Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              Wyandotte
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and
Environmental
Assessment
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
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 Wyan-dotte
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 and written comments. All of your ideas have been valuable and
will contribute to the success of this plan.
Contents
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................................... i
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background .................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
Refuge Location ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
Purpose Of and Need For the Plan ............................................................................................................................. 3
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................................................................. 4
The National Wildlife Refuge System ....................................................................................................................... 4
Existing Partnerships ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Legal and Policy Guidance ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 2: The Planning Process ............................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Issues ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Habitat Issues .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Public Use Issues ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Resource Protection Issues ................................................................................................................................ 6
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment ........................................................................................................................... 7
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ................................................................................................................................. 7
The Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem ...................................................................................................................... 7
The Detroit River ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
American Heritage River .................................................................................................................................. 11
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives ................................................................................................................... 11
Nongame Bird Conservation Initiatives ............................................................................................................ 11
North American Waterfowl Management Plan................................................................................................ 12
Region 3 Fish & Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities ..................................................................................... 12
Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses .......................................................................................................... 13
History of the Refuge ....................................................................................................................................... 13
General ............................................................................................................................................................. 14
Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................................ 14
Fish and Wildlife .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Waterfowl................................................................................................................................................. 15
Fish............................................................................................................................................................ 16
Other Species ........................................................................................................................................... 17
Contaminants .......................................................................................................................................................... 17
Public Use ................................................................................................................................................................ 18
Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................................. 19
Special Topics .......................................................................................................................................................... 20
Coast Guard Memorandum of Understanding .................................................................................................. 20
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................................................. 20
Mud Island Addition ................................................................................................................................. 21
Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge Proposal ....................................................................................... 21
Wilderness Review .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Chapter 4: Refuge Management .............................................................................................................................. 22
Current Refuge Programs ........................................................................................................................................ 22
Planned Refuge Programs ....................................................................................................................................... 22
Climate Change Impacts ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Our Vision for the Refuge ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Refuge Goals, Objectives and Strategies ................................................................................................................ 24
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 24
Goal 1: Contaminant Containment ..................................................................................................... 25
Goal 2: Habitat and Wildlife Populations .......................................................................................... 25
Goal 3: Lake Sturgeon ....................................................................................................................... 26
Goal 4: Protection of Additional Lands .............................................................................................. 26
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................................... 28
Personnel Needs ..................................................................................................................................................... 28
Funding .................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Step-down Management Plans............................................................................................................................... 28
Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 28
Plan Amendment and Revision ............................................................................................................................... 29
Partnership Opportunities ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Index ................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Appendix A: Draft Environmental Assessment ............................................................................................................... 35
Appendix B: Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix C: RONS and MMS Lists ............................................................................................................................... 59
Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................................................... 63
Appendix E: Species List ............................................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix F: Guiding Laws and Orders........................................................................................................................... 71
Appendix G: Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 79
Appendix H: Mailing List ............................................................................................................................................... 83
Appendix I: List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................................... 87
Appendix J: Summary and Disposition of Public Comments Received on the Draft CCP .............................................. 91
List of Tables
Table 1: Count Estimates from Aerial Surveys of Waterfowl ........................................................................................ 16
Table 2: November Waterfowl Survey Results for the Lower Detroit River .................................................................. 17
List of Figures
Figure 1: Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2: National Wildlife Refuge System ...................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Historic Spawning Areas .................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 4: Refuge Land Status Map .................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 5: Vegetation Types ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 6: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 ......................................................................................................... 12
1
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
Introduction
“Detroit” brings to mind automobiles, industry, and the Motown sound. It does
not bring to mind wildlife and nature. Detroit has the Red Wings, it does not
have red-winged blackbirds. Detroit has the Tigers, it does not have tiger
salamanders. Indeed, in our mind and in reality, most of what was natural in and
around Detroit is gone. Yet within the concrete, steel, and groomed gardens of
the Detroit metropolitan area exists Wyandotte National
Wildlife Refuge. And, Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge is
contaminated.
What does this speck of 394 acres in the midst of 5 million
people offer to wildlife?
We answer that question in this Comprehensive Conserva-tion
Plan. We describe the historical and current conditions of
the area. We describe the creation of the Refuge. We describe
our vision for its future.
Our view for the future of Wyandotte National Wildlife
Refuge reflects our attitude and our faith in nature. One
possible view would have been to look at what has been lost,
wring our hands, and give up. Another possible view is to
recognize what is left, value it, and work for its preservation.
We have chosen the second view.
Our view is influenced by the recognition of wildlife’s persistence. Despite almost
complete conversion of the river bank to concrete and steel, despite elimination
of more than 95 percent of the coastal wetlands, despite decades of industrial
pollution, the lower Detroit River remains a globally significant area for congre-gating
waterfowl, especially diving ducks.
We intend to make Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge safer for wildlife. We
intend to work with others beyond our boundaries to preserve and improve other
areas in the ecosystem for wildlife. We intend to fulfill the purpose of Wyandotte
National Wildlife Refuge “...as a refuge and breeding place for migratory birds
and other wildlife...”(Public Law 87-119, 75 Stat. 243, 87th Congress, H.R. 1182,
dated August 3, 1961). In this plan we describe our intended actions for the next
15 years.
Refuge Location
The Refuge is located in the Lower Detroit River, in the cities of Wyandotte and
Ecorse in Wayne County, Michigan. When created, the Refuge consisted of two
islands, Grassy and Mamajuda, and the shallow water shoals around the islands.
Since the Refuge’s creation, Mamajuda Island has decreased in size and is
2
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1: Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
3
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
exposed only during low water levels. Both islands are located on a bar that lies
between the Trenton and Fighting Island ship channels in the central part of the
Detroit River. This bar extends from the mouth of the Ecorse River to the head
of Grosse Ile, a distance of approximately 3.5 miles. It ranges from one-quarter
to one-half mile in width and at present it is covered with 3 to 8 feet of water. At
the present time, only 72 acres of Grassy Island are exposed. The 18.5-acre Mud
Island and 71.5 acres of submerged aquatic shoals were added to the Refuge on
June 14, 2001, bringing the entire Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge to 394
acres in size.
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 observa-tion,
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 Wyandotte 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.
  Ensuring that Refuge management is consistent with Federal, state and
county plans.
  Establishing continuity in Refuge management.
  Providing a basis for the development of budget requests on the Refuge’s
operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
4
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
“Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife and plants
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
conserving, 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 wetlands. The Service also manages the Na-tional
Wildlife Refuge System.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
“To administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management 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 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 interna-tional
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
2).
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,
5
Chapter 1 / Introduction and Background
wildlife trails, automobile
tours, and environmental
education programs. Nation-wide,
more than 30 million
people visited national
wildlife refuges in 1997.
The National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of
1997 established many
mandates aimed at making
the management of national
wildlife refuges more cohe-sive.
The preparation of
comprehensive conservation
plans is one of those man-dates.
The legislation requires
the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System and purposes of the individual refuges are carried out. It also
requires the Secretary to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environ-mental
health of the Refuge System.
Existing Partnerships
Partnerships with other Federal agencies as well as tribal, state, and city gov-ernments
and schools are an important element in refuge management. Other
agencies can provide invaluable assistance in research and maintenance. Partner-ships
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 staff work with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Biological Resources Division of
the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Service’s Fishery Resources Office in manag-ing
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge. We also are active participants in
American Heritage River activities for the Detroit River.
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, execu-tive
orders, and regulations govern its administration. The Refuge also operates
under a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Interior and
the U.S. Coast Guard for the management of navigational aids on the islands. See
Appendix F for the authorizing legislation, memorandum of understanding, and a
list of the guiding laws and orders.
Figure 2: National Wildlife Refuge System
6
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 2: The Planning Process
Introduction
The planning process for this comprehensive conservation plan began in Decem-ber
1997. Initially, members of the regional planning staff and Refuge staff
identified a list of issues and concerns that were associated with the management
of the Refuge. These preliminary issues and concerns were based on staff knowl-edge
of the area and contacts with citizens in the community. Refuge staff and
Service planners then asked Refuge neighbors, organizations, local government
units, and interested citizens to share their thoughts at an open house.
In February 1999, the public was invited to an open house, which was held in the
Wyandotte City Hall. Six people attended the open house. Service staff accepted
oral and written comments at the open house and written comments were
received after the open house. Three written comments were received.
Issues
Members of the public and staff raised a diverse range of issues. The issues are
organized by themes–habitat, public use, resource protection–and discussed as
follows.
Habitat Issues
Contamination issues on Grassy Island have prompted some people to suggest
eliminating the island from the Refuge System. Other people suggest reviewing
the remaining natural islands and coastal wetlands in the area for protection
within the Refuge System.
Public Use Issues
There are outstanding questions at Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge regard-ing
the extent of public use that is appropriate for the Refuge. Some of the
participants said that access for hunting and trail uses should be expanded;
others said that a clear statement regarding hunting is needed. Contamination
issues at Grassy Island create unique management decisions, including whether
recreational use should be prohibited until contamination issues are resolved.
Resource Protection Issues
Grassy Island, the main island encompassed in Wyandotte National Wildlife
Refuge, has significant contamination. The preliminary discussion of how to deal
with the contamination on Grassy Island includes capping and sealing the island
or removing all the fill down to the parent material. Participants suggested that
wildlife should be discouraged from use of the island pending removal of contami-nants
from the reach of wildlife and human activity.
7
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
Chapter 3: The Refuge Environment
Geographic/Ecosystem Setting
The Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has implemented an ecosystem approach to
fish and wildlife conservation. Under this approach the Service’s goal is to
contribute to the effective conservation of natural biological diversity through
perpetuation of dynamic, healthy ecosystems by using an interdisciplinary,
coordinated strategy to integrate the expertise and resources of all stakeholders.
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge lies within the Great Lakes Basin Ecosys-tem,
a system shared with Canada and eight states. The 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, over 5,000 tributaries, and a drain-age
basin of 288,000 square miles. A refuge land
status map is included on page 9 and a map showing
vegetation types follows on page 10.
Biological concerns within the ecosystem include the
impact of exotic species, the precarious nature of the
aquatic community structure, and contaminant levels.
Various fish and wildlife activities, drinking water,
recreation, hydropower production, industrial waste
supply, waste disposal, and commercial navigation affect the natural resources in
the ecosystem. The basin contains critical breeding, feeding, and resting areas as
well as migration corridors for waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, non-game birds,
and many species of migratory birds.
