive conservation plans.
When established in 1953, the Refuge and the
associated state area were envisioned as providing a
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
1 For the convenience of non-technical readers, definitions to italacized words are provided in Appendix B.
Figure 1.1: Refuge Location
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
2
place where waterfowl from the Saginaw Bay area could be held longer before they
migrated to southern Illinois. Since its establishment, the Refuge has shown its impor-tance
to migrating waterfowl, including the Southern James Bay population of Canada
geese and American black ducks, the production of waterfowl, and for other wildlife.
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge manages a variety of habitats that
provide resting, foraging, and nesting opportunities for nearly 300 species
of resident and migratory birds. The major habitat types include wetlands
(3,771 acres), forests (4,225 acres), agricultural lands (1,180 acres), and
grasslands (580 acres). This diversity of habitats also supports an abun-dance
of plant, mammal, reptile, amphibian, and fish species.
The management techniques currently used on the Refuge include control
of water levels in moist soil units and pools, biological and chemical
control of invasive plant species, prescribed burning, mowing, tree planting, grass
seeding, furbearer trapping and hunting of white-tailed deer and Canada geese.
In 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considered alternative ways to better protect
the Refuge resources at Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge. After evaluating the
alternatives, the Service decided to pursue the addition of approximately 7,500 acres to
the existing Refuge (Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge Additions Final Environmen-tal
Assessment, 1995). If all authorized acres are eventually acquired, the Refuge will
include approximately 16,600 acres. The additions will be primarily along the
Tittabawassee and Cass River corridors. These waterways are two of the four rivers that
converge on the Refuge and make up Michigan’s largest watershed, and their environ-mental
integrity is vital to the health of the Refuge’s core.
The staffing of Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge consists of 10 positions:
■ two refuge operations specialists
■ one refuge manager
■ one administrative technician
■ one wildlife biologist
■ one biological science technician
■ two park rangers
■ one engineering equipment operator
■ one tractor operator
The park rangers are stationed at Green Point Environmental Learning Center.
The Refuge Mission
To preserve and manage an undeveloped expanse of floodplain forest, marshes, rivers,
and associated habitat within an agricultural and urban landscape through habitat
management, encouraging public stewardship, educational programs, and private land
activities.
Photo by Myles Willard
Chapter 1 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3
Purpose of and Need for the Plan
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan, or CCP, identifies the role the Refuge will play
in supporting the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and provides guidance
for Refuge management. The plan articulates management goals for the next 15 years
and specifies objectives and strategies that will achieve those goals. 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 of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation are the priority
public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These uses will be facilitated
when they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill the Refuge’s purposes or the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
■ Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed when they are determined to be
appropriate and compatible with the Refuge purposes and mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
This CCP will enhance the management of the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge by:
■ Providing a clear statement of direction for future management of the Refuge.
■ Giving Refuge neighbors, visitors, and the general public an understanding of the
Service’s management actions on and around the Refuge.
■ Ensuring that the Refuge’s management actions and programs are consistent with
the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
■ Establishing continuity in Refuge management.
■ Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the Refuge’s opera-tion,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
“Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”
Mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary Federal agency responsible for con-serving,
protecting, and enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing
benefit of the American people. Specific responsibilities include enforcing Federal wildlife
laws, managing migratory bird populations, restoring nationally significant fisheries,
administering the Endangered Species Act, and restoring wildlife habitat such as wet-lands.
The Service also manages the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
4
The National Wildlife Refuge System
“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, man-agement
and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System
Managing the National Wildlife Refuge System has evolved into a significant role for the
Service. Founded in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt with the designation of
Pelican Island as a refuge for brown pelicans, the National Wildlife Refuge System is the
world’s largest collection of lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The System is
a network of more than 500 national wildlife refuges encompassing more than 93 million
acres of public land and water. The majority of these lands – 82 percent – is in Alaska,
with approximately 16 million acres spread across the other states and several island
territories. Refuges provide habitat for more than 5,000 species of birds, mammals, fish,
and insects. Like Pelican Island, many early national wildlife refuges were created for
herons, egrets and other water birds. Others were set aside for large mammals such as
elk and bison. Most refuges, however, have been created to protect migratory waterfowl.
This is a result of the United States’ responsibilities under international treaties for
migratory bird conservation as well as other legislation, such as the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act of 1929. A map of the National Wildlife Refuge System shows refuges
dotting the four major flyways that waterfowl follow from their northern nesting
grounds to southern wintering areas.
Figure 1.2: National Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Flyways
Chapter 1 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5
National wildlife refuges also play a vital role in preserving endangered and threatened
species. Among the refuges that are well known for providing habitat for endangered
species are Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas, the winter home of the whooping
crane; the Florida Panther Refuge, which protects one of the nation’s most endangered
mammals; and the Hawaiian Islands Refuge, home of the Laysan duck, Hawaiian monk
seal, and many other unique species.
Refuges also provide unique opportunities for people. When it is compatible with wildlife
and habitat needs, refuges can be used for wildlife-dependent activities 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, more than 36 million people visited
national wildlife refuges in 2000.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established many
mandates aimed at making the management of national wildlife refuges more cohesive.
The preparation of comprehensive conservation plans is one of those mandates. The
legislation requires the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the mission of the Na-tional
Wildlife Refuge System and purposes of the individual refuges are carried out. It
also requires the Secretary to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environ-mental
health of the refuge system.
Existing Partnerships
Partnerships with other Federal agencies as well as tribal, state,
and city governments and schools are an important element in
refuge management. Other agencies can provide invaluable
assistance in research and maintenance. Partnerships with
private groups greatly enhance public investment in the refuge,
building enthusiasm for its mission and support in funding
issues.
In addition to the official partnerships that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service holds on a
national level, Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge maintains informal partnerships
with the Shiawassee Flats Advisory Council, The Friends of Shiawassee National
Wildlife Refuge, The Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team, Saginaw Bay Watershed
Initiative Network (WIN), the City of Saginaw, and Bridgeport Township. Within the
Private Lands Program, the Refuge maintains partnerships with 14 Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, local Pheasants Forever chapters, Great Lakes Regional Office of
Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Michigan Duck Hunters Association, Michigan Wildlife Habitat
Foundation, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the United States Depart-ment
of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Service’s State
Private Lands Coordinator’s Office.
Legal and Policy Guidance
In addition to the Refuge’s establishing authority legislation and the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, several federal laws, executive orders, and
regulations govern its administration. See Appendix F for a list of the guiding laws and
orders.
Photo by Steve Lewis
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
6
Introduction
The planning process for this comprehensive conservation plan
began in December 1997. Initially, members of the regional
planning staff and staff of Shiawassee National Wildlife
Refuge identified a list of issues and concerns that were
associated with the management of the Refuge. These prelimi-nary
issues and concerns were based on staff knowledge of the
area and contacts with citizens in the community. Refuge staff
and Service planners then asked Refuge neighbors, organiza-tions,
local government units, schools, and interested citizens
to share their thoughts in a series of open houses and focus
groups.
In 1999, the public was invited to open houses in January, February, and March for
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge, Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge, and
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge. Forty-two people attended open houses for
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge in Bridgeport Township, Thomas Township, and at
the Green Point Environmental Learning Center.
Another 25 people participated in focus groups representing environmental education,
cooperative farming, hunting and fishing, and wildlife observation/photography use of the
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge.
Service staff accepted oral and written comments at each open house and written com-ments
were received in the mail after each open house. Thirty-two comments were
received for Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge.
Issues
Members of the public raised a diverse range of issues. The issues raised by the staff and
public are organized into themes – public use, resource protection, maintenance, and
general – and are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Public Use Issues
Public use of national wildlife refuges requires a delicate balance. The mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System is to conserve, manage and, when appropriate, restore
the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats. Recreational uses that are
wildlife-dependent and that are compatible with the refuge purpose are considered an
appropriate way of enhancing people’s appreciation for fish and wildlife. However, what
constitutes compatible human activity is not always clear, and people’s expectations of
refuge activities vary considerably.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Photo by Myles Willard
Chapter 2 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
7
Participants in open house events and focus group meetings expressed a wide range of
philosophies on public use of Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge. Some people would
like to see management of the Refuge focus on wildlife and habitat with no increase of
public access and public use of the Refuge. Other people would like to see an expanded
trail system and enhanced access for activities such as horseback riding, automobile
tours, environmental education, hiking, hunting, fishing, boating, and bicycling.
The subject of airboats on rivers flowing through the Refuge drew a strong response
from people who believe that the Refuge should provide a tranquil place to view birds.
Airboat operators were described as having “disregard” for anglers and wildlife observ-ers.
Comments included concerns about safety on the river as well as the noise distur-bance.
Participants suggested a variety of solutions, including instituting a no-wake
zone; expanding noise abatement codes; strictly enforcing wildlife harassment codes; and
implementing horsepower or speed restrictions.
Resource Protection Issues
Meeting participants voiced many opinions about the priority of resource protection
issues. Some people said that enhanced law enforcement is a critical need, and others said
that reducing the amount of sediment and chemical waste that flows through the Refuge
should be a priority. Control of exotic species, such as purple loosestrife, round goby and
zebra mussel, as well as invasive species such as phragmites, were cited as protection
issues. Concern was also expressed about mosquito control. Prioritizing land acquisition
is another expansion issue facing Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge, according to open
house and focus group participants.
Maintenance Issues
Dike maintenance was the primary maintenance issue that
emerged from the public involvement process. The need to
maintain dikes was described as a top priority, particularly
for dikes damaged by burrowing muskrats and, in moist soil
units, wave action. Recognizing the role the Refuge plays in
relieving flood pressure, people recommended conserving
some areas of the Refuge as flood retention areas.
General Issues
Some people said that the cultural diversity efforts at the Refuge are failing to reach
targeted communities. Others suggested that monitoring of the Partners for Wildlife
habitat restoration efforts is needed to evaluate what has been accomplished so far.
Comments on revenue issues included statements that current staffing at Shiawassee
National Wildlife Refuge needs more funding. Other participants questioned the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service’s plans to expand the Refuge when its ability to manage or
maintain the existing wildlife Refuge is already a challenge.
Photo by Kim LeBlanc
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
8
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
The Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has adopted an approach to fish and wildlife conserva-tion
that is described as an ecosystem approach. What this means is that the Service is
working to perpetuate dynamic, healthy ecosystems that ultimately will foster natural
biological diversity. The strategy behind this effort is interdisciplinary and integrates the
expertise and resources of all stakeholders.
