U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

www.fws.gov

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Great Lakes/Big Rivers Region

http://midwest.fws.gov

y

g

p

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 Wyandotte 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 Conservation 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 congregating 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 observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation are

the priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These uses

will be facilitated when they do not interfere with our ability to fulfill the

Refuge’s purposes or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

■ Other uses of the Refuge will only be allowed when they are determined to

be appropriate and compatible with the Refuge purposes and mission of the

National Wildlife Refuge System.

This CCP will enhance the management of the 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 National 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 international treaties for migratory bird conservation as well as other legislation, such

as the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. A map of the National Wildlife

Refuge System shows refuges dotting the four major flyways that waterfowl

follow from their northern nesting grounds to southern wintering areas (Figure

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. Nationwide, 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 cohesive. The preparation of

comprehensive conservation

plans is one of those mandates. The legislation requires

the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that the mission of the National Wildlife

Refuge System and purposes of the individual refuges are carried out. It also

requires the Secretary to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System.

Existing Partnerships

Partnerships with other Federal agencies as well as tribal, state, and city governments and schools are an important element in refuge management. Other

agencies can provide invaluable assistance in research and maintenance. Partnerships with private groups greatly enhance public investment in the refuge,

building enthusiasm for its mission and support in funding issues.

In addition to the official partnerships that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

holds on a national level, Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge 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 managing 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, executive 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 December 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 knowledge 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 regarding 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 contaminants 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 Ecosystem, 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. 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 identified 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 shoreline 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 important 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 dredging; 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 beneficial 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 Federal 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 continental effort to have all bird initiatives operate under common Bird Conservation

Regions and to consider the conservation objectives of all birds together to

optimize the effectiveness of management strategies (see http://www.dodpif.org/

nabci/index.htm). The goal of NABCI is to facilitate the delivery of the full

spectrum of bird conservation through regionally-based, biologically-driven,

landscape-oriented partnerships.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), signed in 1986,

outlines a broad framework for waterfowl management strategies and conservation efforts in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The goal of the NAWMP is

to restore waterfowl populations to historic levels. The NAWMP is designed to

reach its objectives through key joint venture areas, species joint ventures, and

state implementation plans within these joint ventures.

The entire State of Michigan is within the Upper Mississippi River and Great

Lakes Region Joint Venture. Areas within Michigan have substantial use by

waterfowl during migration, particularly the coastal waters and marshes of

Saginaw Bay, the Lake St. Clair and Erie complex, and the

eastern Upper Peninsula along the St. Mary’s River and

northern Lake Huron. However, emphasis for Michigan in the

Joint Venture is waterfowl reproduction and the maintenance

of healthy populations of other resident wetland wildlife.

Greatest potential to increase Michigan wetland wildlife

populations exists on relatively productive lake plain landscapes where agricultural practices have eliminated or significantly 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 spawning 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 administered 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 development 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 communis), 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 November. 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 Resources, 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 Wyandotte 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 northeast 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 technology 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 demonstration 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 authorizing 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, recreation 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 ordinance. 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 National Wildlife Refuge and the refuges it administers.

Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge has one reported site, an abandoned lighthouse. 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, Michigan,” 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 National Historic Preservation Act, we expect to write a cultural resources stepdown 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 privileges 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 surrounding shoals were donated to the Service by the National Steel Corporation on

June 14, 2001. The Regional Director also signed a categorical exclusion exempting 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 management.

■ 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 contamination 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 contaminated 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 contaminants 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 specified 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 Improvement 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 wildlife...”.

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 disturbance 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 technician 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 parttime.

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 contribute 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 boundary.
28

Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Personnel Needs

Currently the staff of Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge consists of 10 positions: 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 Shiawassee 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 appropriations.

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 written.

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 conditions 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 “Annual Report” that will be mailed to all persons on the Refuge mailing list, published 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 managing 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge

(Refuge) in Wayne County of Michigan. This Environmental Assessment considers 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: Responsible Agency and Official: W Responsible Agency and Official: illiam 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: 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: Purpose: The proposed comprehensive conservation plan identifies a specific

course of action to gain basic information necessary for management of Wyandotte 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: Shi Need: awassee 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 described 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 Environmental 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 management 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 development 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 proposed 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 management 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 categories. 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 regarding 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 contaminants 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 Comprehensive 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 Wyandotte 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 alternative.
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 construction was not feasible. It would be necessary to complete a major environmental

and engineering study prior to implementing such a reconstruction. We concluded 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 Ecosystem, 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 migratory 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 conducted within 5 years.