Within the Great Lakes basin certain species 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. There is
a concern for native mussels 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 of management concern to the Service are
found in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
A recent survey of biological diversity in the basin identified 130 globally rare or
endangered plant and animal species. The bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Kirtland’s
warbler, piping plover, Mitchell’s satyr blue butterfly, Indiana bat, gray wolf, lake
sturgeon, deepwater sculpin, and supnose shiner are some of the threatened,
endangered, and candidate species that inhabit the Great Lakes ecosystem. The
bald eagle and lake sturgeon have been observed at Wyandotte National Wildlife
Refuge. The Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem is divided into seven focus areas. The
Lower Detroit River focus area contains the Wyandotte National Wildlife
Refuge. The Refuge is also within the St. Clair/Detroit River focus area identi-fied
by the Midwest Natural Resources Group, which consists of 14 Federal
agency partners.
8
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
The Detroit River1
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada have
identified the Detroit River as a portion of the Great Lakes shoreline with
significant concentrations of coastal wetlands and distinctive characteristics
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada, 1999). In
1990, Region 3 designated the marshes associated with Lake Erie and the
Detroit River as a wetland focus area within the Regional Wetlands Concept
Plan.
The Detroit River consists of a 32-mile-long channel bordered by a poorly
drained clay lake plain. The rapidly flowing river is underlain by limestone
bedrock. Heavy industrial development dominates the shoreline. The River has
66 miles of Canadian shoreline, 79 miles of U.S. shoreline, five Canadian wetlands
with 2,808 acres, and 16 U.S. wetlands with 3,415 acres. The wetlands are
principally of two types: (1) channel-side (fringing) wetlands with mineral and
organic soils and (2) submergent beds of vegetation with mineral soil, cobble, and
limestone bedrock. The submergent beds, which once characterized large
portions of the river, have been degraded, and the fringing emergent marsh has
been almost completely destroyed. At one time extensive wild celery beds were
important for diving ducks. After a decline in the beds
from the 1950s to the 1970s, it appears that the beds are
recovering and may be at the levels that existed in the
1950s.
The Detroit River wetlands provide spawning areas for 26
percent of the fish species in the Great Lakes and nursery
areas for 20 percent of the species. Compared with other
shoreline reaches in the Great Lakes, the Detroit River is
above the 50th percentile for providing spawning and above
the 75th percentile for nursery areas. One hundred species
of breeding birds (approximately 50 percent of the breeding
birds of Ontario) use the Detroit River wetlands along the
Canadian shoreline. We expect equivalent bird use in the
U. S. wetlands.
In their evaluation of the importance of the Detroit River
wetlands, the EPA and Environment Canada noted that
although the wetlands are important for a large number of
plant and animal species, the number of rare species in
coastal wetlands is very low. In valuing the various shore-line
reaches, the agencies weighed the distribution, size,
uniqueness, and quality of wetlands. They acknowledged
the general perception that the Detroit River’s large
submergent vegetation beds provide important habitat for migrating waterfowl
and nursery areas for fish. However, they identified the wetlands along the
Detroit River as deserving high priority not only because they serve as impor-tant
habitat for a large number of fish and bird species, but especially because
there are so few wetlands remaining in the area.
1 Primary source material for this section is U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Environment Canada, 1999.
Figure 3: Historic Spawning Areas
9
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
Figure 4: Refuge Land Status Map
10
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5: Vegetation Types
11
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
Challenges to wetlands along the Detroit River include:
  Wetland loss from dredging, filling, and urban and industrial development.
  Contamination by phosphates, heavy metals, oils, and PCBs, especially along
the U.S. shoreline.
  Vulnerability to invasive exotic species of plants, fish, and invertebrates
  Many marshes are diked with accompanying problems of being isolated from
the river.
Based on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Government of Canada
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1995) have listed concerns for
the Detroit River. They report the following concerns: degradation of benthic
populations; fish tumors and other deformities; restrictions on fish and wildlife
consumption; beach closings due to bacteria in the water; restrictions on dredg-ing;
taste and odor in drinking water; degradation of aesthetics; and loss of fish
and wildlife habitat.
The Detroit River has been designated a binational Area of Concern under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has the lead on the Remedial Action Plan to restore and protect benefi-cial
uses in the Area of Concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordination and
collaboration in the Remedial Action Plan process is important to address the
restoration and protection of fish and wildlife habitat in the Detroit River.
American Heritage River
The Detroit River was designated as an American Heritage River in 1998. The
American Heritage Rivers Initiative is a Federal effort to support the local
community’s goals for the river by cutting red tape and providing focused Fed-eral
support. It is a locally driven program. In Detroit, the private and municipal
sectors are the primary forces within the steering committee. Late in 1999, a
Federal contact was named for the river and stakeholders held their first major
event.
Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives
Nongame Bird Conservation Initiatives
Nationally and internationally, several nongame bird initiatives have been
developed in recent years. Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge will strive to
implement the conservation strategies they outline to the extent possible and
practical.
Partners In Flight (PIF) deals primarily with landbirds and has developed Bird
Conservation 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. Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge lies
within Partners in Flight Physiographic Area No. 16, Upper Great Lakes Plain.
Species priorities for this area can be found at http://www.cbobirds.org/pif/
physios/16.html.
12
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
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 conti-nental
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.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), signed in 1986,
outlines a broad framework for waterfowl management strategies and conserva-tion
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.
Greatest potential to increase Michigan wetland wildlife
populations exists on relatively productive lake plain land-scapes
where agricultural practices have eliminated or signifi-cantly
altered wetlands and associated uplands. The Michigan
implementation strategy emphasizes waterfowl reproduction
and does not include migration habitat objectives (1998).
Region 3 Fish & Wildlife Resource Conservation
Priorities
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to identify its most
important functions and to direct its limited fiscal resources toward those
functions. From 1997 to 1999 within Region 3 (Figure 6), a group looked at how
best to identify the most important functions of the Service within the region.
The group recognized that the Service has a complex array of responsibilities
specified by treaties, laws, executive orders, and judicial opinions that dwarf the
agency’s budget.
Figure 6: USFWS Region 3
13
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
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 assemblages 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 knowledge.
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.
We have considered the American Heritage River Initiative, the ecosystem
context, state-listed species, and the regional resource conservation priorities as
we wrote this comprehensive conservation plan.
Refuge Resources, Cultural Values and Uses2
History of the Refuge
Grassy Island appears as a 6-acre marshy area on 1796 maps of the Detroit
River. At that time, the river bottom around the island sloped gradually off on all
sides into deeper channels. The area was called “Ile Marecageuse” on the 1796
map and “Grassy Island” on later maps. An 1873 fisheries report contains a line
drawing of the “Grassy Island Pond Fishery” for spawn-ing
whitefish. The drawing depicts a large seine being
drawn in by horse-drawn windlasses and several sheds
on the island. The fishery employed 30 men, working
night and day, September to November and produced
45,000 adult whitefish per spawning season.
An executive order in 1843 reserved the islands for
lighthouse purposes, and navigation lights have been on
the islands for years. In 1955, Grassy Island was under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Treasury Department, which
had reserved it for installation of navigation aids by the
U.S. Coast Guard. In September 1959, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE) began diking a 300-acre
area around Grassy Island for disposal of polluted dredge spoils from the Rouge
River. In October 1959, at a meeting between the ACOE, the U.S. Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Michigan Department of Conservation,
Congressman John D. Dingell negotiated an agreement that the ACOE could
continue construction of the Grassy Island Confined Disposal Facility (CDF).
In January 1960, Mr. Dingell introduced legislation to designate Grassy Island
and surrounding shoals as a national wildlife refuge because wild celery
(Vallisneria americana) was abundant and widely distributed near Grassy
2 Unless specifically noted, Manny’s 1999 summary is the source for the material in this
section.
Photo courtesy of NOAA
National Marine
Fisheries Service
14
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
Island, and wild celery is the preferred food of diving ducks, such as canvasbacks,
redheads, and scaup. The area was known to attract thousands of diving ducks
during their fall and spring migration. In July 1960, the Department of Interior
agreed that if it received jurisdiction over the Grassy Island area, it would not
object to the ACOE’s continued use of a 72-acre CDF for dredge spoils from the
Rouge River. The act to create the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge became
law on August 3, 1961. The Refuge included Grassy Island and surrounding
shoals out to a water depth of 6 feet and an area of about 300 acres extending
downstream to the Mamajuda Light near Point Hennepin. The Refuge is admin-istered
by the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge near Saginaw, Michigan.
General
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge was originally a marshy, low-lying area of
emergent and submersed vegetation that might be classified today as a Great
Lakes coastal marsh. On an 1815 map, such marshes were contiguous along both
sides of the entire 32-mile length of the Detroit River. By 1982, shoreline devel-opment
had reduced the marshes to less than 3 percent of its original area along
the Michigan side of the river. Today, only remnants of that marsh, such as
Humbug Marsh and portions of Stony Island and Gilbraltar Bay at the southern
end of Grosse Ile, remain in Michigan waters of the river. These remnants
contain stands of bottomland hardwoods, glacial lakeplain prairie, coastal plain
pond communities, and a variety of wetland types. Such coastal marshes are used
as spawning, nursery, feeding, migration, overwintering, and habitat by many of
the 47 species of fish that spawn in the lower Detroit River, including northern
pike, muskellunge, largemouth and smallmouth bass, walleye, and possibly lake
sturgeon. More than 17 species of birds of prey, or raptors, use coastal marshes
as feeding and resting habitat, including eagles, hawks, owls, and falcons. In
addition, coastal marshes are used by 48 species of non-raptors that migrate
through the Detroit River area each year, including waterfowl, loons, herons,
egrets, terns, and neotropical songbirds.
Comparison of Detroit River maps drawn in 1815 and 1982 reveals that:
  More than 97 percent of wetlands in Michigan waters have disappeared
under shoreline modifications.
  Ninety percent of the remnant wetlands in the Detroit River are found
downstream of Grassy Island.
  About 40 percent of these remnant wetlands are in Humbug Marsh and on
small, undeveloped islands forming the “Conservation Crescent”” around the
southern tip of Grosse Ile.
Because wetland habitats are essential to a high diversity of fish and wildlife
species at various stages of their life cycle, such Great Lakes coastal marshes
have been classified as globally unique and significant in biological diversity by
The Nature Conservancy.