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge lies
within the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem,
a system shared with Canada and eight
states. This ecosystem is made up of the
world’s largest freshwater body, which
holds 18 percent of the world’s supply of
freshwater, covers 95,000 square miles, has
9,000 miles of shoreline, includes more than
5,000 tributaries, and has a drainage basin
of 288,000 square miles.
The Basin contains critical breeding, feeding, and resting areas as well as migration
corridors for waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, and many other species of migratory
birds. At the same time, the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem faces a variety of biological
concerns, including the impact of exotic species, the precarious nature of the aquatic
community structure, and contaminant levels.
Certain species within the Great Lakes basin have drawn special concern. Fish species of
special interest include lake trout, lake sturgeon, lake whitefish, walleye, Pacific salmon,
and landlocked Atlantic salmon and their forage. Native mussels are a management
concern because they are being seriously impacted by zebra mussels and are in danger of
extirpation from the Great Lakes Basin. Thirty-one species of migratory, non-game
birds that the Service considers of management concern are found in the Great Lakes
ecosystem. At least 20 of these species are frequently found at Shiawassee National
Wildlife Refuge.
A recent survey of biological diversity in the Basin identified 130 globally rare or endan-gered
plant and animal species. The bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Kirtland’s warbler,
piping plover, Mitchell’s satyr and Karner blue butterflies, Indiana bat, gray wolf, lake
sturgeon, deepwater sculpin, and pugnose shiner are some of the threatened, endan-gered,
and candidate species that inhabit the Great Lakes ecosystem. The bald eagle,
peregrine falcon, and lake sturgeon are found at the Refuge.
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
Photo by Kim LeBlanc
Chapter 3 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
9
The Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem is divided into seven focus areas. The Saginaw Bay
and Watershed focus area contains the Saginaw Bay Watershed, the largest in Michigan,
which covers more than 8,000 square miles in 22 counties. The Saginaw River and its four
major tributaries (Cass, Flint, Shiawassee, and Tittabawassee) drain nearly 75 percent of
the watershed. Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge lies in the heart of the watershed,
and these four rivers flow through the Refuge and affect its habitats and wildlife.
The Saginaw Bay Watershed
The Saginaw Bay Watershed (Watershed) contains habitat supporting a variety of plant,
fish, and wildlife species (see Figure 3.1). Migratory birds in the area include some 29
species of ducks, geese and swans; 119 species of songbirds; and 21 species of hawks,
falcons and owls. Anadromous and interjurisdictional fish in the Watershed include
salmon, shad, sturgeon, walleye, and perch. Federally endangered and threatened species
found in the area include bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and eastern prairie fringed orchid.
Grassland and wetland plant communities in the
area provide dabbling ducks, such as mallard and
blue-winged teal, with nesting and feeding
habitat and provide black duck and canvasback
with migration habitat on their way to and from
their northern breeding grounds. Forest, grass-land,
and marsh plant communities provide
nesting and migration habitat for birds with
diminishing regional populations, such as the
least bittern, American bittern, cerulean war-bler,
and red-shouldered hawk (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1995). Bottomland forests
provide nesting habitat for bald eagles, and the
floodplain and riverine communities provide
migration and wintering habitat. Wetland plant
communities of emergent marshes and floodplain
forest provide spawning and nursery habitat for
northern pike and yellow perch. The riverine
communities provide spawning and feeding
habitat for species like lake sturgeon, walleye,
salmon, and shad.
Since settlement by Europeans, the Watershed
has been important for timber harvest, agricul-ture,
commercial and residential development,
and transportation. These uses continue to be
important.
Prior to European settlement, the area now designated as Saginaw County had a mixture
of approximately 75 percent upland forest and 25 percent wetlands. Currently about 23
percent of the land in Saginaw County is in a natural condition. About half of the natural
land is bottomland forests and other types of wetlands. Most of the natural areas are
small in size and are isolated from each other. Many of the wildlife species that use these
areas (especially songbirds) require larger areas of habitat than are now available or
Figure 3.1: The Saginaw Bay Watershed
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
10
expected to be available with continued urban development. Although birds like the
American robin, blue jay, downy woodpecker and black-capped chickadee do well in
fragmented forested areas in suburbs, others like the pileated woodpecker, yellow-throated
vireo, cerulean warbler, and broad-winged hawk are highly sensitive to forest
fragmentation and need forested areas more than 100 acres in size (Herkert, et al., 1993).
Declining numbers of wetlands and their isolation from other supporting habitats within
the Watershed affect an estimated 111 bird species that utilize wetlands for feeding,
nesting, or resting. Eight of these species have special federal or state endangered or
threatened status because their population levels are declining either nationally or
statewide. In addition, about 40 percent of the mammals and 75 percent of the reptiles
and amphibians within the Watershed are dependent on wetlands. For fish, wetland
habitat and water quality are important to the distribution and population size of the 71
species that are found within the Water-shed.
These wetlands are often essential for
critical life stages such as spawning and
nursery areas for both forage and game fish
species. Changes in the quality and quantity
of these areas affect not only the fish but
most of the bird and animal populations
found in the watershed and uses by man.
The availability and quality of wetland and
riverine communities, together with water
quality, limit the population and diversity of
the fishery resources vital to such a large
portion of the animal and bird population
using the watershed. (Department of the
Interior Report, 1992).
The continued growth of the Saginaw
metropolitan area has placed increasing
demands on surrounding open space for
recreation and residential and commercial
development.
Two major wildlife areas managed by the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
complement the Refuge in the lower
Saginaw River Watershed. The Shiawassee
River State Game Area neighbors the Refuge upstream, and the Crow Island State
Game Area is located downstream from the Refuge between Saginaw and Bay City.
(Figure 3.2)
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Nongame Bird Conservation Initiatives
Nationally and internationally, several nongame bird initiatives have been developed in
recent years. Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge will strive to implement the conserva-tion
strategies they outline to the extent possible and practical.
Figure 3.2: Shiawassee NWR and Other Wildlife Areas
Chapter 3 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
11
Partners In Flight (PIF) deals primarily with landbirds and has developed Bird Conser-vation
Plans for numerous physiographic areas across the U.S. (see http://
www.partnersinflight.org). These plans include priority species lists, associated habitats,
and management strategies. Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge lies within Partners in
Flight Physiographic Area No. 16, Upper Great Lakes Plain.
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (see http://www.manomet.org/USSCP.htm) and
the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (see http://www.nacwcp.org) have
regional components that identify priority species and conservation strategies, mostly
focused around habitat, that will address the needs of these groups of birds.
All migratory bird conservation programs will be integrated under
the umbrella of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative
(NABCI). This is a continental effort to have all bird initiatives
operate under common Bird Conservation Regions and to consider
the conservation objectives of all birds together to optimize the
effectiveness of management strategies (see http://www.dodpif.org/
nabci/index.htm). The goal of NABCI is to facilitate the delivery of
the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally-based,
biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships. As part of NABCI, Important Bird
Areas have been designated (see http://www.audubon.org/bird/iba).
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge has been designated as an Important Bird Area
(IBA), globally significant to migratory waterfowl. The IBA program began in Europe in
1985, is administered in the United States by the American Bird Conservancy, and is an
integral part of the Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Strategy. The IBA program
seeks to establish a global network of protected areas critical for those species for which
a site-based approach is appropriate. Shiawassee’s designation as an IBA is an affirma-tion
of its importance to waterfowl.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Signed in 1986, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) outlines a
broad framework for waterfowl management strategies and conservation efforts in the
United States, Canada, and Mexico. The goal of the NAWMP is to restore waterfowl
populations to historic levels. The NAWMP is designed to reach its objectives through
key joint venture areas, species joint ventures, and state implementation plans within
these joint ventures.
The entire State of Michigan is within the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes
Region Joint Venture. Areas within Michigan have substantial use by waterfowl during
migration, particularly the coastal waters and marshes of Saginaw Bay, the Lake St.
Clair and Erie complex, and the eastern Upper Peninsula along the St. Mary’s River and
northern Lake Huron. However, emphasis for Michigan in the Joint Venture is waterfowl
reproduction and the maintenance of healthy populations of other resident wetland
wildlife.
The greatest potential to increase Michigan wetland wildlife populations exists on
relatively productive lake plain landscapes where agricultural practices have eliminated
Photo by Kim LeBlanc
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
12
or significantly altered wetlands and associated uplands. These landscapes dominate the
Saginaw Bay region. (Upper Mississippi River & Great Lakes Region Joint Venture
Implementation Plan Update, 1998)
The Saginaw Lake Plain and the Huron Clay Plain are primary focus areas within the
most recent Joint Venture Plan. The focus areas include the area around Shiawassee
National Wildlife Refuge and the “Thumb” of Michigan, which are in the Shiawassee
Private Lands Coordination Area. The habitat objectives for these focus areas emphasize
the restoration/creation of functioning, productive wetlands and grasslands on private
land, land managed by the Michigan Department of Transportation, and State/Federal
lands, plus acquisition of agricultural lands adjacent to public lands to create or restore
wetlands and grasslands.
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge staff are actively involved with the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan in Michigan and serve on the State Implementation/
Steering Committee. The Refuge has received more than $350,000 in North American
Wetland Conservation Act grants to acquire land and restore wetlands and grasslands on
the Refuge and within the Private Lands Coordination Area.
In addition to the area-focused Joint Venture, the Refuge participates in the species-focused
Black Duck Joint Venture. The purpose of the Black Duck Joint Venture is to
promote and coordinate data gathering about the black duck. Black ducks and mallards
are banded at Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge as part of the Joint Venture effort.
Data gathered at Shiawassee contributes to information gathered in Canada, the Great
Lakes, and northeastern United States. Together, this information will guide black duck
protection and management projects in Canada and the United States.
Michigan Wetland Management District
Introduction and Background
The Michigan Wetland Management District is a unit of the
National Wildlife Refuge System that is distinct from
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge and other refuges in
Michigan. The Wetland Management District, adminis-tered
by the Michigan Private Lands Office in East Lansing, presently includes two
Waterfowl Production Areas, Schlee and Kinney, that total 237 acres. These Waterfowl
Production Areas are managed cooperatively by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). See Figure 3.3.