2.Public Use Public use is Public use is prohibited Public use is preprohibited. until contamination on scribed by other

Grassy Island is re- government

mediated. A public use entities after conplan is part of the tamination on

remediation plan. Grassy Island is

remediated.

3.Resource Visit each island Continue boundary Protection of addProtection 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 (approximately 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 acknowledged 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 northeast 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, including 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 Cultural 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 western 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 mainland, but since these occupations would have been brief and seasonal, the potential 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 residences; 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 environmental 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 nondiscrimination in Federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities access to public

information and participation in matters relating to human health or the environment.

None of the proposed management alternatives disproportionately place an

adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority or lowincome 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 evaluation 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 negative 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 presence 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 aboveground resources on either island. An abandoned lighthouse of unknown historical 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 preservation 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 researchers. 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 consideration 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 proximity 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 considerknowledge 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 contamNegative 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 environment.

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 interrelated.

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 distinguishable characteristics, and that can interbreed and produce

young. A category of biological classification.

Strategies A general approach or specific actions to achieve objectives.

Wildlife-dependent

Recreational Use A use of refuge that involves hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation, as identified in the National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.

Threatened Species Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered 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 dominant 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. Strategy No. Project Description First Year Recurring

Project No. 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 Use:

Refuge Name: Refuge Name: W Refuge Name: yandotte National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies):

Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge was established by an act of CongressPublic Law 87-119, 75 Stat. 243, 87th Congress, H.R. 1182, dated August 3, 1961.

Refuge Purpose(s): Refuge Purpose(s): Wyand Refuge Purpose(s): otte 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: ildlife Refuge System Mission: ildlife 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: 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: vailability of Resources: No vailability of Resources: 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 accomplished in partnership with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The

use will not require a significant increase in additional maintenance or enforcement staff expenditures or equipment.

Anticipated Impacts Of The Use: Anticipated Impacts Of The Use: Fishing has s Anticipated Impacts Of The Use: hown no assessable environmental impact to the Refuge, its habitats, or wildlife species. Concerns primarily

center around the possibility of impacting threatened and other sensitive nontarget 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 regulated to take only surplus specimens, thus assuring viable, healthy populations

within management and habitat guidelines.
66

Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge

Public Review And Comment: Public Review And Comment: This c Public Review And Comment: ompatibility 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 Determination ( Determination Check one below):

_____Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible With the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary To Ensure Compatibility: o Ensure Compatibility: To o Ensure Compatibility: ensure compatibility

with National Wildlife Refuge System and Wyandotte NWR goals and objectives, 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: 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: 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 Vegetation 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,

WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States on 3 August 1961 did

enact Public Law 87-119 wherein Grassy and Mamajuda Islands were established

and designated as the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge, to be administered

by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with laws and regulations relating

to national wildlife refuges and,

WHEREAS, the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard has

accomplished the administrative transfer of Grassy and Mamajuda Islands to the

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, pursuant to

Public Law 87-119 and,

WHEREAS, the United States Coast Guard has a continuous need for

the lighted aids to navigation presently located on the two Islands and designated the Grassy Island Light (LL 821), the Grassy Island North Channel Range

Front and Rear Lights (LL 847 and LL 849), the Mamajuda Light (LL 817),

THEREFORE,

IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT, the United

States Coast Guard shall:

(a) have the right and privilege in perpetuity to operate and maintain aids to navigation on Grassy and Mamajuda Islands,

(b) have the right and privilege of ingress and egress for purposes

incident to the servicing and maintaining of the aids to navigation, and

(c) have the right and privilege to relocate the aids to navigation as

changing marine traffic patterns in the Detroit River dictate.

IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT, the Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of the Interior, shall

ensure full protection of the United States Coast Guard’s interests in its aids to

navigation in any permit, license, or lease for use of any part of, or all, of Grassy

and Mamajuda Islands by other Federal agencies, by State, municipal, or local

governments, or by private individuals or concerns.

Signed July 31, 1964 by Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and August 18,

1964 by United States Coast Guard.
74

Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge

Compliance Requirements

Rivers and Harbor Act (1899) (33 U.S.C. 403): Section 10 of this Act requires

the authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any work in, on,

over, or under a navigable water of the United States.

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on

Federal land and provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or

collected without a permit.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds

as a Federal responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other

regulations including the closing of areas, Federal or non-Federal, to the hunting

of migratory birds.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition

by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), as amended: Requires that the Fish

and Wildlife Service and State fish and wildlife agencies be consulted whenever

water is to be impounded, diverted or modified under a Federal permit or license.