Vegetation
At least 20 species of submersed aquatic macrophytes occur in the Detroit River:
wild celery (Vallisneria americana), water stargrass (Heteranthera dubia),
waterweed (Elodea canadensis), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum
spicatum), bushy pondweed (Najas flexilis) and redhead grass (Potamogeton
richardsonii) predominate in the vicinity of Grassy Island.
15
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
Shallow water habitat, gradually sloping off into deeper waters, exists only on
the west side of Grassy Island in a small 20-acre bay. Historically, wild celery was
abundant and widely distributed near Grassy Island and in the Detroit River
system. The extent of wild celery was measured in the 1950s, 1980s, and again in
1996-97. There was a 72 percent decline in wild celery from the 1950s to the
1980s. Now, wild celery has rebounded and is at or exceeds the levels of the
1950s. The increase in wild celery is attributed to increased water clarity in
Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River. The increased water clarity is attributed
primarily to filtration of the water by zebra mussels (Manny, 2000).
Terrestrial plants on Grassy Island include giant reed grass (Phragmites commu-nis),
cattails (Typha spp.), as well as aspen, cottonwood, willow, wild cherry and
box elder trees that provide little suitable habitat for animals. Wildlife use of
small ponds on Grassy Island has not been fully characterized.
The quality of existing habitats for production of fish and wildlife is low on
Grassy Island, due to the monotypic dominance of giant reed grass and exposure
to dredged sediments. The quality of habitat on the shoals surrounding Grassy
Island is medium, due to contamination of river bottom sediments. The condition
of historic fish spawning grounds on the Refuge is unknown.
Approximately 75 percent of Mud Island is forested with more than 20 years
growth of deciduous hardwood trees, dominated by red maple, silver maple,
white ash, cottonwood and willow. Its surrounding shoals are, on average, 2 feet
in depth and support aquatic species such as wild celery.
Fish and Wildlife
Waterfowl
Canvasbacks, common mergansers, and redheads are regularly present in
significant numbers along the lower Detroit River during the late fall and winter.
A series of waterfowl surveys were conducted by the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources in the 1950s. The count-estimates in Table 1 are for an 18-mile
segment of the Detroit River from the Ambassador Bridge to the mouth. The
Refuge islands and shoals are located in the central part of this segment.
In recent years the Department of Natural Resources has conducted an
aerial count of canvasback/diving ducks along the Detroit River in No-vember.
The results of the survey are depicted in Table 2.
The Lower Detroit River is designated as an Important Bird Area that is
globally significant as a site for congregating waterfowl (http://
www.bsc-eoc.org/iba/site.cfm?siteID=ON047&lang=en). On average, more
than 8,261 Canvasback (greater than 1 percent of the estimated North
American population), and 7,000 common mergansers (greater than 1
percent of the estimated North American population) are recorded each year
during the annual Christmas Bird Count centered on Rockwood, Michigan. The
population of redheads counted in 1997 was 9,011. Other waterfowl species
commonly observed on the river include: greater scaup, lesser scaup, common
goldeneye, and bufflehead.
During the November counts conducted by the Department of Natural Re-sources,
few waterfowl are seen in the area around the Refuge. In the fall there
16
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
appears to be more waterfowl activity in the south end of the River, south of
Grosse Ille. In the fall the birds may be moved from the area because of hunting
pressure and other activity. However, there is a good deal of hunting activity and
success at the Canard River Refuge, which is across the river from the Wyan-dotte
National Wildlife Refuge. In the winter, the waterfowl seem to spread out
more widely along the Detroit River. If waterfowl are seen near the Refuge, they
are observed in the small bay west of Grassy Island. Over one recent winter,
large rafts of canvasbacks were seen in the bay (Manny, 2000). Heavy river
current discourages waterfowl use around other parts of the Refuge (Kafcas,
1999).
On Mud Island, extensive beds of aquatic vegetation, particularly wild celery,
historically attracted large concentrations of divers, primarily canvasback and
scaup. However, in the past 100 years discharges from industrial plants and
municipal sewage effluent along with the effects of large, deep draft vessels have
degraded the lower Detroit River ecosystem, thus resulting in the substantial
decline of these preferred foods. Remnants of the once vast rafts of migratory
waterfowl can still be found in the aquatic vegetative beds surrounding Mud
Island.
Fish
Lake sturgeon once spawned on the rocky bottom in swift currents just north-east
of Grassy Island, one of seven historic spawning areas in the Detroit River.
This fish is listed as “threatened” by 19 of the 20 states in its original range, and
by seven of the eight Great Lakes states, including Michigan. Recent, incidental
catches of genetically unique, juvenile lake sturgeon in Lake Erie near the
Detroit River suggest that sturgeon are reproducing again in the Detroit River.
More than 10 million walleye, white bass, steelhead, and salmon migrate through
the Detroit River each year and attract many sport fishers to the Refuge.
Table 1. Count-estimates from Aerial Surveys of Waterfowl for 18-mile Segment
of the Detroit River from the Ambassador Bridge to the Mouth. (Miller, 1961)
Year Winter Spring Pre-season Fall Mid-season Post-season
1950 23,400 14,000 12,200 7,700 73,500
1951 28,000 21,900 5,300 56,000 63,500
1952 15,100 21,400 5,000 90,200 91,000
1953 45,000 41,400 4,400 30,000 95,000
1954 44,300 55,000 7,000 293,000 54,000
1955 48,400 70,100 4,500 217,000 24,500
1956 19,900 25,300 6,500 43,700 38,500
1957 51,300 41,600 4,850 17,500 41,050
1958 37,300 * * 29,700 *
1959 86,400 * * 7,550 *
1960 38,260 * * 5,470 *
1961 10,300 * * * *
* Census discontinued
17
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
Other Species
Bald eagles, a federally-listed endangered species, have nested recently near
Grassy Island. Pheasant, swallow, red-wing blackbird, gulls, terns, Canada geese,
woodcock, wood duck, loon, kingfisher, and many species of shorebirds inhabit the
Refuge.
Coyote, gray fox, whitetail deer, raccoon, woodchuck, and muskrat have either
been seen or identified by signs they left on Grassy Island. A few years ago, a
family of river otter was seen near the lower Detroit River. Beaver have recently
returned to nearby Livingston, Oakland, and Washtenaw counties.
Two state-listed threatened species have been associated with Grassy Island.
The spotted turtle was recorded in the Michigan Natural Features Inventory in
1997. The common tern was recorded in 1977.
Mud Island supports small mammals including rabbits, voles and mice; herptiles
such as garter snakes, northern water snakes, turtles, frogs and toads; and avian
species including waterfowl, passerine, wading birds and raptors. Occasionally, an
eagle can be seen perched on the island and on one occasion a grey fox was
observed on the ice adjacent to Mud Island.
Contaminants
In 1960, the ACOE transformed Grassy Island into an 72-acre Confined Disposal
Facility (CDF) consisting of two cells surrounded by dikes. Dredged material
was hydraulically pumped as a slurry into the receiving cells and allowed to
settle. The resulting water was discharged back into the river via an overflow
weir.
Because the Grassy Island CDF preceded Public Law 91-611 (1970), which
initiated the Great Lakes-wide CDF program, it lacks the confinement technol-ogy
employed in later CDF designs. The CDF (the first one built by the ACOE in
the Great Lakes) was constructed without liners and caps and with sand and clay
dikes unprotected by riprap. The original dikes were raised in the 1960s and the
capacity further expanded in 1971. The Detroit District of the ACOE operated
and maintained the CDF until it was filled in 1982. In 1985 and 1986, the ACOE
repaired and reinforced the dikes adjacent to the navigation channel with filter
cloth and riprap to prevent their failure from riverine and navigational forces.
Both cells remain uncapped and polluted sediments are exposed over much of the
CDF.
Table 2: November Waterfowl Survey Results for the Lower Detroit River and Northern
Portion of Lake Erie (Kafcas, 2000).
Year Canvasback Scaup Bufflehead Merganser Goldeneye Redhead Total
1995 11,150 8,000 * 275 * 1,500 20,925
1996 400 675 50 400 75 * 1,600
1997 11,250 14,450 20 50 50 400 26,220
1998 750 10,000 150 515 50 800 12,265
1999 600 16,200 20 560 20 100 17,500
* Not Reported
18
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
The Grassy Island CDF contains no impermeable liner or cap and ponds on it are
above river level. Therefore, the potential for leakage of contaminants from the
Grassy Island CDF is being evaluated. Pathways for contaminant movement
include leakage under the dike and exposure to dredge spoils at the island’s
surface. The risk to biological resources posed by exposure to contaminants in
the river and on the island needs to be assessed, as well.
Most of the 1.9-million-cubic-yard design capacity of the CDF has been used.
However, each cell of the CDF contains a small open water pond that attracts
waterfowl. Most of the CDF supports a mixture of emergent, scrub-shrub, and
forested wetland types, which also attracts a variety of wildlife. The CDF dikes
also have attracted a small breeding colony of common terns (Sterno hirundo).
In 1987 Beyer and Stafford surveyed nine CDFs throughout the Great Lakes.
They found that soils within the vegetated portions of the Grassy Island CDF
contained some of the highest levels of PCBs, mercury, and other heavy metals.
They also found levels of chlordane, and eight PAH compounds that exceeded
criteria for exposure by direct contact. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
DDT levels in the flesh of waterfowl and woodcock on the island exceeded
USFDA Tolerance Levels. Earthworms associated with this soil showed positive
bioaccumulation of several of the heavy metals.
In 1987, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s East Lansing Field Office began to
identify and quantify contaminants in the sediments of the two small ponds. They
also quantified contaminant residues in birds using all habitats on Grassy Island.
In 1994, the U.S. Department of Interior selected Grassy Island as a demonstra-tion
site for hazardous materials management. The goal of the initiative is to
demonstrate the ability of Interior bureaus to work together to develop remedial
action plans and to field test innovative technologies for cleanup of Interior lands.
The objectives are to address concerns about land use requirements, trust
responsibilities, environmental protection, and natural resource management,
while achieving cleanup goals more rapidly and at less cost than current methods.
In 1997, the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Biological Resources Division
investigated contamination of surficial soils on Grassy Island and of wild celery
tubers growing on shoals surrounding the island. In the same year the USGS’s
Water Resources Division and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service investigated
groundwater movements around the island and contaminants in subterranean
soils and water. These studies showed that contamination exists in the surficial
soils on the island, there is little contamination of the wild celery tubers, and
there is a low level of contaminates in the sediments outside the CDF.