The Waterfowl Production Area Program, as authorized by Congress in 1958 by amend-ment
to the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, was initiated in 1961 to preserve natural
wetlands that were rapidly being destroyed nationwide by agricultural drainage, housing
development and other commercial land use practices. To date, there are nearly 3,000
Waterfowl Production Areas covering approximately 668,000 acres. Nearly 95 percent of
Waterfowl Production Areas are located in prairie pothole areas of North Dakota, South
Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana.
In 1980, with approval from then Governor Milliken and support from the Michigan DNR,
the Service announced it was proposing to acquire up to 30,000 acres of wetlands in a 14-
county area of south-central Michigan under the Waterfowl Production Area Program.
Photo by Kim LeBlanc
Chapter 3 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
13
This was part of a larger plan to
acquire 100,000 acres of breeding
duck habitat in the Great Lakes
region. In Michigan, it was esti-mated
that more than half of the 11
million acres of wetlands were lost
between the 1780s and the 1980s
(Dahl 1990). Destruction of wet-lands
important to both wildlife and
people prompted actions by the
Service to preserve waterfowl
breeding habitat in Michigan.
In 1981, with realty support from
the Michigan DNR, the Service
acquired the 160-acre Schlee
Waterfowl Production Area in
Jackson County and the 77-acre
Kinney Waterfowl Production Area
in Van Buren County. Property was
acquired through fee title purchase
from willing sellers. Property was
selected based on the importance of
the wetland to waterfowl production
and the value of the upland as
nesting habitat.
Under a Memorandum of Under-standing
with the Michigan DNR,
the Service retains primary jurisdic-tion
and is principally responsible for the management of these lands, while the DNR is
directly involved in day-to-day management of the land. Monetary constraints in fiscal
year 1982 and subsequent years resulted in no additional Waterfowl Production Areas
being acquired in Michigan. In recent years, conservation partners have expressed
interest in renewing the Waterfowl Production Area effort in Michigan.
Waterfowl Production Area Resources
Schlee Waterfowl Production Area and Kinney Waterfowl Production Area were ac-quired
and are managed to maintain wetland and grassland cover for waterfowl and
other wildlife. The habitat is managed to provide breeding, nesting and brood-rearing
cover primarily for grass-nesting waterfowl such as blue-winged teal and mallards. The
Waterfowl Production Areas are also open for public use including hunting and other
wildlife-dependent activities such as wildlife observation, photography, and environmen-tal
education.
The 160-acre Schlee Waterfowl Production Area is located approximately 8 miles east of
the City of Jackson. The Waterfowl Production Area consists of approximately 108 acres
of grassland, 46 acres of wetland, and 6 acres of upland forest and other habitat. The soils
consist primarily of sandy loams in the upland and hydric silt loam, and muck or ponded
soils in the wetlands. Eight depressional wetland basins ranging from less than 1 acre to
approximately 24 acres provide a diverse marsh habitat across the property. Warm
Figure 3.3: Wetland Management District and Waterfowl
Production Areas
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
14
season grasses are maintained on the upland areas through rotational mowing of the area
on a 3-year cycle. Woody encroachment on the area is controlled by mowing, hand-cutting,
and selective use of herbicides.
Sixty species of birds have been observed on the Schlee Waterfowl Production Area,
including 10 species of waterfowl. Wading wetland birds, shorebirds and grassland birds
are commonly observed on the property. Muskrat, deer, rabbits and other mammals, as
well as a variety of amphibians and reptiles, are present. Federally-listed threatened or
endangered species are not known to occupy the area.
The 77-acre Kinney Waterfowl Production Area is located approximately 18 miles
southwest of the City of Kalamazoo and consists of approximately 31 acres of wetland, 37
acres of grassland, and 9 acres of upland forest. Upland soils consist primarily of loam or
sandy loam, while the wetlands have ponded soils. The entire wetland habitat is associ-ated
with the 150-acre Grass Lake, a portion of which is included in the Waterfowl
Production Area. Upland habitat is maintained primarily in warm season grasses
through rotational mowing of the area. A small portion of the area was planted
to fruit-bearing shrubs.
Wildlife species using the Kinney Waterfowl Production Area are similar to that
at the Schlee Waterfowl Production Area. Water-dependent and grassland birds
are commonly observed, but a species list has not been recorded. A variety of
mammals, amphibians and reptiles are also present on the site.
Surveys by the Michigan DNR record regular use by sportsmen hunting waterfowl and
other species. The areas also get use by nonconsumptive users. The Schlee Waterfowl
Production Area has been used by the Jackson County Conservation District for environ-mental
education.
Additional Responsibilities
In addition to administering the Michigan Wetland Management District, the Michigan
Private Lands Office also coordinates the statewide Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program. Private Lands staff coordinate closely with staff at other Service offices as
well as partners from governmental agencies, conservation organizations, and other
areas to provide technical assistance and on-the-ground habitat restoration assistance to
private landowners.
Future Management
Management of the two Waterfowl Production Areas by the Michigan DNR, with over-sight
by the Michigan Private Lands Office, is expected to continue into the future.
Management will continue to focus on providing high quality wetland and grassland
habitat to benefit waterfowl and other migratory birds. We expect the wildlife-depen-dent
public uses to continue. The Service will seek to improve management of conserva-tion
easements within the Michigan Wetland Management District. We intend to rein-vigorate
the program and, working with partners in Michigan, acquire additional Water-fowl
Production Areas over the next 15 years.
Photo by Myles Willard
Chapter 3 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
15
Region 3 Fish & Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) required the Service to identify
its most important functions and to direct its limited fiscal resources toward those
functions. A group worked from 1997 to 1999 to evaluate how best to identify the
Service’s most important functions in Region 3. The group recognized that the Service
has a complex array of responsibilities specified by treaties, laws, executive orders and
judicial opinions, and these responsibilities dwarf the agency’s budget.
The group recognized that at least two approaches
are possible in identifying conservation priorities –
habitats and species. The group chose to focus on
species because (1) species represent biological and
genetic resources that cannot be replaced; (2) a focus
on species conservation requires a concurrent focus
on habitat; and (3) by focusing on species assem-blages
and identifying areas where ecological needs
come together, the Service can select the few key
places where limited efforts will have the greatest
impact. Representatives of the migratory bird,
endangered species, and fisheries programs in
Region 3 identified the species that require the
utmost attention given our current level of knowl-edge.
Representatives prioritized the species based
on biological status (endangered or threatened, for
example), rare or declining levels, recreational or
economic value, or “nuisance” level. The group
pointed out that species not on the prioritized list are
important too, but when faced with the needs of
several species, the Service should emphasize the
species on the priority list. Figure 3.4 identifies the states within Region 3. The table in
Appendix E contains the resource conservation priority species that occur at the Refuge.
We have considered the ecosystem context, the over arching conservation programs,
state listed species, and the regional resource conservation priorities as we wrote this
comprehensive conservation plan.
Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses
General
The Refuge represents an important waterfowl concentration area and crossroads for
migrating geese, ducks, and other migratory birds. The Refuge is a combination of
cropland, wetlands, bottomland hardwood forest, and scattered grasslands. Historically,
the area was forested bottomland with scattered marshes. The Refuge lies in the flood-plain
of the Tittabawassee, Shiawassee, Flint and Cass rivers. (See Figure 3.5) Typical
bottomland timber species found within the Refuge are willow (Salix spp.), cottonwood
(Populus deltoides), hickory (Carya spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), maple (Acer spp.), green
ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and elm (Ulmus spp.). Most of the area is wet. Constant
repair of dikes is necessary to protect the area from seasonal flooding of the Saginaw
River System.
Figure 3.4: Region 3 of the USFWS
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
16
Figure 3.5: Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge Boundaries
Chapter 3 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
17
Geology and Minerals
The lands in the Refuge were formed by scouring of glacial ice during the Wisconsin
glaciation. During this period, a glacial lake covered the area and drained into Lake
Michigan. The lake covered the area to an average elevation of approximately 695 feet
above mean sea level. In addition, several large streams draining more than 6,000 square
miles converged on the lake. As a result, the Refuge is covered by lacustrine sediments,
with interfingering sandy/ gravelly deltaic deposits. The area is largely covered by poorly
drained heavy soils that require extensive tiling and drain systems to make them avail-able
for crop use.
Underlying the soils are Pennsylvania Coal deposits. These beds are an average of 500
feet in depth and are found from 20 to 200 feet below the surface. The formation is
present throughout the Refuge. The only other formations found in the Refuge are salt/
gypsum beds. Coal and salt mining occurred in the area from the 1890s to 1950. Cur-rently,
there is no coal mining anywhere in the state and no mining of any type in the
Refuge.
Soils
Soils within the Refuge have been identified and mapped by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (Soil Conservation Service). The
soil series are principally loams and clays. The Refuge follows river corridors, which
results in most soils having a high water table. Because of the high water table, almost all
of the soils are poorly drained. The soils are also severely limited in their ability to
support buildings, recreational facilities, and agriculture in an unaltered state. Only when
they are properly tiled, drained, and diked are they suitable for these uses. Because they
are continually eroded by flooding and wave action, dikes require frequent repair to the
slopes. Elevations vary within the Refuge from 580 to 615 feet mean sea level. Most of
the Refuge is at or below the 595-foot contour, generally considered the elevation limit of
the area known as the Shiawassee Flats.
Water and Hydrology
The Tittabawassee, Shiawassee, Flint, Bad, Cass
Rivers and other tributaries converge just south
of Saginaw to form the Saginaw River. The
Saginaw River flows to Lake Huron, 22 miles to
the north. The Saginaw River Watershed drains
an area of approximately 4 million acres (one-sixth
of the lower peninsula). The rivers that
form the Saginaw River form a large floodplain
known as the “Shiawassee Flats.” The river flows
are generated by runoff throughout the water-shed
and often cannot be carried by the Saginaw
River channel. Flooding occurs when the tributaries reach flood stage together, when ice
blocks the river channels, or seiche activity from northeast winds pile up lake water as
far upstream as St. Charles. Flooding of the tributaries occurs almost every year. Most of
the floods occur seasonally in the spring and fall. However, changing runoff patterns have
resulted in flooding even during the summer months.
Photo by Kim LeBlanc
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
18
According to well records, static groundwater levels in the area range from 5 feet to 26
feet below the surface. Groundwater is generally hard and high in dissolved solids. Many
wells encounter high salt concentrations and are unsuitable for drinking purposes.