The Service and State agency recommend measures to prevent the loss of

biological resources, or to mitigate or compensate for the damage. The project

proponent must take biological resource values into account and adopt justifiable

protection measures to obtain maximum overall project benefits. A 1958 amendment added provisions to recognize the vital contribution of wildlife resources to

the Nation and to require equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water resources development programs. It also authorized the

Secretary of Interior to provide public fishing areas and accept donations of lands

and funds.

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the

opening of part of a refuge to waterfowl hunting.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act (1935), as amended: Declares it a

national policy to preserve historic sites and objects of national significance,

including those located on refuges. Provides procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites.

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1935), as amended: Requires revenue sharing

provisions to all fee-title ownerships that are administered solely or primarily by

the Secretary through the Service.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 1940

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act

(1948): Provides that upon a determination by the Administrator of the General

Services Administration, real property no longer needed by a Federal agency can

be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of Interior if the land has

particular value for migratory birds, or to a State agency for other wildlife

conservation purposes.
75

Appendix F / Guiding Laws and Orders

Federal Records Act (1950): Directs the preservation of evidence of the

government’s organization, functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other information.

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and

wildlife policy and broadened the authority for acquisition and development of

refuges.

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when

such uses are compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient

funds are available to manage the uses.

Wilderness Act (1964), as amended: Directed the Secretary of Interior, within 10

years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless

island (regardless of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and National Park

Systems and to recommend to the President the suitability of each such area or

island for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, with final

decisions made by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to study

and recommend suitable areas in the National Forest System.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale

of surplus Federal land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other

sources for land acquisition under several authorities.

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (1966), as amended by the

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997)16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee.

(Refuge Administration Act): Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and

authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of a refuge provided such use is

compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge was established. The

Refuge Improvement Act clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge

System; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public

uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental

education and interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining

compatibility; established the responsibilities of the Secretary of Interior for

managing and protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of the

Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act

of 1966.

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended: Establishes as policy

that the Federal Government is to provide leadership in the preservation of the

nation’s prehistoric and historic resources.

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded

buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities.

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the

environmental impacts of any major Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment.

Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act

(1970), as amended: Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons

who sell their homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires that

any purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the property.
76

Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge

Clean Air Act, 1970

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all Federal agencies to carry out

programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species.

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires programmatic accessibility in addition to

physical accessibility for all facilities and programs funded by the Federal

government to ensure that anybody can participate in any program.

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974): Directs the preservation of

historic and archaeological data in Federal construction projects.

Fishery (Magnuson) Conservation and Management Act, 1976

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404

permits) for major wetland modifications.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977) as amended (Public Law

95-87) (SMCRA): Regulates surface mining activities and reclamation of coalmined lands. Further regulates the coal industry by designating certain areas as

unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Executive Order 11988 (1977): Each Federal agency shall provide leadership and

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on

human safety, and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by the

floodplains.

Executive Order 11990: Executive Order 11990 directs Federal agencies to (1)

minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and (2) preserve and

enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative exists.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs):

Directs the Service to send copies of the Environmental Assessment to State

Planning Agencies for review.

Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Land

Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries

Executive Order 13084, Consultation/Coordination with Tribal Governments

Executive Order 11987, Exotic Organisms

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978): Directs agencies to consult

with native traditional religious leaders to determine appropriate policy changes

necessary to protect and preserve Native American religious cultural rights and

practices.

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act (1978): Improves the administration of fish

and wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws including the Refuge

Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts and

bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the United States. It also
77

Appendix F / Guiding Laws and Orders

authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry

out a volunteer program.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as amended: Protects materials

of archaeological interest from unauthorized removal or destruction and requires

Federal managers to develop plans and schedules to locate archaeological

resources.

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (1981), as amended: Minimizes the

extent to which Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): Promotes the conservation of

migratory waterfowl and offsets or prevents the serious loss of wetlands by the

acquisition of wetlands and other essential habitats.

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated management

systems to control or contain undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary

approach with the cooperation of other Federal and State agencies.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990): Requires

Federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and

repatriate cultural items under their control or possession.

Americans With Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public

accommodations and services.

Executive Order 12898 (1994): Establishes environmental justice as a Federal

government priority and directs all Federal agencies to make environmental

justice part of their mission. Environmental justice calls for fair distribution of

environmental hazards.

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the National

Wildlife Refuge System (1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public

uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. It also presents four principles to

guide management of the System.

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs Federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred

sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical

integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality

of sacred sites.

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997): Considered the

“Organic Act of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Defines the mission of the

System, designates priority wildlife-dependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive refuge planning.