With the designation of the Detroit River as an American Heritage River, the
remediation of the contaminants found on Grassy Island could be used as a
model to encourage others to remediate contaminated sites found throughout the
Detroit River area, including Canada.
Public Use
The demands for recreational use on Wyandotte NWR have been high. There
have been proposals to install an Olympic Rowing Course (1963) and a city-
19
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
sponsored (Wyandotte) recreational area (1963-1999) on the Refuge. The autho-rizing
legislation for the Refuge permits the Service to cooperate with the City of
Wyandotte in providing recreation that is consistent with the primary purpose of
the Refuge (See Appendix F). Due to the contaminant issue affecting habitat and
wildlife and the potential for a contaminant issue to affect human beings, recre-ation
on the island is not a high priority at this time.
Until 1973, the Refuge was closed to boating, fishing and hunting. The original
intent for the Refuge was to provide a sanctuary for waterfowl. The sanctuary
was to protect the wild celery beds surrounding the islands from propeller
damage and provide a resting and feeding area to waterfowl, which otherwise
would be moved out of the celery beds through hunting pressure. Service staff
would place buoys out to the 6-foot contour line of the Refuge boundary to warn
boaters, anglers, and hunters that the area was off limits to recreational use.
In 1973, the Service decided to discontinue the placement of buoys. Maintenance
was a leading factor in this decision. The buoys were put out from September to
late November, and many were moved by ice and ultimately lost. The cost of
replacing buoys and the staff time needed to place them was deemed to be
greater than the benefit received. The Service did receive complaints from
waterfowl hunters that the buoys were removed and waterfowl weren’t provided
the protection that the Refuge was established for, but the Service felt the
maintenance of the buoys were too expensive to fund. The Service also felt that
because Grassy Island and its shoals were annexed by the City of Wyandotte and
the City had an ordinance prohibiting hunting, the no hunting ordinance could be
enforced by the City. The City, however, has not routinely enforced the ordi-nance.
Hunting does occur in the sheltered bay on the west side of the island. The
hunting may be causing some disturbance to the wildlife and habitat.
Due to the concerns of contaminants found on Grassy Island, no public use is
allowed on the island.
Cultural Resources3
Responding to the requirement in the law that comprehensive conservation plans
will include “the archaeological and cultural values of the planning unit;” the
Service contracted for a cultural resources overview study of Shiawassee Na-tional
Wildlife Refuge and the refuges it administers.
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge has one reported site, an abandoned light-house.
Grassy Island is a “made island with no apparent cultural time depth.
Mamajuda Island contains an abandoned lighthouse in ruins. Documentary
evidence exists for small scale Indian and Western sites, and the island could
have prehistoric sites, but no one has looked.
3 This section of the CCP derives mostly from the draft report, “Overview Study of
Archaeological and Cultural Values on Shiawassee, Michigan Islands, and Wyandotte
National Wildlife Refuges in Saginaw, Charlevoix, Alpena, and Wayne Counties, Michi-gan,”
by James A. Robertson and others, Commonwealth Cultural Resources Group, Inc.,
dated May 1999.
20
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
As of June 10, 1999, Wayne County had 339 properties on the National Register
of Historic Places. These properties, however, are not indicative of sites that may
be on the two islands.
The overview study identified a number of research questions. These questions
should be considered in future investigations, including 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. No evidence exists for the
removal of human remains from the Refuge. Early in the planning stage for
every undertaking (as defined in 36 CFR Part 800), the Refuge Manager will
notify the Regional Historic Preservation Officer so that qualified analysis and
evaluation can be completed and consultation initiated as necessary.
In a further refinement of this CCP and to fulfill requirements of Section 14 of
the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and Section 110(a)(2) of the Na-tional
Historic Preservation Act, we expect to write a cultural resources step-down
plan for surveying the Refuge to identify archeological resources and for a
preservation program.
Special Topics
Coast Guard Memorandum of Understanding
In 1964, the U.S. Coast Guard raised some questions about its rights and privi-leges
on Grassy Island and Mamajuda Island to erect and maintain navigational
aids. In a memorandum of understanding, the Service and the U.S. Coast Guard
agreed that the Coast Guard has the right and privilege to operate, maintain, and
relocate aids to navigation on Grassy and Mamajuda islands, including the right
of ingress and egress for servicing the aids (See Appendix F). The Coast Guard
has been maintaining and replacing navigational aids on the Refuge throughout
the years.
Land Acquisition
In 1994, the Service began to develop Preliminary Project Proposals (PPP) to
acquire lands to preserve, restore and manage nationally significant fish and
wildlife habitat within the Lake St. Clair/Detroit River system. These waters
and lands would have been additions to the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge.
Two proposals were written. First, we proposed a transfer of the abandoned
Nike Site on Grosse Ile from the U.S. EPA to the Service. Second, we proposed
the acquisition of certain coastal wetlands found throughout the connecting
channel from Lake Huron to Lake Erie. The second proposal included Calf,
Round, Stony, Humbug, Sugar, Fox, and Powder islands; Humbug Marsh and
associated uplands; and Point Hennepin, which is the former BASF Corporation
property. After a Regional Office review, the Service decided not to pursue the
proposals for two reasons. First, we wanted a more thorough evaluation of all
lands in the area to facilitate a system approach to our goals. Second, because of
higher priority projects, including additions to Shiawassee National Wildlife
Refuge, the proposals could not be developed with available staff.
21
Chapter 3 / The Refuge Environment
Mud Island Addition
On January 5, 2001, then USFWS Director Jamie Rapport Clark approved the
expansion of Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge to include Mud Island, an
approximately 18.5-acre island with 71.5 acres of submerged aquatic shoals. Mud
Island is located northeast of Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge near the City
of Ecorse, Michigan, in the lower Detroit River system. The island and surround-ing
shoals were donated to the Service by the National Steel Corporation on
June 14, 2001. The Regional Director also signed a categorical exclusion exempt-ing
the refuge expansion from documentation normally required under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Mud Island is undeveloped and almost entirely forested with more than 20 years
growth of deciduous hardwood, primarily maple, ash and cottonwood. The
surrounding shoals are, on average, 2 feet in depth and support aquatic species
such as wild celery, a significant food source for some species of duck. A survey of
the island did not reveal any evidence of contaminants on the island.
Restoration of the island will contribute toward the Service’s ecosystem goals by
preserving valuable aquatic shoals for the benefit of migratory waterfowl,
particularly diving ducks, and it will provide potential spawning habitat for lake
sturgeon.
Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge Proposal
In March 2001, Rep. John Dingell (Michigan District 16) introduced a bill that
would establish the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. If the bill (H.R.
1230) is approved, Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge would become part of the
new international wildlife refuge.
The Planning Team is pressing forward with the preparation of a comprehensive
conservation plan for Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge pending a decision on
the creation of an international refuge. We believe that it is worthwhile to
complete this planning process. It is hard to estimate how long it might take
Congress to act on H.R. 1230 and, if it is ultimately approved, it will take at least
a year to complete the necessary interagency coordination that will help define
specifics of the expanded refuge. A process to formally evaluate the expansion of
the existing refuge boundaries and the revision of the CCP can then begin.
Completing the comprehensive conservation plan now will provide direction for
the Refuge for as long as it exists in its present form, and in the future it will
contribute direction to planning efforts for an international wildlife refuge.
Wilderness Review
The Refuge does not meet the criteria for Wilderness, because:
  Human influence is substantially noticeable.
  There is not opportunity for solitude.
  We can not restore the wilderness character through appropriate manage-ment.
  It does not contain features of unusual scientific, educational, scenic, or
historical value.
22
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 4: Refuge Management
Current Refuge Programs
Understanding the contaminants on Grassy Island and protecting the island are
currently the primary management activities. The Refuge is posted with refuge
boundary signs and an identification sign. Public use of the islands is prohibited.
Visits for scientific and educational purposes are allowed by permit only.
Refuge staff visit the Refuge three or four times a year.
The purpose of the visits is to be sure the signs are in
place, to observe the general conditions on Grassy Island,
to clean up litter and debris, and to aid partners in contami-nation
studies. In fulfilling partnerships responsibilities,
the refuge manager also attends several meetings a year
dealing with contaminant cleanup, resource protection, and
the American Heritage River Initiative.
The Refuge is the site of active work by the USGS and
EPA in evaluating contaminants and exploring alternatives
of dealing with them.
Planned Refuge Programs
We recognize that we face major challenges in providing for wildlife in the
Detroit River—the Refuge land base is contaminated and development has
altered most of the natural system. We ask ourselves, “Can we make a significant
difference in this ecosystem? Are our efforts worthwhile?”
We think the answer is “yes” to these questions. At a minimum, we have an
obligation to see that the contamination on Grassy Island is contained. Our intent
is to find a remedy for the contamination. We envision sealing in the contami-nated
spoils with an impermeable layer of material.
But beyond the minimum, we expect to restructure the island to benefit wildlife.
We do not yet know the engineering requirements for successful containment.
That must await further study. Our intent, though, is to work within engineering
constraints and to structure the final design in a way that will best benefit
wildlife. We expect that nearly all of the vegetation on the island will be removed
as part of any sealing process. So, we expect to be starting with a clean slate.
We also do not know how safe the island will be for public use after the contami-nants
are contained. If the risks are low, we will evaluate whether or not hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental
education can be facilitated on the island.
For that part of the Refuge that includes the waters around and downstream of
Grassy Island, we intend to learn about the waterfowl use of the area. We know
that the Lower Detroit River is important for waterfowl, but we do not know
23
Chapter 4 / Refuge Management
how big a role the Refuge plays in this importance. We intend to find out. With a
better idea of the role the Refuge plays in providing for waterfowl, we will be
better able to judge how we should allocate our money and time within the
refuges that we manage.
While we are learning about the use, we will more aggressively protect the area
for waterfowl. Part of the protection for waterfowl will be increased information
dissemination and enforcement of the no hunting regulation during the waterfowl
season.
We think that fishing from boats in the waters of the Refuge is compatible with
the purposes of the Refuge and in the spirit of facilitating priority uses as speci-fied
in the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. We intend to amend the
Refuge regulations to permit fishing from boats in the Detroit River within the
Refuge boundaries.
We intend to allow others to lead any efforts to monitor and restore the lake
sturgeon spawning area within the Refuge. We will participate as partners and
support the work of others with lake sturgeon.