Water quality in the rivers and streams varies widely. Dissolved oxygen levels are
generally well above the minimum standard set by the State while nutrient levels (phos-phorus
and nitrogen) are often high enough to cause algae blooms. Hardness and dis-solved
solids often reach levels close to the Michigan Water Quality Standards. Chloride
and fecal coliform levels have exceeded the standard.
History of Water Management and Flood Control
Since its inception, the Refuge’s water management has been intertwined with flood
control. In 1954, the Service assumed responsibility for dikes and ditches on agricultural
lands that were soon to be acquired by the government. In an agreement among the
Army Corps of Engineers, Michigan DNR, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Service agreed to construct water storage basins on lands purchased within the original
boundary proposal. The agreement was part of a much larger plan for water control on
the Saginaw River System. The larger plan, called the Saginaw Valley Flood Control
Project, was developed by the Army Corps of Engineers and involved many local, State,
and Federal agencies or governments.
In 1957, the Refuge consisted of 4,300 acres and construction was well under way to raise
what is now known as the Trinklein Dike (project labeled riverside dike 6132b-C-15) to an
elevation of 591 feet. A pumping station and an electrical power source for drainage of
the area behind the dike were also constructed. The construction on the Refuge occurred
before Congress approved the Saginaw Valley River Flood Control Project in 1958. By
1959, the Refuge wrote an interim water management plan and operated Pools 1A and
Grefe as wetland units.
In 1960, the local communities were asked to support the flood control project. However,
communities were split on whether or not to financially support the Project. Some local
communities supported portions of the Project, and those projects went ahead. Ex-amples
of these smaller projects are flood control works at Flint and Frankenmuth.
However, the main “Shiawassee Flats” portion of the planned Project never obtained
sufficient local financial support. By 1969 the DNR and the Service were voicing con-cerns
over how the Project would impact activities on their lands.
While the Saginaw Valley Flood Control Project sputtered along
through the ’60s, the Refuge continued to develop lands under its
management. By 1965, the Refuge included 7,000 acres and oper-ated
Pool 2 as a shallow marsh wetland unit (see Figure 4.1 for a
map of the management units). By 1966, the Refuge had grown to
8,870 acres. By 1968, the Refuge completed construction of Pool 3
and readied it for operation as a managed wetland. As the decade
ended, the Refuge operated four wetland units covering 920 acres.
In the 1970s, the Refuge continued to expand its water manage-ment
capabilities. The Refuge developed Moist Soil Units 1-4,
constructed Pools 4 and 5, and rip-rapped the exterior dike around the Trinklein Unit. By
the end of the decade, the Refuge operated 10 wetland units covering 2,153 acres. The
Trinklein Unit today consists of Farm Unit 1 and Trinklein 1N, 1C and 1S.
Photo by Myles Willard
Chapter 3 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
19
While the Refuge and the DNR continued to develop their land during the 1970s, local
residents, with congressional support, renewed interest in the Saginaw Valley Flood
Control Project in 1975. This renewed interest caused the Army Corps of Engineers to
begin preconstruction planning for the project. In 1976 and 1977, the Army Corps of
Engineers evaluated whether or not it was necessary to modify the authorized plan. The
Corps concluded that the original plan needed to be changed because of changed condi-tions
and lack of support for the original concept. The various parties worked together to
develop an acceptable alternative. The new plan called for the development of a system of
offset levees to protect the Shiawassee Flats area. By the end of the decade, a draft
Environmental Impact Statement had been written for the Project and interested parties
were beginning to express their concerns and comments.
During the 1980s, the Refuge added 114 acres (to make a total of 8,984 acres), improved
water control structures and dikes, added rip-rap to strategic dikes, and developed one
additional wetland unit. At the end of this period, the Refuge operated 11 wetlands
covering 2,439 acres. While the Service was improving and developing lands and habitats
under its stewardship, the Saginaw Valley Water Control Project was finalized.
The Army Corp of Engineers issued a formal record of decision in 1983 that favored the
offset levee plan. The plan included several activities that directly affected Refuge
management. The plan called for:
■ Improving 14 miles of levees for 2.5-year flood protection plus 2 feet of freeboard
on State and Federal lands.
■ Widening and cleaning Spaulding Drain from Ambrose Road to Ferguson Bayou,
with the channel width increased from 125 to 200 feet and no deepening.
■ Utilizing flood storage areas on State and Federal lands (2,660 acres on the Ref-uge).
■ Reconstructing the Curtis Road Bridge. Additional measures in the plan did not
directly affect Refuge management, but because of them a larger volume of water
would move through the area.
Again, political and financial pressures kept the Project from progressing. As a result, in
the mid 1980s the Flint River Dike Board was formed. The board obtained funding and
advanced a plan for protecting private lands along portions of the Flint River. The plan
followed the general design approved by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1983, and
construction began in 1988. Work on the Refuge portion of this Project started in 1989
and was finished in 1990. Only Phase I of this Project was completed before funding
ended. In a later phase of the project, additional levees were to be constructed on the
Refuge.
Because the flood control and dike projects have been idle for 10 years or more, we think
that any renewal of activity would require a review of recent information and conditions
and a new planning effort.
Over the last 10 years, the Refuge renovated dikes along Pools 1A, Grefe and Pool 2, rip-rapped
a large portion of the exterior dike on Pool 2, and repaired its water control
structures. In 1994, the Refuge began to convert the Trinklein Unit from cropland. In
the conversion, the Refuge restored 240 acres of land to its original wetland condition and
added three managed wetland units. The Refuge also increased its land holdings by 162
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
20
acres. This new unit was also moved toward wetland management. With these new
units, the Refuge operated 15 wetlands covering 2,713 acres within a total Refuge
acreage of 9,706.
Lack of widespread support and funding has again idled flood control and dike commis-sion
projects, and no construction is anticipated in the near future.
Flood problems for the Shiawassee Flats have intensified over the years. Although
flooding is influenced to some extent by the water level of Lake Huron and weather
conditions, draining, tiling, diking, and removing wetland habitat in the Saginaw River
Watershed have intensified flooding. If there is a rainstorm upstream, the river level
peaks sooner and with a bigger volume than in the past. Floods occur with higher peaks
and they occur more frequently than in previous years. Flood waters also recede more
rapidly than in the past. These factors, combined with the flood control objectives of
moving the water to Saginaw Bay as quickly as possible and having the Refuge act as a
flood storage basin, greatly stress the Refuge’s facilities. Damage to dikes, trails and
service roads is common. The bottomland forest floor is saturated for shorter periods,
which is affecting the plant community. In addition, floods are bringing and leaving more
sediment – and contaminants – to the Refuge. These effects challenge the Refuge’s
ability to achieve its water management and associated wildlife objectives.
Construction Permits
When major wetland development and rehabilitation projects are contemplated, the
Service applies for construction permits from the Michigan Department of Environmen-tal
Quality (DEQ) and the Army Corps of Engineers. As long as certain conditions are
met, normal maintenance activities such as levee repairs and ditch maintenance are
authorized and conducted under National Permit No. 3.
Cooperative Agreements
The Refuge has three cooperative agreements that affect water management on the
Refuge. In a 1987 agreement with the Saginaw County Drain Commission, the Refuge
agreed to issue special use permits to the Commission for the establishment and mainte-nance
of county and inter-county drain facilities. The permits allow access, parking areas,
and material/borrow/fill sites as needed along county drains.
A second agreement is with the Army Corps of Engi-neers
and the Michigan DNR and relates to the Saginaw
Valley Flood Control Project. The agreement, which
began as an oral agreement, became formalized when
the Project was approved and an environmental assess-ment
completed in 1983. Under this agreement, the
Refuge is obligated to provide flood storage basins as a
secondary benefit after fish and wildlife management
concerns are addressed. The areas designated for this
storage are Pools 1A, Grefe, 2, 3, 5 and Eagle and North
marshes along with the surrounding bottomland woods.
The third agreement is with the Flint River Dike Board and is an outgrowth of the
Saginaw River Flood Control Project. In this agreement, the Refuge agreed to follow
the Flint River Plan and work with local commissions and communities to implement the
plan while recognizing fish and wildlife concerns.
Photo by Myles Willard
Chapter 3 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
21
Fish, Wildlife and Plant Resources
Vegetation
Water and the effects of water dominate the ecological processes on the Refuge. A
variety of vegetative communities that are associated with large rivers and their flood-plains
are found within the authorized boundaries of the Refuge. (See Figure 3.6) These
communities include some of the last remaining bottomland hardwood forests in Saginaw
County. Bottomland forests are the transitional habitats between aquatic and terrestrial
communities. In the Refuge, most of these forests are lowland hardwood wetlands. They
are characterized by extensive lateral flooding during times of heavy precipitation. Soils
are frequently either moist or saturated. This community type consists of maple, oak,
hickory, ash, willow, elm and cottonwood.
Another dominant community type is emergent marsh habitat, which consists of cattail,
bulrush, sedges, reed canary grass, cut-grass, cord grass, water plantain, smartweed and
millet. A shrub and grass habitat type is often found along the edges of the marsh com-munity.
The brush species are usually buttonbush, willow, ash, dogwood, and cottonwood.
Wetter grass species such as reed canary grass are often mixed in with these species.
There are also areas of open land vegetation, which includes the grasslands and crop-lands.
The croplands are usually farmed for corn, winter wheat, soybeans or barley.
However, the fields are very susceptible to seasonal flooding along the river corridors
and must be diked and tiled to be productive. The grasslands are usually abandoned
farmlands that are seasonally flooded and are reverting to open field habitats.
Much of the land in the Refuge is classified as wetland by the Army Corps of Engineers,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Michigan, and other agencies responsible
for land stewardship. Upland forest is another vegetation cover type found in the autho-rized
boundaries of the Refuge. This vegetation type is found on slightly higher elevations
and in drier soil conditions and is a true terrestrial community. Upland forests are
characterized by little lateral flooding during times of heavy precipitation and soils are
more mesic in nature. This community type comprises beech, sugar maple, basswood, and
birch. See Appendix E for a list of flora on the Refuge.
Birds
The Refuge’s array of habitats satisfy the requirements of diverse birds. Scientific
surveys, organized bird counts, and casual observations have recorded more than 260
species of birds using the Shiawassee Flats area (Appendix E).