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership

Enhancement Act (1998): Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote

volunteer programs and community partnerships for the benefit of national

wildlife refuges, and for other purposes.

National Trails System Act: Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of Interior

and thus the Service to protect the historic and recreational values of congressionally designated National Historic Trail sites.
79

Appendix G / Bibliography

Appendix G: Bibliography
81

Appendix G / Bibliography

Appendix G: Bibliography

Chow-Fraser, Patricia and Dennis A. Albert. 1998. Biodiversity Investment

Area, Coastal Wetland Ecosystems: Identification of “Eco-Reaches” of Great

Lakes Coastal Wetlands that have high biodiversity value. Draft for discussion

at SOLEC 98. 101 pp.

Goodyear, Carole D., Thomas A. Edsall, Diane M. Ormsby Dempsey, G. David

Moss, and Paul E. Polanski. 1982. Atlas of the Spawning and Nursery Areas of

Great Lakes Fishes, Volume VIII, Detroit River. Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ann Arbor, MI. 42 pp.

Government of Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995.

Great Lakes Atlas - 3rd Edition. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/atlas/use-impa.html

accessed March 29, 2000.

Kafcas, Ernie. 1999. Telephone conversation with author, March 3.

Kafcas, Ernie. 2000. Information from files of Mt. Clemens Fish. Research

Station, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Fax to author March 30.

Manny, Bruce. 2000. Telephone conversation with author, April 12.

Manny, Bruce A. 1999. Contamination Distribution and Movement at Grassy

Island. Completion Report for NBS Reimbursable Agreement No: 84080-1491-

MH25. Internal document on file at Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge,

Saginaw, Michigan 29 p.

Miller, H.J. 1961. Waterfowl populations in vicinity of Grassy and Mammy Juda

Islands, Detroit River. Memo to Grassy Island, Wayne County File dated

February 10, 1961. Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Robertson, James A., Kent C. Taylor, Michael J. Hambacher, William A. Lovis,

and G. William Monaghan. 1999. Overview study of archaeological and cultural

values on Shiawassee, Michigan Islands, and Wyandotte National Wildlife

Refuges in Saginaw, Charlevoix, Alpena, and Wayne Counties, Michigan. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under contract number 301818M494.

Two volumes.

Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Management

Board. 1998. North American Waterfowl Management Plan: Upper Mississippi

River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Implementation Plan Update. 58

pp. plus appendices.

U.S. Department of Energy, Carbon Sequestration Research and Development,

1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada. 1999.

Biodiversity Investment Areas: Coastal Wetland Ecosystems. http://

www.epa.gov/grtlakes/solec/98/papers/coastabia/background.html and associated

pages accessed March 29, 2000.
82

Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. November 1990. Regional Wetlands

Concept Plan: Emergency Wetlands Resources Act.13 pages + tables.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. January1999. Fish & Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities. 25 pp.
83

Appendix H / Mailing List

Appendix H: Mailing List
85

Appendix H / Mailing List

Appendix H: Mailing List

Federal Officials

U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow

U.S. Senator Carl Levin

U.S. Representative John Dingell

U.S. Representative James Barcia

U.S. Representative David Bonior

U.S. Representative Sander Levin

U.S. Representative John Conyers

U.S. Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick

Federal Agencies

John Hartig, River Navigator for the Greater Detroit American Heritage River

Coast Guard

USDA/Natural Resource Conservation Service

USDI/Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska;

Atlanta, Georgia; Denver, Colorado; Fort Snelling, Minnesota; Hadley, Massachusetts; Portland, Oregon; Washington, D.C.

USDI/East Lansing Private Lands Office; East Lansing Field Office; Alpena

Fishery Resources Office; Ann Arbor Law Enforcement Field Office; Great

Lakes Science Center, Biological Resources Division, USGS

USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, Illinois

State Officials

Governor John Engler

Senator Michael Goschka

Representative Michael Hanley

Representative Jim Howell

State Agencies

K.L. Cool, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,

Director Russell Harding, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Pte. Mouillee State Game Area

Ernie Kafcas

State Historic Preservation Officer, Lansing, Michigan

City/County/Local Governments

Mayor, City of Wyandotte, Michigan

Mayor, City of Ecorse, Michigan

Superintendent of Parks, City of Wyandotte, Wyandotte, Michigan

Chairman, Wayne County Board of Commissioners

Libraries

Detroit Public Library

Hoyt Public Library

Bacon Memorial District Library
86

Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge

Organizations

The Nature Conservancy

National Audubon Society

Conservation Fund

Michigan United Conservation Clubs

Wildlife Management Institute

Ducks Unlimited

Michigan Duck Hunters Association

Great Lakes Commission

Wildlife Mangement Institute

PEER Refuge Keeper

The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.