While we are working intensely with Grassy Island, our intent is to work with
others to preserve the remaining lands in the area for wildlife. By preserving
coastal marshes and areas of submerged plant beds, we will benefit migrating
and wintering waterfowl and spawning and juvenile fish along this international
border. Working with the Service’s Great Lakes Ecosystem Team and other
partners, we will assess and protect the lands in the St. Clair River/Lake St.
Clair/Detroit River corridor.
Climate Change Impacts
The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring
federal agencies under its direction that have land management responsibilities
to consider potential climate change impacts as part of long-range planning
endeavors.
In relation to comprehensive conservation planning for national wildlife refuges,
carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact to be
considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s “Carbon Sequestration
Research and Development” (U.S. DOE, 1999) defines carbon sequestration as
“...the capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to
or remain in the atmosphere.”
The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all
sorts – grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice and desert – are
effective both in preventing carbon emission and acting as a biological “scrubber”
of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The Department of Energy report’s conclusions
noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and may
reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere.
Preserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for
national wildlife refuges. The actions proposed in this comprehensive conserva-
24
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
tion plan would preserve or restore land and water, and would thus enhance
carbon sequestration. This in turn contributes positively to efforts to mitigate
human-induced global climate changes.
Our Vision for the Refuge
The Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge will be a model for natural and restored
systems management, featuring unique coastal marshes, shoals, islands, and
terrestrial habitats historically found throughout the connecting channel between
Lake Huron and Lake Erie. The Refuge will provide for waterfowl and a rich
natural biological diversity. Through effective management and partnering, the
Refuge will provide outstanding public use opportunities for present and future
generations.
Refuge Goals, Objectives and Strategies
Introduction
This section contains the primary strategies that will define the management
direction for the Refuge for the next 15 years (1999-2014). This direction is based
on the Refuge System mission, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improve-ment
Act of 1997, the purposes for which the Refuge was established, goals
defined for the Great Lakes/Big Rivers Region, as well as agency policies and
directives. Congress established Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge in Public
Law 87-119, 75 Stat. 243, 87th Congress, H.R. 1182, dated August 3, 1961 ...”to be
maintained as a refuge and breeding place for migratory birds and other wild-life...”.
The goals that follow are general statements of what we want to accomplish in
the next 15 years.
The objectives are specific statements of what will be accomplished to help
achieve a goal. Objectives describe the who, what, when, where and why of what
is to be accomplished. The “when” follows each objective. Strategies listed under
each objective specify the activities that will be pursued to realize an objective.
The strategies may be refined or amended as specific tasks are completed or new
research and information come to light.
In the numbering scheme that follows, the first number represents the number of
the goal. The second number represents an objective within that goal. The third
number represents a strategy within an objective. Thus, 3.2.1 represents the first
strategy for the second objective within the third goal. This numbering scheme is
used to index Refuge Operating Needs Projects in Appendix C and personnel
needs in Chapter 5.
25
Chapter 4 / Refuge Management
Goal 1: Contaminant Containment
Remediation of contaminants in the soil and water of Grassy Island
1.1 Objective: A clean, safe habitat for wildlife and people within EPA
standards on Grassy Island by 2007.
Strategies:
1.1.1 Facilitate engineering and feasibility studies for a containment
plan through contract, cooperative agreement, or similar device
with plan completion by 2003.
1.1.2 Ensure that the containment plan includes (1) a detailed landscape
plan that will specify desirable habitats and (2) a public use plan
that will specify how public use, if feasible, will be facilitated.
Discussion: Because the technical details of containment, possible
habitats, and public use are closely interdependent, it is not
realistic to specify what habitats are possible and what species
these habitats will benefit. The containment plan will necessarily
be developed through an iterative design and evaluation cycle.
Ideally, the island habitat will be designed to benefit species on the
Region 3 Resource Conservation Priority list.
1.1.3 Coordinate with EPA and State of Michigan on containment and
remediation in and around Grassy Island and protection of existing
habitat of value.
Goal 2: Habitat and Wildlife Populations
Understand the importance of the Refuge to waterfowl.
Discussion: Waterfowl use of the Refuge is certainly influenced by availability of
food and human disturbance. We intend to measure how much food is available to
waterfowl and to minimize their disturbance by hunters. With some control of the
human disturbance and the measurement of waterfowl use and food, we should
be able to determine the relative importance of the Refuge to waterfowl in the
context of the Lower Detroit River.
2.1 Objective: Know the waterfowl use of the Refuge by species by 2003.
Strategies:
2.1.1 Conduct weekly waterfowl counts from mid-November through
March for at least 3 years using volunteer(s).
2.1.2 Request that special note be made of the Refuge during the State’s
waterfowl count.
2.1.3 If technically feasible, install an observation camera linked to a
recorder and the Internet to regularly observe duck numbers and
disturbance.
26
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
2.2 Objective: Know the availability of waterfowl food on the Refuge by
2003.
Strategy:
2.2.1 In partnership with universities and other governmental agencies,
annually measure the abundance of wild celery and zebra mussels
within the Refuge during the years of the waterfowl counts in
objective 2.1.
2.3 Objective: No disturbance of waterfowl on the Refuge by hunters.
Strategies:
2.3.1 Distribute information about the prohibition of hunting in press
releases, notices at launch facilities, and flyers at sporting goods
stores.
2.3.2 Make a minimum of two law enforcement visits to the Refuge
during the waterfowl hunting season.
2.3.3 The person counting waterfowl will record and report any distur-bance
observed during waterfowl counts.
2.3.4 If a camera is installed, monitor the area regularly to observe and
quantify disturbance.
Goal 3: Lake Sturgeon
Restoration of lake sturgeon spawning area within the Refuge.
3.1 Objective: Meet the Refuge partnership responsibilities to the Fishery
Resource Office in lake sturgeon work.
Discussion: We expect the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery
Resources Office to take the lead within this goal. Our role will be to
support and facilitate their activities. In order to provide support, we
plan to devote a portion of the time of a part-time biological technician
with fisheries experience to duties at the Refuge. The biological techni-cian
will also have duties at Shiawassee and Michigan Islands national
wildlife refuges.
Strategy:
3.1.1 Hire a biological technician with fisheries experience to work part-time.
Goal 4: Protection of Additional Lands
Protect islands and coastal wetlands within the Lake Huron/Lake Erie corridor for
migratory and wintering waterfowl, migratory songbirds, and for spawning and
nursery areas for fish along an international boundary.
4.1 Objective: By 2002, help the Great Lakes Ecosystem Team identify
Great Lakes islands and coastal wetlands that should be protected in the
Lake Huron/Lake Erie corridor.
27
Chapter 4 / Refuge Management
Discussion: Because so little of the original, natural habitat remains, we
will work with partners to protect all lands in the corridor that contrib-ute
to the Service’s mission. The biodiversity that can be supported
through protection includes habitat for waterfowl migration, spawning
and nursery habitat for fish, and rare coastal prairie habitat types that
include rare plant species (Chow-Fraser and Albert, 1998).
Strategies:
4.1.1 Maintain membership and actively participate in the Great Lakes
Islands Committee of the ecosystem team.
4.1.2 Provide staff time and facilities as available to input relevant data
into a GIS system.
4.1.3 Develop a Preliminary Project Proposal to acquire lands located in
the St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair/Detroit River system, including
the islands, marshes, and uplands that will benefit migratory and
wintering waterfowl, migratory songbirds, rare species, and for
spawning and nursery areas for fish along an international bound-ary.
28
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation
Personnel Needs
Currently the staff of Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge consists of 10 posi-tions:
two refuge operations specialists and a refuge manager, an administrative
technician, a wildlife biologist, a biological science technician, two park rangers,
an engineering equipment operator, and a tractor operator.
To achieve the objectives of this plan, an additional part-time fishery technician is
needed. The fishery technician will also work at Shiawassee and Michigan Islands
national wildlife refuges. Law enforcement support will come from the Shiawas-see
staff and Service special agents.
Funding
Support for Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge has not been specifically
identified in past budgets. Rather, the operation and maintenance support has
been drawn from the budget of Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge.
Last year Shiawassee staff committed about $8,000 and 18 staff days to visits and
meetings related to Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, last year
Shiawassee staff purchased a boat, trailer, and supplies for $40,000 in support of
their management of Michigan Islands and Wyandotte national wildlife refuges.
The operations costs are expected to increase slightly in the next 3 years with
more visits for law enforcement and support of fisheries work and coordination
associated with the contamination work.
The cost of containing the contaminants on Grassy Island is expected to far
exceed any routine refuge funding request. The work will require special appro-priations.
Step-down Management Plans
In support of this plan, a habitat management practices plan and public use plan
will be drafted as part of the containment feasibility study. An inventory and
monitoring of populations plan will be written to detail the monitoring specified
in objectives 2.1 and 2.2. A cultural resources plan step-down plan will be writ-ten.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring is critical to successful implementation of this plan. Monitoring is
necessary to evaluate the progress toward objectives and to determine if condi-tions
are changing.
29
Chapter 5 / Plan Implementation
Accomplishment of the objectives described in this CCP will be evaluated as part
of normal Service procedures of station visits and supervisory evaluations. The
public will be informed about the activities of the Refuge staff through an “An-nual
Report” that will be mailed to all persons on the Refuge mailing list, pub-lished
on the Refuge’s website, and its availability will be announced through
news releases to the media. The annual report will be published each year in
February.
Plan Amendment and Revision
The Plan and its objectives will be examined at least every 5 years to determine
if any modifications are necessary to meet the changing conditions. The plan will
be evaluated after the contaminants on Grassy Island are contained.
Partnership Opportunities
In addition to the official partnerships that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
holds on a national level, Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge staff work with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Biological Resources Division of
the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Service’s Fishery Resources Office in manag-ing
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge. We also are active participants in
American Heritage River activities for the Detroit River.
Partnerships are a key element in Refuge management, and we will seek to
develop partnerships with additional public and private groups as opportunities
arise.