A Note on Bird Count Methodology: Before discussing the abundance of birds on the
Refuge, we need to describe how the reported numbers are derived. The number of
birds on the Refuge is determined by following a specific route and counting birds that
are seen. The route is shown in Figure 3.7. This technique has the advantage that it is
standardized and has been used over many years. However, because the standard route
only covers a portion of the Refuge, not all birds are included in the count. The counts,
therefore, are an index and are less than the actual number of birds that are on the
Refuge.
The count best represents use in the Refuge’s non-forested habitats. Although interior
forest species are counted once a year with a standard procedure, we have little confi-dence
in the numbers of forest interior species and do not report them here. Bird use of
the Refuge (and the resulting count) is highly variable. Therefore, the Refuge reports
only the average peak numbers that have been counted along the survey route. These
numbers present a general picture of the relative abundance of the birds on the Refuge.
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
22
Figure 3.6: Current Land Cover
Chapter 3 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
23
Figure 3.7: Route Used in Bird Counting
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
24
The Tittabawassee, Shiawassee, Flint and Cass River bottoms are important stopover
habitats for migrating waterfowl. Portions of the waterfowl flights from both the Missis-sippi
and Atlantic flyways use this area each spring and fall. Peak waterfowl numbers for
the Refuge exceed 40,000-50,000 ducks, 20,000-30,000 geese, and 700-1,200 swans. Two
notable species that are common on the Refuge in the fall, winter, and early spring are the
American black duck and Canada geese from the Southern James Bay Population. The
area also provides nesting and rearing sites for resident geese and ducks.
Refuge wetlands provide food, nesting, and roosting areas for more than 40 species of
shore and wading birds. Most of the shore and wading birds are transients. They use the
area to rest and to obtain protein essential for migration and successful reproduction.
Average peak numbers for shorebirds are 1,800-2,000 and for wading birds are 400-500.
However, some species are known to nest within the Refuge. These include the green
heron, least bittern, sora and Virginia rails, common moorhen, pied-billed grebe, spotted
sandpiper, killdeer, American coot, and American bittern. Recently, great blue herons
have again begun nesting on the Refuge after being absent for a few years.
The bottomland forests in the Refuge are important habitats for many neo-tropical
migrants and other songbirds. The forests provide some of the last remaining habitat in
the Saginaw area for nesting and migration by a variety of warblers, thrushes, vireos,
woodpeckers, and flycatchers.
Refuge grasslands provide food, nesting, and cover for more than 20 species of passe-rines.
Average peak numbers for grassland species on the Refuge are 1,200-2,000.
The Refuge supports at least 15 species of raptors on a seasonal or permanent basis. The
mix of open fields, wetlands, and woods are essential habitats for most of these birds. The
red-shouldered hawk, osprey, and bald eagle (all are species of concern on State and
Federal lists) have been observed using the area. Average peak numbers for raptors on
the Refuge are 70-120.
Mammals
More than 30 mammals have been recorded in or near the Refuge
(Appendix E). White-tailed deer are abundant in the area because
of the mix of forested lands, wetlands, shrubs, croplands, and
grasslands. Wetlands provide the optimum cover for deer during
severe winter weather. The deer population has been as high as
130 deer per square mile and as low as 10 per square mile. Cur-rently,
we are trying to hold the density at 30 deer per square
mile. Deer management is guided by plans developed in consulta-tion
with the Michigan DNR and concerned citizens. Coyotes and
fox are among the large mammals that are common to the area.
The wetlands also provide excellent furbearer habitat for such species as the muskrat,
beaver, opossum, raccoon, mink and, occasionally, otter. The forested and upland areas
support rabbit, mice, voles, shrews and squirrels.
The area within the authorized Refuge boundary provides migration corridors for mam-mals
to move to and from the larger core area of the Refuge. This migration allows for
new species to move into the area and fill unused niches and it permits an interchange of
individual animals, which helps maintain the vigor of the local population.
Photo by Kim LeBlanc
Chapter 3 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
25
Reptiles and Amphibians
Surveys have recorded 18 species of reptiles and amphibians on the Refuge and its
expansion area (Appendix E). This list includes one State-listed threatened species
(eastern fox snake ) and one Federal candidate species (Blanding’s turtle).
Threatened and Endangered Species
One federally-listed threatened animal species, the bald eagle, regularly uses the Shia-wassee
National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, 16 State-listed endangered or threatened
animal species use habitats in the Shiawassee Flats Area. These species include residents
and migrants. The Refuge is likely providing support to all of these species. The 17
Federal or State species reported using the Shiawassee Flats Area and their classifica-tion
are shown in Table 1.
The only plant species on the Federal and State lists of endangered and threatened
species that is known to occur in Saginaw County is the Eastern prairie fringed orchid
(Platanthera leucophaea). The species has not been documented on the Refuge, but little
definitive inventory work has been done. Proper conditions for the species, however, do
exist on the Refuge and in its expansion area.
Fish
The Refuge’s sloughs, rivers, and marshes support more than 70 species of forage and
game fish. Because of the Refuge’s location at the junction of all the major tributaries
forming the Saginaw River and its connection with Saginaw Bay, its wetland habitats are
integral for life stages to many of the fish using the bay. With no migratory impediments
leading to the most productive shallow water bay on Lake Huron, these habitats are
critical, particularly as spawning and nursery areas. Northern pike and lake sturgeon
use these areas. The large populations of shiners, minnows, and other forage fish not
only support game fish populations – yellow perch, crappie, walleye, channel catfish, and
pike – but also support a diversity and large numbers of wading, water, and predatory
bird species along with some waterfowl populations. A number of Great Lakes fish –
white bass, white sucker, and walleye – move to the Refuge and beyond every year to
spawn. The Shiawassee Flats and other Refuge wetlands provide nursery areas for
these fish populations. With diminishing wetland resources the Refuge has a unique role
in protecting fish habitat and valuable fish resources.
The Saginaw Bay Watershed is extensively degraded and has lost much of its habitat
diversity. Coastal and riparian wetlands that provided for a significant northern pike
population, once an important commercial fishery, have been lost or degraded through
development. Only a remnant northern pike population exists today in Saginaw Bay.
Restoration of extensive areas of riparian wetland habitats could provide a much needed
boost to this depleted population. Some stretches of the Tittabawassee River are be-lieved
to contain habitat for the lake sturgeon (Species of Special Concern) with anec-dotal
reports of adult sightings in the river. Occasionally adult and sub-adult sturgeons
are caught in commercial nets in Saginaw Bay, so there is potential to restore the popula-tion
by enhancing and protecting the spawning habitat in the Tittabawassee River. In
addition, a number of other Saginaw Bay fish species use these wetland habitats for
reproduction, nursery, and feeding purposes. The walleye fishery found in the Saginaw
Basin is nationally known, providing a high-quality recreational fishing experience.
Surveys conducted by the Michigan DNR have shown more than 71 species of fish using
the lower Tittabawassee, lower Cass, and the Saginaw River System (Appendix E).
Several Great Lakes species ascend the river system to spawn. These include the wall-eye,
white bass, white sucker, chinook salmon, and steelhead.
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
26
Species Federal State
Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened
Fishes
Channel darter X
Percina copelandi (Jordan)
River darter X
Percina shumardi (Girard)
Lake sturgeon X
Acipenser fulvescens (Rafinesque)
Eastern fox snake X
Elaphe vulpina gloydi (Conant)
Reptiles
Birds
Short-eared owl X
Asio flammeus (Pontoppidan)
Prairie warbler X
Dendroica discolor (Vieillot)
Peregrine falcon X
Falco peregrinus (Tunstall)
King rail X
Rallus elegans (Audubon)
Long-eared owl X
Asio otis (Linnaeus)
Red-shouldered hawk X
Buteo lineatus (Gmelin)
Merlin X
Falco columbarius (Linnaeus)
Common loon X
Gavia immer (Brunnich)
Bald eagle X X
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Linnaeus)
Least bittern X
Ixobrychus exilis (Gmelin)
Osprey X
Pandion haliaetus (Linnaeus)
Caspian tern X
Sterna caspia (Pallus)
Common tern X
Sterna hirundo (Linnaeus)
Plants
Eastern prairie fringed orchid X X
Platanthera leucophaea
Table 1: Threatened and Endangered Species in the Shiawassee Flats Area
Chapter 3 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
27
Invertebrates
Little is known about the invertebrates on the Refuge. A formal, complete survey has not
been done. Appendix E contains a listing of the species that have been documented on the
Refuge. We recognize that the list represents only a small portion of the species that
actually exist on the Refuge.
Land Use
The area within the authorized boundary of the Refuge totals 16,600 acres. Portions of
the Refuge are adjacent to the Saginaw metropolitan area, with residential developments
bordering several sections of the Refuge. Overall trends in the Saginaw area are toward
continued development and movement from urban to rural areas. Agriculture lands are
being altered by urban sprawl and development. The number of farms in the Saginaw
Bay Watershed has decreased by 70 percent over the last 40 years. Major components of
the private property within the authorized Refuge boundary are undeveloped aquatic
and terrestrial habitats. The loss of these habitats would further threaten the health of
the watershed and the quality of life in the area.
Mosquito Control
The Saginaw County Mosquito Abatement Commission controls nuisance and disease
vectoring mosquitoes in Saginaw County. The Commission’s activities include disease
and mosquito surveillance, killing mosquito larvae and adults, reducing sources, and
public education. In general, the public supports the Commission’s activities. Under an
agreement with the Refuge, the Commission controls mosquitoes on a portion of the
Refuge.
Currently, the Commission carries out operations on approximately 4,000 acres of land
within the authorized boundaries of the Refuge. Of these, 1,000 acres are owned by the
Refuge. Operations consist of applying the larvacide Bti (Bacillus thuringensis
israelensis) against spring floodwater mosquitos. If a monitoring program detects high
species concentration levels or the presence of disease pathogen antibodies, additional
spot treatments are carried out.
The Service has numerous concerns about mosquito control on national wildlife refuges.
These concerns include impacts to non-target organisms that are food for wildlife;
disturbance to wildlife from mosquito control activities; alteration of habitats; and
compliance with laws and policies governing management of national wildlife refuges.
The one concern that both the Service and mosquito control agencies share is the concern
for the health and safety of the public (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 1999).
Contaminants
Principal contaminants present within the authorized boundaries of the Refuge include
those associated with point and nonpoint sources from industrial, municipal, and agricul-tural
operations. The Cass and Shiawassee rivers carry fertilizers and pesticides from
farms. These rivers introduce organochlorine products into the bottomlands of the
Refuge. The Flint and Tittabawassee rivers move through large municipal and industrial
areas and bring polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxin. The Michigan Department
of Public Health recommends limiting the consumption of fish from the Saginaw River
and from the Tittabawassee River below Midland.