National Wildlife Federation, Ann Arbor, Michigan

The Conservation Fund, Arlington, Virgina

Media

Detroit News

Detroit Free Press

Saginaw News

Ecorse News-Herald

Wyandotte News-Herald

Michigan Radio News

Detroit Public Television

WJR-AM 760

WKBD, UPN 50

WWJ Newsradio 950

Individuals

Individuals who participated in open houses or focus groups or who requested to

be on the mailing list.
87

Appendix I / List of Preparers

Appendix I: List of Preparers
89

Appendix I / List of Preparers

List of Preparers

Douglas G. Spencer, Refuge Manager, Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge

Mr. Spencer provided overall direction, supervision, and coordination with

agencies and the public. He assisted in writing and editing.

John H. Schomaker, Refuge Planning Specialist, Region 3

Mr. Schomaker provided coordination and served as co-author.

Edward P. DeVries, Primary Refuge Operations Specialist, Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge

Mr. DeVries assisted in overall direction, supervision, writing and editing.

John Dobrovolny, John Dobrovolny Regional Historian, Region 3

Mr. Dobrovolny is the primary author of cultural resource sections.

Jane Hodgins, Jane Hodgins, Technical Writer/Editor, Region 3

Ms. Hodgins served as primary editor.

Mary Mitchell, Mary Mitchell, Mary Mitchell, Regional GIS Coordinator

Ms. Mitchell prepared maps for the comprehensive conservation plan.
91

Appendix J / Summary and Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft CCP

Appendix J: Summary and Disposition of Public

Comments Received on the Draft CCP
93

Appendix J / Summary and Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft CCP

Appendix J: Summary and Disposition of Public Comments on

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan

The Detroit Audubon Society, Gibraltar City Council, and U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency submitted comments related to the Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan.

We considered the comments as we prepared the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The following paragraphs describe the comments and our response.

The Detroit Audubon Society recommended that the plan include activities to

enhance the existing nesting habitat and create new habitat for Common Terns.

The Society had questions about how the remediation of Grassy Island might

help Common Terns. The Society urged us to go beyond surveys of invading

plant species and implement control of them. Lastly, the Society urged us to

evaluate additional areas of the Detroit River corridor for protection. We think

the points about the Common Terns and the concern about the invading plant

species are good. We will make sure that these points are considered in the

planning and remediation of Grassy Island. We anticipate evaluating additional

areas along the River when Congress establishes the Detroit River International

Wildlife Refuge.

The Gibraltar City Council submitted a letter of concern about hunting on lands

in an expanded refuge along the Lower Detroit River. The Council cited the

prohibition of hunting on Wyandotte NWR and council members are concerned

that this prohibition will be generalized to an expanded refuge.

The legislation that established Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge, which

included Grassy and Mamajuda Islands and associated aquatic shoals, specified

that closing the Refuge to hunting was allowed by the Act. When the Refuge

was established the concern was that hunting would move waterfowl out of the

area and into Lake Erie. The Refuge was to act as a sanctuary to waterfowl, so

hunters would have an opportunity to take waterfowl on other areas of the river.

The Service will comply with the original intent and not allow hunting on or

around Grassy Island. Mud Island was not in the original legislation. Hunting on

or around this island will be assessed after meeting with representatives from

local sporting clubs, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the City of

Ecorse.

If the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge is established, Wyandotte

National Wildlife Refuge will be absorbed into the new refuge and the new

legislation will guide the Service on public use. When the new refuge is established, hunting and other public uses will be planned for the new refuge and

hunting on what is now called Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge will be reevaluated. However, the concern for the safety of public use on Grassy Island

will remain until the contaminant issue is resolved. No public use will be allowed

on Grassy Island until the island’s habitat is restored and deemed safe for

wildlife and the public.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requested that we acknowledge the designation of the Detroit River as an Area of Concern under the

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Agency also suggested that it
94

Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge

would be beneficial if we summarize the type of remedial work that is proposed

for Grassy Island. And, the Agency recommended that we acknowledge the

importance of the coordination and collaboration between the Service and

USEPA in the activities in the Detroit River. We have added a paragraph in the

CCP that documents the designation of the River as an Area of Concern. We

have not summarized a description of the remedial work. The East Lansing

Ecological Services Field Office has the lead in the remediation planning of

Grassy Island. It is too early in the planning effort to know or summarize the

remediation. We appreciate the importance of coordinating our efforts with

USEPA and have acknowledged this importance in strategy 1.1.3 of the CCP.