33
Appendices / Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Appendices
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment
Appendix B: Glossary
Appendix C: Refuge Operating Needs System List and Maintenance
Management System List
Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations
Appendix E: Species List
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements
Appendix G: Bibliography
Appendix H: Mailing List
Appendix I: List of Preparers
Appendix J: Summary and Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft CCP
35
Appendix A / Environmental Assessment
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment
39
Appendix A / Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 41
I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ........................................................ 42
Decision Framework ................................................................................................... 42
Description of the Proposed Action .......................................................................... 42
Authority, Legal Compliance and Compatibility .................................................... 43
Scoping of the Issues ................................................................................................... 43
Issues and Concerns .................................................................................................... 43
Resource Priorities ..................................................................................................... 44
II Description of Alternatives .................................................................................. 44
Alternative 1: No Action ........................................................................................... 44
Alternative 2: Implement the Refuge CCP (Preferred Alternative) ................. 44
Alternative 3: Transfer to Other Government Entitites ....................................... 44
Another Alternative Considered but Not Further Developed ............................ 45
III Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 45
Listed Species .............................................................................................................. 46
Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 46
IV Environmental Consequences ............................................................................ 47
Issues Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................... 48
Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................ 48
Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................ 49
Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................ 50
V List of Preparers .................................................................................................... 52
Tables
Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives (By the Year 2014) ..................................... 45
Table 2: Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences ........................... 51
41
Appendix A / Environmental Assessment
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment
for the
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
April 2000
Abstract
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing implementation of the Compre-hensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
(Refuge) in Wayne County of Michigan. This Environmental Assessment consid-ers
the biological, environmental, and socioeconomic effects that implementing
the CCP will have on the most significant issues and concerns identified during
the planning process.
The purpose of the Plan is to:
  Provide a clear statement of direction for future management of the
Refuge.
  Give Refuge neighbors, visitors, and the general public an understanding
of the Service’s management actions on and around the Refuge.
  Ensure that the Refuge’s management actions and programs are consistent
with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
  Ensure that Refuge management is consistent with Federal, state and
county plans.
  Establish continuity in Refuge management.
  Provide a basis for the development of budget requests on the refuge’s
operation, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
Responsible Agency and Official: William Hartwig, Regional Director
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Henry Whipple Federal Building
1 Federal Drive
Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056
Contacts for additional information about this project:
Douglas Spencer, Refuge Manager John Schomaker, Project Coordinator
Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6975 Mower Road 1 Federal Drive
Saginaw, MI 48601 Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056
989/777-5930 612/713-5476
42
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
I. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
Purpose: The proposed comprehensive conservation plan identifies a specific
course of action to gain basic information necessary for management of Wyan-dotte
National Wildlife Refuge. The plan further outlines the steps that will be
taken to remediate for the contamination that exists on Grassy Island, a part of
the Refuge.
Need: Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge staff have the responsibility of
managing the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge for specific purposes outlined
in law and to fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. However,
basic information about the contamination and biological resources on the islands
that is necessary for effective management is lacking. In addition, the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 mandates that all national
wildlife refuges will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP.
Decision Framework
The Regional Director for the Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region of the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service will use the Environmental Assessment to select one of
three alternatives and determine whether the alternative selected will have
significant environmental impacts requiring preparation of an environmental
impact statement. Specifically, analysis and findings described in the CCP and in
this EA will help the Regional Director decide whether to continue with current
management at the Refuge (No Action) or whether to adopt the actions de-scribed
in the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation
Plan.
It is recommended that the reader refer to the Comprehensive Conservation
Plan for Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge when reviewing this Environmen-tal
Assessment.
A Comprehensive Conservation Plan is needed to address current management
issues and propose a plan of action which the Fish and Wildlife Service and its
partners can use to achieve the future vision for the Refuge.
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action is to adopt and implement the Comprehensive Conservation
Plan for Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge. The CCP will serve as a manage-ment
tool to be used by Refuge staff and its partners in guiding the habitat
management and public use activities on the Refuge. The document will guide
management decisions and activities on the Refuge over the next 15 years. U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service staff and interested citizens contributed to the develop-ment
of the CCP.
43
Appendix A / Environmental Assessment
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge was established by an Act of Congress -
Public Law 87-119, 75 Stat. 243, 87th Congress, H.R. 1182, dated August 3, 1961
...”to be maintained as a refuge and breeding place for migratory birds and other
wildlife...”.
Mud Island was added to the Refuge in January 2001 using the authority to
accept donations of real property contained in the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956
(16 U.S.C. 742f).
Authority delegated by Congress, Federal regulations/guidelines, and executive
orders guide the operation and the management of the Refuge and provide the
framework for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed action. See Appendix F
of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for summary of these laws and orders.
Scoping of the Issues
Scoping is the process of identifying opportunities and issues related to a pro-posed
action. The Fish and Wildlife Service publicly announced that it was
preparing a plan for the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge in December 1998.
For detail on the scoping activities see Chapter 2, “Planning Process,” of the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Issues and Concerns
Through scoping, the Service identified issues and concerns related to manage-ment
of the Refuge. These “scoping” issues have been considered in the CCP
decision-making process and several have been directly integrated into the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
This Environmental Assessment informs the public of the impact the proposed
action (implementing the CCP) will have on each of the three major issue catego-ries.
All issues are described in the CCP and many of the goals and strategies
contained in the CCP relate to one or more of the issue categories. The issues
raised fall under the general categories of habitat, public use and resource
protection and are described as follows:
Habitat Issues
Contamination issues on Grassy Island have prompted some people to suggest
eliminating the island from the Refuge System. Other people suggest reviewing
the remaining natural islands and coastal wetlands in the area for protection
within the Refuge System.
Public Use Issues
There are outstanding questions at Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge regard-ing
the extent of public use that is appropriate for the Refuge. Some of the
participants said that access for hunting and trail uses should be expanded;
others said that a clear statement regarding hunting is needed. Contamination
issues at Grassy Island create unique management decisions, including whether
recreational use should be prohibited until contamination issues are resolved.
44
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
Resource Protection Issues
Grassy Island, the main island encompassed in Wyandotte National Wildlife
Refuge, has significant contamination. The preliminary discussion of how to deal
with the contamination on Grassy Island includes capping and sealing the island
or removing all the fill down to the parent material. Participants suggested that
wildlife should be discouraged from use of the island pending removal of contami-nants
from the reach of wildlife and human activity.
II. Description of Alternatives
This section describes three alternatives considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and detailed in this Environmental Assessment:
Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative
Alternative 2 – Implement the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge Comprehen-sive
Conservation Plan (Preferred Action)
Alternative 3 – Transfer To Other Governmental Entities.
Alternative 1: No Action
This alternative reflects the status quo, essentially allowing current conditions
and trends of management, public use, and land use to continue. No substantial
increases in funds or staff would occur. The Service would not carry out many of
the recommendations in the CCP. The contamination of Grassy Island would be
addressed by others. Public use opportunities, facilities, and access would
continue to be prohibited.
Alternative 2: Implement the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Preferred Alternative)
Under this alternative the Fish and Wildlife Service will implement the 15-year
CCP and establish an overall management direction consistent with the goals,
objectives, and strategies contained in Chapter 4 of the CCP.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will inventory and monitor the fish and
wildlife use of the Refuge to understand what exists on the islands and the
ecological value of the islands. Public use opportunities, facilities, and access
would continue to be prohibited until contamination on Grassy Island is
remediated. The Service will seek to identify additional lands for protection in
the Lake Huron to Lake Erie corridor under this alternative.
Alternative 3: Transfer to Other Government Entities
This alternative proposes to transfer the lands and waters of the Refuge to other
governmental entities. After remediation of the contaminants on Grassy Island,
transfer of the Refuge’s lands and waters would be offered to the City of Wyan-dotte
and the State of Michigan. The Service would maintain its presence in the
conservation objectives of the area as a cooperating partner, not as a land
manager. The Refuge staff would participate in identifying additional lands for
protection through participation in the Great Lakes Ecosystem Team and its
committees. Congressional action would be required to implement this alterna-tive.
45
Appendix A / Environmental Assessment
Another Alternative Considered But Not Further Developed
An additional alternative was considered, but eliminated from further study. We
considered reconstruction of the islands and enhancement of the associated
marshes through major engineering projects. We concluded that major construc-tion
was not feasible. It would be necessary to complete a major environmental
and engineering study prior to implementing such a reconstruction. We con-cluded
that the costs of studies and construction would not be justified for the
expected, but limited, wildlife benefits.
III. Affected Environment
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge lies within the Great Lakes Basin Ecosys-tem,
a system shared with Canada and eight states. The 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, over 5,000
tributaries, and a drainage basin of 288,000 square miles. Within the Great Lakes
basin certain species have drawn special concern. Fish species of concern include
lake trout, lake sturgeon, lake whitefish, walleye, Pacific salmon, and landlocked
Atlantic salmon and their forage. There is concern about native mussel species
that are being seriously impacted by zebra mussels. Thirty-one species of migra-tory
non-game birds of management concern to the Service are found in the
Great Lakes ecosystem.
Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives (By the Year 2014)
Issues and Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Concerns No Action Implement CCP Transer to Other
(Preferred Alt.) Govt. Entity
1.Habitat Habitat and wildlife Funding and partner- Same as Alt. 1.
studied only if ships are actively
actions are initiated sought to identify
by others. the richness and
distribution of
animals and plants
by 2007. Surveys to
identify threatened
and endangered plant
species will be con-ducted
within 5 years.
2.Public Use Public use is Public use is prohibited Public use is pre-prohibited.
until contamination on scribed by other
Grassy Island is re- government
mediated. A public use entities after con-plan
is part of the tamination on
remediation plan. Grassy Island is
remediated.
3.Resource Visit each island Continue boundary Protection of add-
Protection once a year and re- posting of islands, itional lands
furbish boundary increase identification originates with the
posting. Protection signs, law enforcement Great Lakes Basin
of additional lands personnel visit the Ecosystem Team.
originates with the islands twice per year.
Great Lakes Basin Protection of additional
Ecosystem Team. islands originates with
the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem Team.
46
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
The Detroit River consists of a 32-mile-long channel bordered by a poorly
drained clay lake plain. The River has 66 miles of Canadian shoreline, 79 miles of
U.S. shoreline, five Canadian wetlands with 2,808 acres, and 16 U.S. wetlands
with 3,415 acres. The Detroit River wetlands provide spawning areas for 26
percent of the fish species in the Great Lakes and nursery areas for 20 percent of
the species. Compared with other shoreline reaches in the Great Lakes, the
Detroit River is above the 50th percentile for providing spawning and above the
75th percentile for nursery areas. One hundred species of breeding birds (ap-proximately
50 percent of the breeding birds of Ontario) use the Detroit River
wetlands along the Canadian shoreline.