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
28
According to the Michigan Environmental Response
Division, 10 potential contaminated sites lie near or
within the authorized boundary of the Refuge. The
sites range from debris and rubble deposits to more
serious problems such as municipal landfills. Sites
found within the authorized boundary of the Refuge
include the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers; a site
along the banks of the Cass River in Spaulding Town-ship,
and a rubble/debris deposit in Saginaw Township
south of Route 46, adjacent to the Tittabawassee River.
The remaining six sites lie outside of the authorized
Refuge boundary but within one-half mile of the boundary.
Transportation corridors that cross the Refuge pose another potential source of contami-nants.
There is the potential for hazardous chemical spills from accidents on the two
railroads and the several public highways that cross the authorized Refuge boundaries.
Socioeconomic and Political Environment
The Refuge is located in portions of Spaulding, Bridgeport, Saginaw, James, and Thomas
townships and parts of the City of Saginaw in Saginaw County, Michigan. Large urban
areas are located north and east of the Refuge while the areas to the south and west are
predominately suburban and rural communities. The estimated population of Saginaw
County in 1998 was 210,101 people. Saginaw County contains three cities and five incor-porated
villages, and approximately 750 square miles of rural land. Although the county
is experiencing a slowly declining population (.9 percent 1990-98), new construction,
particularly of single family housing, continues to reduce open space. Saginaw County is a
relatively diverse community; minority populations account for about 22 percent of the
total population.
Saginaw County’s economy is based largely on manufacturing or industrial jobs; the top
employers include Delphi Saginaw Steering Systems, General Motors Power Train
Division, St. Mary’s Medical Center, and Delphi Chassis Systems. Other significant
sectors of the local economy include retail sales, financial services, professional services,
utilities, and food service. Most of the county’s employment opportunities are concen-trated
around the City of Saginaw.
In 1993, Michigan State University researchers determined the economic contribution of
the Shiawassee River State Game Area and the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge to
the local economy (Leefers and Propst). They estimated that hunters, anglers, bird
watchers, and hikers spent approximately $748,000 in Bay, Saginaw, and Tuscola counties
when visiting the two areas. These activities supported 25 private-sector jobs in the
three-county area, which corresponds to one private-sector job supported by each 1,740
visits by the public (43,514 visits in 1992).
The Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge budget also provides approximately $500,000
per year to the local economy through staff salaries, Youth Conservation Corps (YCC)
jobs for local high school students, expenditures for construction contracts on the Refuge,
and purchases from local businesses for operation and maintenance of the Refuge.
Photo by Myles Willard
Chapter 3 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
29
Cultural Resources
Responding to the requirement in the law that comprehensive conservation plans will
include “the archaeological and cultural values of the planning unit,” the Service con-tracted
for a cultural resources overview study of Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
and the refuges it administers. This section of the CCP derives mostly from the draft
report, “Overview Study of Archaeological and Cultural Values on Shiawassee, Michi-gan
Islands, and Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuges in Saginaw, Charlevoix, Alpena,
and Wayne Counties, Michigan,” by James A. Robertson and others, Commonwealth
Cultural Resources Group, Inc., dated May 1999.
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge has 31 reported sites on Refuge land. Attempts by
the archeologist to relocate 17 sites resulted in not finding 10 of them. The sites are
probably there, but failure to relocate them is indicative of previous land-altering activi-ties
and of alluvial sediments deposited from flooding. Two previously excavated sites
are deeply-buried and exhibit stratified layers of prior alluvial sedimentation. Other sites
are exposed due to erosion. There are no standing structures on the Refuge.
The archeologist identified 42 known sites on the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
expansion area. These sites include standing structures as well as archeological sites.
The archeologist also identified the potential for adverse effects on farmsteads (farm
buildings and the farm land) if the acquisition separates the buildings from the farm land.
Sites could include prehistoric archeological sites, historic archeological sites (Indian and
Western), industrial and mining sites, farmsteads, and timbering sites. Evidence for the
earliest culture, the PaleoIndian (10,000-8000 B.C.), is found only in fluted points in
private collections from the area. The other prehistoric cultures are represented in the
archeological record: Archaic (8000-550 B.C.) and Woodland (600 B.C.-A.D. 1600).
As of June 10, 1999, Saginaw County contains 35 properties on the National Register of
Historic Places. Most of these properties are located in towns and cities, but three
archeological sites listed on the National Register are within the Refuge expansion area.
The overview study identified a number of research questions. These questions should
be considered in future investigations, even identification-inventory surveys.
The overview study identified Indian tribes, historical societies and museums, and other
potentially interested parties that should be consulted in the search for and evaluation of
cultural properties on the refuges. The land on which Shiawassee National Wildlife
Refuge is located appears to have been empty of human occupation during the late
prehistoric and proto-historic periods, although hunting parties from several tribes
traversed it. Thus, determining an association between prehistoric cultures that created
the archeological sites and modern Indian tribes is problematic. No evidence exists for
the removal of human remains from any of the refuges, but two sites in the expansion
area report human burials and collected human remains.
Public Use
In the 1997-2001 Saginaw County Parks and Recreation Plan, the Saginaw County
Parks and Recreation Commission identified several long range goals. The Refuge can
help the County toward its goal “To preserve and protect adequate natural areas within
Saginaw County and participate in environmental education programs designed to
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
30
promote a better understanding of the natural environment
among County residents.” (Saginaw County Metropolitan
Planning Commission, 1997).
Several areas within 40 miles of the Refuge offer fish and
wildlife-related recreation and/or education. The adjoining
Shiawassee River State Game Area managed by the Michigan
DNR offers hunting and fishing opportunities. Several Saginaw County Parks provide
trails, fishing, and environmental education/interpretation programs. Bay City State
Recreation Area, Hartley Outdoor Education Center, and Chippewa Nature Center offer
environmental education and interpretative programs.
Interstate and state highways provide easy access to the Saginaw area. On an average
day, more than 45,400 vehicles travel just east of the Refuge through Bridgeport on
Interstate 75 (1997 Michigan DOT Traffic Count). The State’s number one attraction,
Frankenmuth, a German heritage town, and a large retail outlet in Birch Run lie within
25 miles of the Refuge.
Special Management Topics
Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, we reviewed lands within the legislative boundaries of
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge for wilderness suitability. No lands were found
suitable for designation as Wilderness as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge does not contain 5,000 contiguous roadless acres nor
does the Refuge have any units of sufficient size to make their preservation practicable
as Wilderness. The lands of the Refuge have been substantially affected by humans,
particularly through agriculture.
Saginaw River and Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment Settlement
In 1999, the Service, the State of Michigan and the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe settled a
claim for natural resource damages in the Saginaw River and Bay. The primary defen-dant
in this case was General Motors because of its long-term releases of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) to the river. As part of the settlement, General Motors, the City of
Saginaw, and the City of Bay City will pay $28.22 million in direct costs for sediment
removal, restoration projects, and reimbursement of government costs. The settlement
will result in the removal of contaminated sediments from the Saginaw River and it will
restore and protect habitat in the Saginaw River and Bay area.
Three components of the settlement affect the Refuge. First, the defendants transferred
Little Charity Island and about 222 acres of Big Charity Island to the Service for the
purpose of habitat restoration and protection. Second, the Refuge received two 99-year
leases of the Green Point Environmental Learning Center, which includes the interpre-tive
center building and 80 acres of riparian and upland habitat. Third, 3 years after the
settlement, the defendants are to transfer $520,000 to the Service for Green Point
Environmental Learning Center activities.
The Service will manage the Charity Islands as part of the Michigan Islands National
Wildlife Refuge, which is covered in a separate comprehensive conservation plan. The
long-term leases make it possible to develop longer term plans for the Learning Center
and its property. Furthermore, the additional funds will enhance the programs that can
be offered at the Learning Center.
Photo by Kim LeBlanc
Chapter 4 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
31
Current Refuge Programs
Habitat Management
Management of Refuge habitats involves a variety of techniques to control and enhance
habitat conditions. The primary objective of habitat management is to provide fish and
wildlife with diverse habitats to meet a variety of requirements for resting, feeding, and
nesting.
In addition to direct manipulation of habitats, other Refuge
activities indirectly support habitat management. Dike mainte-nance,
for instance, facilitates water management, as does the
maintenance of water control structures and pumps. Similarly,
trapping for muskrats is permitted on the Refuge because high
numbers of muskrats can cause extensive damage to dikes with
their burrows. Trappers bid for the opportunity to trap on the
Refuge. During the 1998 season, two trappers visited the
Refuge 90 times, spent 287 hours trapping and removed 1,185
muskrats.
Wetland Management
Wetland habitats on Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge include moist soil units,
marshes, greentree reservoirs, open water pools, rivers, and stream habitats. The
Refuge currently protects and manages 3,479 acres of wetland habitats. The Refuge staff
manipulate water levels in the wetlands to affect habitat structure and waterbird use.
However, the level of the Saginaw Bay and River affects the Refuge staff’s ability to
manipulate water levels in Refuge wetlands and, at its highest levels, floods the Refuge.
Most wetland habitats on the Refuge occur in distinct units. The Trinklein Units, how-ever,
offer a blend of habitats including moist soil, emergent marsh, and grassland. The
acreage for each unit is displayed in Table 2. The location of the units is shown in Figure
4.1.
Moist Soil Units
In a normal year the water level is lowered during the summer to establish moist-soil
vegetation. After plants are established in the summer, the unit is gradually reflooded in
the fall to optimize use of the seed resources. During the spring the water level will
gradually be lowered for use by migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and waders. Four
moist soil units total 385 acres.
Chapter 4: Refuge Management
Photo by Ed DeVries
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
32
Figure 4.1: Locations of Management Units
Chapter 4 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
33
Marshes
Marshes are important for waterfowl. The vegetation in marshes provides seeds, tubers,
and browse. The vegetation also provides nest sites. The optimum mix in a
semi-permanent marsh is 50 percent vegetation cover and 50 percent water. The 50:50
mix produces the maximum diversity and number of birds. In addition, the mix provides
ideal nesting cover for waterbirds and substrates for invertebrates, which waterfowl and
shorebirds also feed on. Refuge staff manipulate water levels and use prescribed fires to
alter the vegetation structure in the marshes and to make food resources available to
migratory birds. Pools 2 and 4 and the North Marsh provide emergent marsh habitat and
total 672 acres.