In their evaluation of the importance of the Detroit River wetlands, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Environment Canada acknowl-edged
that the general perception is that the Detroit River’s large submergent
vegetation beds provide important habitat for migrating waterfowl and nursery
areas for fish. However, they identified the wetlands along the Detroit River as
deserving high priority not only because they serve as important habitat for a
large number of fish and birds species, but especially because there are so few
wetlands remaining in the area.
A more detailed description of the affected environment can be found in Chapter
3 of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Listed Species
Bald eagles, a federally-listed endangered species, have nested near Grassy
Island and occur in the Mud Island area. Northern riffleshell, a federally-listed
endangered mussel, may occur on the shoals surrounding Mud Island.
Two state-listed threatened species have been associated with Grassy Island.
The spotted turtle was recorded in the Michigan Natural Features Inventory in
1997, and the common tern was recorded in 1977.
Lake sturgeon once spawned on the rocky bottom in swift currents just north-east
of Grassy Island. Today the fish is listed as “threatened” by 19 of the 20
states in its original range and by seven of the eight Great Lakes states, includ-ing
Michigan.
Because of the location and type of activities proposed in the comprehensive
conservation plan, the plan will have “no effect” on federally listed threatened or
endangered species or their critical habitat.
Cultural Resources
The Service contracted with a private consultant for the preparation of a Cul-tural
Resource Overview Study of archeological and historic resources in and
around Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge. The findings and recommendations
of the study have been integrated into the CCP to reduce potential impacts and
assure compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act.
According to the study, southeast Michigan, including Wayne County and west-ern
Ontario, were occupied throughout prehistory from the Paleoindian through
Late Woodland periods. As of June 10, 1999, Wayne County had 339 properties
47
Appendix A / Environmental Assessment
on the National Register of Historic Places. These properties, however, are not
indicative of sites that may be on the islands.
How Grassy Island and Mamajuba Island relate to prehistoric settlement and
occupation of the mainland is unknown. No archaeological sites are recorded on
the two islands, nor on any of the islands in the Detroit River with similar
environmental characteristics and size (Overview Study of Archaeological and
Cultural Values on Shiawassee, Michigan Islands and Wyandotte National
Wildlife Refuges in Saginaw, Charlevoix, Alpena and Wayne Counties, Michigan,
1999).
If Native American groups used the islands at all during the historic period, the
groups using them could have included the Ottawa, Huron, Wyandot and Ojibwa.
The City of Wyandotte gets its name from the Maguagua Reservation of the
Wyandot, which was located nearby, and the only historical reference to either
Grassy or Mamajuda islands is that Mamajuda Island was named for an Indian
woman who camped there during the fishing season sometime prior to 1807.
The cultural resources overview suggests that seasonal fishing encampments
would likely have occurred in concert with prehistoric occupation of the main-land,
but since these occupations would have been brief and seasonal, the poten-tial
for historic archaeological sites is low.
Euro-American use of the islands would appear to be limited. An 1876 atlas
indicates that fisheries operated on both Grassy Island and Mamajuda Island.
There are no previously recorded archaeological resources on either Grassy or
Mamajuda islands. Thirteen previously recorded archaeological sites are located
within 2 miles of Grassy and Wyandotte islands, including a single prehistoric
occupation of undetermined age and function; a nineteenth century Native
American Village; the Maguagua Reservation; five nineteenth century resi-dences;
and three nineteenth century cemeteries.
There are no previously recorded historical above-ground resources on either
Grassy Island or Mamajuda Island. There is an abandoned lighthouse on
Mamajuda Island, however its historical significance is undetermined, according
to the 1999 overview of cultural resources.
IV. Environmental Consequences
This section evaluates the impacts that the three alternatives will have on the
three issues that were identified in the CCP. Alternative 1, “No Action”, is the
No Action alternative where the current level of land management, public use,
staffing, outreach, and other Refuge activities are projected into the foreseeable
future. Alternative 2 , “Action Alternative” focuses on anticipated environmen-tal
impacts or changes when the Comprehensive Conservation Plan is fully
implemented (by the year 2014). Refer to Chapter 4 of the CCP for specific
objectives and strategies. Alternative 3, “Transfer,” proposes to divest the land
and waters from Service administration and the transfer of rights to other
governmental units.
For the purpose of this analysis, five issues are discussed separately for each
alternative and one issue that is common to all three alternatives is discussed.
48
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
Issues Common to All Alternatives
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Bill
Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus Federal attention on the environmental
and human health conditions of minority and low-income populations with the
goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order
directed Federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in
identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and
low-income populations. The Order is also intended to promote nondiscrimina-tion
in Federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environ-ment,
and to provide minority and low-income communities access to public
information and participation in matters relating to human health or the environ-ment.
None of the proposed management alternatives disproportionately place an
adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority or low-income
populations.
Alternative 1 – No Action
1. Habitat
Under the “No Action” alternative, habitat on the islands is studied only if the
work is initiated by others. While there are no direct negative effects on habitat
under this alternative, a lack of knowledge about what exists on the islands may
lead to impacts through neglect. Significant plant species may exist and either be
inadequately protected or inadvertently impacted because of lack of knowledge.
2. Public Use
Public use of Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited. Some illegal
entry occurs incidental to people being in the area to boat, hunt, or fish. Negative
effects by human use to wildlife, plants, and their habitats are negligible in this
alternative. Effects of contamination on visitors is small in this alternative.
3. Resource Protection
Although the islands within Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge are managed
for wildlife and plants, the status of other islands and coastal wetlands within the
Great Lakes is largely unknown. The Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team has
begun a review of all islands and coastal areas for the need and potential for
protection for wildlife. Under this alternative, the Refuge will await the evalua-tion
and recommendation of the team and suggestions for its role in further
protection of additional lands. Expansion of invasive species, such as phragmites,
will be monitored through observation of yearly visits to the islands.
Any additional information about the wildlife on the islands comes from anecdotal
observations or work initiated by others. There are no immediate, direct nega-tive
effects on wildlife and plants on the islands, but the presence and possible
importance of contamination effects on wildlife remains unknown.
49
Appendix A / Environmental Assessment
4. Listed Species
The presence and possible importance of contamination effects would also be
unknown in terms of impacts on listed species. There would not be immediate
impacts to species like the bald eagle, but opportunities to determine the pres-ence
of lake sturgeon and northern riffleshell, and possibly to improve habitat for
these species, would await the outcome of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem
Team’s review of islands and coastal areas.
5. Cultural Resources
There are no previously recorded archaeological resources on either Grassy
Island or Mamajuda Island, nor are there previously recorded historical above-ground
resources on either island. An abandoned lighthouse of unknown histori-cal
significance is located on Mamajuda Island. If cultural values exist on the
islands, the impacts of Alternative 1 would be negligible. Sites and artifacts
would be neither disturbed nor identified. Federal laws pertaining to the preser-vation
of archaeological and historic sites would be followed if archeological or
historic sites were located.
Alternative 2 – Implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(Preferred Alternative)
1. Habitat
The habitat on the islands will be studied by contractors and university research-ers.
There are no direct negative effects on habitat under this alternative.
Significant plant species will be identified under this alternative, if present.
2. Public Use
Under the preferred alternative, the public will continue to be prohibited from
the area until the contamination of Grassy Island is resolved. Provisions in the
public use plan will detail how information, regulations, and enforcement will be
used to protect the islands’ resources from any increase in public use.
3. Resource Protection
The Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Team has begun a review of all islands and
coastal areas for the need and potential for protection for wildlife. Under this
alternative, Refuge staff will actively participate and support the activities of the
ecosystem team. The Refuge will implement the recommendations of the team.
Expansion of invasive species, such as phragmites, will be monitored through
structured inventorying and monitoring activities. Any expansion of invasive
plants or disappearance of plant communities will be quantified and mapped
using Geographical Information System (GIS).
Monitoring and inventorying of wildlife is aggressively pursued under the
preferred alternative. The additional information about the wildlife on the islands
will come from funded work done by contractors, government scientists, and
university researchers. There are no direct negative effects on wildlife and plants
on the islands under this alternative. The importance of the islands to wildlife will
be established, and the increased knowledge will lead to better management and
protection of wildlife and their habitat.
50
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
4. Listed Species
Inventorying and monitoring fish, wildlife and habitat would have a positive
impact on the Refuge’s ability to recognize the listed species that may be using
the Refuge and manage for those species. Remediating contamination on Grassy
Island would improve habitat for wildlife.
5. Cultural Resources
If cultural resources exist on Grassy, Mamajuda and Mud islands, inventorying
and monitoring wildlife would likely neither benefit nor harm them. The islands
would continue to be managed for wildlife first, which would mean that little
disruption of the land and possible artifacts would occur. Federal laws pertaining
to the preservation of archaeological and historic sites would be followed.
Alternative 3 – Transfer to Other Governmental Entities
1. Habitat
Under this alternative, wildlife habitat would not likely be the primary consider-ation
in management of Grassy Island. Under city administration, landscaping for
aesthetics and scenic views would likely have precedence. Management of
aquatic habitats would likely not occur and possible spawning habitat may be
lost.
2. Public Use
Under this alternative, after the contamination is remediated, public use would
increase under city administration. Developments would likely include boat
landings, nature trails, restrooms, and picnicking facilities. Hunting would
continue to be prohibited.
3. Resource Protection
The Refuge staff will actively participate and support the activities of the
Ecosystem team, similar to Alternative 2. Under this alternative, Refuge staff
will conduct very little monitoring of wildlife and habitat on Grassy Island.
Monitoring and inventorying activities on the shoals of Grassy Island and Mud
Island will be similar to Alternative 2.
4. Listed Species
Transfer of Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge to a governmental entity other
than the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service would diminish the focus on wildlife and
wildlife habitat, which would negatively impact listed species as well as other
wildlife using the Refuge. If lake sturgeon and northern riffleshell occur within
Refuge waters, landscaping and public use could seriously degrade shoals and
waters currently within the Refuge. Bald eagles nesting near Grassy Island and
using the Mud Island area may be pushed out by greater numbers of and proxim-ity
to human beings.
5. Cultural Resources
If archaeological or historical above-ground resources are discovered on the
islands of Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge, development focused on human
use could negatively impact those resources. Artifacts or sites could be disturbed
or even destroyed by the construction of trails or scenic viewing areas. Federal
laws pertaining to the preservation of archaeological and historic sites would be
followed.