Open Water Pools
Open water pools serve as loafing areas for waterfowl, year round habitat for marsh
birds, and occasional seasonal habitat for shorebirds. In normal years, water levels are
maintained about 2 feet deep in the spring and fall to provide a feeding and loafing area
for migrating diving ducks. Summer water levels vary from year to year depending on
how the Refuge staff wants to alter the vegetation structure in the pools. Pools 1a, 2, 4
and Grefe Pool are capable of being managed as open water pools and total 700 acres.
Greentree Reservoirs
The bottomland hardwood forests that have dikes around them function as greentree
reservoirs. The intent is to flood the area during the spring and fall migrations to provide
a feeding and loafing area. In normal years the Refuge staff try to flood the forests
during the spring and fall, but not leave the area flooded too long. If the area is flooded
too long, the trees will be stressed and killed. The two greentree reservoir units on the
Refuge total 820 acres.
Table 2: Acreage of Management Units on Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
Wetland Units
Unit Acreage Unit Acreage
Moist Soil Unit 1 137 Pool 5 520
Moist Soil Unit 2 75 Hart Marsh 90
Moist Soil Unit 3 92 North Marsh 113
Moist Soil Unit 4 82 Eagle Marsh 56
Pool 1A 315 Kaufman Marsh 51
Grefe Pool 190 Trinklein 1N 91
Pool 2 115 Trinklein 1C 79
Pool 3 300 Trinklein 1S 71
Pool 4 444 Rivers and associated Marsh 950
Grassland Tracts
Switchgrass Unit 78
Unit Acreage
Schrems 61
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
34
Forests
The forests on the Refuge are used by deer, squirrels, raccoons, hawks, owls, and a
variety of forest interior bird species. The forests have been affected by the large
number of deer in the past. Heavy browsing by the deer has decreased the regeneration
of the forest. Since the deer numbers have been reduced, some seedlings have shown
significant growth. The Refuge staff have attempted to supplement regeneration by
planting seedlings. Floods have killed most of the new seedlings, however. The goal has
been to create a two-tiered canopy of mast and cavity producing trees without jeopardiz-ing
populations of forest interior birds. The Refuge has a total of 3,519 acres of forested
habitat, which does not include the greentree reservoir units.
Croplands
Cropland on the Refuge is farmed through cooperative farming agreements with four
farmers. The primary objective of the cooperative farming program has been to provide
food for waterfowl during the spring and fall migrations. Approximately half of the total
acreage also supports the managed goose hunt. Narrow strips of winter wheat are
planted adjacent to corn strips that serve as cover for hunters. The fields are in a
soybean, corn, and barley/clover or winter wheat rotation. After farmers have harvested
their share of the agricultural crops, birds have the opportunity to glean waste grains
from the fields. The Refuge crop share of 30 percent is left standing in the field through
winter and used as a food for early spring migrants.
The Refuge has 1,182 acres in cropland.
Grasslands
Refuge grasslands are used in the spring and fall by
migrating grassland bird species. Ducks and geese
also nest in the grassland. The chief management
concern related to grasslands is the invasion of
shrubs, trees, and noxious weeds into the grassland.
Prescribed fire is the primary management tool used
in maintaining grasslands. The Refuge has 580 acres
of grasslands.
Fish and Wildlife Monitoring
Refuge staff and volunteers currently use 16 surveys to monitor wildlife use throughout
the year. The surveys provide information for Refuge management and support state
and national efforts. Data from the surveys are maintained in the Refuge files and
forwarded to others when appropriate.
In addition to the long-term monitoring projects, in a collaborative effort with the Alpena
Fishery Resources Office and local sportsmen and conservation groups, the Refuge has
developed shorter term fish survey projects. The first project assessed the
presence of two new exotics – the Ruffe and Round goby – and two endangered species in
Refuge waters. The second project assessed spawning activity of certain game and
forage fish in the Refuge wetlands.
Waterfowl
Mid-December Goose Count – In coordination with the Michigan DNR, geese are counted
over a standard route in this one-day survey. The data are forwarded to the DNR, which
uses the data to evaluate both flyway and local goose populations.
Photo by Myles Willard
Chapter 4 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
35
Goose Neck Collar Survey – The data are collected during the bi-weekly waterfowl
counts and submitted to the Service to provide information on the migration and popula-tion
of Canada geese.
Mid-Winter Waterfowl Survey – Data are gathered
on a onetime count over a standard route and for-warded
to the Service. The Service uses the data to
provide information on population trends for some
species’ winter distribution.
Bi-weekly Waterfowl Count – All waterfowl species
are counted over a standard route for the entire year.
During peak use, the counts may be conducted
weekly. The data are provided to the DNR, and the
Refuge uses the data for evaluating habitat manage-ment
and trends in use.
Waterfowl Brood Survey – All waterfowl broods are counted over a standard route three
times between April and early July. The data are used by Refuge staff to assess habitat
conditions for waterfowl production.
Wood Duck Nesting Box Survey – Volunteers visit the boxes during the winter to gather
the data and prepare the boxes for the coming spring. The data, which are used for
population information, are forwarded to the Service.
Wood Duck Breeding Bird survey Route – Once a year in late May, a count is conducted
along a standard 25-mile route. The data are submitted to the Service and are used in a
national effort to assess the population trends of wood ducks.
Marsh Birds and Shorebirds
Woodcock Singing Ground Survey – One time in April, a standard survey is conducted
off-Refuge. The data are forwarded to the Service. The Service uses the data to provide
an index to woodcock abundance and to estimate woodcock population trends for states,
provinces, management regions, and the continent.
Marsh Bird Call Survey – Twice during May through July data are collected along a
standard route. Refuge staff use the data to assess the breeding populations, trends, and
habitat condition.
International Shorebird Survey – Volunteers collect data biweekly along a standard
route weekly or, at a minimum, every 10 days throughout the shorebird migration period,
which is typically from late March until late November. The data are forwarded to the
Manomet Observatory for Conservation Sciences in Manomet, Massachusetts. The
Center staff use the data to map migration routes, timing, and staging areas and to
monitor shorebird population trends.
Passerine/Neotropical Migrants
Bi-weekly Migratory Bird Survey – All birds, excluding waterfowl, are counted over a
standard route year-round. Refuge staff use the data to monitor trends in bird use and
assess habitat and management. Portions of the survey are reported to national, state or
local data bases, including the Michigan Seasonal Bird Survey.
Photo by Kim LeBlanc
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
36
Forest Interior Point Counts of Breeding Birds – Refuge staff conduct the count once
during June. Approximately 15 points are visited. Data is used to assess the neo-tropical
forest interior breeding bird use, trends, and habitat conditions.
MAPS – In 1999, Refuge volunteers began Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivor-ship
(MAPS) studies on the Refuge. MAPS uses mist nets and point counts to determine
the breeding success and survival rates of selected songbird species, which helps the
Refuge staff to understand the population dynamics of these and similar species. This
provides insights into the causes of population changes. (See http://www.im.nbs.gov/
maps/cover.html for a description of MAPS.)
Raptors
Mid-Winter Bald Eagle Survey – The count occurs along a standard route on one day in
January. The survey is coordinated with the Michigan DNR as part of a national effort.
The Snake River Field Station of the USGS analyzes the data to provide information on
eagle population trends, distribution, and habitat.
Amphibians
Michigan Frog and Toad Survey – A volunteer collects data three times annually during
the breeding season at standard sites in the south central portion of the Refuge. The data
are submitted to the Michigan DNR Natural Heritage Division, which uses the data to
monitor frog and toad populations in the State of Michigan.
White-tailed Deer
White-tailed Deer Sex Ratio Counts – Once a month from
late May to September, Refuge staff count deer along a
standard route. Refuge staff use the data in management of
the deer herd.
Winter Aerial Deer Count – The Michigan DNR conducts
the count and submits the data to the Refuge. Refuge staff
use the data to estimate the deer population.
Habitat Monitoring
The Refuge conducts little formal habitat monitoring. Vegetation is measured along line
transects before and after prescribed burns. When deer numbers were high on the
Refuge, deer browse surveys were conducted. Now that deer numbers are lower and
vegetation is beginning to respond, formal browse surveys are no longer conducted.
Public Use
Public use at Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge has grown steadily over the last
decade. Figure 4.2 depicts estimates for total Refuge visits over the past 9 years. These
numbers represent all visitors to the Refuge. They are based on estimates by the Refuge
staff at parking lots and boat ramps.
In 1998, hunting, fishing, and trapping accounted for 6 percent of the total visitation.
Hiking, bicycling, cross country skiing, wildlife observation, and photography accounted
for 82 percent. Education accounted for 5 percent. The remaining 7 percent included
administrative visits and group meetings.
Photo by Myles Willard
Chapter 4 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
37
Waterfowl Hunting
The Refuge currently holds a managed goose hunt. The Michigan DNR processes appli-cations
for two pre-registered goose hunts. In 1998, 1,013 visits were recorded for the
goose hunts. Visitors spent 5,452 hours hunting. Hunters are charged a fee of $4 per day.
Senior citizens are charged $2 per day. No change is envisioned in the fee program that
helps defer administrative costs.
For the past 16 years, the State of Michigan has been permitted to administer a water-fowl
hunting program in Pool 4 (Refuge land) and adjoining marshes.
Deer Hunting
The Refuge holds a managed deer hunt to help control the herd’s size. The Michigan
DNR handles the application process. In 1998, 581 hunters accounted for 1,232 visits and
spent an estimated 8,671 hours pursuing deer. Deer hunters are charged a $10 fee.
Fishing
Although fishing is not allowed from dikes, banks or shorelines within the Refuge, the
navigable rivers and drains that intersect the area attract fishing enthusiasts using
watercraft. With the cooperation of the Alpena Fishery Resources Office and the
Service’s Recreational Fishing Program, the Refuge purchased an accessible dock to
improve fishing opportunity on the Cass River. An estimated 2,050 anglers fished river
waters within the Refuge in 1998.
Wildlife Observation
In 1998, an estimated 58,429 visits included hiking, bicycling, cross-country skiing,
birdwatching, and nature photography.