51
Appendix A / Environmental Assessment
Table 2: Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences
Issue Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
(No Action) Implement the CCP (Transfer to Other
(Preferred Alternative) Government Entity)
Habitat Habitat would only be studied Habitat would be studied by Wildlife habitat would likely
if initiated by others. Lack of contractors and researchers. not be the primary consider-knowledge
of what exists on Significant plant species, if ation. Management of
the islands could lead to they exist, would be identified. aquatic habitats would likely
impacts through neglect. not occur and possible
spawning habitat would
be lost.
Public Use Public use would be prohibited. A public use plan would be After Grassy Island contam-
Negative impacts by humans developed to determine how ination is remediated, public
would be negligible, and the island resources would be use would increase under
effects of contamination on protected from any increase city administration.
visitors would be small. in public use. Developments would likely
include boat landings, nature
trails, restrooms and
picnicking facilities. Hunting
would continue to be
prohibited.
Resource There would be no immediate There would be no direct There would be no direct
Protection negative impacts on wildlife negative effects on wildlife negative impacts on wildlife
and plants. The Refuge would and plants. Monitoring and and plants. Refuge staff
wait for Ecosystem Team recomm- inventory of wildlife would would participate in and
endations on wildlife needs and be aggressively pursued. The support Ecosystem Team
protection. The presence and importance of the islands to activities. Staff would
possible effects of contamination wildlife would be established conduct little monitoring and
on wildlife would be unknown,through work by contractors, inventorying on Grassy
which could be a negative effect government scientists and Island; monitoring and
in the long-term. researchers. Increased knowledge inventorying on the shoals
would lead to better management of Grassy and Mud islands
and protection of wildlife and would be similar to Alt. 2.
habitat. Ecosystem Team
recommendations would be
followed.
Listed Species Listed species would be Aggressive inventorying and Listed species would be
negatively impacted by waiting monitoring would generate negatively impacted by the
for the outcome of an Ecosystem information on the presence oftransfer to an agency that did
Team study of Detroit River listed species and their habitat not manage the islands with
islands species and their needs. needs. ‘wildlife first’ as the guiding
priority. Proximity to human
beings may cause bald eagles
using Mud Island and Grassy
Island to leave the area.
Cultural If archaeological or historic Increased human presence Human-oriented development
Resources sites exist on the islands, on the islands for inventory and recreational activities
impacts would be negligible. or monitoring purposes would negatively impact
Sites and artifacts would be could result in damage to cultural resources, if sites
neither disturbed nor historic sites or archaeologicalor artifacts exist.
identified. artifacts, however damage
would be mitigated by the
identification of sites and
future preservation of
artifacts.
Environmental No adverse impacts would No adverse impacts would No adverse impacts
Justice would occur. would occur. would occur.
52
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
V. List of Preparers
John Schomaker Project Coordinator, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Great Lakes/Big Rivers Regional Office
Doug Spencer Refuge Manager, Shiawassee National
Wildlife Refuge
Jane Hodgins Technical Writer/Editor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Great Lakes/Big Rivers Regional Office
53
Appendix B / Glossary
Appendix B: Glossary
55
Appendix B / Glossary
Appendix B: Glossary
Alternative A Set of objectives and strategies needed to achieve
refuge goals and the desired future condition.
Biological Diversity The variety of life forms and its processes, including the
variety of living organisms, the genetic differences
among them, and the communities and ecosystems in
which they occur.
Compatible Use A wildlife-dependent recreational use, or any other use
on a refuge that will not materially interfere with or
detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Service
or the purposes of the refuge.
Comprehensive
Conservation Plan A document that describes the desired future conditions
of the refuge, and specifies management actions to
achieve refuge goals and the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
Ecosystem A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and animal
communities and their associated non-living environ-ment.
Ecosystem Approach A strategy or plan to protect and restore the natural
function, structure, and species composition of an
ecosystem, recognizing that all components are interre-lated.
Ecosystem
Management Management of an ecosystem that includes all ecological,
social and economic components that make up the whole
of the system.
Endangered
Species Any species of plant or animal defined through the
Endangered Species Act as being in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and
published in the Federal Register.
Environmental
Assessment A systematic analysis to determine if proposed actions
would result in a significant effect on the quality of the
environment.
Goals Descriptive statements of desired future conditions.
56
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
Issue Any unsettled matter that requires a management
decision. For example, a resource management problem,
concern, a threat to natural resources, a conflict in uses,
or in the presence of an undesirable resource condition.
National Wildlife
Refuge System All lands, waters, and interests therein administered by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges,
wildlife ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl
production areas, and other areas for the protection and
conservation of fish, wildlife and plant resources.
Objectives Actions to be accomplished to achieve a desired outcome.
Preferred Alternative The Service’s selected alternative identified in the Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
Scoping A process for determining the scope of issues to be
addressed by a comprehensive conservation plan and for
identifying the significant issues. Involved in the scoping
process are federal, state and local agencies; private
organizations; and individuals.
Species A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguish-able
characteristics, and that can interbreed and produce
young. A category of biological classification.
Strategies A general approach or specific actions to achieve objec-tives.
Wildlife-dependent
Recreational Use A use of refuge that involves hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, or environmental educa-tion
and interpretation, as identified in the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Threatened Species Those plant or animal species likely to become endan-gered
species throughout all of or a significant portion of
their range within the foreseeable future. A plant or
animal identified and defined in accordance with the 1973
Endangered Species Act and published in the Federal
Register.
Vegetation Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life in an
area.
Vegetation Type A category of land based on potential or existing domi-nant
plan species of a particular area.
Watershed The entire land area that collects and drains water into a
stream or stream system.
57
Appendix B / Glossary
Wetland Areas such as lakes, marshes, and streams that are
inundated by surface or ground water for a long enough
period of time each year to support, and that do support
under natural conditions, plants and animals that require
saturated or seasonally saturated soils.
Wildlife Diversity A measure of the number of wildlife species in an area
and their relative abundance.
59
Appendix C / RONS and MMS Lists
Appendix C: RONS and MMS Lists
61
Appendix C / RONS and MMS Lists
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS)
RONS Strategy No. Project Description First Year Recurring
Project No. Need Annual Need
97006 Investigate extent of $94,000 $29,000
contaminants and effects
of those contaminants on
fish, wildlife and habitat.
63
Appendix D / Compatibility Determinations
Appendix D: Compatibility Determinations
65
Appendix D / Compatibility Determinations
COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION
Use: Fishing
Refuge Name: Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge was established by an act of Congress-
Public Law 87-119, 75 Stat. 243, 87th Congress, H.R. 1182, dated August 3, 1961.
Refuge Purpose(s): Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge was established, “...to
be maintained as a refuge and breeding place for migratory birds and other
wildlife.”
National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The National Wildlife Refuge
System Mission is to administer a national network of lands and water for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish,
wildlife, and plant resource habitats within the United States for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.
Description Of Use:
What is the use? Fishing
Where is the use conducted? Currently, fishing occurs throughout the Detroit
River area, including waters surrounding the Refuge islands. Established boat
launches along the Detroit River provides access to the waters of the Refuge.
When is the use conducted? The use occurs throughout the year in accordance
with State regulations.
How is the use conducted? Fishing has occurred on the water within the Refuge
boundary since it was established. Fishing occurs from boats that are anchored,
drifting, or trolling.
Availability of Resources: No resources are dedicated to managing fishing at
the Refuge. On-site management is accomplished in conjunction with other
general management activities and visits. Enforcement of regulations is accom-plished
in partnership with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The
use will not require a significant increase in additional maintenance or enforce-ment
staff expenditures or equipment.
Anticipated Impacts Of The Use: Fishing has shown no assessable environmen-tal
impact to the Refuge, its habitats, or wildlife species. Concerns primarily
center around the possibility of impacting threatened and other sensitive non-target
species through excessive disturbance and boating impacts on submergent
growth of wild celery (Vallisneria sp.). Disturbance to wildlife is limited to
occasional disturbance such as raising or flushing non-target species (waterfowl)
and the harvest of fish species open to recreational fishing. Harvests are regu-lated
to take only surplus specimens, thus assuring viable, healthy populations
within management and habitat guidelines.
66
Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge
Public Review And Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the
Draft Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment, which was announced in the Federal Register
and available for public comment for 30 days.
Determination (Check one below):
_____Use is Not Compatible
X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations
Stipulations Necessary To Ensure Compatibility: To ensure compatibility
with National Wildlife Refuge System and Wyandotte NWR goals and objec-tives,
fishing can only occur under the following stipulations:
1. All fishing is conducted under state laws from boats.
2. If necessary, the Refuge may place further restrictions on fishing activities to
ensure compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies.
Justification:
Fishing will be conducted with the Refuge’s purpose, habitat management
requirements, and goals as the guiding principles. All fishing activities will
follow applicable state laws, except where the Refuge administers further
restrictions to ensure compatibility with the Refuge’s primary mission and the
safety of visitors. Allowing fishing does not alter the Refuge’s ability to meet
habitat goals.
Fishing is a priority public use listed in the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act. By facilitating this use on the Refuge, we will increase
visitors’ knowledge and appreciation of fish and wildlife, which will lead to
increased public stewardship of fish and wildlife and their habitats at the Refuge
and in general. Increased public stewardship will support and complement the
Service’s actions in achieving the Refuge’s purposes and the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
Signature: Refuge Manager: s/Douglas G. Spencer September 21, 2001
Refuge Manager Date
Concurrence: Refuge Chief: s/Nita M. Fuller September 29, 2001
Regional Chief Date
National Wildlife Refuge System
Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 2016
67
Appendix E / Species List
Appendix E: Species List
69
Appendix E / Species List
Appendix E: Species List
We have not compiled a systematic list of species on the Refuge. See the Vegeta-tion
and Fish and Wildlife sections in Chapter 3 for a discussion of what is
known about species on the Refuge.
71
Appendix F / Guiding Laws and Orders
Appendix F: Guiding Laws and Orders
73
Appendix F / Guiding Laws and Orders
Appendix F: Compliance Requirements
Transcription of Memorandum of Understanding between Department of
Interior and United States Coast Guard:
WHEREAS, under date of 13 November 1843, the President of the
United States of America did execute an Executive Order wherein the islands
known as Grassy and Mamajuda (also known as Mammajuda or Mammy Juda)
situated in the Detroit River, Wayne County, Michigan, were reserved from the
Public Domain for lighthouse purposes and,