Figure 4.2: Refuge Visits
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
38
Education/Interpretation
Green Point Nature Center (Center) was officially opened in 1978 by the City of Saginaw
with support from the Michigan DNR, the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund,
and the City of Saginaw. During the past 10 years thousands of children and adults have
learned about nature at the Center.
In a spending cut, the City of Saginaw closed the
Green Point Nature Center in 1988. To protect and
maintain the building, a city staff member kept an
office at the Center. In September of 1993, the
Service agreed to lease the Center from the City.
In the following years, the Service continued to
lease and operate the Center as the Green Point
Environmental Learning Center. In 1998, the
Service received a 99-year, renewable lease for the
Center from the City as a part of the General
Motors settlement. In addition, the Center will
receive $520,000 in the year 2002 as part of the
settlement.
The Service’s mission for the Green Point Environmental Learning Center is to provide
environmental education and interpretation opportunities for the youth and adults of
Saginaw and surrounding communities. All of its programs are based upon the theme
“Water, Wildlife and You.��� Key program topics include the Great Lakes Ecosystem and
migratory birds.
The addition of Green Point Environmental Learning Center has dramatically increased
the educational use on the Refuge. An estimated 3,600 people visited the Center in 1994.
Approximately 940 of these visitors were students who came to the Center for environ-mental
education. In 1998, 6,744 people visited the Center and 3,556 people participated
in environmental education programs on and off the Refuge.
Pest Management
Integrated management of invasive or pest plants, animals, and insects is a program on
the Refuge in support of high quality habitats and human health. Our primary goal is to
provide complex habitat structures to meet the nesting, feeding, and resting require-ments
of fish and wildlife.
We use a variety of techniques in the integrated management of invasive pests. The
techniques include monitoring the invasive species, manual and mechanical manipula-tions,
timing of activities, chemical and biological control techniques, and the introduction
of competitive species.
Animal Pests
With high densities, white-tailed deer, muskrat, beaver, raccoons, and woodchucks can
severely affect habitat quality or other species. Through management, the Refuge
maintains acceptable densities of these species. The techniques used vary from mechani-cal
operations such as water level manipulation and planting of lure crops to direct
Photo by Myles Willard
Chapter 4 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
39
removal by hunting and trapping. Other techniques include reinforcement of dikes and
placing protective tubing around trees or placing chemical deterrents on trees or plants.
Plant Pests
Invasive or pest plants can affect many habitat types found at Shiawassee National
Wildlife Refuge. Purple loosestrife, reed canary grass, and phragmites may invade
wetlands; cottonwood and willow may invade moist soil units and grasslands, and buck-thorn
may displace more preferred woody species in forest. To reduce encroachment of
these species, we use several management techniques - hand pulling individual plants,
mowing, burning, water level manipulations, plowing, and chemical and biological applica-tions.
The technique we choose is influenced by management objectives, intensity of
encroachment, best land use practices, cost, and timing of application.
Of particular note is our effort to provide and use biological control techniques against
purple loosestrife. Beginning in 1996, we began a 5-year program to rear and then
distribute Galerucella species beetles to areas being invaded by purple loosestrife. The
beetle has been approved as a biological control agent by the U.S. Department of Agri-culture,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other federal and state agencies. Over the
course of 4 years the Refuge reared between 75,000 and 100,000 beetles for release. The
beetles were distributed on Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge and two other federal
refuges.
Management of Insect Pests
Insect pests can threaten Refuge habitats, the health of other wildlife, and human health.
Examples of potential insect pests are gypsy moths and mosquitoes. Currently, the
Refuge has agreements with partner agencies to treat these insects when outbreaks
reach detrimental levels. We expect to change our approach to mosquito control. See the
mosquito control section under ‘Planned Refuge Programs.’
Archaeological and Cultural Resources
The Refuge Manager considers potential impacts of management activities on historic
properties, archeological sites, traditional cultural properties, sacred sites, human
remains and cultural materials. Prior to ground disturbing activities, the Refuge Man-ager
informs the Regional Historic Preservation Officer in a timely manner to allow
analysis, evaluation, consultation, and mitigation as necessary for every Refuge under-taking.
The Refuge has a museum and museum collections (art, ethnography, history, documents,
botany, zoology, paleontology, geology, environmental samples and artifacts). Museum
collections at the Refuge (including the Environmental Learning Center) include art,
history, zoology, paleontology, and artifacts. These collections are managed under a
Scope of Collection Statement (10-31-94). To date, four archeological investigations have
produced artifacts from Refuge lands. Most artifacts are stored at six repositories; only
one is under a cooperative agreement.
Archeological investigations and collecting are performed only in the public interest by
qualified archeologists working under an Archaeological Resources Protection Act
permit issued by the Regional Director. Refuge personnel take steps to prevent unautho-rized
collecting by the public, contractors, and Refuge personnel. Violations are reported
to the Regional Historic Preservation Officer.
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
40
Special Management Areas
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
The Refuge’s Private Lands Office administers a 22-county Private Lands Coordination
Area located in central Michigan. (See Figure 4.3) Within the Coordination Area, 349
wetland basins were restored through the Services’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program for a total of 1,967 acres from 1994 through 1998. Native grassland nesting
habitat was seeded on 12 sites for 355 acres from 1996 through 1998. The Private Lands
Office provides technical assistance and cost-sharing to complete the work if the land-owner
agrees to maintain the area for a period of 10 years or more. The Partners for
Fish and Wildlife program is a voluntary program that focuses on restoring and enhanc-ing
wetland and grassland habitats that provide wildlife, fisheries, water quality and
recreation benefits. One Refuge staff person works exclusively on the Partners for Fish
and Wildlife program.
Within the Private Lands Coordination Area, the refuge operations specialist (private
lands) biologist provides technical assistance to the Michigan DNR, Farm Services
Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, private conservation organizations,
and private individuals on wetland issues, habitat conservation and enhancement, and
regulatory requirements. The Refuge staff person works closely with the Natural
Resources Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency on wetland actions and farm
debt retirement programs and administration of the Wetland Reserve and Conservation
Reserve Programs.
Farm Services Administration Conservation Easements
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge is responsible for managing conservation easements
within the Shiawassee Fish and Wildlife Management District (FWMD), a 44-county area
of Michigan (see Figure 4.3). The conservation easements were obtained through the
procedures of the Farm Services Administration (FSA), formerly the Farmers Home
Administration. When the FSA acquires property through a default of loans, it is re-quired
to protect wetland and floodplain resources on the property prior to resale to the
public. The authority and direction for the FSA actions comes from the Consolidated
Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981, 1985); Executive Order 11990 provid-ing
for the protection of wetlands; and Executive Order 11988 providing for the manage-ment
of floodplain resources.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assists the FSA in identifying important wetland and
floodplain resources on the property. Once those resources have been identified, FSA
protects the areas through a perpetual conservation easement and assigns the manage-ment
responsibility to the Service. The easement areas become part of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
The Shiawassee Fish and Wildlife Management District (FWMD) currently administers
113 conservation easements totaling 4,658.12 acres. Two of the 113 conservation ease-ments
have been transferred to County Soil Conservation Districts to be managed as
outdoor education areas. The FWMD became responsible for its first easement in 1989
and others have continued to be added since then. Most of the easements were obtained
in the early 1990s. The most recent additions were two easements added in fiscal year
1999. Shiawassee WMD has the most conservation easements of any Service station in
the eight-state Great Lakes Region.
Figure 4.3: Shiawassee Fish and Wildlife Management District
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge
42
Management of easements continues to be a problem with current staffing levels. Subdi-viding
of easements due to land sales is increasing the number of landowners and man-agement
responsibilities (currently 113 easements are owned by 122 landowners). It
appears this will continue to occur and continue to cause management concerns for the
Shiawassee FWMD.
Planned Refuge Programs
Introduction
We recognize that we face challenges from outside the Refuge boundaries. These chal-lenges
include more frequent flooding with higher flows along with increased potential
for contaminants. As interest and population grows in the Saginaw area, public use
pressure may challenge the Refuge’s wildlife purposes. And, because of the proximity to
the urban population and its crime problems, the Refuge may experience some of the
same illegal activities. We intend to work outside our boundaries to confront these
challenges.
We also recognize the opportunities open to the Refuge. We have the ability to provide a
remarkably large natural area for wildlife within an urban and agricultural landscape.
We have the ability to provide wildlife-dependent recreation close to an urban and tourist
population, and we have the ability to provide an environmental message of stewardship
to these same populations.
We intend to take advantage of our opportunities. We will provide a diversity of habitat
for wildlife while recognizing the importance of the Refuge to waterfowl. We will expand
the lands that we manage by acquiring lands within the authorized boundary of the
Refuge as funds and willing sellers permit. In addition, we will
expand our interaction and services to the public. We will make the
Refuge more accessible. We will expand and improve our educa-tional
opportunities and reach out to more people.
Several circumstances are coming together now that encourage us
to think that our intentions are realistic. First, we were authorized
to expand our boundaries in 1996. Second, congressional interest in
planning and the recognition of comprehensive conservation plans in
the budgeting process give us encouragement that our plans will be
implemented. Third, the General Motors settlement affords us new
opportunities. Fourth, the Refuge and its mission are experiencing
growing public support through the Friends group, local govern-ments,
and volunteers. This support is best exemplified by support
for a Great Lakes Discovery Center at Bridgeport, where several
groups are working together to build the center.
Briefly, these are our plans.
Fish and Wildlife
We intend to provide a large acreage of wetland habitat and unfragmented forest. We
intend to diversify and enlarge natural habitats by eliminating mosquito control and by
reducing cropland. We intend to monitor use of the habitat by fish and wildlife as a way of
evaluating our management. We intend to work outside our boundaries as partners in
restoring habitats on private lands and better managing our conservation easements.
Photo by Myles Willard
Chapter 4 / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
43
Basically, this is an adjustment of our
efforts within our boundaries and an
expansion of our efforts outside our
boundaries.
Wildlife-dependent Recreation
We intend to continue past programs and
make more of the Refuge available for
wildlife observation through trails and an
auto tour route. We intend to provide
sites for bank fishing. We also intend to
increase the feeling of security among our
visitors through an increased law en-forcement
presence.
Environmental Education and Outreach
We intend to expand our environmental education and outreach programs. The General
Motors settlement will permit an expanded environmental education program at Green
Point Environmental Learning Center, and public support for the Great Lakes Discovery
Center at Bridgeport wi